I was originally going to title this, "Are third party advocates trolls" but decided I could save the vititol for a later date.
There have always been green party advocates and Nader apologists floating around this site. Largely harmless, a little anoying now and then. But lately, as we grow closer to the 2008 election, their numbers around here seem to have rocketed. So, are they serious?
Often, in diarist crafted polls, large percentages of people claim that if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee they will vote third party or not vote at all. In a few recent ones, I believe the percentage was around 1/4th.
Increasingly, Edwards and even Obama are considered unsuitable by third party advocates. Convinced that Edwards wants to nuke Iran (he really, really doesn't) and Obama want to... (I don't even know their reasons with him) they deem these two unsuitable.
The old "there's no difference between the Democrats and Republicans" often gets trotted out. One would think that the experience of the last 6 years might suggest differently. Gore would have been a better President by an infinite measure. Since then, our candidates become even more liberal and progressive. John Kerry and many of our current crop of nominees fall to the left of Gore. And yet they are still unexceptable?
Does anyone believe that the election of Rudy Giuliani, or McCain, or Hagel or Brownback will somehow benifit this country? Even if Giuliani is the most liberal Republican in the country, he's still far to the right of our most conservative nominee. He would still install wingnut judges. He would be far worse on foreign policy and economic matters. You worry about civil liberties? Giuliani is not the man for you. And all of the other Republican candidates are worse than him.
So, are they serious?