Jim,
Speaking of the evil of two lessers, I rather
enjoyed the Liberty Meadows cartoon of several
weeks back. One of the characters is watching TV
with a voice coming off it. It says, "why vote for the
lesser of two evils? Vote for Lord Voldemoort for
president!"
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, November 06, 2000 12:30 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4028] Re: Re: The Green Machine
>Yesterday, the secular Jewish community that my family is involved with had
>an adult discussion of whom to vote for (and, more importantly, which
>ballot propositions to vote for). By the time we got to the Nader vs. Gore
>discussion, it became very clear that people were pretty tired of the whole
>debate. (I know my wife & I wish the election would be done with NOW, since
>the available choices are so depressing. Some thought has been put into the
>option of voting for Captain Morgan for President, since his spiced rum is
>so good. He beats Mr. Clean, another highly-advertised candidate, hands
>down. You can't drink the latter's product.)
>
>Anyway, one thing I found interesting about the discussion is that (1) this
>generally left-liberal group favored voting for the evil of two lessers, Al
>Gore, but (2) they would have preferred having Ralph Nader participating in
>the "debates."
>
>This seems highly contradictory. If Ralph had participated in the "debates"
>(so that we could have taken the scare quotes off), there's a good change
>he could have gotten more votes, so that the lesser-of-two-evils crowd
>would be yelling at the Naderians even more loudly. It seems to me that if
>you really believe in Gore as superior to Bush, you don't want Nader
>involved in the debates at all.
>
>BTW, someone at the meeting suggested we all read Harold Meyerson's article
>about the Greens in the current L.A. WEEKLY (an alternative entertainment
>rag, owned by the VILLAGE VOICE I believe, specializing in sex and plastic
>surgery ads with left-of-center politics thrown in). He trashes Nader (for
>being willing to defeat even Paul Wellstone) and the Greens (for being
>incoherent and sectarian). But he misses the point. A vote for Nader isn't
>a vote for Nader or even for the Greens. It's a way of telling Gore & Bush
>that there are other political forces besides those of big money and the
>ultra-Right.
>
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
>
