Ganahl: I care passionately about the American dream and opportunity, making sure that our kids and grandkids have the same opportunity that I did. I came from a family that had little money, but lots of love and inspiration and encouraged me to go do big things. And I'm really worried about what's happening on that front now.
In the aftermath of eight years of Gov. Bobby Jindal's destructive policies, we are now engaged in a battle to save Louisiana from another four years of the same failed ideas. Columnist Robert Mann suggests that "a vote for John Bel Edwards is a vote for David Vitter." He goes on to say that Democratic voters should support one of the other Republican candidates because he believes my identity as a Democrat precludes me from beating Vitter. My message to Mr. Mann and other skeptics is: You're wrong.
Voters Dont Really Care If A Candidate Is Vegan
A vote for John Bel Edwards is a vote for the only candidate who has stood up to Jindal from the beginning. It's a vote for a West Point graduate who proudly served his country in the 82nd Airborne Division. A vote for family values that aren't just preached, but lived. A vote to invest in our children's future and higher education. A vote to bring our tax dollars home and provide health care to hundreds of thousands of working families. A vote for a pro-life, pro-gun, conservative Democrat.
Louisiana is in a fight that touches the lives of every citizen. From families paying 80 percent higher tuition since Jindal took office, to those hardworking Louisianians still waiting for critical health care services. Our roads and bridges are crumbling, and our hospitals and emergency rooms are closing. Bobby Jindal values his ambitions over his constituents, and the reality is that my opponents share these same values. I am the only candidate in this race who has been waging war alongside those who have suffered and lost too much over the past eight years.
To say that doesn't matter, or that voters won't care because of the letter behind my name, is offensive. Louisiana wants and deserves change, and that won't come from candidates who want to duplicate the same broken policies that got us here.
In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat. Nader disputes that he helped Bush to win.[59][60][61] A 2003 study found that Nader's candidacy was a critical factor in Bush's victory.[62] A 2004 study found that Nader voters had the profile of likely voters with a preference for Democratic candidates.[63] They were therefore likely to vote for Gore over Bush in the absence of Nader's candidacy.[63]
Ralph Nader and Democratic candidate John Kerry held a widely publicized meeting early in the 2004 presidential campaign. Nader said that John Kerry wanted to work to win Nader's support and the support of Nader's voters, prompting Nader to provide Kerry more than 20 pages of issues that he felt were important. According to Nader, he asked John Kerry to choose any three of the issues and highlight them in his campaign; should Kerry meet these conditions Nader would not contest the election. On February 22, 2004, having not heard back from Kerry, Nader announced that he would run for president as an independent.
Stein began her political career by running as the Green-Rainbow Party candidate for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. Her running mate was Tony Lorenzen, a high school theology teacher. She finished third in a field of five candidates, with 76,530 votes (3.5%), far behind the winner, Republican Mitt Romney.[13]
@ Too much heat for: Really? That is the best that you can come up with? As I have stated many times in comments on the Palo Alto Online, I am no "fan" of Donald Trump. I know that you and others apparently have some obsessed hatred for the man. I totally get that. Personally, I couldn't stand the corruption of the Clinton machine. I rolled my eyes at Bernie Sanders' poor math skills. Joe Biden is as suave as fingernails on a chalkboard. Yet, I never once hated any of those politicians. I certainly didn't rail against them excessively like some of the most partisan syncophants on internet message boards. I didn't march through the streets on the day after the previous two elections as part of a "resistance" demanding blood. Still, Trump wasn't my first, second or even twelfth choice. He just wasn't conservative enough for me (and I didn't really like his foot-in-mouth issues). I was holding out hope for a few other candidates to win the nomination. I simply felt that Trump was the best remaining option on election day. I am proud of that choice and I would gladly make it again if that same election were held today. The one thing that does make me happy about Trump is that he calls out partisan, agenda-driven op-ed organizations and writers that masquerades as "news" outlets and "journalists." I've wondered why politicians were willing to allow media outlets to go unchecked with their slanted, agenda-driven reporting.My question stand. Why does a food blog turn into a partisan political diatribe? I guess that there are enough cheerleaders to applaud. However, I would shake my head even if the object of the writer's vitriol was Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer or Hillary Clinton. It is amazing that partisan politics have invaded sports, late night comedy and even food blogs. Wouldn't it be nice if people were able to separate their sociopolitical views from such things that aren't really intrinsically tied to politics. Of course, this is difficult for ideologues who might view the world through a single "my way or the highway" lens.
It\u2019s true that many Democratic voters are unhappy with Biden \u2014 especially many of the young voters who surged into the 2020 election. They had expected Biden to pass more ambitious legislation on a range of issues -- slowing climate change, subsidizing childcare and eldercare, lowering the prices of prescription drugs, expanding healthcare, and raising taxes on the rich to pay for all this.
These so-called \u201Cculture wars\u201D have served to distract such voters from the brute fact that the Republican Party has zero ideas to reverse the economic trends that left the working class behind. The culture wars have also distracted attention from the near-record shares of national income and wealth that have shifted to the top. As well as from the Republican\u2019s role in pushing even more to the top through tax cuts and subsidies, attacks on labor unions, and refusals to support social benefits that have become standard in most other advanced nations (such as paid sick and family leave, universal healthcare, and generous unemployment insurance). 2ff7e9595c
Comments