rn> The U.S. Presidential race


Richard Moore

Dear rn,

Below are arguments for & against Gore, and for & against
Nader, a claim that Nader is leading in polls, and a
declaration by Nader that he's sticking to his guns.  As I
see it, Gore & Bush are on the same team, partners in crime.
 Gore's job is to say things that scare conservatives, and
Bush's job is to say things that scare liberals.  That way
each side can fantasize that they are accomplishing
something by voting.  The two candidates no doubt chuckle
about all this together over cocktails in Washington.

Both candidates support free trade and globalization, and
that makes all arguments about 'environmental records' and
other issues irrelevant.  All such domestic measures can be
overruled by the WTO and Bush & Gore both know that.  They
are promising us houses of straw while selling us out to the
big bad wolf behind our backs.

I haven't even considered voting for the past six years or
so, but if I did Nader would be the only possible choice. 
But what we really need is a movement not a candidate.


Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:07:52 -0800
To: CyberBrook <•••@••.•••>, •••@••.•••,
From: Augusta Szego <•••@••.•••>

At 6:22 PM -0700 10/21/00, CyberBrook wrote:

Isn't it about time that you realized that Nader will not wn
and the alternative of giving him a vote will increase the
chances of Bush.  Can you in all honesty prefer that as a
result of your suggestion? You are doing more harm to the
liberal element of this country than you can imagine.  A 6%
that Nader might get can be the deterining factor in getting
in a more repressive government with corporations dictating
our lives.

To: Augusta Szego <•••@••.•••>,
From: CyberBrook <•••@••.•••>
Mime-Version: 1.0

I like to think more expansively and more long term. I don't
know anyone who thinks Nader is going to win this election,
but I know a lot of people who want to help build a
movement. Part of that movement building includes supporting
Nader and the Greens to achieve the necessary 5% for federal
funds. If Nader hurts Gore, it's Gore's fault for being so
similarly horrible as Bush in most ways and certainly in the
most important ways.---Dan

delivered-To: moderator for •••@••.•••
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 14:35:05 -0400
From: Nurev Ind Research <•••@••.•••>
To: "•••@••.•••" <•••@••.•••>
CC: Activist Mailing List <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Dare we hope... could Nader pull off the surprise of the century.

Cast YOUR vote here---

   Nader leads BIG in time poll. With over one million votes, here is the

   With over one million "votes" cast, here is the current tally:
   nader       58.79%
   bush        29.78%
   gore         9.18%
   buchanan     1.89%
   other        0 .34%
   crazy, eh? and i don't think one can vote more than once...

    ** Time Mag is doing an unofficial poll as to readers'
    presidential intentions. The tally gets more surreal by the
    day. Last week, with over half a million votes cast,
    Bush/Nader/Gore tallies were 55%/25%/16% respectively.
    (That's right - Nader's running 2nd!) As of today
    (Wedneday), with 1,013,473 total "votes" cast, the tally is
    truly mind boggling. Nader has taken the lead with nearly
    60%, Bush has less than 30%, and   Gore is just over 9%.
    (No, i'm not kidding!  OK, who voted twice?!)

   Vote at   http://www.time.com/time/campaign2000

From: •••@••.•••
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:27:57 EDT
Subject: Twelve old``Nader's Raiders''urged Nader to drop out of race.
To: •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••
MIME-Version: 1.0

Nader Says He's Staying in Race
OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) - Green Party presidential candidate
Ralph Nader rejected calls from a dozen of his longtime
fellow activists that he rethink his campaign because he
could cost Democrat Al Gore the election.

Twelve old ``Nader's Raiders'' urged Nader on Friday to drop
out of the White House race in states where Gore is in close
fights with Republican George W. Bush.

``There's a dozen former Nader's Raiders out of several
thousand who decided to raise this point,'' Nader said
Saturday at a news conference preceding a rally that arena
officials said drew more than 6,000 people.

``I think they're well-intentioned but frightened liberals
who sided with the lesser of two evils,'' Nader said of the
dozen, who call themselves ``Nader's Raiders for Gore.''

Some of the dozen have in recent years gone into corporate
employment or work for the government, and don't understand
that times have changed for consumer activists, he said.

``We can't get done what we got done when they were working
with us,'' because of ``big money in politics and the
increasing homogenization of both parties into one party
indentured to business interests,'' Nader said.

The critics also said Nader broke a promise to campaign only
in states where his candidacy would not hurt Gore's chances
for victory.

Nader denied ever making such a promise, and made plain he
intends to press on with his campaign nationwide, if only to
build a viable third party for the future.

``This is a 50-state campaign,'' he said.

Later at a rally, Nader offered supporters a glimpse of
government under his leadership.

``We've got to go back to the people of this country and
build the civic power that we'll (bring) back to Washington
and take our government back and bend it to our will,'' he

Nader said the Democratic Party assumes that its liberal
base has ``got nowhere else to go.''

``That's quite a choice for the American people, between the
bad Democratic Party and the worse Republicans,'' he said.
``I think we need a better choice than that.''

Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:49:50 -0700
To: •••@••.•••,•••@••.•••
From: CyberBrook <•••@••.•••>
Subject: "You Always Hurt The Ones You Love"
Mime-Version: 1.0

Friday, October 20, 2000 in Counterpunch

     "You Always Hurt The Ones You Love"
     The Real Threat is Al Gore, Not Ralph Nader
     by Jeffrey St. Clair

Is there a more palpable sign of the neo-liberals' mounting
desperation than that they are now warning progressives and
Leftists (people they have mocked, ridiculed and
triangulated relentlessly for the past 8 years) that a vote
for Ralph Nader is the surest way to elect George W. Bush?
This is a malicious game of threat of inflation, where Bush
(a pathetic moron who resembles no one so much as our
greatest president, Gerald Ford) is puffed up into Midland,
Texas' own version of Saddam Hussein.

It's a cynical ploy; yet, millions have fallen for it,
trembling out of fear. But there's so much more to fear from
Gore than Bush, as the last 8 years have proved. Listen to
the arch-druid himself, David Brower, 87 years old and still
the most radical and militant environmental voice in the US:
"Clinton and Gore have done more harm to the environment in
8 years than Bush and Reagan did in 12." This isn't because
the neo-liberal team was ideologically to the right of the
Reaganauts, but because liberal public interest groups, from
NRDC to the Sierra Club, fought the Reagan, Watt, Burford
and Bush to a standstill and abetted Clinton and Gore in
their sellouts to chemical companies, timber giants, real
estate developers and the energy conglomerates.

And it's not just the environment where this scenario has
played itself out, but on trade, labor rights, military
forays, an austere economic program catered to the bond
markets, civil rights, Pentagon spending, expansion of
police powers, the vicious war on drugs. Indeed, some of the
right-wing's most malign fantasies only reached climax
during Clintontime: NAFTA, the emasculation of the
Endangered Species Act, the expansion of the federal death
penalty, the undermining of habeas corpus, the hollowing out
of affirmative action, slashing the federal workforce by
377,000 jobs, balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.

It's a long and shameful list, but it's probably topped by
the infamous welfare bill of 1996. Clinton and Gore came to
DC vowing "to end welfare as we know it." After the
election, Gore begged to be given welfare "reform" as his
issue. He was rebuffed by Hillary and some of the liberals
in the Clinton cabinet, who wanted the matter to fade away.
After the Democrats were decimated in the 1994 congressional
elections, Dick Morris was brought in to save the day. He
immediately found a soul-mate in Gore. Together they hatched
a wish list of projects, ranging from cracking down on
immigrants to condemnations of rap singers and pregnant
teens. But the big prize was welfare, which Gore and Morris
viewed as their ticket to keep control of the White House
for the next 12 years. The Republicans, scrutinizing the
same poll numbers, were equally adamant that Clinton and
Gore not get "credit" for dismantling welfare. So they
concocted bills that were so pernicious and mean-spirited
that they knew Clinton would be forced to veto them. He did
so five times.

Then in the late summer of 1996, with Clinton and Gore far
up in the polls, Dole and Gingrich sent up another welfare
bill, nearly as nasty as the previous. A meeting of the
Clinton cabinet was convened. Each member spoke out against
the bill, even the Lord Protector of Wall Street himself,
Robert Rubin. Rubin argued that the bill would put millions
of kids out on the streets, homeless and hungry. Gore
remained silent throughout the meeting, as stiff one of the
kouroi on the Parthenon. The cabinet members shuffled out
convinced that a veto would be forthcoming. Then Gore
huddled privately with Clinton and his chief of staff, Leon
Paneta. Gore argued passionately in favor of signing the
bill. He told Clinton that it looked as if the Democrats
might regain control of the House and if that happened they
would never allow a welfare reform bill to pass. Gore told
Clinton: "This may be our only chance to sign a welfare
bill." Clinton relented and then told his pals in the
Democratic party that they had to reelect him so that he
"could fix" all the evil things in the bill he had just
signed into law.

When confronted recently with his career of betrayals of
progressive causes, Gore shrugged and said, "I guess you
always hurt the ones you love." There you have the toxic
essence of the Gore character: ever willing to betray his
own party and sacrifice the health and well-being of
millions of destitute mothers and children to secure an
election that they had no real risk of losing. Bush is a
known, if rather maladjusted, quantity. Gore is a political
deviant, anxious to prove himself by knee-capping his most
faithful allies.

Ralph Nader isn't perfect; he just seems that way when
compared to Bush and Gore. Yet, his run finally offers a
campaign to vote for enthusiastically. It is a vote that at
the same time repudiates the neo-liberal policies of the
Clinton/Gore Democrats and empowers a new political
movement, a movement with as much energy, promise and
feistiness as the old Rainbow Coalition. A vote for Gore is
a vote for pessimism, an admission that the Left is helpless
and near dead. It means succumbing to a kind of political
necrophilia. A vote for Nader is a vote for optimism and
political liberation--a jailbreak from the dank oubliette of
the Democratic Party.

               © Copyright 2000 Counterpunch

Common Dreams NewsCenter is a non-profit news service
providing breaking news and views for the Progressive

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not always been specifically authorized by
the copyright owner. We are making such material available
in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes
a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes. For more information go
to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes
of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain
permission from the copyright owner.

© Copyrighted 1997-2000 All Rights Reserved. Common Dreams.

Richard K Moore
Wexford, Ireland
Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance 
email: •••@••.••• 
CDR website & list archives: http://cyberjournal.org
content-searchable archive: http://members.xoom.com/centrexnews/
featured article: 

                A community will evolve only when
                the people control their means of communication.
                        -- Frantz Fanon

Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT 
include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits,
and notices - including this one.