Nader for President

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Troll
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 11:05 PM

As I intended it to. As far as I know, there is almost NO gun violence. I will try to check on this and get back to you.

troll

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:45 PM

Thank you, Troll, for correcting my mistatement of fact. Now I wonder, of the violent crime rate, how much of that is gun related? And how much of it is male on female? And with so many guns around, how come their murder rate is not sky high? It's not the gun, it is the environment. Your correction of my mistatement actually bolsters my point.

Mick

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Troll
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:39 PM

Mick, Switzerland has one of the lowest MURDER rates. Their violent crime rate is, with Hollands, one of the highest in the industrialized world. In Holland there are virtually NO guns in private hands.
Go figure.

troll

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 10:28 PM

Happy to respond to that decent question. There are many reasons from hunting on public lands or the lands of someone from whom I have permission, when I am going sport shooting, or when I am going to the range or an open area to practice my ability to fire only at what I intend to hit with lethal precision. It is a skill I learned a long time ago which at the time was necessary to keep me alive and adding to the gene pool, much to the chagrine of others. I hope never to use a weapon for anything other than enjoying the shooting sports, but should that become necessary in the defense of my family, my safety, or whatever I have the ability to do what must be done because I leave my property to keep my competency where it should be if I am going to possess deadly weapons.

But this is not the real question. I certainly respect the fact that you hate guns. I would never bring one out around someone who was not comfortable around them. Nor do I see folks that don't like them, in fact hate them, as anything other than decent folks with an opinion. One thing I know for sure is that you will never treat a weapon in an irresponsible manner. Those are the people that I detest. Those that own guns, but are not qualified, and don't have appropriate respect for what the weapon can do. I would carry a weapon off my property for any number of legal reasons. If my work takes me to places where my safety is a question comes to mind. But the real answer is because, if it is legal, I can. It is a right, or a privilege in some jurisdictions granted by law. Before that is taken away, there should be a good reason. You're uncomfortable? Not good enough. Because children are being killed in driveby shootings? Not with the guns of law abiding gun owners. These people are criminals and if my guns are gone, theirs will not be. You would simply create a black market and make gun running a profession in the states again. Because if all the guns were gone, then we wouldn't have to worry about it? See above. Because Columbine was a tragedy as was the shooting of the little girl by the little boy? Horrid tragedies caused by irresponsible people, in one case with an illegally obtained weapon. The Uncle needs to go to jail and never come out. The Columbine shooting demonstrates the need to close certain loopholes and have 7 day waiting periods. Because some societies have no guns and their crime rates are low? There are two states where one can openly carry and they are among the lowest in violent crime. Switzerland requires every man to own a submachine gun in his home and they have one of the lowest violent crime rates. The real issue? I have seen it many times. It isn't my ability to own a weapon for WHATEVER legal reason I decide to own it. And it isn't about me taking it off my property for whatever legal activity I choose. It is about hopelessness. Gang activity, and violent crime are directly related to the lack of hope. When youth see no way out, they turn to other ways of feeling secure. When you resolve the issue of WHY people take a weapon and blow pieces off each other, the guns I own will bgecome irrelevant. Blaming the weapon for what happens when used improperly, is like blaming the car for the car accident. Or blaming the pen for the hate produced in the hands of a sick person. Or giving it credit for the love produced by another.

I carry a gun off my own property only when there is a reason to do so, and only when it is legal to do so. I have no problem with forcing people who choose to do so with demonstrating their competence and waiting a reasonable time to be properly checked out. Once I have done so, leave me alone. I am a law abiding citizen, pay my taxes, have the right, and am within my rights.

That'll teach you for asking......................LOL.

Mick

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: kendall
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 09:50 AM

I have every reason to think this was directed at me, so, Here is my answer (not that it will do any good)
I own a .38 special snub nose revolver. Its exactly like the one I carried while working under cover years ago. It is mine, and, as long as it is on my person, I know where it is. It is not in my house while I am gone, for some burglar to get his shit hooks on and hurt someone. I am licensed to carry it concealed, and it is doing no harm to anyone. Of course muggings are rare, of course mass shooting at McDonalds are rare, but, if I'm there when it happens, the bastard wont get all of us!
You Pollyannas can live in la la land if you wish, I choose the real world, and it aint a nice place. If I could wave a magic wand, and cause all weapons to disappear, I would do it. But, as long as the scum of the earth prey on innocent people, I will defend myself.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: harpgirl
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 09:24 AM

Mick. I hate guns! But it is a serious question. Why would anyone take a gun off their own property? Give me a reasoned argument!

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 09:02 AM

Harp, you are the one who made sure we all knew your sterling qualifications. So when you throw out a gratuitous assertion aimed at me and others who happen to own guns, intended to show us to be idiots and heathens, why do you recoil so when we fire back. It just shows the same spoiled nature that you showed back on the Hearme thread. You can dish, but can't take. Apparently in your mind it is OK for you to cast aspersions but not to have them cast back. And lest you start on me, remember that it was me who attempted to patch it up publicly and privately, both rejected by you. So when you throw out these little rants, I will be there to expose you. Have you noticed through the fog that when you are using your fine knowledge of facts on music, instruments, and things in general that I never say a negative word? But when you just flip off and act like the spoiled kid, the one who attacked me first some time ago, I will be there. And your gun nut comment was one of those. Put up or shut up.

Mick

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 01:31 AM

There was a request awhile back that when a thread gets to 100 posting, we start a new one, as some people's browsers take a long time to load any over that length. Please see my previous posting, just up two from here, and use the link to post to the new thread. Thank you.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 01:17 AM

McGrath - I agree with you, that there should be stringent requirements for owning a gun. In Canada (in Ontario, anyway), one has to take a lengthy firearms handling and safety course, quite thorough and responsible, before one can go out and buy a gun. I took the course, cos I thought it would be interesting, and it was. I got the certificate, but never bothered to actually buy a gun with it, cos I don't feel I have any particular need for one. If I was living in the mountains out west, and there were grizzlies around, then I would buy a gun, and take it with me when in the woods. Ditto for the far north and polar bears. I've got no plans to shoot at other people, none whatsoever, nor would I shoot at a bear either, unless the bear gave me no choice about the matter. That sometimes happens. Guns in a city environment? Nope. Not my solution. I try not to live in fear, and mostly I succeed at that.

- LH

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 01:01 AM

I have started a Part Two thread as this one is now at 100 postings. You may access it by clicking here.

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: MiriamKilmer
Date: 03 Nov 00 - 12:02 AM

I happen to know that the guest "MKilmer" is a very fine musician. Nice to see you here!

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: harpgirl
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:26 PM

...Mick why don't you stop maligning me professionally? No law says I have to act or speak a certain way because of my profession. I happen to think people who own guns are foolish. If you don't like it you can take a flying leap!

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:12 PM

Question: What is the man thinking when he says these things? Reminds me of the 8-ball that floats a message to the top seemingly at random.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: GUEST,Big Mick
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:07 PM

hahahahahahaha..............how ya doin' buddy? Tell your kid I loved watching his game and that he was fine. They put too much on him, but he measured up and I was proud of him. And I do not sound like you.........bite me...........LOL.

To the person who called us gun nuts, doesn't sound like a professional opinion to me, glad I'm not under your care. I gave reasoned arguments, and can give more as to why I own guns. I can also give reasoned arguments as to why the position of "ban 'em all" isn't logical and won't do much, if anything to to stem the flow of gun violence. I am for reasonable rules, and absolute enforcement. Care to get into it?

Mick

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: GUEST,MKilmer
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:14 PM

I'm holding out for the candidate who wishes to make retro-active abortion legal. Simply wait until the baby is born, see if it's everything it was cracked up to be, and if not......................No time limit, of course, so the candidate herself would be fair game.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: GUEST,ex-951
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:03 PM

Mick you are beginning to sound more like me all the time

B

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: thosp
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 09:30 PM

yes Kendall --- i saw him say that also --- confused the hell out of me --- i thought it was a federal program --- just shows to go ya what i know

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 09:26 PM

Jesus, Kendall, we've got to put a stop to THAT right away! Thin edge of the wedge of creeping socialism, and all!Best, Greg

(Course, with Dumbya's command of the language, you can't ever be sure what he's on about)

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 09:16 PM

I suppose if a militia, such as the KKK, well regulated or not, is after you because you're "a savage", you might feel you need another militia to protect you from them. I can't remember anywhere reading about the NRA supporting the Black Panthers though.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: kendall
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 06:40 PM

I just heard Bush claim that the democrats want to make social security a FEDERAL program!!

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Frankham
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 06:04 PM

All that I can say is that I am disappointed in Ralph Nader. I admire his stance but now I see he is willing to sell it out to a Bush presidency.

Frank

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: kendall
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 05:22 PM

Gun nuts? define gun nut, and I'll answer your question from my own point of view, as I cant speak for anyone else.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Kim C
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 04:56 PM

How very true. :]

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: GUEST,Matt_R
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 04:48 PM

Ha ha, saw a great flyer here today, only something an ECU art student could have made! It had an image of an elephant copulating with a mule on one side, and an mule copulating with an elephant on the other side. In the middle it said "NO F***ING DIFFERENCE". And the asterisks were 3 little five-pointed stars. I voted for Father Tom! Whee!

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Troll
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 04:46 PM

PROTECT THE EASILY OFFENDED
BAN EVERYTHING!

troll

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 04:43 PM

Do you mean using guns to criminalize it the possession of unborn children, or criminalizing the possession of unborn children who possess guns?

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 04:39 PM

What about criminalizing the possession of unborn children with guns?

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Troll
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 04:24 PM

Using guns on unborn children or going after unborn children who posses guns? Please be more specific. Some of us might favor one or the other.

troll

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: MiriamKilmer
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 04:01 PM

"The prospect of putting a man who's in favor of executing people even if they might be innocent really scares me."

Oops. I got my tongue wrapped around my eye-teeth and I couldn't see what I was writing.

"The prospect of having a president who's in favor of executing people even if they might be innocent really scares me."

A true compromise candidate would be in favor of going after unborn children with guns.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: MiriamKilmer
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 03:57 PM

I'm in Virginia, where Gore has no chance. I voted for Gore (via Clinton) in the last two elections because of his record on Ecology, but now I'm upset with him for all the lying and pettiness.

The prospect of putting a man who's in favor of executing people even if they might be innocent really scares me.

If there's a Nader supporter in a toss-up state out there who wants to trade votes, I'd be happy to vote for Nader here in exchange for your vote for Gore. I'd have to know you, though. Write to me if you're interested and you know me: [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Kim C
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 03:50 PM

All I'm saying is, I want to be able to defend myself in the event of a crisis. I do not believe in any wise that the Pentagon is going to send the Army crashing around my house, not now, not ever, and I don't believe in black helicopters or Trilateral Commissions or any of that. I'm a survivor and I want to be able to fight and I want to be able to survive and the ugly truth is sometimes that takes a weapon.

That really is all I'm going to say about it.

Now..... I am not a Green Party supporter, however, it is quite refreshing to me that another party is getting a little attention this time around.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 03:31 PM

Basically true, Kim. But militias in colonial America weren't primarily intended to defend the townspeople against the British regulars; they were mainly intended to protect them from the "savages," and maybe some marauding French trappers.

Even accepting your premise, though, are you really keeping your guns in the hopes that they'll enable you to win in a shootout with the U.S. Army? Have you seen the kind of hardware those guys have these days? If you expect to match firepower with the feds, you and your neighbors may want to consider picking up something more than a few personal sidearms. Suddenly my sarcastic mention of landmines and nerve gas seems like a more plausible scenario -- which is not at all what I intended.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Kim C
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 02:52 PM

I guess it depends on what the definition of "militia" is. Traditionally a "militia" was a group of local folks who were not employed by the regular Army or the government, who could band together to defend their town should the occasion arise. Nowadays they try to tell us that the National Guard is the "militia," but Guardsmen get a paycheck from the Fed, don't they? If so then they are not a "militia" in the traditional sense, because they are an extension of the regular Army, which is part of the government. The militia is supposed to be in place to defend us from the regular Army if the government sics them on us. (Not likely, I know.)

But I'm just an unfrozen caveman. And I'm pretty good with a club, too.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: harpgirl
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 02:45 PM

How many of you gun nuts carry guns off your own property? Why?

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 02:28 PM

True, but if the two existing sides didn't insist on polarization, other options might be considered. I hate to think that we nominate two candidates in the expectation that they will adopt and articulate rigid positions on every question -- and then feel that the only way we can move beyond this rigidity is by adding more candidates.

I think it's interesting that one of the qualities we seem to value most in Presidential candidates is obstinacy. So we get campaigns based on phony but tough-sounding slogans like "read my lips -- no new taxes" (Bush the elder) or "I will fight for ___" (Gore) and the like, because the candidate perceives that he'll make more headway by sticking his jaw out and looking fierce, rather than examining a question on its merits and trying to come up with a more nuanced approach. Some of the candidates are truly capable of a more thoughtful approach, but they recognize that the electorate, and the election process, tends to reward the more obstinate candidate -- mistaking stubbornness for commitment. Then someone like Clinton comes along, and he is disparaged for being a "compromiser" -- as if that's a negative attribute in a politician.

Nader is not the man for me; I don't believe he has the breadth of expertise necessary to be President. And I will not vote for what I do not want, as much as I might like to open the process up to other parties representing other points of view. But I would really appreciate it if someone would come along who did NOT feel it was necessary to impress me with how inflexible and dogmatic he is. We deserve better than that.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 01:40 PM

A lot of time with debates it's not that both sides are right, and some kind of compromise is what yiou want, but rather that there are other options which are being excluded by concentrating on the back and forth between the two sides. Which gets us back to Nader.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:56 PM

Mick, if we ever hope to resolve this issue, we need the kind of clear-headedness that your posting demonstrates. Reasonable people may differ on exactly where we should draw the line on this question. That's okay with me -- I don't pretend to have all the answers either. But on the issue of gun control, we need people of good faith to work with each other, rather than against each other, to come up with workable solutions.

Some of these issues are difficult because a lot of us can see logic on both sides. In fact, I think this is true with respect to most of the big societal issues facing us -- gun control, abortion, drugs, the size of government, the environment, the Israelis vs. Palestinians, traditional folk music vs. singer/songwriters, etc. Unfortunately, ambivalence makes for lousy bumper stickers; and when you admit that there are good points on both sides of the debate, sometimes that makes you everyone's enemy. But I think that's the direction we all need to go in.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: DougR
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:31 PM

Bart, I will check that article out.

Well said, Big Mick. I was raised with guns, as evidently you were, and through your excellent prose, re-lived some wonderful memories of going on hunts with my Dad. I only own two guns now. One is a .22 rifle I purchased for $5 when I was about 12 years old (Remington Model 24) and my grandfather's (and father's) 12 guage double barrel shotgun (which I would not be comfortable shooting anymore with moder ammo).

Also well said, Kendall. No one wants to live next to a prison, do they?

DougR

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:40 AM

You have to pass a driving test to drive a car, and if you drive it badly enough you lose the licence.

As a car driver, for my own protection, I'd go to the barricades to resist andone who tried to abolish those kinds of requirements. I'd sooner it was harder to get the licence, and easier to lose it, and that the speed limits weren't so high. And if I was a gun-owner I'd want the rules to be at least as strict on guns as they are on cars.

I don't think that makes me a fascist. Just frightened of "guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children."

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: kendall
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:37 AM

Kim C I am a gun owner, and, I would not hesitate to use it if my life was in immediate peril. BUT the 2nd amendment still says ".a well regulated militia.." Now the issue of enforcement, the gun laws ARE being enforced, but there is a congressman in Michigan who is being targeted by the NRA because he supports a 7 day waiting period to buy a hand gun at a gun show. Personally, I favor a long prison sentence for anyone who commits a felony with a gun, but, dont forget that most gun crimes are not within the jurisdiction of the Federal government, but, rather under state authority. What happens every time a state tries to expand its prison system? it is voted down because the taxpayers dont want to fund it, and, no one wants it in their neighborhood. The constitution expressly forbids cruel and unusual punishment, such as, cramming 180 criminals into a space built for 90. Remember Attica? that was the problem.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:22 AM

Kim - I don't own a gun, but I don't object, per se, to people owning guns. Why would I? I would be nervous about people owning operable military assault rifles, automatic weapons, machine guns, bazookas or stuff like that...that's going too far, I think. But regular guns?...no, no objection, as long as they employ basic safety procedures and act responsibly around those guns, and keep them in a safe place, away from their kids, for example.

I don't object to people owning cars either, as long as they drive them safely. Same principle.

And the same with guard dogs. They can be dangerous too, if they are allowed to run around loose, but that's no reason for people to be banned from owning them.

Fascism is a system that tries to FORCE everyone to be the same, according to some arbitrary official view from on high, and I hate fascism with a passion.

Sorry. Thread creep, I guess. Back to Nader.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Big Mick
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:12 AM

The gun issue is a red herring, and the Right uses it to try and scare folks. The facts are that we have had a Democratic President for eight years and the first two years he had a Democratic Congress. Anyone lost any guns? Al Gore is a sportsman, and a hunter. He has never advocated taking guns away from anyone but criminals. In the eight years of the Clinton-Gore administration, the only things in this area that have been taken away are cop killer bullets (which I support, and I have a total of eight guns), and closed the assault weapons loophole created during dubya's father's administration. It was during the Bush years, I believe, that US made assault weapons were banned. Clinton-Gore then closed the door on foreign made weapons.

The right to keep and bear arms is an important issue in the states. But no progress will be made until the idiots on the extremes of this issue quit spouting rhetoric and start talking to one another. I believe strongly in my right to own weapons. Let me tell what they represent to me. In my minds eye I can still see the day that I first was allowed to fire a shotgun. I can remember campfires with my uncles and cousins, the huge meals with all the family around, the rite of passage in being allowed to hunt with the grownups. I can remember the lectures on gun safety, the NRA sponsored safety class, the stern admonitions from my Da. I can remember the delight on my Grandmothers face when I brought her 3 rabbits and a pheasant and the wonderful rabbit stew she made. That's the childhood memories. The guns, also came to mean something else to me, in another time in my life. I saw the awful carnage they reap on another human being. I became determined that I would become very competent in their use, and in the skill of surgical shooting. And I did, so that if I ever did take it out in a self defense situation it would be used for that purpose in very precise and with deadly intent. And I have always prayed that it would never be used in such a fashion again. And thanks be to God, it never has.

Now let me tell you what guns mean to others. They are the sound in the streets that means that their children are being exposed to danger. They are the genesis of the holes in their walls and windows while they are sitting in the one place that they should feel safe. They are the source of misery and fear and in the minds of those that live with this terror, they represent not one good thing. They are the thing that caused a little 7 yr. old boy in Flint, Michigan to kill a little girl in his class.

The facts are that until these two sides can begin to talk to one another, and reconcile these entirely different views of these things, politicians will continue to pander to the one side or the other for political gain. And the polarity will continue. I am not a member of the NRA, but I tell my friends who are that as long as they continue to spout that tired old 2nd Amendment rhetoric, they will continue to lose. A change is definitely coming, and if they don't get off that horse and get to the table the change will come without them. And I tell my anti-gun friends that I am a gun owner, and as long as they continue to pursue taking away a right of mine that logical thinking shows there is no reason to take away, then they are against me. The guns killing the kids in the streets are not my guns. I, and people like me, have done nothing to cause society to take away a heritage that has been passed down over the centuries.

And most importantly, those that vote a single issue, such as guns or abortion, and continue to ignore the other 8 or 10 issues that impact them in a far greater and longer term way, contribute to their own demise. And the boys at the top just laugh at us for the fools we are.

Mick

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 11:04 AM

McGrath, I would much prefer that we recognize the TRUE meaning of the Second amendment, and remove all restrictions on the ownership of "arms" -- which is not limited to small arms. Then we can plant land mines around our doors and windows, and strategically place nuclear devices inside our homes in case some nut with a stolen Glock gets past our first-line defenses. In fact, why not identify likely intruders ahead of time, and have an automatic system that will target them with overwhelming force (nuclear missiles, anthrax virus, nerve gas) if they make the first move? What we really to do is bring "mutual assured destruction" down to earth and into our daily lives. Think globally, act locally -- that's what it's all about, isn't it?

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:50 AM

"If some goober breaks into my house with a nice Glock he stole from someone, or bought off the street" - well it's a bit thread drifty, but how about this for a technical fix:

if all guns you could but legally had some kind of tracer built into them that couldn't be removed without making the thing blow up in your face, that would solve the problem of stolen guns.

Tie that up with rigorous checks on who can legally buy a gun, and an exchange system for all the guns that don't have the tracer gismo, with a reasonable time to allow for the exchange, like three months. After which possession of any gun which didn't have the tracer would be a felony.

Now those are the kind of controls that you'd expect the NRA to be in favour of, if they really wanted to protect the nicer legal gun-owners they go on about.

Of course you'd still have to worry about your next-door neighbour with a legal gun deciding he'd like to blow you apart...

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: GUEST,Greg F.(remote location)
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:43 AM

You're as bad as McGrath, Peter- there's no such thing as Global Warming! Its all an anti-industry, anti-free market plot. ;-)
Best, Greg

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:36 AM

Canadians and the rest of the world have a big stake in the two issues no one is talking about. If Bush gets elected, he will press ahead with the anti-missile defence shield. If he does that, then we are into a new arms race, and countries like Canada will have to join in or be punished. This monumentally stupid idea will go ahead if Bush is elected, and possibly may not if Gore is. This is one of the two critical issues for the rest of the 21st century. We will enter into a new nuclear era.
The other is global warming, about which Al Gore has said nothing, because he is scared to be passionate about things he says he is concerned about. It is totally mysterious to me, but I assume it is because his consultants told him he would be laughed at. But the idea that George W. Bush will do anything about it is even more laughable.
That is what is at stake for the rest of us on planet Earth. Have a good election, guys!!!!
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: GUEST,Stackley
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:35 AM

Let me save Douger the trouble.
Bart, the Utne Reader" it's just an article[or a collection of articles] written by a reporter." Don't mean squat; don't pay it any mind.
Cheers

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Troll
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:32 AM

People have to get involved with their own lives, Bart. As long as the general populance is content to allow others to make their decisions while they watch "Baywatch", or allow talk show hosts to be their major source of information, or follow the lead of movie stars simply BECAUSE they are movie stars, meaningful change is impossible.
We, as a society, are too detached, too walled off from reality in our apartments and gated communities and housing projects. We need to get out and get involved locally first because thats where you leard activism; it's real, it's immediate, and you can see the effects first-hand.

troll

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:15 AM

DougR - I did catch Nader on Hardball and was fairly impressed with his answer to one question raised by a student "What's next for the Green party". There was no posturing about the election not being lost yet, or anything like that. Instead, he answered the question (what a change from the other guys). He said, in essence that the Greens become a watchdog party, build strength in states and local politics and make sure that whoever is elected is held accountable to someone between now and the next election.

I missed Donohue, but felt that Ralph N.was quite passionate. There is no way he can drop out without betraying his beliefs, and he was clear about that. Personally, regardless of who wins on Tuesday (and I still think Gore is the best man running this year), I am going to look into the Green movement.

On a related note, check out the latest issue of the Utne Reader. There is a pretty interesting series of articles about the grass roots movements in this country. Something is indeed happening that could change this country. But it's never going to start with an election. Real change has to take place in the populace. Then we will elect leaders who are able to institutionalize it. Change has to have ROOTS, or it can get washed away in the inevitable reactionary wave.

When will we get passed the "cult of personality" mentality?

Pax vobiscum
Bart

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Kim C
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 10:13 AM

He'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers, as they say.

Those of you who don't want to own weapons, fine. Don't own them. That's your choice. But don't you DARE to presume to tell me that I can't own one, or that I don't have the right to defend myself or my family in the way that I see fit. If some goober breaks into my house with a nice Glock he stole from someone, or bought off the street, a pair of scissors or an iron skillet ain't gonna make it a fair fight. And unless you keep your hunting or target rifle loaded, that ain't gonna get it either.

We don't need MORE laws. We need to ENFORCE the laws we already have. Wow, what a concept. NO amount of laws will ever be effective if they are not enforced.

That's all I'm going to say about that, and no more. The end.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 08:16 AM

Yeah, I agree that charisma is lacking this time around. And charisma is important, because the President has to have more than good ideas -- he has to have the ability to rally others to his cause and actually achieve something. Maybe once one of these guys gets into the White House, his charisma will start to emerge. But it does seem to be lacking right now.

Donahue would make a great VP; he could be Oprah's running mate (a half-serious suggestion).

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: kendall
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 06:46 AM

Right again Doug. Power is the strongest aphrodisiac known to man.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: DougR
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 02:01 AM

Chris Matthews devoted his whole program, "Hardball," to Ralph Nader tonight. I watched it, and wonder if any of you did too.

It was telecast on the campus of the University of Wisconsion and the students were most enthusiastic, about what Nader had to say, I thought. But was it Nader, or what Nader had to say?

As I watched the telecast, I had a thought about the current election campaign that caused me to wonder.

Time and again, many of us have posted messages that we are not enthused about either of the major candidates. I got to thinking what that meant. After watching Nader, I thought to myslef, 'Phil Donohue would be a much better candidate for the Green Party than Ralph Nader is!' Why? Because Phil Donohue shows more passion for the beliefs of the Green Party than Ralph Nader does. Phil Donohue has charisma, Ralph Nader does not!

Neither does Gore, and neither does Bush. But Bush has a tiny bit more than Gore.

In prior elections, we generally had one candidate that clearly had more charisma than the other. Kennedy had it. Goldwater had it. To a degree, Johnson had it. Reagan had it. Clinton has it.

So, is Charisma the ingredient that is missing in this election?

DougR

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: DougR
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 01:45 AM

I think anyone who aspires to be president is motivated by one thing: power. With enough power, one can do almost anything. I think that power is the attraction that motivates most people to seek elective office.

It can be used for good or for bad. I would hope that anyone who aspires to become President would use that power for good. Unfortunately,in the U. S., "good" is open to interpretation. What might seem good to me, might seem bad to Kendall.

It's easy to see why anyone might be seduced by the power of the presidency. Anyone can likely adjust, without too much difficulty, to having one's wish granted, almost without verbalizing it, I suppose. As Clinton said in the recent Esquire interview, (paraphrasing) ...it will be difficult to enter a room without music.

It's the most powerful position in today's world, and that is why we need to be very careful who we elect to occupy the position.

In less than a week, we will know who, in our collective wisdom, we have chosen to fill the position. I hope we make a good choice.

DougR

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Nov 00 - 12:17 AM

By the way, you gotta wonder what sort of person would want to be president in the first place...

Think about that. I have. It's gotta be an unusual person, I would think. Either someone with a profound sense of public duty and destiny (a virtual saint)...or an egomaniac...or a career social climber with delusions of grandeur...or a party hack on the inside track...or ????

It's scary, is what it is. Who would actually want the job? I know I wouldn't.

Should the fact that a guy wants to be president disqualify him on grounds of mental instability?

I seriously wonder about things like this...

The Taoist master, Lao-Tse was once complimented by his studenst, who said to him "You are the wisest man in China. You should be made Emperor." He replied, "I would not choose to be a lamb fattened for the slaughter!" And he was truly wise. There were always many fools, however, who wished to be Emperor, and then fear for their lives every day of their reign. Soon passes the glory of the world for such as these.

- LH

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: DougR
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:00 PM

Yes, Guest Stackley (or whoever you are), I have a bias, don't you? Cheers,

DougR (and just DougR)

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: GUEST,Stackley
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:00 PM

Well, Doug, you're just an ignorant sod shooting off your mouth. You don't mean to suggest you have no bias, do you?
Cheers.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 09:23 PM

if Gore will help get the guns out of the hands of the crooks and nuts, I'll not only vote for him, I'll Canonize him!

Legimate hunting and target weapons, ok...Uzis and Saturday night specials NO!

of course, he won't be able to....

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: kendall
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 09:11 PM

There is no need to do away with the 2nd amendment. If the Supreme court would only rule on it, that would do it. It clearly says "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA..etc. but, we have been down that road many times with people who simply will not see the truth.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: GUEST,mousethief (at the library)
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:59 PM

Gore was never president; how could he have "picked" anyone? Maybe voted for; never picked.

Clarence Thomas will surely go down as one of the biggest fumbles of post-war 20th century American politics. How this man, with absolutely no bench experience, could be elected to the Supreme Court is beyond me. But when it became a smear campaign, he got sympathy votes, and/or the voting became over not whether he is a worthy Supreme Court justice candidate, but whether he was responsible for all that was laid at his feet by Anita Hill and company. In all of this, the fact that he was less qualified to serve on the Supreme Court than to pole vault to the moon was quite overlooked.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: harpgirl
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:58 PM



...well, he is naive enough to believe like everyone else, that Scalia was going to be a reasonable man! As for Thomas, it was mostly male democrats...women were too smart!

While we are at it let's abolish the Second Amendment!! We don't need it!!! I'm going to give Marion Hammer the finger pistol when I run by her house tonight!

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: GUEST,Luther
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:49 PM

No, but Gore did (Scalia). And of course Thomas got a bit of help from the Democrats as well.

No more Voteswap2000 -- voteswap2000 shut down

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: harpgirl
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:36 PM

Nader sure as hell would not have picked Scalia or Thomas for the Supreme Court!!!

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: harpgirl
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:32 PM

Let's abolish the Electoral College and have populist voting! Then we will have a real contest!

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: DougR
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:25 PM

Kim C: Gore will be delighted to take your pistol away from you!

DougR

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: kendall
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:24 PM

So, the supreme court thing is a red herring eh? you are right in that past presidents have been surprised that their appointments went against them. But, are you willing to take the chance that it will always be so? I'm not. And, thats not the only thing that scares me about Dubbya. That creep from the NRA said, and I heard him, if Bush is elected, we will have a friend in the white house. Cant you just see him trying to say "Sad ham hoosane?

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: DougR
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:23 PM

Well, Fortunado, I'm afraid you haven't read the fine print on Gore's promise to provide a deduction up to $10,000 for college tuition. Which one of the four boys are you going to apply the deduction to? You have to pick only one, because there is only one deduction per family. Gore loves to tout this promise, but he doesn't as Paul Harvey's says, tell the rest of the story.

DougR

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Naemanson
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 05:21 PM

Gern - your mistake wasn't in voting for Clinton but in trusting, not just him but any poitician. How can you trust someone who spends millions to get a job that only pays $200,000 a year? The best comment I ever heard was when someone said you have to identify the people who want the job and then make sure they cannot get it.

As far as control of the debates is concerned the last people who should have any say in the matter are the candidates. The league of Women Voters should schedule a debate on their own terms and dare the candidates to not show up. And clearly indicate their spoiled child behavior if they object to any of the conditions.

If there is going to be any change in the system t will not be done by the politicians. Neither of the monolithic parties would start such a thing and the third parties will never have the power. Only a revolution by the people and of the people would force such a thing. Until theInternet came along such a thing would have been impossible but now maybe there is a chance. This needs more thought.

And what are the foreigners (even Canadians!) doing on this thread???

JUST KIDDING!!!! YOU ARE WELCOME TO ADD YOUR VOICES TOO.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Kim C
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 04:30 PM

HARRY BROWNE is the Libertarian Party candidate. Gee, troll, am I not really the Lone Libertarian of the List?

What really galls me is that we continue to let the Media decide who the viable candidates are, and let them put said candidates before us. Personally I am tired of elephant & donkey shit so I vote outside that system whenever I can. And maybe I won't be represented, but if I voted Elephant or Donkey, I wouldn't be represented either, at least not in the Presidential election. If there's no Libertarian then I vote Republican, unless the Republican is a real idiot. In Tennessee we have a few Democrats in office who are pretty good folks, and I have been known to vote for them on occasion.

Our two main parties are so ingrained into our collective psyche that the only way to overcome them and introduce alternate ideas, is to GET INVOLVED at the local level.

Lookit, I just want people to be held accountable for their actions, I want people to be able to get off welfare without being penalized (like they currently are), I want the Govt to stop wasting my tax money on stupid stuff, and I want to keep my pistol and more of my paycheck. Is that too much to ask?

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Fortunato
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 04:05 PM

Al Gore has pledged to make college tuition tax deductable. I can't think of anything that would give the collective education of our young people more of a boost. The ramifications could be thrilling for us as a nation, and for the world as our young people contribute therein.

Even if elected, Gore can't do this alone. He will need the votes in Congress. Therefore I am voting for Al and I am voting to unseat the incumbent Republican in our district, hoping to create a Democratic Congress, or at least improve the balance. Yes, I do have four boys in or headed for college. But as a parent and an educator, I believe this one issue is critical for America and it's future.

chance

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: NancyZ
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:51 PM

Unfortunately, we do not have a "parliamentary" type government, like many European countries, that apportion seats according to vote percentages. There all parties have a voice and coalitions must be formed.

If you want to reward Nader for his past contributions, vote for him. But if you favor the issues he stands for you must ask yourself if you want to see these issues reversed or destroyed by Bush or continued to be advanced slowly by Gore. That is the reality we face. Is your loyalty to Nader or to advancing his positions on the environment and consumer rights? The small amount of money the Greens could get will not buy them power next time. We have a critical situation only because this election is so close. So, think carefully about what you really want. Nader, keep pushing your message, but this time I have to vote for Gore to preserve what hard fought gains we have made.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: DougR
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 03:38 PM

Emily, I'll be glad when it's all over too. If Gore wins, all of us Bush supporters can then concentrate on criticizing what Gore does. If Bush wins, all the Gore supportive Mudcatters can concentrate on criticizing what Bush does. And the Nader supporters can begin building a stronger base for him in 2004!

DougR

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 02:57 PM

AND you might also offer to swap with a Gore voter in a Gore state,like New York,with the purpose of whittling down Gore's lead there.

The always suspicious LEJ

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 02:54 PM

How the Bush Campaign could take advantage of the Gore/Nader Vote swap...

Suppose you're a Bush supporter in Texas.You say that you are a Nader supporter in the close Florida race,and offer to swap votes with a Gore voter in the (supposedly)Bush- won Colorado vote. You lied,but you also ensured a larger lead in a state that is still actually close.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: GUEST,emily b
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 02:24 PM

My gut thinking on the undecided vote right now, is not that these "voters" are trying to decide which candidate to vote for, but if they want to vote at all. The more Bush and Gore vie for these undecided's, the more they start looking and sounding alike, just confirming the opinion that there is nobody worth voting for.

I wonder, too, how many Nader supporters would actually like him as a president.

Maybe if people thought about what they might lose, instead of who might win, the issues will come back into consideration.

In a state like Texas, where I am, what is really scary is not that Bush will win, I'm sure he will, but that his supporters will vote the straight ticket. They will do this without even knowing who else they are voting for. Straight ticket voting ought to be done away with. As should the electoral college.

Thank goodness we're in the home stretch of this.

Emily

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:49 PM

The typos in that penultimate paragraph was a bit out of hand even for me - so here's the proofread version:

And it neatly turns on its head the suggestion that people who prefer a third party candidate should be realistic and vote for either Bush or Gore. Instead the idea is that, if you really want to help Bush or Gore, and live in a non-swing state, you should be willing to grit your teeth and vote for a third party candidate in order to ensure that your man gets a vote where it counts.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: DougR
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:49 PM

Jeeze, Whistle Stop, why don't you start a write-in campaign? You said what you said very well. I just don't believe Gore can get the job done with what will likely be a Republican dominated Senate, and maybe even the House. I'm just not impressed with Gore. He talks "down" to folks, I think, and is just a bit to "preachy" for my taste. He also believes, as most liberal democrats do, that government is the answer to all that ails the country ( I say as I duck).

I do agree with you on the Supreme Court. Many Judges who were appointed because of their left or right leanings moved toward the center or even in the opposite direction once on the bench. I don't believe when Ike appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court he got what he thought he was going to get. The only argument I have with the Supreme Court is when they try to make law, rather than interpret it.

No, Mousethief, the Republicans are running those ads hoping to sway the undecideds to vote for Nader to bleed votes away from Gore. I won't speak for you, of course, but I do think you are aware of that.

Hi back, Rick. I don't share Donohue's philosophy, as you know, but I was impressed with how well he articulated his case for Nader and the Green Party. Better than anyone I have heard. Creep Alert** -Rick, Bill Craig is in town performing this week and is coming to my house for a little party I'm throwing Friday night before his gig. Sorry for the creep, folks. DougR

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:43 PM

The idea katlaughing mentioned sounds very interesting: "I heard a really interesting discussion on NPR about people pledging to vote for Nader in states that will definitely not go with Gore, i.e. Wyoming, N & S Dakota and others, IF a friend or relative in an important swing state who wants to vote for Nader, but doesn't want Bush in, will pledge to vote for Gore in that important state. You can read all about it at NaderTrader.com. There was another website, too, but I cannot remember the name of it."

It's probably called voteswap2000 - here's a link to a Guardian(London) article about this kind of thing

The thing is, as I have boringly pointed out, that unless people live in the few swing States, voting for a third party candidate can't do anything to affect the chances of Bush or Gore.

So a bit of tactical voting like this makes a lot of sense - and it works just as well for people who like some other candidate better, but would prefer Bush to Gore. It's a small way of redressuing a constitutional anomaly in which the popular vote across the country just doesn't matter when it comes to electing a President, it's the electoral college vote that counts.

And it nealy turns on its head the suggestion thta people who prefer a third party candudate should be realsitric and vote for the either Bush or Gore. Instead the ide is that if you really want to help Bush or Gore, and liove in a non-swing state, yoiu should be willing to grit your teeth and vote for a third party canddate in order to ensure that your man gets a vote where it counts.

Tactical voting can work too - it was the reason why in the last election the Tories were totally wiped out in Scotland and Wales. Combined with the fact that the overwhelming majority of people loathed their guts, even more than they disliked the other parties.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:15 PM

Thanks Lonesome. It'll have to be a write-in.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:09 PM

Whistle Stop,well said.You've got my vote.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:58 PM

People now find it hard to imagine a system without the Republicans and Democrats running the show. People in 1750 found it hard to imagine a system without the King running the show.

Think about it. It's your freedom as a people that is truly at stake.

You have got to start somewhere. Nothing will change as long as you keep voting for the Republicans and the Democrats. They are both as phony as a 3 dollar bill.

And yes, Doug, I agree with your premise.

- LH

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:53 PM

Alex, as it happens I'm voting for Gore. I'm doing that because I think he will make a better President than any of the other candidates, including Nader. I think Nader has done some good things, and has some good insights into some current issues. But I think he would be completely ineffective as President. I can respect a "protest candidate," but I don't want a "protest President" -- there really is too much at stake.

That said, however, I still believe we should all vote for the person we think would be best. I disagree with a lot of what MarkS said above, but his statement that "if you do not support what you want you will never get it" is true, as far as I'm concerned.

Unlike a lot of folks, this election does not hinge on Supreme Court nominations for me. I am not all that worried about a Republican President leading to an ultra-conservative Supreme Court; the Court tends to waver around the center, just as the major parties do. History has shown that Presidents who hoped to "mold" the Supreme Court by appointing ideologues have generally failed; Supreme Court justices have tended to be pretty independent of the Presidents who nominated them. Besides, the abortion issue is larger and more complex than Roe v. Wade -- taking a Chicken Little approach to this issue is kind of myopic, in my opinion.

I want a President who can demonstrate fiscal responsibility, judgment and prudence in foreign affairs, intelligence and the ability to make sensible compromises in legislative affairs, and perseverance in the pursuit of worthwhile goals such as national/international environmental improvement and economic fairness. And intelligence and flexibility in responding to events that are unforeseen during the campaign season. I think Gore has what it takes with respect to these issues. GWB's artificially folksy manner may appeal to some, and I can understand the appeal of a renegade like Nader. But I'm conviced that I will be better off, and the world will be better off, if Gore wins this one.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: MarkS
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:56 AM

The US electoral system will NOT be changed to allow true third and fourth party participation until those of us out in the boondocks cast our votes in a way to make the establishment take notice. If you do not support what you want you will never get it, and if what you want is lasting, meaningful change, don't vote for the republicrats. Neither majority party is going to plug the cash machine, and worries about the Supreme Court are red herrings designed to divert and confuse.
The election of Bush or Gore will not make ten cents worth of difference in the way any of us lead our lives, and only means we will be having the same discussion four years from now. Meaningful change can happen, but it happens incrementally and with glacial slowness. But the only way we can get the snowball rolling is to add to its mass one flake at a time. Maybe there are enough flakes here at Mudcat *BG* to make a tiny bit of difference so we can make a bigger difference next time!
Mark(admitted flake)S

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:35 AM

Hi Doug. Did tou SEE Donahue??!! Holy cow, that is the FIRST time in several years that I've heard an intelligent articulate person speak passionately about his beliefs....without having to weigh his words, or worry how it will play in the sound bites the next day. Jeez he spoke from the heart...and I was tremendously impressed (oops where'd my detached objectivity go?) by his honesty.

Sadly, the mainstreamers are right though. Nader will skim off about 2 percent of the Gore vote. NOT the five percent that they're threatening though. The other three percent wouldn't have voted in the first place.

This thing is gonna be EXCITING! I'm cancelling my students that night!

Rick

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:35 AM

Whistle, if you vote for Nader you will be ensuring that you aren't represented at all.

Yeah, Doug, and the Republican Party (Motto: "Slimier Than Thou") is running Nader ads not because they hope to dilute the Gore vote, but because they really want to see open political debate in this country (same reason they joined forces with the Democrats (Motto: "We're Almost Republicans!") to force Washington and California to shut down their open primaries, no doubt).

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:33 AM

both side try to sound 'sort of' middle-of-the-road for campaign purposes...if they WIN, I suspect they will move more off=center...and I KNOW I do not want the country in general and the supreme court in particular moved further into conservative values, given who is controlling that area right now!..

Nader?...once more...he has a FEW good ideas, and should keep acting as a spokesman for them...not as a candidate!

IF and when the US electoral system is changed to allow TRUE 3rd & 4th party participation, then I'll vote for one...right now it is just silly to not at least choose the lesser of two evils///////

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: kendall
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:29 AM

It all comes down to this: Do you want Dubbya to set the course for the supreme court for the next 40 years? That is my MAIN concern, and the answer is absolutly not. Roe v Wade is hanging by a thread, one more Clarence Thomas or another Scalia will kill it. Do you want oil rigs in the Alaskan wildlife refuge? Not me. Cheney didn't want them in Montana, a clear case of NIMBY

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: DougR
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 11:03 AM

kat, you're right, of course, I will not vote for Nader. The purpose for my starting this thread really was not to sway folks to vote one way or the either. People are going to vote for whomever they choose, and no one can persuade them otherwise, I believe.

The point which came across so clearly to me in the program I referred to (Hardball), is that the Libertarian, Green, Reform or any other group that forms a party should be allowed to nominate their candiidate for president. I think the Republicans would have been wrong to try to persuade Buchanan to withdraw because he might hurt Bush's chances, and I think the Democrats are wrong for expecting or putting pressure on Nader to step aside in order not to hurt Gore's chances. If the minority parties had more access to the media and to funds that would allow them to advertise their different points of view on TV, radio, etc., it would make for a much more interesting and competitive race. I also agree that the Libertarian candidate, Green Party candidate and Reform Party candidate should have been allowed to participate in the debates (though as someone said they really weren't debates). I can understand the logistics problem involved, but if we can put a man on the moon, someone should be able to work out those details.

DougR

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:52 AM

We seem to be able to agree on something here, despite that this is politics-- we like the Leage of Women Voters. Kinda ironic. Women. League of women. Voters. And I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention-- is Nader's running mate a woman? I don't even know. So if so, boy is SHE having an impact! It's still a boy's game, this election, too much, I'm thinking.

But we trust the League to be fair about debates. Because they have a record.

Ironic.

~S~

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Peg
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:44 AM

I'm voting for Nader. If Bush wins, I will feel bad. But I cannot see the logic or integrity in voting out of fear. I survived eight years of Reagan, then four more of Bush. If the price of securing federal funding for a viable Third Party in this country (not the the Green Party is a model of organization but at least Nader has helped solidify a vastly diverse party platform) is to sacrifice a Gore win, so be it. Bush would make such an absolutely lousy president that there is no way he will get elected more than once. And Cheney is practically his clumsily-separated Siamaese twin.

and I don't like Lieberman.

peg

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 10:32 AM

I think some of us get too strategic for our own good; scheming with our paltry single vote as if we are able to move the process in our direction by guile. If we all simply vote for the man or woman we feel is best qualified -- by virtue of his/her positions on the issues, and his/her ability to do the job once elected -- we will go a long way towards ensuring that we are well represented.

I agree with kat and Gern that the League of Women Voters has the best track record when it comes to debates -- and commands enough respect across party lines that people have greater confidence in the process. I think televised "debates" are over-rated, but as long as we have them, I too would feel better relying on the LWV to run the show.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Midchuck
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 09:30 AM

As I mentioned on another thread, I am going through the same problem deciding between voting for Moore (the Libertarian) and Bush (whom I dislike slightly less than Gore).

I really feel that the two-party system needs to be knocked out if any real citizen input is to survive in America. Both of the major parties are under the control of the big corporations. The Republicans are more honest about it. (Of course, the American citizenry brought that situation about by voting so consistently for the candidate who had the most and the glossiest TV advertising, but I digress.)

I'm considering voting for Nader even though he's the least attractive candidate as an individual, because I would be, in effect, casting half a vote for Bush, but still voting against the two-party system.

But that logic is so convoluted that I'm not sure I understand it myself.

Peter.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Gern
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 09:12 AM

Too much is made of the "win-ability" of a candidate: we're not picking a Super Bowl bet here. I voted for Clinton in '92 in order to shoot down Bush (and glad to do so,) but regretted my trust in Clinton before he even took office. I swore that from now on, I would discard the "lesser of two evils" approach and select someone I agreed with, whether they had a chance or not. Lonesome EJ is right about the protest vote factor: in Europe and elsewhere, voters can discard the entire slate of candidates if "None of the Above" gets enough votes. We shoulld adopt this, as a no confidence expression. As to damaging Gore by voting Nader, if Gore was compelling enough to command the support, then Nader could do no damage. Open up the debates (as the League of Women voters recommends) and address the real issues!

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: L R Mole
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 09:03 AM

Ah, god...I vacillate so, on all this.I agree with Praise, and will take care of my own yard (and Voltaire."We must cultivate our garden",), and there's always that huckster beckoning me into the Chamber of Cynicism about the whole thing: what does it matter, man? AND YET I'll go and vote, because I can, and because I must. Rather vote the straight Mudcat ticket, though.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: kendall
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:08 AM

If Theodore Roosvelt failed in a third party bid, how can anyone think that Nader can win? Ralph Nader is no Teddy Roosevelt.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Troll
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 08:00 AM

I am saddened that, in the mention of third parties, no one has mentioned the Libertarians. Surely if Nader and Buchannan should have been included in the debates, the others should have been there too.
That said, Nader is not running with any expectation of winning. He is trying to establish the Greens as a viable third party. I hope that he has better luck than the Reform party did.
The argument against a multi-party system is that presidents will have to form coalitions in order to get anything passed re. Germany, France and Israel. We have no mechanism for a vote of no confidence etc. It could be very very interesting, to say the least.

troll

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:44 AM

All I know is, I'm voting for someone who a good friend of mine is willing to work himself into the ground for.

That personal endorsement is enough for me. I respect his judgment so enormously that I am grateful he can lead me on this one, freeing me up to focus on other things of equal importance.

I used to think I had to know it ALL. Now I realize that it takes all of us to do that, and I better work more effectively on what's popping up in my own backyard. It's a big yeard, too.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Naemanson
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 07:04 AM

I think the American political system has evolved into a creature that no one understands. The third party is important during the early stages of the election game. That is the time to really get behind those parties and push hard. When you do that the monoliths that are the Democratic and Republican parties take notice of what issues interest the public. They will then include a version of those interests in their platforms.

Once you get past that point, however, there is no way out. The next president will come from either the Democratic or the Republican party. Nobody else stands a snowball's chance. By voting for a third party you are skewing the election in directions you may not want it to go.

As an example: Gore has an environmental agenda, more or less. Bush does not. Nader does. When the Nader votes sink Gore and Bush wins who will be happy? And if the Republicans hold on to their control of the Congress who will there be to stand against the rape of the land?

Now, my own views aside, why is there a strong argument about the environment in this campaign? It is because enough people stood up in the early months of the election process and spoke their piece and cast their votes about the environment. The political machine noted the strong support for that issue and included it in their platforms. They may not really give a hoot about it but they sure as hell want those votes.

Now, if enough votes go to Nader and Gore loses this election we will get the message across that the envornment is important but we will have 4 years to regret it and wait for our chance to recitfy the error. Then we will be trying to unseat an incumbent president.

Not easy under the best of circumstances. Let's learn the lesson Perot taught us and vote for the big parties no matter how distastefull.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 02:47 AM

Heck, Seed, if my neice won't trade votes with me, I'l trade my Nader here, for a Gore there. Check out that trading site, seriously. I think it could be a win-win, sort of and I really like the way you describe the dems. I am going to change my registration of my lifetime to independent after this election.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: bseed(charleskratz)
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 02:42 AM

Leej, my friend, nothing is going to rise from the center. Only the Democrats think a center even exists and they move steadily rightward to get there only to find it has disappeared around another corner, over another horizon. If it goes much further, the debate will be over how much of a subsidy to give the rich for providing employment for their servants.

Only if the Democrats lose this election will it begin to occur to them that they have abandoned their constituancy for the sake of a few bucks from the same people who give twice as much to the Republicans. This stated, I still haven't decided whether to vote for Nader or Gore--the issue of the distant future is the revival of democracy, but the issue of the moment is the supreme court.

--seed

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:09 AM

Actually, my LeeJ, I agree with you and I think the people who started www.moveon.org made a good start, people from all walks of life, all sides of the issues, getting together in a grassroots way during the impeachment hearings and now moving on to other issues.

katlikingherbedfellowsjustfine!

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: JamesJim
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:08 AM

Aaargg! Lonesome EJ, I've been uncovered... er...discovered... Uh, NAILED! You got me my friend! Vote Nader - Elect Bush. YES!!!

Jim

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:59 AM

I think much of the pro-Nader sympathy arises from the "none-of-the-above" mentality...in other words,a protest vote. I noticed that the most recent Gallup Poll had Bush at 47%,Gore at 44%,Nader at 3%,and I couldn't help but appreciate the fact that Nader's support was the margin of Bush's lead.I also can't help but notice that the strongest supporters of Nader on the Mudcat Forum are Peg,Katlaughing,JamesJim,and Doug.Now there's a quartet of strange bedfellows!grin.

Said it before...a viable Third Party,if it is to succeed,will arise from a centrist philosophy at the grassroots level,and will not be the product of some imagined Righteous Political Savior.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:36 AM

Control of the debates needs to be returned to the League of Women Voters who have an exemplary record of fairness and evenhandedness in dealing with all candidates.

Now, DougeR, darlin', I know you are sincere and mean what you've written and I commend you, but I also know there lurks within you a Republican who is rooting for our Ralph in the hopes he will undermine votes for Gore. It's all a GOP plot, admit it!!**BG** Sorry, sweetie, just couldn't let that slide.:-)

I heard a really interesting discussion on NPR about people pledging to vote for Nader in states that will definitely not go with Gore, i.e. Wyoming, N & S Dakota and others, IF a friend or relative in an important swing state who wants to vote for Nader, but doesn't want Bush in, will pledge to vote for Gore in that important state. You can read all about it at NaderTrader.com. There was another website, too, but I cannot remember the name of it.

Anyway, I've proposed a swap with my neice in CA. I think we are going to see an end of the two party only system, and I have one friend who has studied politics forever, who believes we will see an end to the electoral college within the next few years and wind up with popular vote.

kat

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: JamesJim
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:23 AM

Thyme, neither have 15% of the electorate in the polls. What we have is a catch 22. Neither Buchanan or Nader can reach that level without more exposure. The debates would no doubt have elevated both, with probably more voters going for Nader. As I understand it, the debate commission is controlled by the Democrats and Republicans. They obviously would not want these guys in front of 40 to 70 million voters(DougR can probably shed more light on this). Serious issues might actually have been discussed.

I think the whole debate thing stinks. They weren't really debates. No serious discussion or challenge from either candidate. With Nader and Buchanan on board, that would not have been the case.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Thyme2dream
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:03 AM

I think that the two party 'monopoly' needs to be thwarted...it's because of nonsense like this that we such a poor selection to choose from in this presidential race this time around! Im sure I missed it, but could someone fill me in on WHY the other candidates for president (I'm thinking at least Nadar and Buchanan) were not included in the debates? Sorry if that's a dumb question, I barely have time to keep up with this as it is, but I'm interested.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: JamesJim
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:01 AM

Doug, I saw the programs and I certainly agree that Nader should have been included in the debates. In fact, I agree with everything you say regarding this issue. Funny, we didn't hear all of this uproar from our democrat friends when Perot was running. Of course, he had a larger percentage of the vote, but in fact, had he not entered the campaign, Bush would have won. Still, he was legitimate --- so is Nader.

With regard to Donohue, man I didn't realize how wild that guy is. I understand he and Marlo disagree politically. Can you imagine the conversations around their house? I don't think she or any of their friends would even have a chance to speak. Anyway, I am quite pleased that Mr. Nader is hanging tough.

Got to go -- our favorite Vice President is on the Tonite show. I've got to go see what he invented this week.

Jim

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: thosp
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 11:59 PM

well DougR -- i know that you know what i think!

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: Nader for President
From: DougR
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 11:49 PM

Phil Donohue was on Chris Matthew's show, "Hardball," tonight. I have never been sympathetic with Donohue's views, but the purpose for his appearance on "Hardball" was to present the case for the Green Party. Those who know me from previous postings know that I am not an advocate for the Green Party, but I am an advocate for the right of the Green Party to field a candidate for President. Ralph Nader, and any other legitimate candidate for the presidency should have been included in the debates, (in my opinion) and the current effort of the Democrats to appeal to Nader to withdraw in favor of Gore, again in my opinion, is ridiculous. Donohue presented a very compelling case against capitulation by Nader and I agree with him. "Are they implying, he said, that if we are good guys, and Ralph withdraws, they will be more accepting of our running in 2004?" That might not be an exact quote, but that essentially was what he said. I think any reasonable person would agree that in 2004, the Green Party would face the same pressure not to run that they are feeling in 2000. The Green Party wants to establish itself as a viable party elibible for federal campaign funds, and for the first time ever, I agree with Donohue.

What do you think?

DougR