On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 01:09:43AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> Quite simply, protecting human life is of the utmost importance to me
....
> Besides, I think you can make a pretty credible case that we truly
> don't know what Gore *really* thinks on just about anything.
Imagine how the press might portray John Giorgis:
Here is someone who claims that protecting human life is
of the utmost importance, and yet Giorgis has supported
government-sanctioned executions. Furthermore, he claims that
human life is the predominant political issue to him, and yet he
has recently changed his opinion from pro-death-penalty to weak
anti-death-penalty, casting into doubt his most closely held
convictions. Will he change his mind yet again?
Now, I don't mean to attack you personally, John. I was just trying to
illustrate a point. In fact, I respect you for willingness to re-examine
your beliefs and decide anew what is right and ethical. I also respect
Al Gore for being willing to re-examine his beliefs, to listen to the
opinions and thoughts of others, and to decide what he thinks is right
and best for the country AT THE PRESENT TIME.
(Incidentally, of Nader, Gore, and Bush, Nader is the only one who does
not support government-sanctioned executions)
> Say what you will about Bush, though, but he has stuck to an unpopular
> tax cut plan and an unpopular Social Security plan EVEN AGAINST THE
> RECOMENDATION OF HIS OWN ADVISORS.
Far from being praise-worthy, to me, this looks like a combination of
stupidity and stubborness -- the worst combination imaginable. This is a
perfect example of why I would not vote for Bush for President.
> Both houses of Congress are going to be dividied right down the pipe,
> which will make it nearly impossible to accomplish anything extreme.
Maybe, but I think that there is a lot more possibility for change in
the Congressional election than in the Presidential election. I agree
with a lot of the policies that Nader advocates. He is less extreme
than most of the Green party, and apparently not a member of the Green
party even though the Green Party put him on their ticket. If Nader
were running for Congress, I would definitely vote for him. But for
President, I am voting for Gore.
I think the Nader and Green Party advocates would do most to achieve
their goals by voting for Gore for President, while supporting
candidates for Congress and local elections who are more in line with
Nader or the Green Party.
Some of Nader's positions I strongly agree with:
http://www.votenader.com/issues/livingwage.html
http://www.votenader.com/issues/affordablehousing.html
http://www.votenader.com/issues/edu_vouchers.html
http://www.votenader.com/issues/DeathPenalty.html
http://www.votenader.com/issues/corp_antitrust.html
Some of Nader's positions that he needs to re-think:
http://www.votenader.com/issues/military-budget.html
http://www.votenader.com/issues/fairtrade.html
http://www.votenader.com/issues/race_affimative_action.html
***
"Sitting down and reading a 500-page book on public policy or philosophy
or something."
-George W. Bush, asked to name something he isn't good at by Talk
magazine, September 1999 issue.
***
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
