 sj |
||
|
||
No Real Choice in American Elections
|
|
|
Subject: No Real Choice in American Elections From: GUEST,Albamist Date: 24 Oct 00 - 08:31 PM Why is it when there are so many well informed, opinionated and articulate mudcatters from the USA that the best that country can drag up as presidential contenders is Messrs Bush and Gore. Surely the strongest, richest most energetic etc etc nation on earth must have more to offer the world than these two limp specimens. Is it not time that the people in the US had a real choice in politics? It seems from the outside that you really do not have much choice at all, as both political parties sseem to be nothing more than opposite sides of the same coin. When is that great nation going to elect a REAL person not just a political facade? |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Hotspur Date: 24 Oct 00 - 08:32 PM When money doesn't determine who can run for office. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Ebbie Date: 24 Oct 00 - 11:02 PM And when we stop figuratively slaughtering them once they're in. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: kendall Date: 24 Oct 00 - 11:40 PM and, when more people get of their asses and get involved at the grass roots level instead of waiting until it comes down to two jerks. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Sorcha Date: 25 Oct 00 - 01:42 AM When decent, intelligent people won't get creamed because of a minor incident in their past, or their families past. When the media stops putting words in peoples mouths and or making up things to make anyone look bad. Nobody is all bad, but the media makes it look like our choices are...............
Do you suppose even Buddha,Confucius,Jesus,Mohammed, Ghandi, or anyone else could escape the mud slinging now? How about Attila the Hun for Prez? He won a lot............or maybe Arthur Ambrosius,Charlemane,Richard the LionHeart, (sarcasm, here, folks)
NEWS FLASH--MARY, MOTHER OF JESUS OF NAZERETH, INVOLVED IN GROUP SEX!!! Sadly, isn't that what a lot of it is about anymore?
|
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: John Nolan Date: 25 Oct 00 - 04:59 PM There is quite a wide choice of presidential candidates, actually, including the Green Party's Ralph Nader (who is attracted rallies of 12,000-15,000 people), the Reform Party's Pat Buchanan, and lesser lights - but articulate speakers - from the Libertarian, Natural Law, and Constitution parties, among others. The outrage in the USA is the collution between major news networks (owned by corprate America) and the Presidential Debate Commission (also owned by corporate America.) In the "Land of the Free", censorship through suppression of debate and denial of air time is down to a crushingly fine art, with the noblest exception being C-SPAN, as I am sure many Mudcatters know. P.S. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: DougR Date: 25 Oct 00 - 05:20 PM John: I heard a very interesting program the other day on NPR. The whole program was devoted to people who support Ralph Nader, and the whole thrust was that people should vote for whoever they feel is the best candidate. If they believe in the other three candidates (maybe more?)they should vote for them and not consider that they have wasted their vote. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Haruo Date: 25 Oct 00 - 05:27 PM For what it's worth, I've come to the conclusion that the American two-party system is just as much of an oligarchic monolithic dinosaur as the PRI ever was in Mexico, and at least as worthy of being unhorsed (if you can unhorse a dinosaur). Liland |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Lepus Rex Date: 25 Oct 00 - 05:31 PM Well, *I'D* vote for Grandpa Attila any day! >:) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Jacob B Date: 25 Oct 00 - 05:59 PM Don't kid yourself. You have a real choice in the current election. Both candidates need to present themselves as being moderates, to avoid antagonizing groups at the political extremes who might be motivated to turn out en masse against them. However, both candidates are beholden to their parties, and both parties have extremist wings. If Bush is elected, with a Republican majority in the House and the possibility of a Republican majority in the Senate, he might be able to do REAL DAMAGE, by pushing through the agenda of his party's right wing without regard for the real concerns which the political left has about those policies. If Gore is elected, he will be unable to push through an extremist agenda because of the Republican majority in the House. He will be forced to come up with policies which address the concerns of both sides. Please, vote for Gore. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Oct 00 - 06:31 PM Interesting point, Jacob. You may be right about that... But the first post in response to this thread was the real answer...there is no real choice in American elections because money determines: 1. Who can run for office. 2. Who can afford a huge campaign. 3. Who can dominate the media. 4. Whose career and reputation will or will not be destroyed. 5. Whose life is on the line. Remember Martin Luther King? I mean BIG money. Corporate money. The USA is run by corporate robber barons who are exploiting almost the entire world with impunity, because...nobody in the general public knows who they even are!!! Or where they live. Or what they do. The politicians are their little puppets. A vote for either the Democrats or the Republicans is a vote for the Machine that is the tool of corporate money. A vote for the larger Canadian political parties is a vote for a branch plant of that same Machine. As for small parties like the Natural Law Party or the Green Party....they are not controlled by the Machine, but they haven't a hope of getting elected, because the Machine controls BIG money and the media. I voted Natural Law in the last 2 elections in Canada. Why? Their local candidate is a brilliant and extraordinary man, and their ideas are absolutely new and wonderful. I will not vote for the Machine. I wouldn't vote for the Democrats or Republicans if they got down on their knees and begged me. They don't need me, of course, so why would they care? Enough people will still go out and rubber stamp the Money Machine's ballot so that either Gush or Bore gets elected. No worries on that score. Big Brother is alive and well on Wall Street and in the corporate boardrooms and the head offices of the banks in New York, London, Zurich, and Paris.
|
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: DougR Date: 25 Oct 00 - 08:49 PM Well, Jacob, there is no guarantee that if Gore is elected President that the Republicans will still hold a majority in the House. If Gore is elected and the Democrats gain a majority in the House and gain a majority in the Senate, they will certainly push through programs that are unacceptable to Republicans. So either way, there are going to be a lot of disappointed people. I urge folks to vote for Nader. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: catspaw49 Date: 25 Oct 00 - 10:20 PM First, Sorcha's point is excellent. Way too much of that crap going on. Many other good points here as well. But I will say again, politics is a matter of methodology and once you have established the method, significant change will not occur without a complete revolution and revision of the method/system. Ain't gonna' happen though is it? At least its pretty unlikely within any foreseeable future. HOWEVER............. Jacob expressed himself well and there ARE differences which are worth noting and your personal viewpoint on some individual issues have more to do with your vote than any belief you may have that voting outside of the two parties is going to bring about significant methodological change......Its not, it won't, it ain't happenin', nor will it ever happen that way. You can vote for 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 27th party candidates and it won't matter if you are really after change. The methodology is established and only a complete overthrow of it will actually make the changes you want. So I look at things that are important to me and at which candidate and party will be more likely to do what I want. Bottom line for me in this election is that the next president will be able to have some impact on the Supreme Court for many years to come. For that reason alone, although there are others.......I'm voting for Gore. And since I know that the checks can work, I'm getting prepared with addys and all for the Senate Judiciary Committee. If Bush gets in, we're going to need those. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: M. Ted (inactive) Date: 25 Oct 00 - 11:11 PM People who think that there is no difference between the candidates are completely clueless--you may not like either of the personalities, but personalities have little to do with anything-- Bottom line is that the Republicans represent a very specific set of permanent economic interests--quite simply, their priority is to protect the wealth of the wealthy, and to protect the power of the powerful--They oppose ecological legislation because it could interfere with corporate profits, they oppose government regulations because it could interfere with the profitable operation of their business interests, they seek to limit and curtail your right to litigate, because you might sue a big tire company, and they seek to restrict your freedom of speech because you might use it to speak against....well you get the idea. It is true that you don't have any choice, simply because if you choose the republican candidate, you will be dead meat--so you're stuck with what the democrats offer, and if you think that Ralph Nader is the answer to anything except for the question "Who Wrote "Unsafe at Any Speed" thirty seven years ago--well, I got some really nice swamp land down in Florida-- |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: M. Ted (inactive) Date: 25 Oct 00 - 11:12 PM People who think that there is no difference between the candidates are completely clueless--you may not like either of the personalities, but personalities have little to do with anything-- Bottom line is that the Republicans represent a very specific set of permanent economic interests--quite simply, their priority is to protect the wealth of the wealthy, and to protect the power of the powerful--They oppose ecological legislation because it could interfere with corporate profits, they oppose government regulations because it could interfere with the profitable operation of their business interests, they seek to limit and curtail your right to litigate, because you might sue a big tire company, and they seek to restrict your freedom of speech because you might use it to speak against....well you get the idea. It is true that you don't have any choice, simply because if you choose the republican candidate, you will be dead meat--so you're stuck with what the democrats offer, and if you think that Ralph Nader is the answer to anything except for the question "Who Wrote "Unsafe at Any Speed" thirty seven years ago--well, I got some really nice swamp land down in Florida-- |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: DougR Date: 26 Oct 00 - 01:25 AM Gee whiz, Spaw! You're voting for Gore? After all my politicking and urging folks to vote for Nader? I thought for sure you were an ideal prospect for the Green Party. Oh well, can't win 'em all. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Kim C Date: 26 Oct 00 - 10:16 AM I'm with John Nolan on this one. If you keep voting for Elephants & Donkeys, you keep getting the same Elephant & Donkey doots. And that's some pretty deep doots. I really believe that if each individual person voted FOR the candidate that best represented their views, instead of voting AGAINST the candidate they don't like, the face of American politics would be very different indeed. The first time I stepped into a voting booth in 1988, I was shocked and surprised to see about 10 candidates for President on the ballot. I hadn't heard about any but two in the news. I don't even remember who I voted for then. In 92 I really wanted to vote independent but I didn't. I voted for the person I thought could win. I went away feeling like I had not been honest. In 96 I voted for the person I REALLY wanted to vote for and while he didn't win, I felt vindicated, knowing that I had been honest. And I'm going to do it again. :) The other thing I've always said is, that the people who could make the very best Presidents are way too smart to want the job. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Allan C. Date: 26 Oct 00 - 10:41 AM So long as we continue to put up with the current methodology (as 'Spaw mentions); so long as we continue to cave in to those who wave the most dollars; so long as we continue to have faith that the politically spoonfed media (not all of them are, thank goodness!) reports the truth; then elections will always be the choice of the lesser of evils. With that said, I hereby nominate Max for king. It makes about as much sense as anything else. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Pseudolus Date: 26 Oct 00 - 10:50 AM "Surely the strongest, richest most energetic etc etc nation on earth must have more to offer the world than these two limp specimens." I think after the last President's "Oral Office" fiascos maybe this is exactly what we need.... Sorry, I just couldn't resist.... Frank |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: GUEST Date: 26 Oct 00 - 10:55 AM "M. Ted" said: Bottom line is that the Republicans represent a very specific set of permanent economic interests--quite simply, their priority is to protect the wealth of the wealthy, and to protect the power of the powerful--They oppose ecological legislation because it could interfere with corporate profits, they oppose government regulations because it could interfere with the profitable operation of their business interests, they seek to limit and curtail your right to litigate, because you might sue a big tire company, and they seek to restrict your freedom of speech because you might use it to speak against....well you get the idea. Your're absolutely right. Now substitute "both major parties" for "the Republicans," and you'll be even righter. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: kendall Date: 26 Oct 00 - 10:56 AM Ordinarily I cast my vote as a vote, not as a bet. However, this time around, I am voting AGAINST Dubbya, not FOR Gore. It scares me to think what another bunch of Clarence Thomas' would do to the big Court. It would not bother me a bit to see Nader win, but, I know he cant, and, I'm not going to take the chance of voting for him. The stakes are too high this time. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: GUEST Date: 26 Oct 00 - 11:00 AM That "Guest" post just above was me, Midchuck. I cleaned out my cookies folder. I was very careful to leave the one labeled "Mudcat" in there. I guess I wasn't careful enough. Maybe I was destined to be anonymous. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: canoer Date: 26 Oct 00 - 11:16 AM One vote from here in favor of Little Hawk.
I don't quite understand how anyone can consider the billions of dollars that corporate America spends on lobbying, payoffs, etc., to the political parties and their politiicians -- and compare it to the few cents us "little folks" scrape together -- and still believe that either party will give us the time of day. The Republicans walk up to us and stab us. The Democrats smile in our face and stab us in the back. This is a significant difference??? -- the canoer |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: canoer Date: 26 Oct 00 - 11:22 AM The Detroit News and Free Press workers have been on strike for about 5 years. The most openly illegal strikebreaking tactics were used against them. Their case wound its way through the courts. One step away from the Supreme Court, a federal judge recently ruled against the strikers, in a way that renders any action by the S.C. a near impossibility. My point being that this was under a Democratic administration and not a single notable Democratic personality, as far as I know, said one single word of reproach. So much for the friends of labor. -- tc |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Mark Clark Date: 26 Oct 00 - 11:35 AM Some may remember the show from the sixties that played in the UK and on Broadway as "Beyond The Fringe." The brainchild of Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, et al., it was a series of wonderfully funny sketches. Cook and Moore later took a subset of the show on the road as "Good Evening." One of the sketches portrayed a group of Englishmen discussing the U.S. A favorite (but true) gag from that sketch had them saying "Well, they have the two-party system in America." "Yes, they have the Republican Party which is the equivalent of our Conservative Party, and they have the Democratic Party which is the equivalent of our Conservative Party [sic]." ------------------------------------------ A wise old landlord I had years ago in Chicago explained to me his understanding of the Democrats and the Republicans. He said when the Democrats get in they steal but they spread the money around so everyone gets some. When the Republicans get in they steal but keep it all for themselves. Pretty smart for a landlord don't you think? - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: M. Ted (inactive) Date: 26 Oct 00 - 11:45 AM I am in agreement with Kendall--there is a lot to lose if Dubya becomes president--The clever trick that the Republicans use is to make themselves look "friendly", like they have different programs to achieve the same goals, or whatever, but it ain't true--There is a "conservative" agenda that is absolutely frightening, they want tight social restictions on the middle and working classes, elimination of restrictions on corporate and financial institutions--Bills have been introduced that are intended to limit and even eliminate your right to file civil law suits, and of course, the reproductive rights and freedom of speech restrictions-- Bush favors keeping the federal government out of the state and local governments domains, yet he makes a special point of talking about introducing "values" education--what do you suppose that is?
|
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Bill D Date: 26 Oct 00 - 11:46 AM I said it before, and say it again....Gore will be a better president than he is a campaigner...CERTAINLY better than Bush, who is barely competent and is NOT the guy I want to fill Surpreme Court vacancies for 4-8 years! Nader? Pooh! Nader is a spokesman for a couple of interesting causes...he is NOT someone who could handle the job of President and deal with world problems. All he is doing is siphoning off enough grumpy Democrats to make sure the Republicans win!....I wonder if even HE realizes that he is doing what my mother used to call "cutting off your nose to spite your face". |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Oct 00 - 01:17 PM As I understand it, in most States there is no doubt about the outcome - either it's certain that Bush will win, or certain that Gore will win.
So in all those States, anyone who likes the sound of Ralph Nader would be crazy not to vote for him. (Or whatever other outsider candidate they might prefer.)
That way their candidate builds up a sizeable vote, and the next time there's an election it can be used to strengthen the case for a fairer system of debates.
And also strengthen the case for a less bent electoral system, such as one which would allow people to place the candidates in order, rather than just voting for their second best choice because their first choice hasn't a chance. (Though the only time that makes any sense at all is if they are living in one of the few states where there is any doubt of the result.)
|
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: kendall Date: 26 Oct 00 - 03:22 PM Right on Bill D. Nader would get nowhere if elected. He would have less clout than that other outsider, Jimmy Carter. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: mousethief Date: 26 Oct 00 - 03:37 PM Carter's problem was not lack of clout but lack of vision.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Bill D Date: 26 Oct 00 - 03:38 PM you know McGrath...you make entirely too much sense!..I think I'd like the ability to rank the candidates on my ballot!...(maybe give 5 points for 1st, 3 for 2nd, 1 for 3rd)...but even more I'd like plebicites and referendums to CHOOSE candidates, instead of being handed a group of wannabes from left field. Also, it is TIME to scrap the stupid electoral college...let the people as a whole decide, not 12 states with lots of population. ...and yeah, I guess a protest vote is ok in 'some' states |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: mmm Date: 26 Oct 00 - 10:02 PM NO CHOICE? SORRY WITH 8 CANDIDATES RUNNING AND THE OPTION TO WRITE IN ANY JACK ASS IN THE NEAREST FIELD(OTHER THEN BUSH AND GORE)I THINK WE HAVE THE ALOT OF CHOICES.IT IS UP TO US TO FIND OUT ABOUT THEM AND MAKE THE CHOICE AND TO GET OUT AND VOTE THAT IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM PEOPLE DON'T THINK IT MATTERS ANYMORE. MMM |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Frankham Date: 27 Oct 00 - 09:59 AM Paul Stamler has really nailed it in my opinion. He sent an open letter to Ralph Nader that says it all. Dear Paul, Way to go! You've articulated it and nailed it. I've been thinking the same thought and haven't been able to verbalize it but you've done it for us. I'm mailing it to a number of people. It's really important. Thank you so much for expressing what many of us feel and have not yet properly stated. Gonna' put this on Mudcat. Let's hold our breath and hope we don't get Bushwhacked on election day. Gratefully, Frank Hamilton
Date: Thursday, October 26, 2000 11:58 PM Subject: Dear Mr. Nader >Dear friends: > >This is an open letter that I sent to Ralph Nader a few minutes ago. I >thought it an important thing to share with my politically progressive >friends. It's my own thoughts, not those of anyone else -- least of all the >Gore campaign. > >If you agree with the sentiments in the letter, and feel like passing it on >to other progressive friends, please feel free to do so (but not, obviously, >if this reaches you after November 7th!) If you are minded to send a message >to Mr. Nader himself, you can do so at: > >campaign@votenader.org > >I don't know if this small effort will have the slightest effect, but when I >see fellow progressives getting ready to drive themselves and the remains of >the progressive movement over a cliff, I feel honor-bound to at least put my >$.02 worth in. > >Peace. >Paul > > >Dear Mr. Nader: > >By now you've probably heard every damned argument in the country about why >you should get out of the presidential race or stay in the presidential >race, but forgive me if, for a moment, I bend your ear one more time. > >I'm not a member of, or advocate for, any political party or anyone's >campaign. And I agree with you completely that Al Gore's policies on >economic issues are nothing a progressive can jump up and cheer about -- >although he's not quite as rotten as his opponent on questions like the >minimum wage. But there are two things I'd like you to consider. > >The first is the fact that George W. Bush is the stalking horse for the most >reactionary social and economic forces in this country: the radical >religious right, the rabid anti-choice movement, the NRA, and those who >would further dismantle the structures of environmental and worker-safety >legislation that have been painfully built in the past three decades. These >forces have kept quiet, understanding that the majority of the American >public doesn't support most of their programs, but they've also mobilized >their people for bloc voting. Even if Bush's inclinations weren't already in >their direction (this is, after all, the man who proclaimed "Jesus Day in >Texas"), he would, if elected, take office owing a substantial debt to these >people. Do you really want to help put the reins of government into those >hands? > >The second is a simple, tactical question: Do you want to carry the >oppobrium for making the election of George W. Bush possible? And do you >want to tar the progressive forces in the country with that same oppobrium? >For as someone who grew up on the left, and who has watched the ups and >downs of progressive movements in this country since I was a child in the >1950s, I can say with certainty that the deepest problem with the American >left is its inability to work constructively with like-minded liberals and >moderates toward the achievement of its goals. For reasons I've always >thought were specious, the left in this country has usually preferred being >alone and powerless but ideologically pure to actually getting anything >done. I still recall my New Left buddies in college refusing to help elect >progressive candidates -- the headline in one paper read "We Are Not >McGovernable" -- or support progressive labor leaders. This inability to >form >coalitions (or even work with each other) has kept the left marginalized >most of my life, except for the brief period of the civil rights and >anti-Vietnam war movements in the sixties -- and even those movements were >eventually torn apart by factionalism. > >If your candidacy leads directly to the election of George W. Bush as >president, I doubt seriously that the American people would rush to the left >when his policies turned sour, or when he began paying back his debts to the >reactionaries who helped propel him into office. Instead, I think there >would be a massive reaction *against* the left, in the person of yourself >and your supporters, as the people whose short-sightedness allowed this >knave to take power. After a career in which you have achieved great things, >is that really how you want to be remembered? And do you really want to >bring the rest of us down with you? > >Thanks for your time. >Paul J. Stamler >St. Louis, MO > > |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Troll Date: 27 Oct 00 - 10:10 AM D'ye think the Queen would take us back? MMM You hit the nail squarly on the head. troll |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Robo Date: 27 Oct 00 - 12:52 PM There's clearly enough of a choice -- especially if you enjoy the prosperity of recent years. Years ago I wrote a newspaper piece suggesting people should not vote (Nixon-McGovern). Harmless piece, really; kind of what would happen if they gave an election and no one showed up type of thing. It got me fired. Bottom line is that my thinking has changed 180' -- if we don't vote this year we'll get burned. Rob-o |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: mousethief Date: 27 Oct 00 - 12:57 PM Frankham, thanks for sharing that with us. Very sobering.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Ebbie Date: 27 Oct 00 - 01:04 PM Are you familiar with something called 'Preferential Voting'? In Alaska, it's being debated. It's the concept of voting on one's preferences- Your number one choice, your number two choice, etc. At counting up time, the candidates's votes get augmented or diminished by the numbers progressing down the list. There is one state using the system- I forget which- and I remember reading that another state tried it and has gone back to the usual method. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: kendall Date: 27 Oct 00 - 01:42 PM Is voting still mandatory in Oz? |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: John Nolan Date: 27 Oct 00 - 05:38 PM Re Frank Hamilton's entry above, I have just e-mailed the following message to Gore headquarters: Dear Sir / Ma'am, As a concerned progressive, I'd like to ask you to please encourage Mr. Al Gore to drop out of the presidential race. I fear that he may draw away soft support from Ralph Nader of the Green Party, the only candidate consistently articulating pro-worker, pro-environmental, anti-militarist positions.
Thanks for your attention to this matter. We cannot afford to miss an opportuntity to create a real alternative to the failed Reagan-Bush-Clinton era policies. (Boy, this election is becoming as exciting as a 64-verse border ballad.) |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: harpmolly Date: 27 Oct 00 - 06:08 PM I've been struggling with the Gore/Nader decision for weeks now--I really want to show support for the Green Party, with whom I'm registered, and help them get their percentage for funding. On the other hand, I really, really, REALLY don't want Bush to win. So, I've been stumped. The good news is that my mother, who is *gasp* Republican, told me last night she was also considering voting for Nader (*double gasp!*) but on the opposite horn of the dilemma--she doesn't want Gore to win. So, I proposed a solution that would benefit everyone. :D If she and I both vote for Nader, we cancel each other out--she sacrifices one vote for Bush, I sacrifice one vote for Gore (whom I can't stand anyway, but think is a better alternative than Bush), and the Green Party gets two votes they might not otherwise have had. Plus, we'll probably be less likely to exchange heated words in our next discussion, depending on who actually wins the election ;) My mom said she'd seriously consider it, and I think she will. I actually feel fortunate that this possibility is open to me--the possibility of voting my conscience without taking the chance that my vote will tip the scales for Bush. Now I just have to hope she goes for it ;) Molly |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Oct 00 - 06:24 PM So then your Mom goes in and votes for Bush..................... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: harpmolly Date: 27 Oct 00 - 06:39 PM That was the first promise we had to make to each other--that neither of us would cheat *grin* And my mum may be conservative, but she also prides herself on being honest and straightforward, and she knows how pissed off I would be if I ever found out. So I'm 99.9% sure she'll abide by her decision, whatever it turns out to be. Moll |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: JamesJim Date: 28 Oct 00 - 12:21 AM Law and sausage - neither is very pretty to watch being made. Actually, our system is one of checks and balances and no matter who is President (or even has majority in congress), we get along quite well. Our forefathers were brilliant. We've had a lot of Presidents who in hindsight, were not "up to the job (whatever that means)." On the other hand, I don't see any brilliant leaders anywhere else in the world (the last one our British friends had was Sir Winston). Our land is safe. God bless American and all of us ignorant, lucky fools who live here. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Frankham Date: 28 Oct 00 - 09:47 AM John, I think the operative word is "soft support". :) With a Republican Congress I think Mr. Nader could look forward to more failed policies. I agree with Mr. Nader, BTW and would vote for him if I thought he had a chance. As to the failed policies of Mr. Clinton, in all fairness, there was no compromise with an intransigent Congress. Bi-partisanship has become the biggest joke in electoral history. I think it's amazing that Clinton was able to do what he did under the circumstances. Would Mr. Nader realistically be able to do the same? Gene McCarthy was an idealistic candidate as well and as has been mentioned before, helped Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush get elected. I didn't care for Hubert Humphrey but if I had it to do over again I would have voted for him. The problem is that the electoral system as it stands today is dependent on too much money required to elect these guys and it has become a personality contest. Mr. Nader is noble enough to want to change all of that but in so doing he will have to take on the various lobbist interests. He can't do that at this point. People are too dependent on their guns, their nicotine and their narcotics to want to take the bull by the horns. There is an old aphorism, "you can't do just one thing". It's a high context problem that requires a kind of Parkinson's Law. To dismantle the electoral system, you have to dismantle the various interest groups, to dismantle them, you have to moblize people to care, to get people to care you have to wake them up so they will give up that which keeps them asleep, booze, drugs, tobacco, rich food, obesity,poverty, lack of education, the list goes on. Voltaire had it right. "Cultivate your garden". In the meantime we have to live in this peculiar political untenable world of the lesser of two evils. I can't see Mf. Nader carrying Texas or Georgia anytime soon. By all means write your letter to Mr. Gore and lets hold his feet to the fire if he gets in. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Ebbie Date: 28 Oct 00 - 03:39 PM What are your thoughts on the GOP group running pro-Nader ads? Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Oct 00 - 05:55 PM Personally Ebbie, I think they know EXACTLY what they are doing. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: DougR Date: 28 Oct 00 - 06:21 PM You really think Molly's Ma would do that to her Spaw? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Oct 00 - 06:32 PM Unlike my buddy Doug who can't stop pressing the button.(:<)) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Greg F. Date: 28 Oct 00 - 07:27 PM More importantly, 'Spaw, will the electorate be stupid enough to fall for it? Probably another one that's too close to call... Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Sandy Paton Date: 28 Oct 00 - 08:48 PM A Connecticut poll today shows that, in a state once considered "safe" for Gore, the numbers are now 45% for Gore, 45% for Bush, and 11% for Nader. Others polls around the country indicate that Nader is about to give the election to Bush on a silver platter. Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, etc., the list goes on. I'm not nearly as eloquent as Paul Stamler (who, by the way, does what I consider to be the finest folk music radio show in the country!), but this is what I wrote to Nader earlier today. " Please, Mr. Nader: For God's sake, don't deliver us into the arms of the big oil, chemical, pharmaceutical, etc., barons who have carefully selected George W. Bush as their candidate because they know he'll be easy for them to manipulate! Every vote you take away from Gore is a vote to deny women their right to reproductive choice, a vote to line the pockets of the wealthy, a vote to to endanger the stability of our Social Security system. Would you allow an insensitive semi-literate to name the next several members of the Supreme Court? Would you really be comfortable knowing that you were responsible for allowing Dick Cheney, with his smooth exterior and barbaric interior, to run the country from behind the scenes? This is the man who, when he was in the Congress, voted sixteen times against relief for black lung victims! Considering the obvious incompetence of Bush, we all realize that, in reality, Cheney and his right-wing cohorts will be running the show. My wife and I worked hard to help elect Toby Moffett, one of your early Nader-Raiders, to the Congress. Our motorhome was his first rolling campaign headquarters. We travelled with him all over the Sixth district, proud to be supporting a man who had formed the Connecticut Citizen's Action Group at your behest. Now we feel we must add our voices to Toby's, pleading with you to urge your supporters in every critical state to give their votes to Gore. There really IS a difference, and you know it, in spite of your current rhetoric. Surrender the next four years to the Bush forces and we will never again be able to trust your political judgement or believe in the selflessness of your crusade. Sandy Paton Sharon, CT
|
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: bflat Date: 28 Oct 00 - 09:01 PM Wow Sandy! That was a substantive missive. I too an concerned that Nader delivers the election to Bush, a man destined to become a laughingstock if elected and therefore the people of the US. Bush will not advance the values of Lincoln. He is a pawn and I fear that he can't think, let alone for himself. bflat |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Troll Date: 28 Oct 00 - 09:26 PM Just remember that everyone thought that Truman was nothing but a machine politician and he seems to have done ok. Sometimes-not often but sometimes- men rise to the ocassion and surprise even themselves. As far as the US being a laughing-stock, so what. Do you really believe they will like us any better if we elect Nader, Gore, or the Tooth Fairy? International relations isn't about friendship. It's about self-interest; what can this country do for me. Half the world thought Clinton should have resigned (Japan for instance) and half France etc) wondered what the fuss was about. I think he should have fallen on his sword to redeem himself but then I'm kind of partial to grand gestures. troll |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Ebbie Date: 28 Oct 00 - 09:48 PM Thanks, Sandy. If Nader is out for more than self-aggrandisement, as I hope he is, he may yet release his fans and urge a Democratic vote. I hope so- if not, Bush is in, I'm afraid. Ebbie Who's the mudcatter who said some time back that his prediction is that Gore will get in- and that his presidential predictions haven't been wrong yet? His name starts with G, I think. Come in, G! I need some encouraging words. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Sandy Paton Date: 28 Oct 00 - 10:13 PM I might add that Toby Moffett is another proud member of Connecticut's Lebanese community (as is one of my daughters-in-law), and he used to have dinner with the Nader family when he and his father were in Winsted, Nader's home town. They've been friends and political allies since Toby was in his teens. Toby left the Citizen's Action Group when he was elected to the House of Representatives for three terms, elected as a Democrat from a district that is predominantly Republican. Toby recently joined with a number of other former Nader-Raiders to plead with him to ask his supporters in all those critical (and painfully close) states to give their votes to Gore, who will at least do more to protect the environment and our natural resources. Also remember that Bush has stated that his favorite Supreme Court Justices are Scalia and Thomas! Think about it, folks! Is your self-righteous protest vote worth four years of a Bush-league government? Be sensible! There's too much at risk. Grandpa Paton |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Sourdough Date: 28 Oct 00 - 10:37 PM I was seriously considering voting for Nader, a man whom I have met and o some small degree worked with (more with the Raiders than with Nader, himself.) I am becoming increasingly concerned that soft-cynics, feeling dissatisfied with the indubitable deficiencies of the Presidential selection process, will cast what are essentially feel-good votes for Nader, a man who, within his level of competence, has been brilliant. Those people can convince themselves that they are striking a blow for good government by voting for Nader. This is much easier than going out and taking real action on a grass roots level. I think most everyone will have to admit that Nader is not Presidential in background. Even Carter, who had morals, vision and courage was ineffective when faced with the complexities of Iran and the economy. Bush Two will have to rely on advisors. Politics is the art of the possible, the art of compromise. His advisors are people who are interested in elections, not politics. I hope that when people consider what will happen during the coming years when we have to rely on the courage, vision and morality of a President faced with weapons of mass destruction, global warming, and the ten or fifteen crises that undoubtably will happen in the next four years, it will be far better to have a man who is smarter, better prepared and has a vision compass that goes beyond the next election. I have decided not to vote for Nader but will vote for Gore. Sourdough PS: When I lived in DC, I spent a lot of time with people whose job was elections, not politics. I learned something about hte mechanics of running Presidential campaigns. THis one will go down, I am sure, as an excellent example of how campaign people managed to let one canditate frame the view of the other. One last thing: On the topic of how well Truman turned out. Well, Truman was a man whose knowledge and indepencence were well known before he succeeded to the Presidency. The Truman Commission had already shown him to be an honest man who had long ago autgrown the local graft of his home state. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: MarkS Date: 28 Oct 00 - 11:37 PM Making a choice between Bush and Gore is like telling the pickpocket which hand, left or right, to use to lift your billfold. A vote for Nader is not wasted but is useful in two ways: A. He could presumably (a real longshot here) carry a state or two, enough to prevent an electoral majority by either of the other two - and wouldn't that just shake things up to a fare thee well, or, more realistically, B. He could get enough of a plurality to allow the powers that be to cease to ignore him next time around.
Posts here seem to regard the candidate of choice to be the lessor of two evils. So if you want to look at yourself in the mirror, please vote for the candidate who most closely mirrors your own feelings and views. If that happens to be Nader, then please vote for him. You will have done the right thing and will know that you have made an incremental step to, just maybe, getting some positive change here over the long run. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Caleb Date: 28 Oct 00 - 11:49 PM I have lived through Nixon,I have lived through Reagan. I watched my dad the Marine frisbee my Dylan records out the window in the Sixties, marched on DC in the Seventies, and implored B. Bradley,in correspondence, to run before the Elderbush/Dukakis debacle in the Eighties. Clinton was a bright spot until the Contract with America put Texas exterminators and Georgia demagogues in the drivers seat of the crane with the wrecking ball. Part of the failure of American education that no candidate mentions is that we have an electorate of morons,led by a media mob of simpering, finger to the wind snake oil salesmen...Argh! S. Paton, Jacob B. and others above have nailed it. This is a big one! Tell your momma, tell your papa, tell your uncle tell your friend! The liar Shrub is a front for A Cheney Presidency. This W is a guy who bought his way into office,(an office with little power in a state which is County Government madness)on the strength of his daddy's rep and pandering to the unAmerican Right. Have you seen the TV reports and poll numbers about "likeability"?? What!? You don't have to carpool with Al! As you walk through the subway, sit in traffic, stand in line at the supermarket, cruise the mall with your kids...look at the faces of the voters! Only one in three will go to the school or firehouse or town hall annex on Nov. 7! They don't have a buggerall clue! This is a big one - vote responsibly - vote for Al Gore and a new Congress where real campaign finance reform and prescription drug assistance for the elderly will truly be on the table. This guy is light years more qualified than the Shrub. Didn't you see the smirk on W's face - he almost smacked his lips - when he gloated about 'putting people to death'- the guy is out there! It's four years people; we gotta get it right. Jeez, maybe I better get back to that thread about what's in my guitar case.... |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Oct 00 - 12:00 AM If I were an American citizen...I would slightly rather see Gore win than Bush, but this doesn't indicate any confidence in Gore or his party. I consider both the Democrats and Republicans to be as "a sounding brass", noise and fury signifying nothing but their own desire for power, and the agents of the System in Amerika. Who I would far rather see win is Nader. I know that he can't win in this election, but how do you expect to build something for the future that offers a viable alternative to the blandishments and emptiness the Donkey and the Elephant? You've got to vote your conscience in order to eventually change a rotten system. Big parties have met their end before through repeated corruption...study your own US history since 1776. The Democrats and Republicans can be brought down, but you can't do it if you keep voting for them every time. You've got to start voting for something new. The System owns the old parties, body and soul, and they are its errand boys. Bush and Gore are figureheads. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Sandy Paton Date: 29 Oct 00 - 01:28 AM "Voting your conscience" once every four years is going to accomplish diddly-squat! Nader, at his best, isn't going to win a single electoral vote. The way to effect change is to get into action at the local (yes: at town, county, and state) levels and put together town committees, for instance, who look to the larger issues than who's gonna grab the next open spot on the town road crew. When Toby Moffett announced his candidacy, I was on the Democratic Town Committee here in Sharon. I took Toby to the next Town Committee meeting and introduced him to them all. We then worked in his campaign and sent him to the Congress. We were doing what those bumper-stickers advise - thinking globally, acting locally. Campaign finance reform has a much better chance of passing with Gore in office, and that is a critical first step toward returning power to the people. Think of that when you help put George W., with all his huge corporate contributions, in office. I haven't looked at that thread, Caleb, but whatever's in your guitar case, if it led to your current thinking, I hope you can spread it around. Sandy |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Troll Date: 29 Oct 00 - 01:43 AM It has been my experience that campaign finance reform is always touted by the party that has no chance at passing it. Neither side wants it. As far as prescription drugs are concerned, neither side shows me much. A pox on both their houses! As far as corporate contributions go, Gore is just as guilty as Bush. troll |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: catspaw49 Date: 29 Oct 00 - 01:45 AM Good letter Sandy and good thoughts.......but I fear the toast is burning. The Supreme Court folks.......Are we so willing to turn back the clocks and march proudly back to the Dark Ages? The Court, if for no other reason. You want to support change and Nader, then start now preparing for 2004........... .....and vote Gore in this one!!!!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Troll Date: 29 Oct 00 - 01:08 AM Spaw, we survived the liberal courts, we'll survive a conservative court if that be the case. troll |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: GUEST,celtic fawn Date: 29 Oct 00 - 05:23 AM Reading this forum I would come away with the conclusion that all the polls are wrong. Some of you that are so pro Nader or even those that seem to be pro Gore are interesting to read. It is laughable that the one who barely made it out of Harvard and flunked out of devinity school is the one who is branded the itellect. The one who made good grades at Yale and has an MBA from Harvard is portrayed as the dummy. It was also interesting to read the "spin" one of the submitters put on Truman. At the time he was elected the Pendergast machine was very much pulling for the "shirt salesman who wouldn't be up to the job of president." I'll admit that Gore is the better actor. He learns his lines well. His "Jolson" routine of "You ain't seen nothin yet" is getting old, but he knows the speech. His "One percent" was old on the second telling and so misleading. I'll be happy to take my tax cut thank you and won't be upset that someone who pays more than I do will get more in return. The same people who don't want to touch the open space in Alaska (the current drilling doesn't seem to bother the animals as the herds have increased) are the same ones who want to send the nuclear waste clear across the country through some of your hometowns to be put in my backyard. Can any of you Gore followers tell me why Lieberman is still running for the Senate? I may disagree with many of you but I am thankful to live in a country where you have the right to think and write as you do and I have the right to think and write as I do. I remember being very upset when Goldwater didn't get elected. He too was bombasted by the press. And life went on. No matter who wins the election on November 7, 2000 the United States of America will go on and still be the best country to live in in the world.
|
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: harpmolly Date: 30 Oct 00 - 11:30 AM Sigh...well, the polls don't look good. I hate to say it, but I think *I'm* going to call the deal off--it looks like Nader's doing well enough for himself in Oregon. Of course, if I vote for Gore my mum will vote for Bush, so it's kind of pointless anyway. But at least I'll feel I did something semi-productive. This election sucks. M |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: GUEST,Matt_R Date: 30 Oct 00 - 11:46 AM HAHA HA HA HA I already voted, and NONE of them losers got my vote! HA HA HA! |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Kim C Date: 30 Oct 00 - 12:26 PM I tried to go to early voting on Saturday and decided I didn't want to stand in line for two hours when the sun was shining outside. I'm with Sandy on the idea that if people want change, they have to get involved on a regular basis, starting with their local community. I hope Jesse Ventura runs in 2004. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: DougR Date: 30 Oct 00 - 12:53 PM Sandy: your letter reads pretty eloquent to me! Well said. I don't think Mr. Nader is anywhere near withdrawing, though, and his goal is not the presidency this time around. He just wants to establish the Green Party so that they can get federal funds during the next election. He is willing to "bite the bullet" and give the election to Bush in order to do that. He, like so many others in our community here, may believe that Governor Bush is so stupid there could be no way for him to be re-elected, if he does beat Gore on November 7th. In that event, Mr. Nader may feel he will be in a better position to make the run in the next election. Particularly so if a large number of people who believe in him take Sandy's advice and start getting involved at the local level. That's really what it would take. GUEST, celtic fawn: you must accept that the majority of the population on the Mudcat are liberals. They feel very strongly about their philosophy, and genuinely fear the worst if Gore loses the election. That does not mean, however, that the majority of the people in the United States share the philosophy of the marjority in our Mudcat community. Therefore, the majority opinion here might not, in anyway, affect what the polls are showing. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Lox Date: 30 Oct 00 - 01:20 PM Has anybody heard this idea? Imagine if you had the choice to actively choose, as an option on the ballot paper, "none of the above"! The system could be organized so that if 50% of the voters chose "none of the above", then all the candidates would have to withdraw from the elections so that a whole new set of candidates would be forced to stand. What would the result be? 1. less spending on republican/democrat hype conventions 2. more vigorous debate 3. more competition & choice When you give the idea serious thought, it grows on you. whaddaya think? lox |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: mousethief Date: 30 Oct 00 - 01:52 PM Lox, I think it has no chance whatsoever of happening, but if it makes you happy to talk about it, go right ahead. People with stuffy noses need to wake up and smell the coffee. Nader will never be elected president. Never. Not this year, not in 2004, not ever. He is far too extreme for this very moderate country.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Midchuck Date: 30 Oct 00 - 06:30 PM What I have for politicians In my gray declining years Is the first line of the chorus From "Barrett's Privateers." Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Lepus Rex Date: 30 Oct 00 - 06:53 PM I'm still voting for Nader, though everyone here at work is for Gore (even the ones who were going to vote for Nader, originally). They say crap like 'A vote for Nader's a vote for Bush!' And they keep pointing out that Nader isn't going to win, too. Nader's not running to win. And people aren't voting for him because they think he's going to be elected president. He's not. We're voting to strengthen the Green Party for the future and to increase it's status. Four years of Bush won't be the end of the world. He's not going to get in there and change things. Like Gore, he just wants to keep the people fat and happy. People like presidents like Clinton, Gore, and Bush. Any one of them will do just fine for the mindless drones who populate this country. Plus, I'll be voting for TWO 'minority' candidates when I vote for Nader (Arab) and LaDuke (Ojibwe). :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Matt_R Date: 30 Oct 00 - 06:58 PM Maybe not Lepus. I voted just the other day, and Nader was NOT on the ballot. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: John Nolan Date: 30 Oct 00 - 07:58 PM In 1795, just a year before his death, and at a time of enormous suffering for many Scottish people, Burns wrote a series of election ballads highly supportive of a Whig friend, Mr. Patrick Heron, and savaging the Tory slate so favored by rich aristocrats. In January 1992, as a journalist in New Hampshire surveying the field of primary candidates, and having interviewed most of them, I was struck by the paucity of choice, and wrote the verses below for my annual Burns Supper poetry contest, as well as publishing them in the local paper. Eight years ago, Clinton (later joined by the hideous Gore, the man that wanted to keep Elian Gonzalez in the USA to win Floridian votes) pledged to do something to help America's 34 million people with no health care coverage. Today there are 43 million Americans with no health insurance. I had breakfast interview with Nader, one Sunday, and it wasn't easy on me or the waitress, as Ralph is a man who is either saddled with a thousand principles or he has been living with his mother too long – did you have natural oatmeal, can't you bring skimmed milk, etc. In a poor blue collar town! But he radiated honesty and boy, was that rare and refreshing. Anyway, this is a traditional music site, and this adaptation of a Burns election address has a good tune, if nothing else: Trogging = 1. Bartering, bargaining 2. Odds and ends 3. Rubbishy goods, insubstantial trash 4. Worthless specimens, riff-raff 5. Nefarious or illicit dealings Wha Will Buy My Trogging? (Tune - Buy Broom Besoms)
Wha will buy my trogging?
Buy braw troggin
Davie Duke's not cast his cowl
Buy braw toggin, etc.
Poor Agran and Fulani got
Buy braw troggin, etc.
Glitzy Billy Clinton gabbin
Buy braw troggin, etc.
Pat Buchanan's fuming at
Buy braw troggin, etc.
And shed nae tears for Wilder, tho
Buy braw troggin, etc.
Should Jolly Joker Kerrey
Buy braw troggin, etc.
Geordie Bush at Cabletron
Buy braw troggin, etc.
Now Harkin and his lawyer clique
Buy braw troggin, etc.
On pachyderms and donkey fowk,
Buy braw trogging, etc.
Braw=fine, siller=silver, ane=one, speir=ask, chiel=lad, sic=such, skiddle=move rapidly and lightly, unco laith=very loath, fowk=folk.
Incidentally, Nader, as a write-in candidate got five percent on both Democratic and Republican ballots. Then, as now, he drew crowds numbering thousands, and yet was not granted interviews (= censored)by marvellously liberal papers like the Boston Globe.
P.S. If the UK had remained content with Conservatives and Liberals, the Labor Party would never have become established, and, without their national health system, millions of Britains would also be completely without health coverage, today. |
|
Subject: RE: No Real Choice in American Elections From: Ely Date: 30 Oct 00 - 10:11 PM Just like the bumper sticker says: "I didn't vote for his daddy, either" (or wouldn't have, had I been old enough). Personal politics aside, I wish all candidates would be given equal air time. I think that to exclude those that are not from the two major parties sends the message that they are not serious, viable, contenders. Maybe they aren't, but they might be someday if they were included in televised debates, etc. Of course, there are myriad other inequities among candidates, but I think that's one that would be more easily remedied than some others. |
| Share Thread: |
