----- Original Message -----
From: terraplane blue
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 9:33 AM
Subject: [rhetoric-list] Nader Raiders Abandon Ship
Ralph's intransigence in continuing his quest to split the progressive vote
thus making ending in a bushreich 2.0 version is resulting in long-time
supporters
abandoning his candidacy and wondering about his mental condition. Like Bush
himself , Ralph seems to have lost contact with reality. Hasn't he heard that
the Bushreich is a reich. The parallels between Germany of 1933 and the present
period is disturbing. To not see this or not understand this is fundamental.
Both
regimes consolidated their positions with "wars on terrorism", wholesale
abandon-
ment of civil liberties, world war by incremental unilateral intervention, and
the
the installation of corporatism--or socialism for corporations. Both regimes
implemented an incomes policy designed to return a sizable part the labor force
to conditions close to that of slavery. While Hitler's reich exceeded the Bush
regime in its despotism, at least at this point, even the Nazi's didn't have on
its
agenda the wholesale out-sourcing of all industrial jobs and the end of the
"middle
class" life-style as policy goals. Hitler just wanted to replace the middle
class
through genocide. At any rate many of your former supporters don't want to wait
and see what the Bushreich has in store for us--we will do anything to end it.
A
lot of us don't believe it will go without shenanigans of all sorts.
Your 2000 VP candidate, Winona La Duke has announced that she will not
support your ticket in 2004--she has endorsed Kerry for his commitment to
diplomacy instead of unilateralism in foreign policy, his support of traditional
themes
like adherence to the Constitutional seperation of power and the Bill of Rights,
and
his real program for alternate energy developement. You and your VP
candidate, Peter Comejo repeatedly deny that these real and fundamental
differences exists between Kerry and Bush.
Most troubling of all is your choice of Peter Comejo as your Vice
Presidential
candidate. Comejo successfully acted as a spoiler candidate in the California
state
recall election of Grey Davis. The nowadays investment counselor was a very
familiar "leftist" for decades in Southern California. Confirming some's
suspicions,
Comejo has been positively identified as a cointelpro agent for US intelligence
by
veteran activist D.B. Mays, who was involved in a project in 1968/69 to
establish a
VVAW type organization in and around Los Angeles. According to Mays, Comejo
worked against the success of this project and in fact was instrumental in the
arrest and prosecution of Geronimo Pratt, L.A.'s first anti-war demonstration
co-ordinator in the late 60's on manufactured charges. Pratt was only released
more than 2 decades later when he was found to have been framed. Mays may be
reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Although your ticket with this
"manchurian" candidate is not a likely prospect for inaugeration in 2005, I find
it
troubling that US intelligence is now running their own candidate incognito.
This
sets a bad precedent and you should investigate Comejo yourself.
Brenda Sands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
First Ralph Nader lost high-profile former supporters like Michael Moore, Susan
Sarandon, Tim Robbins and Studs Terkel. Now, less than two weeks before the
election, dozens of former "Nader's Raiders" and other former Nader associates
have announced their own opposition to his candidacy and are launching ads in
battleground states in an attempt to keep the "Nader Factor" to a minimum. The
letter released today from Nader's former Raiders urges voters not to support
their former hero, expresses regret that Nader has taken support from right-wing
groups, and says progressive voters can be the key to the election, by voting
for John Kerry.
The letter, with 75 signatories including organizer Ken Ward, who has served as
Executive Director of Rhode Island PIRG and New Jersey PIRG, and Robert Brandon,
who served as director of Public Citizen's Tax Reform Research Group from
1972-1977, reads:
"Dear Voters,
Many of us -- former Nader's Raiders and leaders of his organizations -- voted
for Ralph Nader in 2000. Many did not. This November, none of us will vote for
Ralph. We believe there is nothing more important than defeating George W. Bush.
Ralph argues that he is creating an independent political voice. In 2000, when
he ran as the Green Party candidate, that may have been true.
In 2004, as the candidate of the increasingly reactionary, anti-immigrant Reform
Party, and the recipient of financial and political support from right-wing
funders and operatives, it is not credible. Unfortunately, Ralph is party to a
disingenuous effort to split the progressive vote in key states.
With the major party candidates in a dead heat, Nader is poised to tip the
election to Bush -- again. We do not agree with Ralph that there is little
difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. We know that the country
cannot afford another four years of Republicans controlling the White House,
both chambers of Congress, the Supreme Court and the entire federal Judiciary.
The price of a protest vote is too high for families who live from paycheck to
paycheck, for those concerned about the realities of war, for those who lack
decent jobs and access to health care, and for the environment.
While Ralph has pursued politically expedient alliances with the right wing,
truly progressive leaders -- from peace activists to unions to former Dean
supporters -- have made substantial progress organizing within the Democratic
Party. United, progressives can build a base for a transformed party funded by
small donors, imbued with progressive values and energized by a vision of a
democratic majority. Divided, we will give four more years to George W. Bush,
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Ashcroft. The progressive vote can be the
key to this election.
We know Ralph Nader better than anyone else. We were inspired to public service
by his vision and his integrity. Now we are disappointed and saddened to see him
embrace the support of reactionary forces who oppose everything we and Ralph
have fought for and whose real agenda is to reelect George Bush.
Join us. Cast your vote for a progressive future and support John Kerry."
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff C Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 7:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Ohio_for_Kerry] Why doesn't anybody kill Nader now??
Why doesn't anybody kill Nader off politically by
making TV ads, flyers, posters etc. of the the
following great news that his own 2000 VP candidate
LaDuke endorsed Kerry in 2004, and bombard Green
voters from 4 years ago with this news (especially in
crucial swing states), so they too won't vote for
Nader again this year:
WINONA LADUKE ENDORSEMENT OF JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT
October 13, 2004, www.indiancountry.com
I am voting for John Kerry this November. I love this
land, and I know that we need to make drastic changes
in Washington if we are going to protect our land and
[...]
Winona LaDuke, Ojibwe from the White Earth
reservation, is program director of Honor the Earth, a
national Native American environmental justice
program. She served as the Green Party vice
presidential candidate in the 1996 and 2000 elections.
She can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Source:
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096409685&CFID=85222&CFTOKEN=41921429
===========================
I've posted this elsewhere, I think it's relevant to this thread.
----- Original Message -----
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 6:34 PM
Subject: Voting your conscience"
It means different things to different people:
[Repaired link // lcm]
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&ncid=2043&e=15&u=/afp/20041017/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_briefs
Nader ex-running mate endorses Kerry
Sun Oct 17
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Ralph Nader's running mate in two past presidential
elections said she plans to cast her ballot in November for Democrat John
Kerry.
"I'm voting my conscience on November 2 -- I'm voting for John
Kerry," Native American activist Winona LaDuke wrote in comments
published this past week in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
[END EXCERPT]
XXXXXXXXXXX
Mexico City
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Leigh does a little research and responds:
It's true, "Conscience" means different things to different
people, that's why I took umbrage at being called "selfish".
But we really need to analyze the self interest/interest part
of individuals claiming "conscience" as a motivating force
behind their actions and words.
*The following is IMHO, because it's not my issue, or my culture.*
Winona LaDuke doesn't seem to be a Native American
activist in any way I have come to understand the term.
>From what I can see, she more like a lobbyist for various
First Nation "hot button" issues like Rez gambling.
>From the Yahoo story:
"She said the Massachusetts senator's support of Native
American communities demonstrates shows that "we are
on his radar." "
And heres one of the blips on that radar, from the homepage of
the White Earth Reservation... http://www.gamingequity.com/
http://www.whiteearth.com/
[Their Jscript locked my browser up for reasons unknown]
I would not care to discuss the cultural costs/benefits
of gambling in re: First Nation society as I am of
Estonian/Latvian/Austrian/German extraction.
But I *will* tell you what I think of gambling. It's effects are
tragic within the population of people most likely to gamble...
The poor.
I see people "scratch" away their welfare checks every month
in a statistically futile attempt to make their "American Dream"
come true.
Gambling doesn't do much better for the working-class either.
I'm not looking for perfect "conscience", no one's perfect.
However, I *am* looking to minimize the participation in elections
by the vested interests of *any* group that's looking to make buck$
by getting their "man" elected.
I *mean* any group.
She has a conscience, but tell me, why should I trust her opinion?
====================
[begin signature]
The roots of repression are, and remain real roots;
consequently, their eradication remains a real and
rational job. What is to be abolished is not the reality
principal, not everything, but such particular things
as business, politics, exploitation, poverty.
To forget this is to mystify the possibilities of liberation."
--Herbert Marcuse
Leigh Meyers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/XgSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
-----
/ o o \
===OO=====OO=============================================
(4)Portals (2)News Wikis (2)Conferences - No More BuSHIT!
Start here: http://pnews.org/ (On Internet since 1982)
http://pnews.org/PhpWiki/ (West Coast News Wiki)
http://g0lem.net/PhpWiki/ (East Coast News Wiki)
=========================================================
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rhetoric-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
