Browse By

Swing This! Help this Ohio Voter Decide between Nader, Moore and Obama

State of Ohio Absentee Ballot with 2008 Presidential Candidates ListedTo the right you can see my absentee ballot for the state of Ohio. I’ve requested it so that I can vote by mail to keep the lines short for everyone else on Election Day; four years ago in my precinct the lines stretched for hours.

As you can see, at least in the state of Ohio we do not have a “two-party system.” There are 8 presidential tickets on the ballot for 6 political parties and two sets of independents.

After much consideration, I have narrowed down my choices to the Obama-Biden ticket and the Nader-Gonzalez ticket. Here’s my invitation to you: would you like to help swing Ohio one way or the other? Post your arguments in the comments section explaining which of these two tickets is most deserving of my vote.

Here’s why I have already eliminated the following tickets from my consideration:

Barr-Root: They ought to rename it the Libertarianish Party after the nomination of Bob Barr, who voted for the Patriot Act, who doesn’t extend religious freedom to non-believers, who thinks free speech is overrated, and who wants to take away the citizenship of American babies. Wayne Allyn Root is just an over-the-top blowhard.

McCainPalin: anti-liberty, anti-peace, anti-choice, lobbyist-bought tools.

Duncan-Johnson: Richard Duncan is an Ohioan who gets on the ballot regularly but who hasn’t taken the time to post a website or write up anything more than the vaguest paragraph describing his intentions. I have no earthly idea who Ricky Johnson is. Not ready for prime time. Not even ready for public access cable.

McKinney-Clemente: I like the Green Party in the abstract. But Cynthia McKinney? Nope, sorry, nope. I just can’t vote for someone for President who punches police officers, who seriously thinks that George W. Bush was in on the 9/11 attacks, who praises the dictatorial Hugo Chavez, and who asserts that the U.S. government has been shooting thousands of prisoners in the head and dumping them in a swamp, telling us that she could give us the names of people who told her so, but she just doesn’t want to. I back away slowly.

Baldwin-Castle: Because no party that embraces Christian theocracy, opposes free speech and stands against a woman’s right to self-determination should refer to itself as the “Constitution Party.” Baldwin and Castle stand firmly within the “Constitution Party”.

That leaves the Nader-Gonzalez ticket, the Moore-Alexander ticket and the Obama-Biden ticket. I have both deep misgivings and some tepid support for each of these tickets. I would really appreciate your thoughts on these three tickets as I consider where to throw my support.

12 thoughts on “Swing This! Help this Ohio Voter Decide between Nader, Moore and Obama”

  1. gb says:

    hi, yes we do have more than 2 “parties”, and unless you are willing to research the web or watch c-span, there is little to no coverage of any but the dems and repubs… i grew up and live colorado and have learned that in all the elections except bush/gore colorado is a “red” state, so basicly my vote against any republican candidate will not count… 4 years ago there was an amendment on the colorado ballot to abolish the electoral college… unfortunately it failed, and until this country decides to do away with this outdated measure of votes, we will remain locked in a 2 party system… otherwise, as i warned others in 2000, a vote for nader is essentially a vote for bush, and we all know where that has gotten us… it is truly unfortunate that a man like ralph nader can not be elected… he is a man i admire immensely and would vote for if i wasn’t afraid that it might sway the tenuous balance in colorado to the “reds”…. so my shallow advice to you is to vote for obama… not because he is the best candidate, but because we can’t afford mcsame… and if there is ever a push to end the electoral college, please support it!… thanks, gb

  2. Elle says:

    What can I add to what gb said, though I must say, his iitials scare me, just by association! 😉

    I have not really studied Nader’s platform, though what I have heard in sound bites and all makes me wish he had at least a fighting chance.

    In 2000, the election was not nearly as crucial as this one. We had a budget surplus, the country was at peace, and though rightwing wacks were out there acting up in the hinterlands, and the attorny general could have played a nazi thug with nary a stretch, we still had most of our freedoms and liberty. Heck, we even had semi-good relationships with many other nations.

    As someone once said to me, this election is really for the vice-president, because niether of the canidates have a chance of living out their terms. There are too many die hard bigots with big guns for Obama to have much of a chance lasting out his term, and John “I haven’t died of cancer, yet” McCain could be laid low any time by a vapor lock or relapse. With cancer, you are never cured, just in remission.

    Of the two VP’s it is no choice. Biden is intelligent, savy, and supports the constitution for the most part, Palin, isn’t any of the above.

    As much as a person may want to vote their princibles, sometimes cold hard reality comes up and bites you hard in the nose. Biden is the best choice.

  3. Raffi Shahinian says:

    Speaking of Palin, I’ve just posted a recently discovered Sarah Palin baby video, for anyone who might be interested. It’s quite telling.

    Grace and Peace,

  4. gb says:

    elle, so weird i’ve never realized my initials are the same as W’s… no worries about your association… fyi i’m 47 and female…

  5. K Magpie says:

    I don’t think we have the luxury of voting for Ralph Nader this time. I voted for him last time, as there was not a significant difference in the republican and democratic candidates, as far as I could see. This time there is a huge difference. My vote is for Not John McCain, but the more I see and listen to Obama, the more I like him. The danger inherent in the election of McCain, for our country and the world, demands a vote for Obama. I believe that McCain has planted the seeds of future disaster through the climate he has already created, and I worry about what will happen either way. But far be it from me to contribute to any possibility of his election, and voting for Ralph Nader would be doing that. If we really were free to vote outside of the two parties with the candidates actually having a chance of winning, I certainly would vote Nader. But that is not reality. Had Hillary been running, I would have voted for her, even though choosing her would not have been a free choice. America has a chance of becoming the great country it should be, and the citizens have the chance to survive and thrive if Obama is elected. I absolutely do not see any such possibility with McCain.

  6. bj says:

    My feeling that a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. So if you don’t want McCain to win I suggest you throw your support to Obama if you really want a change in the White House ~ Lets face it – Nader doesn’t stand a chance … I for one do NOT want a Bush clone in office- enough is enough.

  7. Andrew says:

    I notice you’ve rethought your opinion of the Moore/Alexander ticket since the last time I saw this post – care to add an explanation?

  8. Jim says:

    Yes. I had written in to the main post an explanation of why the socialist party was beyond my vote even though I agreed with many of the immediate planks of the Moore-Alexander platform. I am loath to support the socialist party because a fair amount of the socialist movement in America has been dedicated to supporting dictatorships and violence so long as the dictators were socialist dictators and the violence was in the name of socialism.

    But then I realized that 1) I need to view the Moore-Alexander candidacy as more of the run of two people, since they are individuals as much as they are members of their parties, and 2) I’m not too happy with the Democratic Party either, and what was my standard there?

    Even when I wrote the post the first time, the Moore-Alexander ticket was on the knife’s edge of inclusion/exclusion. In the interest of an open mind, I stuck the Moore-Alexander ticket back in the inclusion pile.

  9. Andrew says:

    Thanks for the answer. I’m an outsider looking in on this case (I’m British), so what I have to say probably isn’t too valuable. I understand what you’re saying in your more recent post, about voting as if everyone who thinks like you will vote the same way. I’ve been reading a few Clinton supporter’s blogs recently (eg. ReclusiveLeftist), and they talk about taking a long term approach and trying to bring the Democratic party closer to their ideals (or encourage the rise of a viable third party to represent those ideals). At an instinctual level, I suppose such a strategy’s got to involve sacrifice, as the parties would be unlikely to pay attention to the disillusioned liberal vote unless it was big enough to swing the election. I think 2000’s an important model – Nader certainly got a lot of press for the role he played then, but has that laid the groundwork for a government more in line with liberal ideals than Clinton had/Gore would have had?

  10. Jim says:

    Everybody’s free to add their two cents, or shillings, or Euros, American or not.

    No, because the Scalia-Thomas-Rehnquist Supreme Court made Bush president. But if every vote had been counted and Gore had been inaugurated as President in the year 2001, then oh yes, you can bet that the closeness of the election would have made the Democrats more attentive to the concerns of those who voted for Nader. That’s my take: that the Nader strategy came very close to succeeding.

  11. Miroslav says:

    This dude who wrote thisarticle is stupid. McKinney didn’t punch teh officer – he treated her like a subhuman. Why that piece of crap didn’t stop Ashcroft or McCain? So what if she thinks that Chavez is good for his country? Chavez was demiocratically elected by a landslide – no Diebold “voting” machines, no Supreme Court daddy’s friends…

  12. Ralph says:

    You know just about all the potential arguments as well as almost anyone else, so let me just bring up a few issues:

    1. I had tremendous respect for Nader until the 2004 election (voted for him in 2000). But when he accepted help from disreputable Republican operatives getting his name on the ballot in 2004, he compromised integrity for expedience–and if you’re going to vote for someone who does that, you might as well go for a Democrat or a Republican.

    2. There’s something to be said for the tactic of voting Obama in, then holding his feet to the fire. If we get him in, at least we’ll have a president with a chance of listening when you threaten to split with him in 2012 on issues like privacy rights, the environment, and pulling out of Iraq.

    3. If you DO decide to vote for Nader, please make it very clear that you did so because of Obama’s vote on the FISA Amendments Act. (I’m guessing you wouldn’t be on the fence if he’d voted against it). Call Obama’s campaign headquarters and tell them, write Obama’s campaign headquarters and tell them. Tell the press. Announce your decision here, get the word out, and try to persuade other people. If the Democrats lose Ohio by a margin equal to or less than the combined vote for Nader, the Socialists and the Greens, and that loss ends up costing Obama the presidency, it’s important to lay the groundwork for the story that Obama’s vote on the FISA Amendments Act cost him the presidency. The parallel will certainly be drawn with Clinton’s 2002 vote on the Iraq War, an apparently safe capitulation to conservatives that more than likely ended up costing her the nomination. And maybe–just maybe–the Democrats will get the hint and grow a spine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!