Needed for This Election: A Great Rejection

* Click Here for a Counterargument to this Essay by Matt Gonzalez

It could be a start — a clear national rejection of the extreme right-wing brew that has saturated the executive branch for nearly eight years.

What’s emerging for Election Day is a common front against the dumbed-down demagoguery that’s now epitomized and led by John McCain and Sarah Palin.

A large margin of victory over the McCain-Palin ticket, repudiating what it stands for, is needed — and absolutely insufficient. It’s a start along a long uphill climb to get this country onto a course that approximates sanity.

McCain’s only real hope is to achieve the election equivalent of drawing an inside straight — capturing the electoral votes of some key swing states by slim margins. His small window of possible victory is near closing. Progressives should help to slam it shut.

Like it or not, the scale of a national rejection of McCain-Palin and Bush would be measured — in terms of state power and perceived political momentum — along a continuum that ranges from squeaker to landslide. It’s in the interests of progressives for the scale to be closer to landslide than squeaker.

As McCain’s strategists aim to thread an electoral-vote needle, it cannot be said with certainty that they will fail. Who can credibly declare that an aggregate of anti-democratic factors — such as purged voting rolls, onerous requirements for voter ID, imposed obstacles to voting that target people of color, inequities in distribution of voting machines, not counting some votes as they are cast, anti-Obama racism and other factors — could not combine to bring a “victory” resulting in a President McCain and a Vice President Palin come Jan. 20, 2009?

Under these circumstances, the wider the real margin for Obama over McCain, the less likely that McCain can claim sufficient electoral votes to become president.

Progressives are mostly on board with the Obama campaign, even though — on paper, with his name removed — few of his positions deserve the “progressive” label. We shouldn’t deceive ourselves into seeing Obama as someone he’s not. Yet an Obama presidency offers the possibilities that persistent organizing and coalition-building at the grassroots could be effective at moving national policy in a progressive direction. In contrast, a McCain presidency offers possibilities that are extremely grim.

Some progressives, as a matter of principle, have come to a different conclusion. They’re eager to cast their votes for a presidential candidate (Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney) who can’t win.

Of course people’s votes are entirely their own, to do with as they see fit. But the right to do something is distinct from the wisdom of doing it.

Last week, a mass email from the Nader for President 2008 campaign began by telling supporters: “Ralph Nader is at 5 percent in The Show Me State — Missouri. And he’s moving up. That’s according to the most recent CNN/Time Missouri poll.” The celebratory tone of the message was notable. Nader was polling at 5 percent in a crucial swing state — where polls showed that McCain and Obama were in a dead heat. No wonder, on the same day as the email message, McCain spoke at rallies in suburbs of St. Louis and Kansas City.

Nader’s potential effect on the election may be too small to increase the chances of a McCain victory. But from all indications, even if McCain and Obama were tied in polls across the country, the Nader campaign would be proceeding as it is now. What does that tell us about the logic of pressing forward with a vanguard approach even if it might serve the interests of right-wing forces that most progressives are straining to roll back in this election?

From the 1960s through the ’90s, Ralph Nader had an unparalleled record of fighting for progressive reform. But the 2008 campaign of Nader and running-mate Matt Gonzalez has a frozen-in-time quality. Their campaign makes an electoral argument that focuses largely on Democrats, not Republicans. Much of Nader’s pitch for votes is centering on the charge that Democrats are as corporate and compromised as ever — and in many ways he’s right. But he ignores the reality that Republican leaders keep getting worse and more right-wing; they are clearly more dangerous than many assumed a decade ago.

The historical trend is clear: Bush-Cheney have been further right and more reckless than even Newt Gingrich, who was further right than Ronald Reagan, who was further right than his Republican predecessors. And Palin speaks for herself.

My former co-author Jeff Cohen puts it this way: “Focusing on Democratic corruption is not the problem. The problem is developing an electoral strategy that fails to acknowledge how increasingly extremist Republicans are. It reminds me of that George Carlin joke: ‘Here’s a partial score from the West Coast — Dodgers 5.’ An electoral strategy has to assess the current positions of BOTH teams.”

At this point, is an Obama victory a cinch? Maybe not. Consider this New York Times reporting published on Oct. 24: “Pollsters say there has never been a year when polling has been so problematic, given the uncertainty of who is going to vote in what is shaping up as an electorate larger than ever. While most national polls give Mr. Obama a relatively comfortable lead, in many statewide polls, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain are much more closely matched. Even a small shift in the national number could deliver some of the closer states into the McCain camp, making an Electoral College victory at least possible.”

In fact, it’s possible that Obama could win a clear victory in the popular vote while McCain manages to claim enough electoral votes to move into the White House. Crucial to such an outcome would be Missouri (which, as the Times notes, “has been a bellwether in every White House race during the last century except 1956”). Is taking that risk worth the satisfaction of getting a couple percent of the vote for Ralph Nader for president in 2008?

The Nader campaign actually seems to be gunning for swing states in the stretch drive of the campaign, as if to maximize the chances that the Nader-Gonzalez ticket could be a factor in how the electoral votes end up being divided. Last week the Nader campaign announced that, beginning on Oct. 28, “Mr. Nader will make his final rounds campaigning in traditional swing states Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.”

All year, the Nader campaign has been asking rhetorical questions such as (in the words of an Oct. 22 press advisory): “Why is it that so-called liberals and progressives continue to support Democratic candidates like Obama whose campaign slogans and rhetoric do not match their stated positions and voting records?”

And: “Why do we progressives continue to delude ourselves that we stand for core, liberal values and then work for candidates who demonstrate that they have no commitment to these values?”

This fall, the answers to these largely valid questions revolve around a truth that trumps many others: A McCain-Palin administration would be such a disaster that we want to do what we can to prevent it.

When I’ve spoken to dozens of audiences during the two months since the Democratic National Convention (where I was an elected Obama delegate), there’s been an overwhelmingly positive response when I make a simple statement about Obama and the prospects of an Obama presidency: “The best way to avoid becoming disillusioned is to not have illusions in the first place.”

Looking past the election, progressives will need to mobilize for a comprehensive agenda including economic justice, guaranteed health care for all, civil liberties, environmental protection and demilitarization.

The forces arrayed against far-reaching progressive change are massive and unrelenting. If an Obama victory is declared next week, those forces will be regrouping in front of our eyes — with right-wing elements looking for backup from corporate and pro-war Democrats. How much leverage these forces exercise on an Obama presidency would heavily depend on the extent to which progressives are willing and able to put up a fight.

It’s a fight we should welcome.

Norman Solomon is co-founder of and founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He writes the Political Culture 2013 column. Read other articles by Norman, or visit Norman's website.

32 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. bozhidar bob balkas said on October 30th, 2008 at 8:44am #

    it is news to me that dems aren’t right wing.
    actually, as far as i can make out, they sit/fit well w. franco, mussolini, and hitler.
    they’v also by now killed more people than hitler.
    and, folks, they’r just begining. thnx

  2. simon said on October 30th, 2008 at 11:11am #

    “The best way to avoid becoming disillusioned is to not have illusions in the first place.”

    That reminds me of a Dilbert joke:

    They can’t break you if you don’t have a spine.

  3. rubens said on October 30th, 2008 at 11:18am #

    Dems and Reps serve the same interests, and they share very similar politics, but I don’t think we should ever say they’re the same. If they were then they wouldn’t need to trade presidencies. They need each other to keep their interests, and so they have to be different enough to make people elect the other when they get tired of one.
    I’m not voting because I don’t agree with the 2 party system, which is really just one party with two factions. But I don’t think they’re the same. To me that’s not an accurate description of what goes on in politics. Yes they serve the same interests and are the elite, but the elite are not all the same either.
    And I’m not saying that a Democrat can’t be a dictator, but I can picture a Republican being a more fascist one in less time than a Democrat.

  4. Phil said on October 30th, 2008 at 12:09pm #

    Are you kidding? Just look at Obama’s positions, his policies and advisors. What makes you think any progressives could “bring pressure” on him to do anything sane once he’s elected, and how would anyone even try? This is too important a goal to hang on wishful (not to mention delusional) thinking.

  5. tony smith said on October 30th, 2008 at 12:38pm #

    How can people say that even a big Obama victory would repudiate the rightwing when:

    1. If they had just won the war quickly by bombing Iraq off the map, people would be over it;

    2. If the economy did not flourish for five years due to bad loans and consumer gluttony, then we would not have a financial crisis at the moment;

    3. If the media actually scrutinized Obama he would look as ordinary as Gore and Kerry;


    4. Obama has taken some rightwing positions on popular liberal issues lately.

    I’m out of this bandwagon. I’m not voting for him. I just cannot compromise my principles to support a liberal lie.

  6. Diane said on October 30th, 2008 at 1:46pm #

    What you anti Obama people are missing from the equation is that George Bush is mad and Dick Cheney is really evil, Obama is just a conservative politician its a world of differenced
    The only power the collective has at the moment, is to kick the bastards out, use it while you can.
    Here is Australia, 12 months ago we kicked our neocon John howard out, and elected and Obama look alike, we the left knew what Kevin Rudd was and is, but we also knew he was not a neocon.
    In the last 12 months Australia has taken on the Japanese over whaling, signed the Kyoto agreement, pulled our troops out of Iraq, and designed an emission trading scheme to commence in 2010. We have also handled the financial crisis in a sensible manner. I’m not suggesting we have reached OZ just that it can be less awful

  7. Deadbeat said on October 30th, 2008 at 2:51pm #

    I’m not so sure that Nader is polling at 5%. Polls I’ve seen has him and Barr around 2% each. Unfortunately Solomon ran against both Nader and the Greens in 2004. He lacks credibility. It is much easier in 2008 to make an argument vote for Obama than it was to make the argument in 2004 for Kerry. Kerry specifically ran to the right of Bush. Kerry wanted to run as a ex-vet and Kerry didn’t have an inkling of a “redistributive” domestic policy. Obama has been slightly better than Kerry on foreign policy by implying diplomacy and his tax policies are mildly redistributive.

    With the energy of the anti-war movement and Nader and the Green Party look to build upon their 2000 run it was much more important in 2004 for Solomon to come out for continue building up an alternative to the Democrats. Solomon failed and in 2008, IMO, his opinion is just as meaningless as Chomsky and Zinn on who they support. What matters is what the masses are going to do and right now they’ve see no other alternatives.

  8. DavidG. said on October 30th, 2008 at 2:53pm #

    Diane, our special ‘moment’ in Australia when Howard was thrown out on his ear will hopefully happen in America in a few days time.

    Americans, it is such a wonderful feeling to get rid of a right-wing government and the fear that goes with it and the disgust you feel for a government that advantages the rich and ignores both the poor and the middle class.

    But keep in mind that the Ecological Crisis is coming. It will bring us all down. Read “SAD” on my blog (just click on my name)

  9. Max Shields said on October 30th, 2008 at 3:06pm #


    Australia, bless it’s land tax soul, AINT NO US of A, aside from sharing a common language.

    The United States is an imperial empire. It’s a new sup’d-up version of an old lineage. So, when your little neocon was in office he followed like a good little puppy. Your new guy may be an improvement (I remember when Tony Blair seemed like not vintage neocon, until his inner puppy was revealed).

    So, while I appreciate that people are people, let’s not loose proportionality with our analogies.

    Granted Australia has its history as an extention of the UK, and the conquest of the indigenous aborigine; but that’s when the threads unravel.

    You also have proportional representation – at least in theory it can counterbalance the maddness of your duopoly at the top(?).

    Our Commander In Chiefs are war-lords with different flares for intervention in their “playground”.

    All I’m saying is let’s be careful with the trivilization of US power as akin the allied company it keeps. US has been known to torch more than one former ally.

    You guys don’t have any uranium or oil, do ya?

  10. Erroll said on October 30th, 2008 at 4:02pm #

    I also seriously doubt, despite what Diane is inferring, that Obama has any intention of removing American forces from Iraq and that would include the military along with civilian contractors such as Blackwater. What has also gone unmentioned is that the [alleged] anti-war candidate also wishes to redeploy American troops from Iraq to the so-called good war in Afghanistan where they can unleash more misery and suffering upon the Afghan people. I also do not think, as she appears to do, that things will be “less awful” if Obama becomes president. If Obama orders those soldiers into Afghanistan and decides, like Bush, to order incursions into Pakistan and Syria, those people will still end up very dead, unnecessarily and unjustifiably, no matter how “humanitarian” the reasons that Obama may give.

  11. Eddie said on October 30th, 2008 at 5:28pm #

    When I hear someone from Australia way too involved in our elections it reminds me of the Canadian group and how if they’d focused on their own country they might have gotten Harper out as prime minister via their elections a few weeks ago. I’ve also noted websites, like wotisitgood4, from Australia that are so obsessed with America and what happens here and they never cover their own country. I can remember David Hicks being ignored by the same blogger calling out Guantanamo and Bush. I can remember John Howard being given a pass by the same blogger.
    As for Norman Solomon, completely useless. The Pat Boone of the Revolution.

  12. Brian Koontz said on October 30th, 2008 at 7:55pm #

    Revolution begins with rejection – the best way for Americans to create meaningful change is to step outside the electoral system. Form local organized power structures that serve local interests. Defend your turf from the propaganda and violence of the state.

    Both Nader and McKinney would use the bureaucracy and structure of the state and both would feel great pressure from centers of wealth, *even if* they were elected. If Americans are powerful enough to elect someone not supported by the ruling class they are powerful enough to revolt.

    Nader and McKinney are great as symbols, as examples, as educators, as leaders, but structurally poor as politicians. Localism is the way to go.

    The electoral system was set up by the ruling class and has always been a tool of the ruling class. Oppressed countries have large national movements that can sometimes usurp the electoral system (such as in Venezuela, or Haiti for a time) but it will be many years at least before the US is in a similar position. Also – neither Venezuela nor Aristide Haiti were in any way revolutionary. They are a compromise, similar to New Deal America. Only by stepping outside the electoral system and setting up *our own* rules, our own structures, our own gameplan, will we obtain our deepest desires.

  13. Glenelg Smith said on October 30th, 2008 at 9:34pm #

    You seem to be arguing that a vote for Nader helps move USA politics more to the right. Your argument seems to rest on a belief that Nader somehow “steals” votes from the Democrates (as though the Democrates ever “owned” those votes to begin with).

    In a true and functioning democracy, people have a right to vote for the candidates they chose. Do you have a problem with this? Do you rail at Republican voters for stealing votes from the Democrats?

    If the Democrats are losing votes to more left-leaning candidates, and it is causing them to lose elections, they can choose to move more to the left. If moving towards the left causes them to lose votes from the right, then they are in a dilema, because it would seem that they have no reason for existence. If they move to the right just to win elections, then they are an active part in the drift towards the right, and have abandoned any left-leaning credentials they might have had.

    Well may you be worried about another four years of Republican “rule”, but the problem of the faux-left (faux-gauche?) Democrats will not go away by following your strategy. You should be berating the Democratic voters for stealing votes from Nader.

  14. Jason Paul Oberg said on October 30th, 2008 at 10:43pm #

    Norman Solomon is failing to see the point here. Yes, the Republicans are more advanced in their evil than the Democrats. That’s because they’ve been at it a little longer. That doesn’t mean anything. We still need a government by, for, and of the People, not by, for, and of the Corporations. And Obama will not bring us that government. Nor will he be open to pressure or ideas from progressives about how to do the right thing. If he wanted to do the right thing, he wouldn’t be a Democrat. Actually, he probably wouldn’t be a politician. Mr. Solomon is one of those pain-in-the-neck people in this country, holding on to some outmoded belief that the Democrats are stll the “good guys,” that they’ve merely lost their way and just need a nudge to get back on track. Wrong. The apple is rotten all the way through. Just look at what Obama has already done to us, being the hero of change that he is:

    End the war? Nah, let’s redeploy!

    Spying on Americans bad? No, spying good! Just don’t
    overspy. Then it’s okay.

    Stop corporate corruption? Nah, we’ll just give ’em all the money they
    want. Then maybe they’ll let up a bit.

    Impeach Bush? Heck, no! Just because someone has destroyed the
    country, not to mention millions of lives, is no reason to remove
    them from office. And if you want to, you’ll have to get by me!

    I said what about universal health care? What’s that again?

    Get with the program, Mr. Solomon. The Democrats, even good ol’ Mr. Change We Need, are just as corrupt, detatched, and beholden to the corporate lobbyists buying them lunch every day as the Republicans. Only an idiot still believes in these crooks masquerading as the saviors of the common folk. It’s simply their trick of the trade. They act so sympathetic to the little folks’ problems, knowing the little folks don’t check their track records or current progress, because they’re too busy watching American Idol. In the meantime, they’re voting bills into law that are killing us with their Republican pals over eighty-five percent of the time. “Reaching across party lines,” as they (for some reason) proudly boast. There is a reason you hear the word “bipartisan” so often these days: Because they’re two sides of the same coin, deliberately keeping a true hero of change like Ralph Nader out of the clubhouse.

  15. DavidG. said on October 30th, 2008 at 11:13pm #

    Eddie, Australians are not obsessed with America. Like many other people who live in the real world, they are scared of it!

    We hope it goes bankrupt real soon. It’s too big for its boots!

  16. Max Shields said on October 31st, 2008 at 4:30am #

    Brian Koontz, “localism is the way to go.”


  17. MrSynec said on October 31st, 2008 at 8:40am #

    There is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
    Both of them and their candidates Obama and McCain are owned and
    controlled by big Business/Money and war-mongers.
    And do not expect anything from the Media, the Media is also
    owned and controlled by the same.

  18. bozhidar bob balkas said on October 31st, 2008 at 3:32pm #

    what’s needed for preselected ‘election’ is a vote for nader or just keep the same administration in charge.
    at worst, present team selection knows, or shld know, a tad more than any new team. the old team may also be tired of all the bloodshed and therefore do less evil.
    in add’n, a new team might, in its eagerness to do better than bush, wander all the way to chinawall.
    but, certainly, we’l have more entertainment for all, whoever is at the helm. thnx

  19. corylus said on October 31st, 2008 at 3:51pm #

    Gonzalez 100, Solomon 0

  20. Deadbeat said on October 31st, 2008 at 4:44pm #

    They are a compromise, similar to New Deal America. Only by stepping outside the electoral system and setting up *our own* rules, our own structures, our own gameplan, will we obtain our deepest desires.

    And what happens when the ruling class decides to step in or better yet STEP ON your utopia? You better have some means to defend it. While your idea of “localism” sounds good a better game plan IMO is SOLIDARITY. Without solidarity you can forget about self defense.

  21. Max Shields said on October 31st, 2008 at 8:20pm #

    Localism and solidarity are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are both necessary and compatible. But there’s nothing to be building bridges to unless you begin to develop the kind of local economic nucleus that creates a basis for connecting.

    The problem is we always want to start at some kind of apex, some central place. Localism is about partnerships, not hierarchies. It is about human-scale communities; and then connecting communities across regions and globally. It’s happening. Will it become the core organizing principle? That remains to be seen. But it is a significant alternative to what we have and I think it holds great promise on many levels.

    So, this is not a zero sum game of local versus solidarity. I do agree that we need to be very weary of the corporate and political powers that have proven very successful at undermining any attempt to create viable alternatives. Third parties are but one small example of what happens when you confront the status quo power structure. The Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) has tried to coopt this, but they’re too bundled into the Democratic Party to really do anything. They represent the negative air sucking out of the progressive movement.

    So, for sure, solidarity is essential for both “defensive” purposes as well as assuring a connectedness so essential to a sustainable planet.

    The major challenge is keeping this clean of duopoly party politics where it will be suffocated at birth (hence the concern with the PDA).

  22. Brian Koontz said on October 31st, 2008 at 8:38pm #

    I fully agree, Deadbeat. And to flesh this out a bit further, solidarity requires communication and mobility, not just good intentions.

    Solidarity means when one of us is attacked, all of us are attacked – and all of us need to strike back.

  23. Deadbeat said on November 1st, 2008 at 12:58am #

    Max Shields writes…
    Localism and solidarity are not mutually exclusive. and So, this is not a zero sum game of local versus solidarity

    Clarity is extremely important. Localism and solidarity is not mutually inclusive and my remarks does not imply that localism and solidarity is zero sum. What I am saying is that localism and solidarity are two complementary concepts.

    The point is that localism does not imply solidarity among the disparate locales or sects. With Localism can also come xenophobia. I bring this up especially in light of how communities on the Left are still terribly divided on race and class issues.

    The Left currently lacks the necessary cohesion needed to build solidarity. Therefore while I am not against “localism” but localism alone will not engender change. That can ONLY come from solidarity.

  24. Brian Koontz said on November 1st, 2008 at 5:35am #

    In reply to Deadbeat:

    Localism implies solidarity when it’s accurately implemented under a system that is defined by the two. Localism and solidarity should be pursued with respect to this system, not in isolation.

    You write “The Left currently lacks the necessary cohesion needed to build solidarity” – but it’s not the Left that needs the cohesion. These local groups linked together into regional organizations will be formed largely of regular people. One of the great adversaries for us to defeat is a lack of cohesion, a lack of solidarity, within the general populace.

    The job of the Left is not to represent this system, but to contemplate it, experiment with it, create it, and promote it, such that the general populace will be turned toward it and finally, exist within it.

    One thing the Left needs is enough consensus that this is the right course in order to go through the process of creating this system.

    Part of this process for the Left is to join the local organizations that exist right now which one might reasonably conclude could be part of this system.

  25. bozhidar bob balkas said on November 1st, 2008 at 8:45am #

    deadbeat, max, brian,
    i haven’t thought much ab. local activism; thus, i haven’t commented ab it.
    but i’l sleep on it to see if i can come up ab some ideas ab democratization of the planet and not just US/canada. thnx

  26. Max Shields said on November 1st, 2008 at 10:29am #

    Brian, we are saying the same thing.

    I think DB agrees. The point about localism is that it is about place. It is a powerful organizing principle for a progressive movement.

    In New England we have local organizing which has created both regional and national links which extend into parts of Canada.

    This is not theory, it is real and now. We need to extend it, build on it and transform the dominant narrative and power structure.

    Organizations, such as PDA, imo, are counterproductive becasue they seem to believe that they can wed themselves to the Democratic party and transform the Party and thus the polity through infilitration. It’s not only futile, but dangerous to a serious progressive movement.

    Furthermore, realize whent the Dems take over, much of the center of power will be a combination of neoliberals and blue dogs. “Progressive” Dems will be as dead in the water as Kucinich has been for all these years.

    Change can only happen outside the centers of existing power structure – hence localism and the movement to build solidarity globally.

  27. bozhidar bob balkas said on November 1st, 2008 at 1:15pm #

    max, seeing the word “structure” in ur post, jarred me. u also said to build a structure outside existing structure. i agree. thnx

  28. Ramsefall said on November 2nd, 2008 at 6:53am #


    point well made on the proportionality of analogies issue in regard to Australia — apples sure aren’t oranges. As well, the regional and national links certainly need to be extended and developed.

    Brain’s identification of the need for rejection and localism couldn’t be more accurate.

    Organization NOW is imperative for real changes LATER, whatever progressive momentum has thus far been built needs to be maintained.

    Normon’s diagnosis of Obama being hardly progressive should be apparent after this overkill of a campaign trail, and hence as the author states, “The best way to avoid becoming disillusioned is to not have illusions in the first place.”

    While a McCain/Palin victory would be abominable compared to a win by Obama/Biden, the stage has already been set by their predecessor for persistent abuse of Executive power and a continued shift toward fascism. I don’t recall hearing Obama mention the need to restore Constitutional liberties to the people, or Congressional oversight to the system.

    With Obama’s more refined sense of charisma and intellect over McCain, it’s easy for the public to dismiss the possibility of ongoing Executive power usurpation by a guy like Obama. Until he proposes eliminating the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, I can only muster up a guess that Bush’s fascist track will be sustained by Obama, but even more so should the country see a McCain victory, and eventually by Palin if she were to ‘wo’man the post.

    Best to all.

  29. Giorgio said on November 2nd, 2008 at 12:07pm #

    “In fact, it’s possible that Obama could win a clear victory in the popular vote while McCain manages to claim enough electoral votes to move into the White House.” What? It’s A but it can turn out to be B !

    If this is not clear evidence of chicaney, you tell me what is !
    In there is a survey going on the fairness of the US electoral system. So far 78% of those surveyed feel the system is UNDEMOCRATIC and FLAWED. If this is a reflection of what Americans think on the whole, isn’t it time to overhaul this rigged system?

    After reading Norman Solomon’s counterargument to Gonzalez, I agree with him. VOTE for the lesser of two evils, Obama!
    Then after the elections join Ron Paul’s Campaign for LIBERTY!
    As for voting for Nader or any of the others is a dead loss!
    Nader lost a grand opportunity to become a National and World celebrity ( and his electoral chances would have skyrocketed) if he had insisted on his rights to attend the Republican convention as an observer and not submit meekly to the cops’ charge of trespassing and threat to lock him up.
    24-48hrs in a prison cell would not do him any harm and would reveal to the world that the American electoral process rivals that of a banana republic like Zimbabuwe.

  30. Max Shields said on November 2nd, 2008 at 4:09pm #

    Giorgio, and where was Paul at the Republican Convention? He’s a Republican, right?

  31. Giorgio said on November 2nd, 2008 at 5:48pm #

    Max, what’s Paul got to do with it? Pls explain…

  32. Max Shields said on November 2nd, 2008 at 6:23pm #

    Giorgio said: “Nader lost a grand opportunity to become a National and World celebrity ( and his electoral chances would have skyrocketed) if he had insisted on his rights to attend the Republican convention as an observer and not submit meekly to the cops’ charge of trespassing and threat to lock him up.”

    Your Nader comment seems completely beside the point. You are a Paul supporter from what I can tell. Paul is a Republican. He was not at the Republican Convention and I don’t think he was asked to speak. Where was Paul insisting on going to his own Party’s convention?

    Nader had his own convention as an Independent. Your argument, such as it ease seems exceedingly weak.

    As a Paul supporter, Giorgio, I’m asking for an answer from you.