My position has been consistent; before the election, and
on election day, I worked for Nader. Under the principles of
"instant runoff voting" if we had that, I might be tempted to
give Gore my #2 preference as you detect.
You accuse me of putting on some kind of Democratic Party
blinders. Please look at the flyer carefully (www.agitate.net).
I don't it says anything one way or another to the effect
that Al Gore will do everything he promised. I think you
and I agree 100% that we need to be skeptical.
But let's not give the Bush people a free ride because
Clinton broke promises. Some of those promises were broken
because of incredibly well-funded corporate campaigns to
get Clinton to do the wrong thing. These campaigns worked.
In the last analysis, if it comes down to
putting into power states-rights White Nationalist
separatists, gun-toting militiamen, financial services
industry privatizers of Social Security, public school
privatizers, pro-life christian fundamentalists, the
Cuban American National foundation vs. the major
constituencies backing the democrats (labor unions, African
Americans, pro-choice groups, people who don't want
to see the public sector gutted), I am going to side
with the latter. Especially if the Right Wing is relying
on distortions of fact, unstantiated rumor, and propaganda
to make their case.
Just go to http://www.halturnershow.com/
and then look at http://www.newsmax.com
and also http://www.worldnetdaily.com
The people funding these right-wing groups are also the
same people engineering attacks on womens studies,
affirmative action, and progressive classes at colleges
and universities (see www.naf.org and www.nas.org)
I would think as a progressive that you would be also
be wary of the Right-wing rumor mill.
I think those of us who worked for Nader have already
sent a clear message to the Gore and Democratic Leadership
Council people. If Gore gets elected there is plenty of
ammunition to feed to his grassroots constituencies to
hold his feet to the fire and to counter rightwing distortions,
things which were not done nearly enough during the Clinton
At 02:05 PM 11/24/00 -0600, you wrote:
>I have to say I'm baffled by your conversion into a Democrat. Do you
>really believe that "principles of democracy" will be upheld if either
>one of the two bought-and-paid-for scumbags gets elected?
>When I voted for Nader, I was saying that the Democrats can't take my
>support for granted. I did not qualify that statement by adding "as long
>as they don't need my support." If we keep trying to get Al Whore
>elected, we only have ourselves to blame next time that they take our
>support for granted.
>Besides, all the old, tired, lesser-evil arguments are about one thing -
>slowing down the taking away of our rights. I have not heard one pro-Al
>Whore argument that describes one issue where the difference is in the
>DIRECTION of change. It's always about the SPEED at which we lose.
>Rich Cowan wrote:
> > [this was researched over the Internet for 3 days with help from
> > people involved in the Red Rock Eater news service. -rich]
> > 13 MYTHS ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE 2000 ELECTION
> > by Rich Cowan
> > Millions of dollars are now being raised for a public relations
> > war between the Democrats and the Republicans to determine the
Organizers' Collaborative PO Box 400897, Cambridge MA 02140
[log in to unmask] www.organizenow.net