The dialogue with my Naderite friend continues.... My response to her feedback in the "Comments" section of yesterday's post follows:


Ms. K, I respectfully disagree with your contention that my blog sounds like I know all of the troubles of the world. Instead, I believe nearly the entire purpose of my posts involve one thing: stop-gap solutions, for lack of a better description. I have repeatedly stated (to you anyway) that Bush is so extremely bad that what's key right now for the sake of the country is to vote for a better alternative (a better pig?). NOT an ideal, super-duper candidate that has all the right answers to every issue (as I've said, much more so like Nader), but rather one that has a highly-credible chance of beating the truly, extremely awful GW/Cheney. (As much as you may think Kerry is headed to certain defeat, I got news for you: his neck-and-neck polling results versus Bush are at least a tad bit better than Nader's). It's really that simple.

This argument or clarification has more than once gone round the track, but again, the by-far major difference between us is our outlooks on the current political landscape. You/Nader find the two political parties 100% equivalent, both equally bad, toxic, etc., and therefore reject both in favor of Ralph. I disagree feeling that while there absolutely are serious problems with our party system, I find that at this point in our history, NOW is not the time to take an overly-idealistic stance regarding this matter. Thanks to the extremism of GW & Co., I do NOT believe as you and Ralph do that at this point in time the two parties are equal. The percentages do not matter, yet what DOES matter is I find the Dems less repugnant, less damaging, less harmful, less hypocritical, less religious (zealots), etc. etc. Therefore, Kerry (duh) gets my vote.

If we had a Republican Party currently running the show that was just mildly bad, still had moderates with some pull/voice, were at least somewhat reasonable, etc., than I would be much more so with your cause RIGHT NOW. As it is, and as I've said, I agree with nearly everything Ralph says and stands for -- BUT it's a matter of timing. Your railing on and on about how the Dems are just as bad on issue X (put in what you want) as the Repubs is well-meant and frequently accurate, but I believe ultimately misguided given what we may face as an alternative in the next four years.

Whichever one wins (Bush or Kerry), you'll be able to pop off for the next four years with "I told you so" indignation. In effect, you're really not taking a side (at least not a pragmatic one) but instead just effectively condemning and dismissing the whole kit and caboodle, leaving you free and clear to finger point and dictate. You know, I could easily do the same (again, I agree with Ralph) but choose not to for the reasons stated above. In the end, I truly believe I'm taking the more difficult stance / path. Lord knows my "pig" (Kerry) will be imperfect and will be a ripe target for criticism, but 1) I'd rather that imperfect pig over the other one (to use Animal Farm imagery), and 2) if Ralph were to win (!), you know, he'd be ripe for criticism also (he's not perfect!) -- I can elaborate on how this might be so.

Enough for now, but I have a feeling this endless debate will be repeated, fresh with new analogies, metaphors, etc.