Failure of the Day: Ralph Nader Voters
I was thinking yesterday that I would go to one of the anti war protests. I haven't been to one since the first Gulf war because that was the last time I was physically able to walk from the Embarcadero to Civic Center. It's still mighty difficult for me to walk that far, remission or no, and the organizers of such spectacles have never cared about accomodating the "walking disabled" (note to The Left: disabled does not only mean wheelchair), and I hold a grudge against them for that. I have had some sour, sour experiences trying to work with with even such beacons of enlightenment like Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights and NOW.
This time though, I want to go not because anyone has a shred of a chance to stop the war but because I have something to say. And while everyone else will be uselessly trying to get the attention of our "Tommy"-like administration, I want to get the attention of the protesters. I want a sign that says "Congratulations, Nader Voters." Now that a ban on later-term abortions has passed the senate and will almost certainly pass in the House, it will be delivered with a blood red rose to the desk of the Anti-Choice president who they said was no different from Gore. Nader voters, largely white and middle-class, and in my experience, overwhelmingly male, have that luxury. They will never be forced human incubators; they will never have to be pregnant against their will. And as such, I suppose they are right: No difference. Lucky Them.
I can't say with any confidence that had Gore won the election in the supeme court instead of just in the popular vote that we would not be about to kill a lot of people. I really don't know. But it's possible. I know I'd be a lot more comfortable with the decision in the hands of someone who is not a religious zealot anxious for the Rapture. I know with some certainty that Gore would have vetoed the abotion ban, though, as Clinton did, twice.
An editorial in today's Salon sums it up nicely http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/03/15/nader/index.html (Subscribe to Salon while you're at it.)
So thanks, Nader voters. You are doing a great job of pointing out just how important the differences between the candidates are.
I was thinking yesterday that I would go to one of the anti war protests. I haven't been to one since the first Gulf war because that was the last time I was physically able to walk from the Embarcadero to Civic Center. It's still mighty difficult for me to walk that far, remission or no, and the organizers of such spectacles have never cared about accomodating the "walking disabled" (note to The Left: disabled does not only mean wheelchair), and I hold a grudge against them for that. I have had some sour, sour experiences trying to work with with even such beacons of enlightenment like Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights and NOW.
This time though, I want to go not because anyone has a shred of a chance to stop the war but because I have something to say. And while everyone else will be uselessly trying to get the attention of our "Tommy"-like administration, I want to get the attention of the protesters. I want a sign that says "Congratulations, Nader Voters." Now that a ban on later-term abortions has passed the senate and will almost certainly pass in the House, it will be delivered with a blood red rose to the desk of the Anti-Choice president who they said was no different from Gore. Nader voters, largely white and middle-class, and in my experience, overwhelmingly male, have that luxury. They will never be forced human incubators; they will never have to be pregnant against their will. And as such, I suppose they are right: No difference. Lucky Them.
I can't say with any confidence that had Gore won the election in the supeme court instead of just in the popular vote that we would not be about to kill a lot of people. I really don't know. But it's possible. I know I'd be a lot more comfortable with the decision in the hands of someone who is not a religious zealot anxious for the Rapture. I know with some certainty that Gore would have vetoed the abotion ban, though, as Clinton did, twice.
An editorial in today's Salon sums it up nicely http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/03/15/nader/index.html (Subscribe to Salon while you're at it.)
So thanks, Nader voters. You are doing a great job of pointing out just how important the differences between the candidates are.
posted by Nancy @ 9:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home