|
Surely you've seen the myriad posts here
detailing how abortion rights are being lost anyway WITHOUT the supreme court
striking them down. In addition, many of the justices appointed by Reagan
and Bush have voted much more liberally than people expected. Judicial
conservatism is not always the same as political conservatism. Clarence
Thomas is a tool, it's true. But I have been pleasantly surprised on a few
issues that have come down from the court. Again--I've heard the same
scare rhetoric for the last 20 years of campaigns.
Here is ME at my most cynical--we survived
Reagan somehow. Shrub can be no worse.
Again--here in Minnesota it was proven that an
independent can, indeed, steal the election. No one expected His
Wrestlership to win. He's a bit of a Jerk, but frankly, we are no
worse off than before he got here. He has a few reasonable ideas and we
have a legislature to keep him from going completely off the deep
end.
Imagine if EVERYONE fed up with B-ORE actually
did vote for Nader, and all those former democratic supporters who went
"bah" and stopped voting when Clinton-Gore and the DLC sold them out to the
moderate republicans actually came out of the woodwork and voted for
Nader. It won't happen, but if it did--he would WIN. If everyone
would stop wringing their hands and take a bold step . . .
By the way, the five years on the horrendous
welfare bill will be coming up soon. Which means lots of families will be
kicked off welfare for good. Which means --I fear -- a boom in "social
problems" under the next President. I hope I'm wrong, really . . . .
Finally, my strategy in this campaign is to
vote for the candidate most likely to be impeached. We have plenty of laws
on the books and Congress has, quite frankly, outlived its usefulness except in
the "checks and balances" function. I think we need another good scandal
during the next presidency to keep the Congress and the White House at each
other so that they leave us the hell alone. If you can do no good, at
least do no harm.
I'm Pro-Gridlock and I VOTE!
Erratically!
I'm having deja vu. If I've said all
these things here before, sorry. Perhaps I'm overrehearsed.
=8-)
"Those poor kids. So young. So nauseous."
--Krusty the Klown
Telethon for Motion Sickness
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 6:59
PM
Subject: Re: RAT Gore, gosh darnit!
I am not afraid to vote for Nader, but I am concerned about the
nomination
of justices to the Supreme Court. There are several justices who
are over
seventy, and there will probably be several open spaces on the
Court during
the next administration. The court already has leanings to the
right - a few
Bush appointees will certainly swing the balance toward
conservative
rulings.
We are talking 30-40 years of judicial rulings
here. Roe vs. Wade, and other
'liberal' rulings will certainly come under
attack, and indeed may be
overturned, to say nothing of abortion rights and
environmental issues.
Perhaps this e-mail smacks of fear, but given a
very tight race, I consider
a vote for Gore, a direct vote against Bush. I
think, hope, that Gore will
appoint more liberal justices to the court. I
think Nader would make even
stronger appointments, but he ain't gonna
win.
Thanks for reading.
...C
> From: Laura Winton
<fluffysingler@prodigy.net>
>
Reply-To: rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com
>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:47:17 -0400 (EDT)
> To: rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com
>
Subject: Re: RAT Gore, gosh darnit!
>
> One of the reasons that
an independent can't win the White House is people's
> FEAR. Just
like this conversation. There will NEVER be a Republican that
> is
acceptable to progressives. Thus, every election there will be the
alarm
> sounded--if you vote for X you give the election to the
Republicans. The
> same scare tactics go on throughout the
mainstream as well as on lists like
> this. It's not necessarily
that people don't want things to change. They
> are scared away
from trying anything new. The bottom line is that at some
> point,
you start voting for the candidate you MOST WANT, not against the one
>
you least want. It will take time for a third party to pick up steam and
be
> viable, and if everyone keeps shying away from third parties out of
fear,
> then they'll never get off the ground. A vote for Gore is
a vote of fear in
> the here and now. A vote for Nader is a vote
toward the future--a small
> step toward breaking the hegemony of the
two parties.
>
> I've said it before: Afraid to vote for
Nader? Your hand trembles when it
> veers away from the democrat
lever? Fine. Go out and recruit 5 or 10
> NONVOTERS to vote
for Nader. Your vote for the lesser evil is intact and
> you have
still made an investment in the future.
>
> In the meantime, work
for campaign finance reform, the abolition of the
> electoral college
and a change in the election laws toward 3rd parties. The
> time
to change this debate rule was 2 or 3 years ago--not two months before
>
the debate. Whatever you decide to do in six weeks--There are four
years
> after that to try to make this thing a little fairer if you
REALLY feel that
> strongly about it.
>
> As for Gore
selling out the Left Wing--that is completely impossible. At no
>
time was Gore ever a member of the Left Wing of the Democratic Party and
any
> Left Wingers who imagined that Gore was on their side were
simply
> delusional. (There's an LSD/flashback joke in here
somewhere . . . feel
> free to go after it). You can't sell out
someone you never belonged to.
>
> Or something.
>
>
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: "Glen-Skip-
Newell" <skipworthy@hotmail.com>
>
To: rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com
>
Sent: October 12, 2000 10:22:17 PM GMT
> Subject: Re: RAT Gore, gosh
darnit!
>
>
>
> Myself I don't like ANY of the
choices for Pres, and completely disagree in
> principal with how the
office itself is being treated (more on that another
> time.)
>
> Bush is clearly not an option- this we all ( I think ) agree on- for
so many
> reasons ( including the fact that he's not even HALF the man
that his Dad
> was, nor even as good as his running mate. Gore not only
shares the same
> bed, but as it's been pointed out, IS JUST LIKE
CLINTON EXCEPT WILIER...he's
> a snake, something that has become clear
to me watching the debates. Did you
> hear the position he took on Iraq?
could he have betrayed the left wing any
> more ruthlessly? And did you
even once hear him utter any words of support
> for the environment (
without being directly confronted) or the Arts? Al is
> just more of the
same but worse.
>
> Can Nader Win? could any third party
candidate ? of course not. at least not
> in this century; for the same
reason we won't probably see a woman in the
> white house, and it has
NOTHING to do with truth or competence. Most
> Americans simply don't
want things to change-This is how these guys (one
> from Yale and One
from Harvard, and both filthy rich with family money)stay
> in power.
Homer LIKES his SUV and his Cable TV and his cheesburgers- even if
> he
DOES vote democrat and send a yearly check to greenpeace.
>
> The
entire Radical movement (anarchists, greens, etc) exists because there
>
are some who WILL vote for a guy like Nader, in the faith that someday
we
> will have justice- maybe not now, but someday. YOu hae to believe
that
> change is both necessary and worthwhile, and that's different and
it takes
> courage and that's why you should vote your conscience and
NOT for the guy
> most likely to win.
>
> Personally, I'm
getting behind the Hagbard Celine/Dirk Gently ticket.
>
>
Skip
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
>
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
>
>
"Those poor kids. So young. So nauseous."
> --Krusty the
Klown Telethon for Motion Sickness
>
>
> Laura
Winton
> fluffysingler@prodigy.net
>
http://pages.prodigy.net/fluffysingler
>
>
>
|