I haven’t quite got a handle on the blog in draft regarding Sat. night so here’s one I prepared earlier. If in doubt, return to what you know, so back to politics it is. And in line with the honesty thing:

I know I’m going to take some flack for this but I have weighed up the pros and cons and looked at things based on the issues and I have to say that the advice of the Baron is…. Vote Nader.

Sorry, I know this will be a great disappointment to many of you who might expect me to come down into the ‘anyone except Bush’ campaign. Sadly having looked at it I just don’t feel that the difference with Kerry is anything other than wafer-thin and I am tired of tactical non-issue politics. I would like to be able to look at a politicians ideals and moral standpoints as well as his/her record and vote for the person I believe in based on the actual politics. I could not do that in all conscience if I were to be an American currently. The only choice for the politically-minded has to be Ralph Nader because I can look at the things he proposes and see some strain of what I believe in as a left-winger. Kerry, well I can’t see it, he is as establishment as Clinton or Kennedy and we’ve already been there. It changes nothing, and it’s not just the US, Tony Blair’s workning relationship with Bush and the former Spanish premier Aznar both conservatives is better than that with any supposedly left-wing leaders and this is no surprise.

No Nader is not a Communist, I’m not entirely such he’d even cast himself as a dyed-in-the-wool Socialist, but if Macarthy were still around he’d be in deep shit and that’s a good enough recommendation for me! When all the other candidates stack up far to the Right there seems to be only one sensible choice.

I am aware of the charge that to marginalise the Democratic vote will play into Bush’s hands, we have had to face the same arguement in the UK with the formation of Respect which apparently could only play into the Conservatives hands as we split the traditional Labour party vote. What I found tho’ is actually we soaked up a lot of people who felt they could no longer cast their vote for Labour anymore. I mean what is the point in voting for a party you no longer believe in if only because you believe in the other party less? Is that democracy? If so you’re fucking welcome to it, come back Uncle Josef all is forgiven! It may well be if many of the undecided fall into the Nader camp that this will hand the election to Bush, the same was said last time but let’s face facts it was the bullshit electoral college system that did that, coupled with a hefty intervention from the party machinery in Florida.

Come on guys and girls in the US are you really just going to sit there and settle for this Bad or Worse compromise for the next X years, fucking DO something about it.

Song Of The Day – The Kinks ~ Waterloo Sunset

PS I think Michael Moore by pleading with Ralph Nader not to stand has just undermined his own credibility and any good he may have done with Farenheit 9/11, after all it’s easy to criticise the system without actually doing or even advocating doing anything about it.

Original Comments:

Rachel made this comment,
dude, haha, we’ve been for nader for a while now. no worries, mate. and i’m sorry, but as i’ve been saying on my blog, i hate bush, but i’m not that big of a fan of kerry’s either. the only other choice is…nader. what can you do?
Visit me @ http://palmysinfullbloom.blog-city.com

[Redbaron responds – I agree Rachel the best of the situation is the one to go for and it is Nader rather than Kerry.]

comment added :: 7th September 2004, 02:39 GMT+01
Rina made this comment,
I’m am no political genius or even very involved, but I feel I have to disagree. While I completely support Nader and what he stands for, there is no way he’s going to win. He can’t defeat Bush’s vote count and it’s not very likely he’ll defeat Kerry’s either. He’ll most probably just bee taking votes from Kerry like he did from Gore last election. Neither of them will win and we’ll be stuck with Dubya for another four years. I don’t think I can support that.
Rachel’s right, though: what can you do? I say this all now, but it’s not like I can vote this time around. Maybe if I actually was voting I’d be a bit more careful, but for now this is my 2 cents.

Visit me @ http://sugarbowl.blog-city.com

[Redbaron responds – Well I think it’s true he will take votes from Kerry the way he did from Gore but make no mistake this did not lose the election for the Democrats, the nonsensical electoral college system did that coupled with some inane ballot paper practice. The establishment screwed the last election -can you imagine the appeal being quashed the way it was had the Republicans been the ones claiming foul? Is Kerry going to change the system, no, Kerry is the system, he’s just the Good Cop to Bush’s Bad Cop.]

comment added :: 7th September 2004, 18:42 GMT+01
protagonist made this comment,
hi red baron – no no – not in a bad mood. i just made the mistake of not choosing the movie YOU suggested, which i will have to do in the future.
but on this topic, i have to say that i am willing to compromise with Kerry. one needs to be strategic with one’s vote. think of the 980 americans who would today be alive if 600 morons in florida actually read their friggin ballot (or if 1 moron consulted a psychologist like me about the ballot design) and think of the countless Iraqis who would not be dead. I’m not willing to take that risk with Nader. Not this time.

[Redbaron responds – But when do you draw a line in the sand regarding the compromise, how many times must you do it and see no changes before you get pissed off? I guess that time came and went for me already.]

comment added :: 7th September 2004, 19:35 GMT+01
haywood made this comment,
Baron I have to strongly disagree with you, what good would come of voting for Nader? The simple fact is he has no chance of winning, if he recieves a large block of votes it will all but insure a Bush victory, Kerry is not anything special by any means, but are you really saying that it would be the same as 4 more years of the Bush doctrine? I know where you are coming from, but this election is to important to worry about the Kerry centerist to rightward leanings. Bush is a crazed facist and must be removed from office.
Another term would almost certinly alow Bush to apoint a member to the Supreme court setting America back to the age of the Pilgrims.

Vote Kerry Edwards 04′

Visit me @ http://cjh9999.blog-city.com

[Redbaron responds – Haywood old son I expected you to be one of the main detractors of my point of view on this one but I’m afraid I stand by my decision whilst I understand yours. It is exactly the charge that was levvied at us when Respect was founded that we’d split the Labour vote and let the Tories win, well we thought you can’t make an omlette etc. etc. and the Labour policies were simply old Tory ones anyway. So we took the plunge knowing it would have short term effects. I agree in this case for you the short-term effects could well be very serious and have international fall-out but it seems to me to be the ONLY way to change something in US politics which has been this way for over 50 years I mean come on Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Snr, Clinton, Bush Jnr where were the genuine differences in International operations, the CIA role in Central and Southern America, the interventionist tactics etc. etc.? Kerry won’t change dick, I’m sorry mate but he’s an establishment figure and he bats for the home team.]

comment added :: 7th September 2004, 20:21 GMT+01
haywood made this comment,
I feel like I’m chasing a carrot on a string, possibly riding a donkey
Baron, both you and I know that none of this is realivant. Bush, yes or no? I do for all it’s faults still love my country, and I fear for it’s soul and exsistence could possibly be lost with the re-election of bush.

sorry for the holly interpretation, but things are diffrent in the states, god help us all.

CJ Haywood 2020

[Redbaron responds – Haywood mate, I think you have to get this in proportion, I too baulk at the idea of Bush in for another term the same way I did with Reagan, but look at the Reagan era for example, 3 terms of extreme right-wing politics and what happened afterwards, 2 terms of moderate right-wing politics and then back to the extreme. The issue can no longer be Bush yes or no it HAS to be ‘US politics where to now?’ Of course the risks are great and the likelihood is that Bush is going to get in again this time and this will affect the whole world. But I would rather write off this next 4 year term and ensure a genuinely left-wing democratic candidate for next time than have Kerry win now and perpertuate the same centre right/extreme right politics for another decade. Nader has to stand, there has to be a choice if your democratic system is not a farce. At the moment the Bush – Kerry debate is similar to the candidates at an East German election, sure put your cross in for one of them but don’t expect it to change anything. Now with you Haywood you are a self-confessed liberal and if you genuinely agree with Kerry’s politics then that’s fine I have no problem with that but for those who are only going along with it as the most credible alternative to Bush let me tell you that’s what happened here in England and we’ve had 7 years of the alternative and the difference between it and what it preceeded you could write on the back of a postage stamp.]

comment added :: 8th September 2004, 06:33 GMT+01
haywood made this comment,
I again state my case that I am more in line with Ralph Naders stances. But the stakes are to high now, We must defeat Bush. Now I know that we are just playing into this two party b.s. — pick the puppet on left or right, but the one on the right has the intention to bring the world to an end, and fullfill biblical prophesy…. chew on that one.
Visit me @ http://cjh9999.blog-city.com

[Redbaron responds – Mmm that’s a chewy one it’s like a fruit pastille, but I return to the point that we have been here before Reagan was the same Apocalypse-wielding nutcase and his 2 terms were hardly good for the world, the fact that as a result of the 80s the world hasn’t stopped it happening again proves that something a little more drastic needs to be done. Now I’m all for taking direct action and you guys overthrowing the government after all it’s no skin off my nose I’m not even a democrat. But I can’t see it happening so I’m advocating a more long-term and hopefully ultimately peaceful solution with the Nader vote. Kerry may not bring us to the brink of WWIII but by the same token he will not stop the man who might being elected in 2008 or 2012.]

comment added :: 9th September 2004, 01:46 GMT+01
haywood made this comment,
valid point but easliy refuteable — in the reagan days it was strictly ussr vs. usa, and the outcome of this was mutual assured destruction. Now we have Al queda vs. Bush, and I fear that the terrorists have no fear of apocolypse.
we have one group of fundimentalists vs. another. If we would like to make our way twards peace it would require one of these groups be dismantled, and Al queda is only growing stronger.

Check, Haywood

[Redbaron responds – Well you say that but to be honest the goal of the Islamic fundamentalist is not the apocalypse but the conversion of the infidel to Islam and that would be no good if they’d wiped the whole world out. Individual suicide bombers and such like is a different setup entirely as this is designed to strike at the heart of the enemy. I agree wholeheartedly for peace it would be necessary for the fundamentalist groups to be disbanded, this can only be done if it happens on both sides and with the best will in the world can even the staunchest Kerry supporter see Kerry doing anything about either those on the Muslim side or the Christian side? I think not, the only way to counter balance this would be for a serious resurgence from the Left and that is not going to happen overnight in such a reactionary country as the US. If the present system is allowed to continue there will NEVER be an election that offers a direct left-wing candidate as the alternative to the right-wing establishment figure. A vote for Kerry consigns the US into the sort of right-wing Blairite policy that Britain is in, and we are hardly less threatened by terrorism here than you are. Sorry Haywood but I see mate for me in 2!]

comment added :: 9th September 2004, 02:38 GMT+01
Dave made this comment,
I agree with the Baron. I’m a big believer in democracy and it makes me sick to the stomach to see its most vocal proponents (Mr Bush, Mr Blair etc) undermining it at every opportunity. Until we all get fairer and more democratic electoral systems, all those of us who believe in democracy can do is vote with our hearts and do our best to encourage others to do the same. Any sort of tactical voting takes us further away from true democracy.
Visit me @ http://wheresdave.blog-city.com

comment added :: 9th September 2004, 14:10 GMT+01
haywood made this comment,
Baron I was not speaking of the goal of the terrorists, only that the Terrorists, unlike the USSR would probably not fear dropping an A-bomb right here in the states.
[Redbaron responds – Weeeeeel, don’t forget terrorists survive a lot on support and donations and such like, such an outwardly agressive move would marginalise much of their support. You may claim 9/11 would be the same but in actual fact the newsworthyness of the event for the terrorists far outweighed anything else they could have done that might have caused many more casualties.]

comment added :: 10th September 2004, 02:31 GMT+01
haywood made this comment,
and one more while I’m at it, Baron you’re older than I, you should know that political change takes time. There will be no revolution, if Bush is re-elected American Democrats will progressively move tward the right in the U.S., and in 2008, we’ll have a even more right-ward leaning canidate.
is that the “check in two” you were looking for?


[Redbaron responds – You ageist cad Haywood I might have known it! I do agree with you in that political change within the framework of the status quo takes time, by its very nature the establishment takes time to adapt and absorb this change so that nothing actually happens. It was in fact an American historian who said “Every Revolution looks impossible, until it happens, then its inevitable.” I’m sure that Czar Nicolas thought the same as most of the US. You are indeed correct on your second point in that if Bush were to be re-elected the Democratic party would continue its shift to the right, this surely only goes to show the redundancy of it as a representative political organ -are all the American people moving consistently further right? If Kerry is elected I do not see that trend reversing, at best it will just stop a while until the next Republican is elected when it’ll start again. You have to break that cycle if anything is to change. It’s your call mate, it’s that or Revolution!]

comment added :: 10th September 2004, 02:41 GMT+01
haywood made this comment,
I ment “mate in two!” Have you seen the Kerry political compass?
comment added :: 10th September 2004, 02:44 GMT+01
Jen Tate made this comment,
I will consider voting for Nader if he shows up on the ballot. Honestly, though, I find that my political views tend to fall in a more status quo range. Take the war, for example. Nader believes the United States should relinquish all government-restructuring tasks in Iraq to the UN (to say nothing of corporate interests). Unfortunately, Bush was onto something when he hinted at the UN’s inability to act without deliberation (the United Nations was not built to function otherwise). If Iraq is left by the wayside while international conferences are held to determine the best course of action, something along the lines of a civil war and totalitarian government will establish itself. Kerry, on the other hand, promotes “finishing the job correctly,” so to speak, which, in my opinion, would be the best course of action. I don’t see one path strengthening our damaged international relations more than the other. In many domestic areas, I can only notice nuances of difference that separate Kerry’s platform from Nader’s. Nader is maybe just a little more vocally liberal. And if it will take partisan compromises on the part of our president to mobilize congress, I think Kerry would be a better man for the job.
[Redbaron responds – Hi Jen thanks for the comment and your opinion, I think you may have to draw a distinction between the idea of ‘getting the job done’ for the good of Iraq (in which case why does all the restructuring have to be done by US firms?) and getting the job done to appease US indutry who are making a killing out of this. Of course the UN is slow to act because it as to represent the interests of far more people, or rather of companies spread out over a wider geographical area. What nobody wishes to do is let the Iraqis sort out who they think would do the best job in restructuring their country, a country which after all they are going to have to live in.

As regards policy, I regard Kerry as being very much with Clinton is his politics in what would 15-20 years ago have been considered ‘moderate republican’ territory. Nader is a social democrat, he is not some rampant left-winger so the democratic deficit is already starting to show. But as the choice out of the 3 Nader is the least wedded to big business and the most likely to want to act for the good of the majority rather than the minority.]

comment added :: 10th September 2004, 17:56 GMT+01
protagonist made this comment,
Yeah, Red Baron, you are right on compromising. You can’t keep on saying well, this time Kerry is okay, but next time someone will be better. This is the thing: Dems should have come up with a better candidate. I don’t like Kerry, he isn’t “of the people.” No one knows what the hell he stands for. I don’t think Nader is the answer, fully, because I just think he is a bit too extreme. But I just kinda wish there was someone good – someone with a bit more charisma than Kerry – because most americans only vote based on the shallowest reasons. Its a shame.
And I need to follow your movie suggestions but I don’t know where they are on your site.

Hope you’re well. I’ll be over in Berlin in Oct…wish I could stop by the good old UK but I have just too much to do here in the U.S.

[Redbaron responds – Movie suggestions are in the gutter under ‘Redbaron reviews’ on the left and down a bit. Enjoy Berlin, I loved it in the old days, a bit of the mystique has gone now but it’s still a good place. If you can wangle a stop over in the UK if only to change flights I’ll buy you a pint!!]

comment added :: 14th September 2004, 00:06 GMT+01
A visitor made this comment,
As an Australian, I know my views are pretty damn peripheral to the US election thing, but If I had to vote, I’d vote for Kerry. Tactical voting is as lame as you guys have made out, but if Nader really represents you, voting for him is pointless-he just won’t get in, so the better Nader does, the better Bush will do. Campaign for preferential voting (in the UK as well) instead – that way you can vote for your favourite and also keep the biggest monster among the major parties out of office. Electoral reform is probably at least as likely as Nader winning, after all, and it would open up the field to more than just three high profile candidates.
Incidentally, I’m not over-familiar with Kerry’s domestic platform, but I see his family involvement in international affairs, and his willingness to testify to congress about the savage madness of Vietnam. This is a man with some real ethical dimension to him, and also a sense of the value of multilateralism. The world needs these qualities in a US leader.
Thanx for taking the time to read this rave.
Sean [xld483@yahoo.com]

[Redbaron responds – Thank you for taking the time to write the rant Sean. Your points are valid but I feel that the old anyone but Bush arguement has run its course. If the candidate for the anyone but Bush campaign is merely an equyally uncharismatic establishment figure then you aren’t really making major headway away from Bush. Bush himself isn’t the problem it’s all those behind him that are and they will remain were Kerry to get in. Kerry will bring about no sustained change, we already have the example for this -Clinton.]

comment added :: 21st September 2004, 10:09 GMT+01