A Vote for Gore is a Vote for Bush

is a Vote for Bankrupt Politics

By Matthew Kavanagh

"A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."
Sound familiar?
But, really, isn't a vote for Gore actually a vote for Bush?

As it currently stands, in a few key states (which don't include New York, where Gore will win and we can safely vote our conscience) Gore may lose,and by a margin less than the number of votes Nader will get. The idea of a Bush presidency is very scary and some people are, understandably, going to vote for Gore out of fear. But if Bush wins it won't be because of Nader, it will be because Al Gore isn't worth voting for. Let's talk about this. A lot of people seem to think Nader supporters would be to BLAME if Bush wins. These people aren't thinking. If people in swing states feel they need to hold their nose and vote for Gore despite his failure to address most issues with anything close to a progressive vision, then that is their educated, tactical decision and it makes sense to me. BUT, surveys show that a significant percentage of Nader's supporters -- perhaps a majority -- either would not vote or would vote for someone other than Gore were Nader not in the race. Most of those sympathetic to Nader but scared about a Bush presidency have already decided to vote for Gore.

So, WHY might Gore lose? Let's look at the Gore campaign.

He is the incumbent, in a strong economy, coming from the administration of Pres. Clinton, who currently has approval ratings through the roof. He has spent millions upon millions of dollars on the campaign and was given three nationally televised debates in which to demolish an opponent who is probably the least qualified, least impressive candidate for President in a generation. And yet, he has not only failed to expose the senselessness that is Bush's candidacy, but he might lose! And why? Because he hasn't given voters anything to believe in. When Bush and Gore stand up there in matching red ties, people see two white men who seem to care more about winning this race than articulating any sort of vision. They see a Vice President who agrees with the dimwitted Bush dynasty on welfare reform, increased "free" trade, not implementing a living wage, continuing a racist death penalty and drug war, increasing military spending, and standing firm against immediate universal health care.
People aren't stupid.
They can see that Gore isn't for "the people, not the powerful." They can see that he's not taking on Bush for the corporate whore that he is because Gore is owned by the same moneyed interests that Bush is. They've taken millions of dollars from over sixty of the same corporations. This has so handicapped the once-progressive Gore that the best he can come up with are focus-group sound bites and a few narrowly drafted policies that represent the same line of middle-of-the-road,status-quo, corporate-dominated thinking that the Bush camp is putting out,albeit in a different wrapper. The voter-turn out in this race is predicted to be the lowest ever-under 45%. And this suits the interests behind Bush/Gore 2000 just fine because it ensures that no big shake up is going to happen.

Are there differences between the two candidates?

Sure.

Is positive progress going to be made by either one?

Not a chance.

Did Gore have another option?

Absolutely.

He could have put forward a populist, progressive agenda, taken a few million less from Exon and Philip Morris, and rallied people to a message they could support. Nader and his running-mate, Native-American activist Wynonna LaDuke, did it and over 10,000 people came out to each of their super-rallies-far more people than ever turned out for either Bush or Gore. In fact, with a shoestring budget and no televised advertising or debates Nader has won the support of 7% of "likely voters" according to a recent Zogby poll, and over 17% of independent voters.

So, as Robert McChesney recently suggested, maybe it's time for GORE TO DROP OUT OF THE RACE and give his support to Nader. If Gore can't win it's his fault. It is not because of Nader voters that Gore doesn't have anything to say that could get more that 21% of the ELIGIBLE voters to think him worthy of their votes.

If you are really interested in progressive ideals, write to Al Gore and tell him to throw in the towel. Oh, and I know it's hard to tell which one he is (which money-driven, corporate-owned son of powerful Washington politician supporting the status quo), but he's the one standing on the "left."