The only survey I've done, I think
Greg Bates wants to know:
1. Only one of two people will become president, Kerry or Bush. Why waste time voting (or working) for someone else?
In 1908, union leader and Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene Debs replied to a heckler who shouted that a Socialist vote was a wasted vote: "That's right. Don't vote for freedom--you might not get it. Vote for slavery--you have a cinch on that." A vote for Nader is NOT a vote for Bush--it's a vote for radical change. John Kerry and the Democrats do not own anybody's vote, nor are they entitled to it. Ralph Nader is not a "spoiler"--it's Bush and Kerry who have already spoiled way too many lives.
http://www.socialistalternative.org/nader/
2. One person said "I will vote for Kerry if he is just 1 degree to the left of Bush. Given what is at stake, why won't you?"
Kerry isn't even 1 degree to the left of Bush. If anything he is 1 degree, or more, to the right of Bush. Kerry criticizes Zapatero's decision to remove Spanish troops from Iraq. Kerry won't remove American troops from Iraq. He will probably send more, and revive the draft in order to do so.
3. If you agree that Getting Bush out is the top priority, why focus on any other candidate besides Kerry?
While we are not among the "Anybody but Bush" (ABB) crowd, it becomes more evident by the day that Kerry is the choice of the ruling elite to replace Bush, who has become a liability and an embarrassment to the captains of industry and banking in their quest for global hegemony. Apparently Bush, his supporters and the ABB people haven't yet got that message. http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/021804Conover/021804conover.html
I don't agree that getting Bush out is the top priority. For me, regime change, real regime change, is the top priority. The powers behind the throne want Bush out and Kerry in, and will probably get what they want, but without my vote.
4. Nader could be doing something more useful, and touring the country, but not as a candidate. Do you agree.
No. Kerry could be doing something more useful--dropping out and endorsing Nader.
5. Since getting Bush out is priority 1, why can't you think strategically?
Ralph's risk to the Democrats then, is this. Where once voters didn't want to waste a ballot on him in the close race of 2000, they might today, in the event of a commanding Bush lead, wish to avoid wasting it on the Democratic nominee. If there's no strategy in it, why vote against your principles for a hopeless Democrat who, to cite just two similarities to Bush, doesn't favor gay marriages and favors keeping troops in Iraq? Especially when you could vote with integrity for the one person who's actually worthy of the job?
http://www.counterpunch.org/bates02172004.html
I've already answered question 3, in any case.
6. Don't you realize how awful and dangerous 4 more years of Bush would be?
How is it that such an awful and dangerous man has a chance of getting elected? Wouldn't such an awful and dangerous man be so low in the opinion polls that the chances of his being elected would be about zilch? My understanding is that the polls show Kerry and Bush about equal. It looks like voters are literally flipping a coin in making a choice between the two.
And a positive question:
7. What is the most important reason you are likely to vote for Nader?
I would be disrespecting myself if I did not vote for him.