RAT Attacking the Myths as They Come, One-by-one

[Audie McCall <audiemccall@yahoo.com>]

The next myth: Nader would be a lousy, ineffective
President.

Scenario:  Democrats and Republicans in Congress (as
if I need to bother distinguishing between them) unite
in opposition against a duly elected Nader, forming
utter legislative grid-lock.  Nader goes over
Congress’ head to their bosses, the American People
(wow! now that’s a concept!) and asks that they demand
action from their representatives.  Legislators get
gentle reminder (or if need be, not so gentle) of
which direction power should and-- given Nader’s
mandate-- DOES flow.  

That’s right.  If he were elected, even with a mere
plurality, Nader would have an unprecedented mandate
to do the people’s business.    If said business did
NOT get done, do you honestly think that the people
would merely sit on their hands for four years waiting
to vote back into office another clownish, clone-ish
Republicrat?  Especially after make such a bold choice
for Nader?  If you believe this to be true, I cannot
for the life of me understand how you summon the will
to read this, far less vote and further participate in
the political process.

Folks, bottom line: it’s about whether you want
corporate government or not.  Both Gore and Bush are
bought and sold by Big Business: so completely hedged
with soft money that no effective change is possible.

Ask yourself:

Why is campaign finance reform a dead issue?

When was the last time you voted FOR someone for
President?

Why do you think that is?

Do you honestly believe it’s an accident of history?

Do you honestly believe that by voting “safe” this
year, you can hope to vote for someone you REALLY want
in 2004?

When will it change?  

How does a vote of fear—a vote for the status
quo—effect change?


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/