Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:27:26 -0700
From: tal pomeroy <•••@••.•••>
Subject: why not to vote for Gore
>Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:22:22 -0700
>From: tal pomeroy <•••@••.•••>
>Subject: why not to vote for Gore
>
>----- Original Message ----- From:
><mailto:•••@••.•••>Michael Eisenscher To:
>May 29, 2000 4:57 PM Subject: FW: Promoting spoilage
>
>[I would have thought that the Greens'motto might be "One person's
>spoilage is another's compost."
>
>-----Original Message----- From: Scott McLarty
>Friday, May 26, 2000 5:39 PM To: Hugh Esco;
>
>"I really need some help on addressing this Judicial Appointment
>concern. Someone promised more on this subject a couple of weeks
>ago in our thread about responding to the spoiler argument [i.e.,
>that Nader will spoil for Gore and allow a Bush win]. This is my
>request for follow-through on that." --Hugh Esco
>
>Hi Hugh & al.
>
>The chief article discussing this is:
>
>John Nichols, "The Clinton Courts: Liberals Need Not Apply," The
>Progressive, Sept. 1996
>
>I'll see if I can find a link to it. (If anyone else finds it
>first, send it out.)
>
>In the meanwhile, since Greens have begun to face more serious
>accusations of spoilage, I threw together some comments and quotes,
>appended herebelow.
>
>If you have other arguments or lists of Clinton/Gore horror stories,
>send them to me. I'd like to compile a list of reasons not to vote
>for Gore. We should anticipate hatchet jobs on Nader and the
>Greens, similar to the recent smear in The New Republic, over the
>next few months.
>
>If people begin to feel embarrassed and apologetic about voting for
>Gore and other compromised Dems, it's a first step in persuading
>them to vote Green.
>
>Scott
>
>* * * * * * * * * * *
>
>ARGUMENTS FOR SPOILING
>
>Let the Democratic Party prove it deserves votes, with positions and
>arguments based on issues, not with a Republican gun held to
>people's heads. The Democrats do not or "own" people's votes; no one
>is morally obliged to vote Democrat. The Greens and Nader cannot
>"steal" votes from anyone.
>
>We are in politics not to defer to people more powerful than we are
>but to win elections and advance Green values.
>
>Our obligation, as we feel it, is to build a third party. The
>short-term consequences (such as a Bush win) are less dire than the
>Democratic Party's drift to the right, which has already resulted in
>"free trade" agreements, greater power for corporations to control
>every aspect of our lives, compromise on everything from the
>environment to labor to human rights, etc. Without the presence of
>the Green Party, our elected officials -- including Democrats --
>will be even MORE Republican ten years from now. The Green Party's
>role is a historical necessity.
>
>The Green Party will -- if we achieve any measure of success --
>inspire people to vote who've been alienated in the past because of
>the lack of candidates who represent their interests. Such new
>voters are more likely to vote for progressive Democrats for local
>office if they vote for Nader for President. (Unless there's a
>Green candidate for the same office, of course.)
>
>The Green Party is not a left-wing or environmental extension of the
>Democratic Party, and we owe Democrats no fealty. The media and
>public opinion tend to place the Dems and the Greens on the left
>side of the spectrum and the GOP on the right. This is wrong. The
>Democratic and Republican Parties stand together -- not on the right
>or the left but at the TOP, with their corporate benefactors and
>masters, and the Greens stand BELOW with ordinary taxpayers, working
>people, and the poor and disenfranchised, as well as with the earth
>itself. The question before voters is: who represents you? (The
>answer is not "Green candidates represent you" but "Greens want a
>true democracy in which you have more power to represent yourself.")
>
>In March, 1995, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich stood on a dais in
>New Hampshire and shook hands over a pledge to enact campaign
>finance reform. The handshake ended the possibility of reform for
>the rest of the decade. Whether the Democrats and Republicans reach
>"bipartisan" agreement or they argue an issue within narrow
>corporate-determined limits, the rest of us lose out. It's what
>happened with health care reform, with global warming, with bombs
>and embargoes for Iraq and the former Yugoslavia and other nations,
>with international lending and free trade (most recently with
>China), with SDI ("Star Wars") and defense spending, etc.
>(Corollary: If you believe corporate special-interest money has
>corrupted politics, vote for the party that refuses all such
>donations.)
>
>The Democrats can no longer hold Supreme Court appointments for
>ransom. Clinton appointee Stephen Breyer is a conservative and a
>patsy for big business interests; Bush appointee David Souter is now
>one of the Supreme Court liberals. (Nader: "People are kidding
>themselves if they think either Gore or Bush will pick the next
>Supreme Court nominee. Orrin Hatch will pick the next nominee."
>Hatch is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which
>clears nominees.)
>
>The Clinton/Gore legacy on civil liberties: more than double the
>number of wiretaps of the Reagan and Bush administrations, the
>Anti-terrorism Act (sanctioning secret evidence, weakening habeas
>corpus and Fourth Amendment protections), the War on Drugs,
>Democrats for the death penalty, "don't ask, don't tell" and
>increased anti-gay witchhunts in the military, zero tolerance,
>mandatory sentencing and weakening of judges' discretion, racial
>disparities in drug sentencing, more people in jail for marijuana
>offenses, Waco, military training of urban and town police forces
>(ordered by Clinton himself), a burgeoning private prison industry
>(an effect of which is to creative an investment incentive to lock
>more people up, i.e., criminalize more people and give them longer
>sentences), dismissal of Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders for candid
>discussion of sexuality and criticism of drug laws, the DC
>Revitalization Act (establishing a bureaucracy accountable only to
>Congress to rule DC), attempts to federalize prosecution of crimes
>the Constitution says are the domain of states (the Supreme Court
>last week struck down one such law), condemnation of medical
>marijuana and needle exchange, the Defense of Marriage Act,
>Katherine Willey's private letters. (Sam Smith can probably double
>this list!)
>
>Had we elected a Republican president in 1992 and 1996, most of the
>above would never have happened, or would have faced fierce
>Democratic opposition. Instead, Clinton and Gore ensured the
>acquiescence and cooperation of most Democrats, as well as many
>mainstream liberal organizations. We are LESS FREE than we were
>eight years ago -- thanks to Democrats and "liberals."
>
>Ralph Nader: "You can't spoil what's already rotten."
>
>Tim Hermach, executive director of the Native Forest Council in
>Eugene, Oregon: "How often can we be betrayed, lied to, cheated and
>stolen from and still have us go back to that trough?"
>
>David Brower, late of the Sierra Club: "President Clinton has done
>more to harm the environment and to weaken environmental regulations
>in three years than Presidents Bush and Reagan did in 12 years"
>
>Eugene Debs: "It's better to vote for what you want and not get it
>than to vote for what you don't want and get it."
>
>Tal Pomeroy, M.D.
>•••@••.•••
>www.pigheaven.com
>Cancer Prevention and Treatment Center of the Central Coast
>3035 Main St. , Soquel, Ca 95073
>831-462-8750
Tal Pomeroy, M.D.
•••@••.•••
www.pigheaven.com
Cancer Prevention and Treatment Center of the Central Coast
3035 Main St. , Soquel, Ca 95073
831-462-8750
