I live in a purple part of the country (Virginia) and move in academic circles, so of course I know many, many people who will be voting for Obama. It is impossible to know, but if I sodomized the Easter Bunny in front of their children the look on my Obama-voter friends’ faces could scarcely be much different than the look they get when I say I am voting for Jill Stein.
“But this is a swing state…you have to vote for Obama…what if Romney wins?!?”
The pain in their voices tugs at my sympathies; their fear is very real. I want to reassure them, but I was cured a few presidential elections ago. I won’t be drinking from that cup again.
At first they assume I don’t understand what’s at stake. They tell me about the Romney/Ryan agenda. They tell me about Obamacare. They tell me about DOMA and the Fair Pay Act. But the conversation wanes when I am not only unsurprised by the information but able to supply amplifications and corrections. I’ve read the (detailed summary of) the Affordable Care Act. I know about Romney’s probable agenda. I even know the age and bodily afflictions of key members of the Supreme Court. In short, I know what’s at stake.
So, basically, the text itself demeans anyone who dare vote against it as someone who is against smarter kids and more involved parents, not to mention that such a voter must be against charter schools per se. But the facts are far less clear. As I will explain below, this Amendment does not do what it says it will do, but is rather using empty platitudes to convince the uneducated voter to vote for it. Such tactics are dangerous. With this logic, the text of an amendment banning abortion would say “Provides for healthier, happier babies by ensuring birth.” It’s just not true.
Amendment 1 is a thinly-veiled attempt for out of state companies to profit off of Georgia students, without any regard to how well-educated they are.
As O'Donnell puts it: "Having spent my lifetime in states irrelevant to the electoral college, I have mostly voted for third party candidates for president, and I was always told I was wasting my vote. When I voted for Democrats for presidents who lost, I was never told I was wasting my vote. I have actually voted for the winner of the presidency exactly once, so please don’t try to tell me that voting for a candidate who loses is wasting a vote in a democracy. If you live in a battleground state, voting for a third party candidate can be a bit dicier."
But of course all concerned know that the Republicans will take Georgia and that a Georgia vote for either corporate party will not change the Electoral College outcome and will in fact be wasted.
Today Cheri Honkala, Green Party VP nominee said: "We need you to vote online right now to send Jill to the next Free&Equal third-party debate in Washington, D.C."
Free&Equal organized last night's debate to which they invited the Presidential Candidates who had met the criteria traditionally used by the League of Women Voters. Next week, Free&Equal will hold a follow-up debate between the two candidates who garner the most votes in an online poll, which closes at 10:30 pm Eastern this evening.
"Time is short, momentum is building and with your help we can keep our Green Presidential nominee in front of the American public in next week's debate," said Bruce Dixon, Chairman of the Georgia Green Party. Anyone with access to a browser and an email address can participate by going to: http://freeandequal.org/vote/.
Environmental groups have been complaining in the media that the words "climate change" were not mentioned in the recent Presidential debates.
What the environmental groups should be complaining about is what Obama and Romney have said about climate change.
And they should be concerned enough about climate change to publicize that there is a national Presidential candidate talking about climate change, the Green Party's Jill Stein. The Green New Deal, the cornerstone of her campaign, calls for a massive investment in renewable energy and sustainability, an investment that also creates a public jobs program to put the 25 million un- and under-employed Americans to work.
. . .
Climate change advocates defend their silence on Stein's position by arguing that she has no chance of winning - though she is on the ballot in enough states to be elected. It is the Catch 22 dilemma. But the lesser-of-two-evils strategy allows the Democrats to ignore issues such as climate change, the environment, poverty, hunger, etc. The best that climate change activists can hope for is that Obama has been lying to the American people about his energy policies.
In 2007 and 2008 Senator Barack Obama ran for the office of President on a platform of change; "change we can believe in", as he repeatedly claimed.
Many progressives donated money to candidate Barack Obama's campaign, and they voted enthusiastically for Barack Obama in the 2008 election, myself included. The reason why many of us cannot bring ourselves to vote for President Obama this November is that he did not bring that promised change to Washington, in fact, he doubled down on most of the Bush/Cheney era policies that progressives despised. Progressive policies were never even discussed.
So setting aside what the President says about his agenda on the campaign trail, let's take a look at his record over the last 3 and a half years and some of the reasons why so many progressives are looking for alternatives this coming November.
Monday, Oct. 22. 8:30 p.m. – midnight ET, Democracy Now! continues the "Expanding the Debate" series with a special live broadcast of the final 2012 presidential debate. We will pause the video after the 2 major party candidates answer each question to include real-time responses from the Green Party’s Jill Stein and the Justice Party’s Rocky Anderson. Libertarian Gary Johnson declined to participate.