[Imc] Re: [Sdas] A response to Gloria Steinem's top 10 reasons not to vote for Nader by Sascha Meinrath

[Bill Wendling]

Also sprach Sascha Meinrath:
} i wasn't going to respond to this ridiculous statement, but i've received a
} lot
} of e-mails from folks asking what i thought and whether i'd respond to some of
} the comments.  so i originally wrote a couple quick thoughts on gloria
} steinem's top 10 list.  however, as i reread them, i realized that their
} inaccuracy required a bit more of a response.
} 
Thank you for this. I have a few comments of my own.

} >8.  By condemning Gore for ever having taken a different position -
} >for example, for voting against access to legal abortion when he was a
} >Congressman from Tennessee - actually dissuades others from changing
} >their minds and joining us.

Um...What? A person's past voting record as member of congress tends to
be key to how they feel/will vote in the future...one would think.

} >6.  The issues of corporate control can only be addressed by voting
} >for candidates who will pass campaign-funding restrictions, and by
} >conducting grassroots boycotts and consumer campaigns against sweatshops
} >-not by voting for one man who will never become President.
} 
} voting for nader is supporting the very grassroots boycotting that gloria is
} talking about -- but with votes instead of money.  gaining 5% of the vote
} allows for matching funds, AND the ability to run candidates at the state and
} local levels.  the green party is running (this time around) IN ORDER TO
} ORGANIZE at the local, grassroots level -- this has been explicitly stated
} again and again throughout the election.  
} 
I like the idea of boycotting with my vote.

} >5.  Toby Moffett, a longtime Nader Raider who also served in
} >Congress, wrote that Nader's "Tweedledum and Tweedledee assertion that there
} >is no important difference between the major Presidential candidates would
} >be laughable if it weren't so unsafe."  We've been bamboozled by the media's
} >practice of being even-handedly negative.  There is a far greater gulf
} >between Bush and Gore than between Nixon and Kennedy - and what did that
} >mean to history?
} 
[snip...]
} 
} — They both agreed on Israel.
} — They both agreed to blame Arafat.
} — They both agreed on the war against Yugoslavia.
} — They both agreed on more money for anti-ballistic missiles.
} — They both agreed it was right not to intervene in Rwanda.
} — They both agreed it was right to invade Grenada.
} — They both agreed it was right to invade Panama.
} — They both agreed the Gulf War was right.
} — They both agreed to train Nigerian troops.
} — They both agreed on supporting Australia in East Timor.
} — They both agreed to train Colombian troops in the Drug War.
} — They both agreed they would be "judicious" when deploying U.S. troops.
} — They both agreed not to "overextend" the U.S. military.
} — They both agreed it was right to bail out Mexico.
} — They both agreed on not making loans to "corrupt governments."
} — They both agreed to sign a federal racial profiling law.
} — They both agreed that gays must not be allowed to marry.
} — They both agreed that hunters and homeowners have the right to own guns.
} — They both agreed that we need "gun-free schools."
} — They both agreed on making trigger locks available.
} — They both agreed to support background checks at gun shows.
} — They both agreed to follow "the golden rule."
} — They both agreed on making the environment cleaner for our grandchildren.
} — They both agreed on mandatory testing in schools.
} — They both agreed on "local control" of schools." 
} 
} And the list went on. "It sounds like we have a love fest here tonight,"
} remarked the commentator from CNN.
} 
A few more:

	Both are for the death penalty (keep the control of life and
					death with the government where
					it belongs!)
	Both are for a "stronger" military...in fact, they were doing
		one-upmanship during the first debate until I thought
		they were going to demand that all Americans become part
		of the armed forces!
	Both are "soft" on sexual orientation issues.
	Both support WTO.
	Both are rich, white men (just like all of our other Presidents).

u.s.w...
 
} >2.  There are one, two, three, or even four lifetime Supreme Court
} >Justices who are likely to be appointed by the next President.  Bush has
} >made clear by his record as Governor and appeals to the ultra-right wing
} >that his appointments would overturn Roe v. Wade and reproductive freedom, 
} >dismantle remedies for racial discrimination, oppose equal rights for gays
} >and lesbians, oppose mandatory gun registration, oppose federal
} >protections of endangered species, public lands, and water - and much more.
} >Gore is the opposite on every one of these issues.  Gore has made clear that
} >his appointments would uphold our hard won progress in those areas, and he
} >has outlined advances in each one.
} 
} i have heard this argument so many times i couldn't even begin to count.  what
} i'm VERY confused by is gloria's statement that "Gore is the opposite on every
} one of these issues."  am i supposed to actually believe this?  since when was
} gore appealing to the ultra-left wing?  since when was his record on
} reproductive freedom unblemished?  does his dismantling of racial
} discrimination include his support for a federal racial profiling law (see
} point 5 above)?  as for protection of endangered species, public lands, and
} water -- i can only assume that gloria is VERY out of the loop as to what has
} been happening at the federal level on these issues during the last 8 years. 
} nader has received A LOT of negative press for daring to mention that the
} supreme court is NOT the end-all of legislation.  they interpret the
} constitution -- a constitution that "we the people" can amend -- i'm not
} saying
} the appointments of bush and gore would be identical, i'm saying that neither
} of them will appoint people i want making constitutional interpretations for
} me.
} 
Consider that some of our "better" justices (O'Conner and Suter for two)
were appointed under VERY conservative Presidents. Think about it. The
Congress has to approve the person. Last time, we failed and got
Thomas...A Democratic Congress would help matters more, actually...

} >1.  The art of behaving ethically is behaving as if everything we do
} >matters.  If we want Gore and not Bush in the White House, we have
} >to vote for Gore and not Bush - out of self-respect.
} 
} it seems to me that this is the most poignant reason to vote for nader.  by
} this reasoning, if you think nader would be best in the White House -- better
} than gore, and better than bush, then vote for him -- "out of self-respect."
} 
I consider it unethical not to vote my conscience. If I simply "follow
the party line" and vote for Gore because he's *gasp* a Democrat, then I
lose, you lose, the country loses, and, ultimately, democracy loses. If
we want to keep up the charade that we have any democracy in this
country, we *need* more than 1 choice for Prez. Ideally, we'd have
proportional representation, but we'd have to reconviene at Philly for
that ;-). Until then, we need to take a stand and say, "No! I want actual
choices!"

-- 
|| Bill Wendling			wendling at ganymede.isdn.uiuc.edu