Nader for President

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