Opinari.net
Opinari - Latin term for Opinion. Opinari.net is just what it seems: a cornucopia of rants, raves and poignant soliloquy. |
Sunday, February 22, 2004
I'm watching Arnold on Meet the Press right now... when asked "will you sign a bill legalizing gay marriages?", he avoids the question by saying "I don't deal with hypotheticals." I would be interested to know how Arnold really stands on the issue, although it's obvious politics is going to dictate his decision on the matter.
And of course, Nader officially announced his presidential candidacy:
“This country has more problems and injustices than it deserves,” Nader said, bemoaning a “democracy gap.” He said he needed to get into the race to “challenge this two-party duopoly.”
“There’s too much power and wealth in too few hands,” he said . “They have taken over Washington.”
“Washington is now corporate occupied territory,” Nader said. “There is now a for-sale sign on most agencies and departments. ... Money is flowing in like never before. It means that corporations are saying no to the necessities of the American people. ... Basically, it’s question of both parties flunking.”
Same mantra, same result. If Nader takes away even 2% of the vote in the swing states, it's curtains for the Kerry campaign.
MORE ON NADER: I fail to see how anyone can take this guy seriously. No enemies abroad? Who's he kidding? Does Nader know there is a terrorist enemy out there?
Nader thinks a Bush White House, and a Kerry White House, would be the same. In some ways, he is right. After all, policy is not dictated from a single governmental agency. However, foreign policy is largely dictated by the Presidency. Looking at the record, Kerry and Bush have markedly different foreign policies. No one can honestly say that there would not be distinct differences between the two.
Listening to Nader's foreign policy positions, I can only say... "Eek!"
My only agreement with Nader is this: "We have to have more voices and choices." In that sentiment, I can find common ground with Nader. However, a third party that espouses populist, anti-capitalist mantras like Nader does is not going to be the viable alternative to the traditional parties.
A FURTHER THOUGHT: Obviously, Nader is more of a threat to the Democrats than Republicans. That being the case, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the Republican Party to contribute to the Nader cause, helping to get him on the ballot in key states, thereby fragmenting the Democratic vote?Labels: Archives_2004
.: posted by
Dave
9:19 AM
| |
Recommended Reading
|
