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. rkm ============================================================================ Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:07:52 -0800 To: CyberBrook <•••@••.•••>, •••@••.•••, •••@••.••• From: Augusta Szego <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: RALPH NADER CHAIN LETTER & PYRAMID SCHEME!!! At 6:22 PM -0700 10/21/00, CyberBrook wrote: > RALPH NADER CHAIN LETTER & PYRAMID SCHEME!!! 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 <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: RALPH NADER CHAIN LETTER & PYRAMID SCHEME!!! 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 tally 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 By SCOTT LINDLAW 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 said. 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 Community. 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. www.commondreams.org ============================================================================ 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: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/Whole_Earth_Review/Escaping_the_Matrix.shtml 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. ============================================================================ .