Votes for Votes

The local rag has a story about Nader’s ballot problems in Texas, and features this gem from the Texas Donks:

Mike Lavigne, a spokesman for the Texas Democratic Party, said Mr. Nader’s efforts were misplaced.

“Nader is a spoiler. That’s all he is,” he said. “I think Democrats realize that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.”

Oh really? I had hoped that we would stay away from this one. It is pretty stupid. I heard it all the time as a Libertarian voter. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader, not Bush. A vote for Harry Browne was a vote for Browne. (I’m glad he didn’t win, now that it turns out that he is a fink and a crook.)

Here’s the best part, though: If it is the official line for Democrat spokesmen that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, does that mean that it is OK to reciprocate by saying that a vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Queda?

3 Comments

  1. glenn says:

    If Kerry, or even Gore for that matter, were a more viable candidate and actually had people who WANTED to vote for them because of their policy and not their party affiliation Donkeys wouldn’t be whining about Nader.

    Donks know that they’re all full of s**t and over the past few years have creeped way towards the middle.

  2. The Sicilian says:

    You’re assumption is correct, better yet, a vote for Kerry is a vote for The UN and Al Queda.

  3. Mexigogue says:

    Stop! You’re confusing the Floridians!