rn:Why not to vote for Gore


Jan Slakov

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.
>*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
>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 
>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.
>Cancer Prevention and Treatment Center of the Central Coast
>3035 Main St. , Soquel, Ca 95073

Tal Pomeroy, M.D.
Cancer Prevention and Treatment Center of the Central Coast
3035 Main St. , Soquel, Ca 95073