portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

political theory selection 2004

Nader or Bush in November

I have a decision to make. I have to choose a leader for our country for the next 4 years.
I have a decision to make. I have to choose a leader for our country for the next 4 years.


Ralph Nader and George Bush have at least one thing in common with each other and from what I can see it's a quality that John Kerry lacks.

Both Nader and Bush possess a strong leadership trait, they make up their minds and they do what they believe is right. You don't have to agree with their decisions or policies to acknowledge this.

Now, most people reading this would think I'm crazy, because Bush is a bastard, and a liar, etc. However I don't think too many people could successfully argue that you don't know where Bush stands or what he's going to do.

Ralph Nader is the same way. He tells you exactly what he will do and why. His views on almost every subject are the polar opposite of Bush's, but you know where he stands on an issue. Nader is consistent, just as Bush is.

Leadership, Real leadership requires that a person make a decision and stick to it. Ralph Nader is that kind of person. I have no doubt he will try to the best of his ability to implement his policies if and when he is elected.

I'm planning on voting for Ralph Nader this November. He is on the ballot in my state, but if he weren't then I would have to vote for Bush over John Kerry. I know that sounds like bullshit to most people here, but it's the way I feel. John Kerry has never shown me that he knows anything about true leadership, he only seems to have a desire to be something, not a desire to do something.

Ralph Nader, in my opinion has the right plan, and will lead the country in the right direction. George Bush will lead us down a different path, but John Kerry won't lead, and sometimes making no decision is worse that making a bad decision.
Jass needs to read some books 20.Sep.2004 09:52

B

Jass, you really should educate yourself about these matters.

Another Thing They Have In Common 20.Sep.2004 11:31

Mistletoe Angel

That's just the problem, Jass.

Both these men, particularly Bush, are TOO decisive or firm on where they stand. They're so unyielding they're also incredibly stubborn.

Bush is so stubborn his feet are virtually bolted to the ground. He refuses to listen to ordinary everyday Americans, only top lobbyists who can capitalize him on a political gain. It shows emotionally he is not moved by true "conservative" values or the general public.

On top of all that, Bush actually flip-flops too. He has flip-flopped on Osama bin Laden, his opinion on if we can win the war on terror or not, steel tariffs, etc.

Nader, he has the same trait, although on what he believes in, he uses it for good. It's important to have a strong love for your environment, for the lives of everyday citizens who deserve a living wage, for those patriots of peace who just want us to fall in love, not in line. On that note, Nader contrasts from Bush in, on where he stands, using his stubborn mind for benevolence while Bush uses it for malevolence.

As far as running a campaign though, Nader's stubbornness has also been an issue. He just doesn't know when to quit, and that he knows he isn't going to win this election so he might as well quit now. Countless liberals have begged him to please quit the race and unite with the general liberal public but Nader has refused to on and on, forming a wedge between two progressive, liberal ideals, one a majority favoring Kerry and a minority representing Nader. This is fatal, for the minority must aid the majority should we prevail together.

Nader really does mean well. He's very courageous and very committed. The problem is, he is TOO much of that right now and he must know there comes a time when a sacrifice must be made, which Nader refuses to accept. Unless he chooses to accept it within the next 45 days and drop out of the race and aid where a vast majority of liberals stand with Kerry, his traits, what has made him an exceptional civil activist for fourty years, will reverse and work against him and his reputation will be scarred from here on.

I do agree Kerry flip-flops often, but personally, I would rather have a leader who thinks before he acts and thinks it over again later than someone who thinks only what one says or doesn't even think before that is said.

A "strong" leader is an intensely intuitive argument. My personal definition of a "strong" leader is a man who can think and think it over, is moved by emotion, is a man of faith, and who can take a stand in a time of crisis without crying war.

But, of course, many neo-con supporters would depict their 'strong" leader as one who is militaristic, believes in pre-emptive attack, expected to always stand firm on every issue, etc.

In conclusion, it's clear you obviously have a different perspective on what a "strong" leader constitutes, and that's completely OK, in every man's opinion on a intuitive argument such as this there is no wrong answer. I guess we'll just have to see what the collected public will agree what the best definition is this November.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

sacrafice 20.Sep.2004 14:04

works both ways

Noah: "Nader really does mean well. He's very courageous and very committed. The problem is, he is TOO much of that right now and he must know there comes a time when a sacrifice must be made,"

Bush: "America really does mean well. America is courageous and committed. The problem is, America must know there comes a time when a sacrifice must be made, lives must be lost, lives must be sacraficed in the push for our FREE-DUMS."

The question is, who benefits, and how.

Right now, the corpys are sucking up your life and most of the dollar bills you earn at your work.

You won't stop any of that by voting for Bush or Kerry. They're the ones presiding over the raking in of your money for murder.

This Goes Far Beyond Money 21.Sep.2004 11:58

Mistletoe Angel

There's far more at stake than money here in this election year.

This is about the overall future of our democracy. We can either choose to let our democracy fade further into obscurity and become a democracy only by its name, or keep democracy clearly defined as by the people, of the people and for the people. We'll be treated like second-class citizens on and on should Bush again succeed.

Kerry can be moved. Bush can't. You're simply going to have to have trust here, make a simple act of faith we can work out Kerry's flaws once Bush is out. Without trust, what good is democracy?

I trust Nader. I can forgive Nader for the partisan politics he's played recently. The problem is, the reality is this race is rigidly two-way, so it would be illogical and ineffective to vote for him.

Now, can you forgive Kerry? Can you trust Kerry? Trust him like a majority of liberals already are?

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton