Brian,
Many of your comments are thoughtful and insightful. However, your
refusal to understand the practical problems inherent in introducing a
third candidate into an election appalls me. Perhaps voters who went
with Nader last election were disgusted enough to make a stand. But the
reality of that act, voting for Nader, left what happened a certainty.
There are two questions I would appreciate your answering for me. 1/
What led you to decide not to vote for him this election? 2/ Surely
you knew when you voted for him last time that his running would make it
easier for Bush to win? What was your reasoning then for doing so? Or
did the significance of either candidate's winning mean little or
nothing to you?
Gore's winning the election, to my mind, meant the furtherance and
continuation of stem cell research, so critically important today.
Gore's winning meant silencing, however diplomatically, the Christian
Right (a neo-Nazi group about which you surely agree with me) a bit more
than today's travesty of our personal freedoms. Gore's winning might
have meant much better world government relations. How did one American
manage to alienate an entire world in one year after world-wide sympathy
after 9/11? There are even some wags or wonks who pose the awful
supposition, the creepy idea, that Bush's winning pushed the world order
to cause 9/11. In that these Mid-Eastern terrorists were after
"George's Boy" to get to the "old man."
My God, man, Gore isn't perfect. His cabinet might have been the same
old bureaucrats, along traditionally bi-partisan lines. But what has
transpired with Reagan-and-Bush-#1-cabinet members has surely given you
pause. Nader's important role in our country's legislative history has
been sadly over-shadowed by this present-day, menopausal desire on his
part, this mid-life crisis, to continue his savior role.
Sande Knight
tel. 215-246-2424
fax 215-405-3178
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended
for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the
intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or
distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly
prohibited.
--- Begin Message ---
Knight, Sandra (US - Philadelphia) wrote:
> It has surprised me that no one has broached the subject of Ralph
> Nader's late entry into another presidential election. Can anyone
> explain why this elderly excuse for a crusader should enter this race?
> Isn't it a foregone conclusion that he's being "paid" for his entry?
> Don't know the type of currency being used though. Or the political
> "group" who is issuing the currency, although I have some ideas. When
> I think of him, the word 'opprobrium' springs to my lips. Sigh…four
> more years of Bubba.
>
Frankly, Sandra, it's because of stunted, know-nothing comments such as
yours that kind of keep people from discussing Nader intelligently.
I voted for Nader in 2000, and I have no regrets over it. I did lose a
number of friends, Democratic loyalists who became _extremely_
irrational over their belief that my vote actually belonged to Al Gore,
and I wasn't behaving properly by not giving it to him. The experience
taught me a lot-- mainly, that liberals were every bit as likely to fall
into authoritarian modes of thought, and were just as willing as
Republicans to push the for-us-or-for-the-terrorists buttons. And while
right-wingers may accuse their opponents of treason, or lack of
religious value, Democrats tended to accuse Nader and his supporters of
_psychiatric_ disorders, i.e., childishness, egomania, and the like.
It was a spectacle all around: it was hilarious during the month-long
runoff in Florida, but it became genuinely ugly as the Democrats decided
to blame the _entire_ mss on Ralph Nader. Never mind the corrupt voting
practices in Florida, the thousands of black voters ejected from the
rolls, the Jews-for-Buchanan item, the thuggish efforts of the
Republicans, Gore's failure to pursue a proper vote-count, the votes
acquired by other third-party candidates, and the Supreme Court: the
Democrats _had_ to blame _Ralph Nader_. (I recently heard that Common
Cause, a group Nader founded, lost a _lot_ of donations in the aftermath
of the election. Never mind that Nader hasn't had anything to do with
them or nearly twenty years; the Democrats were in the mood to punish,
and it didn't matter who got hit.)
What does this reveal? That the Democratic party leadership does _not_
want to have to hear anything from its more leftist factions. Its
attitude is, generally, that its candidates have to be "electable"
(i.e., they have to appeal to Republican voters), and that the
rank-and-file should just shut the hell up and be _grateful_ that its
candidates are not _completely_ Republicans. It's the worst aspect of
the "lesser of two evils" tactic: it tells the candidates that, as long
as they differ from the Republicans in some minor respect, the candidate
can be as much of a suck-up to corporations and the military as he or
she likes.
Frankly, I suspect that the Democrats are _grateful_ for the fact that
Bush has turned into such a major fuckin' demon. Why? When Bush and Gore
ran against each other, they really weren't all that different. Okay,
Bush talked about schools and jobs, while Gore talked about high
technology and free trade, so they sounded like their opposite party.
But the Democrats are _ecstatic_ that Bush has asserted himself as an
ill-educated maniac. This has mobilized their constituency far more than
any of the candidates they've offered recently. And they can point at
Bush and say that everything they ever claimed about Gore, and Nader,
has been vindicated.
And Sandra's comments above are sorty of typical for the bottom of the
barrel. The comment "Isn't it a foregone conclusion that he's being
"paid" for his entry? Don't know the type of currency being used though.
Or the political "group" who is issuing the currency, although I have
some ideas." isn't far from Ann Coulter's demented screeds about
treason. And the "Four more years of Bubba" is just infantile wailing.
Really? You think Nader's going to have an impact _greater_ than his
minor influence in 2000? (And if the election's going to be so close,
and if a Bush victory seems probable... well, maybe the Democrats ought
to pick better candidates.)
No, I won't be voting for Nader this time, and I don't think he'll be
much of a factor in this election. I wish he'd decided to be more of a
rabble-rouser-at-large. I'm not thrilled about John Kerry as a candidate
(I'd be happier with Edwards), and I resent having my vote shoehorned
into supporting whatever drone the Democrats decide is "electable." But
I am heartily sick of people bashing the man. He's done more for
Americans than nearly any elected official I can think of, and while it
saddens me that his legacy's going to be hurt by this latest run, it's a
fuckin' outrage that Democrats are so eager and willing to _help_ trash
that legacy.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
--- End Message ---
