|
It's still a form of election
racketeering. I, personally, find it unethical. Like I said--if this
WERE officially sponsored by the candidates, everyone would be up in arms about
it as a violation of election laws as well as a violation of the spirit of
democracy. It is exactly the kind of win-at-any-cost behavior that we tell
the candidates we want them to stop engaging in. I DO think it sends a
message. But it's not the message I want to send.
And I'm sorry, but dozens of internet
myths have made me extremely cynical about the original premise of Bush paying
for ads advocating Nader. We've heard several plausible hoaxes on here
already this election. It's all just scare tactics.
I don't like Bush. It's
true. But I sat by for eight years and watched the first Democratic
president in my adult life sell out every constituency that the Democrats claim
to support. Next year the first wave of families will be kicked off of
welfare. And every year after that fro now on. Think about
it. Something that Gore and Clinton supported and which Reagan never
would have gotten through. Frankly, with Gore in office next term, he
would at least get to reap what he has sown by supporting that
legislation. That's just one example. "Don't ask, don't tell".
Huge gains for gays in the military, wasn't it? I'm sorry. I don't
like the idea of a Bush presidency any more than anyone else
here. This whole election just makes me want to puke. And the
scare tactics that I am hearing from every corner and the win-at-any-cost
mentality doesn't make it any better for me, nor am I convinced that Gore is a
candidate worthy of that kind of urgency. I reiterate--who are we, the
public, to demand a higher standard of ethics from our government than we
ourselves are willing to adhere to? Who are we to demand that they stop
sucking off of the corporations when it's "our" dearest wish as well?
Isn't democracy SUPPOSED to be a bottom-up leadership system?
The reality of democracy is that your
side is not going to win every time and that sometimes you have to stand in the
opposition. No progressive is EVER going to look at any conservative
Republican and think "he's not so bad. I don't mind if he wins."
That does not mean that fascism is imminent with every election. Frankly,
progressives have lost a lot of ground in the past eight years because we were
so terrified to publicly criticize "one of our own" and because so many of use
refused to see that he was nothing of the kind.
I am not advocating that you vote any
one or the other. Vote Nader. Vote Gore. Vote for
yourself. (Don't vote for Buchanan--for heaven's sake.) But
vote. (Frankly, giving Congress back to the Democrats is
JUST as important. Bush won't get shit done with a Democratic
Congress. ) And vote the way YOU want to vote. But that's only one
part of the whole system. I get tired of hearing people say "if you don't
vote you have no right to complain." You still have every right to
complain. The complaining (if done right and to the right people) is as
important as the voting. It's the other side of it. No matter who
gets elected, there are 4 years ahead of us in which, if you're like me,
almost none of it is going to reflect your vision of how we should be running
our country. Either way--mobilize. Stay alert.
BTW the only reason I wrote "have a nice
day" was to (albeit sardonically) take some edge off of my message. I have
a tendency to rant.
Have a nice day.
"Those poor kids. So young. So nauseous."
--Krusty the Klown
Telethon for Motion Sickness
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 1:18
PM
Subject: Re: RAT "Swapping my vote"
I would argue that "swapping votes" is not intended to have you
vote in order
to "appease someone else's fear" - if that is why one would
choose to do it,
I would argue against it. The reason is to serve
BOTH the Nader campaign and
to send a strong clear message to the Bush
Campaign that these dissent votes
cannot simply be turned into a corporate
tool. Nader, who is simply running
toward a 5% goal, in order to
receive Federal funding, would receive his
votes, while no one, Gore OR
Nader supporter, would have to wake up to the
threat of a Bush
administration.
The websites will not get the candidates or parties in
trouble, as they are
not recognized of sanctioned by the parties... these
are simply informal,
grassroots agreements being reached between
individuals.
I don't agree that you get the leaders you
deserve... unless you refuse to
work to change the system at all
levels. Those who sit back with contempt
and inactivity deserve what
they get.
Below is the substantiation for the ads that are about to
run, taking
advantage of Nader supporters. Have a nice
day.
tim
funkopolis
In a message dated 10/29/00 2:10:18 PM
Eastern Daylight Time,
fluffysingler@prodigy.net
writes:
<< You know, the "Bush-paid Nader ads" sounds
suspiciously like the Cheney
story and every other entertaining and even
plausible legends that travels
the net. I'd want to know the source
of the story before I put any stock in.
>>
Here's what the AP article on it said, as of October 28,
2000:
<<On Monday, however, Republicans are set to begin airing
pro-Nader ads in
Wisconsin, Washington and Oregon in hopes that Gore
voters will choose Nader
and tip the balance to Bush.
That move
drew criticism Saturday from Public Citizen, the umbrella group for
consumer causes founded by Nader. It said the ads would mark ``a new low''
in
the presidential campaign and ``is designed to mislead
voters.''>>
and the link to the article on the New York Times
is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/28/politics/28NADE.html
I've
posted a portion of that article here, as well.....
October 28,
2000
THE GREEN PARTY
Republican Ads Use Nader In an Effort to Attack
Gore
By MICHAEL COOPER with RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
IOWA CITY, Oct.
27 — Hoping to siphon votes from Vice President Al Gore,
Republicans in
three closely contested states prepared to broadcast a
television
commercial featuring Ralph Nader, as the candidate himself
campaigned here
tonight and continued to aim his sharpest barbs at the
Democratic
ticket.
Speaking to a capacity crowd at Iowa Memorial Union hall on the
University of
Iowa campus, Mr. Nader painted Mr. Gore as "unbelievably
subservient" to
corporations and described Mr. Gore's running mate,
Senator Joseph I.
Lieberman of Connecticut, as "the quintessential
hermaphrodite of American
politics — a Republicrat."
And Mr. Nader
continued to press his case for a third-party movement,
describing the two
major parties as equally beholden to big business
interests.
The
goal for Mr. Nader is simple: he wants to receive 5 percent of the
popular
vote, so his party, the Green Party, can become a viable third party
that
qualifies for federal financing.
In his quest for that percentage, Mr.
Nader could drain enough votes from Mr.
Gore to hand victory to the
Republican nominee, Gov. George W. Bush of Texas,
and the Republicans are
now trying to capitalize on that possibility.
One group, the
Republican Leadership Council, has prepared a television
commercial in
which Mr. Nader attacks Mr. Gore and is ready to broadcast it
in Oregon,
Washington and and Wisconsin, where the Green Party has made
significant
inroads among Democrats.
The commercial features a clip from a speech
Mr. Nader made earlier this
week. "Al Gore is suffering from election-year
delusions if he thinks his
record on the environment is anything to be
proud of," Mr. Nader is quoted as
saying.
The Gore campaign reacted
angrily to that advertisement, noting that Mr.
Nader also had some choice
words for Mr. Bush in the speech (calling him
"nothing more than a
corporation running for president disguised as a
person") that the
Republicans had left out of the commercial.
"They've given up all hope
of selling Mr. Bush," said Kym Spell, a Gore
campaign spokeswoman, "so now
they're selling Nader.">>
|