[Peace-discuss] RE: Lesser evilism

[jencart]

I'm sorry, Phil... yes, I was responding to the article, not to you personally.  The 2000 election was close, but Gore DID win the election.  If Nader hadn't been on the scene, the Bushites, couldn't have stolen the election, only FL.  I know I need to move on, but I'm stuck on "if only..."  Hell will freeze over (w/ all the neocons, rt wingers, lotsa Demos, etc in residence) bef American voters will EVER elect a Nader-type -- they had a chance w/ Kucinich (whom even Nader calls "the real deal") and didn't take it, it wasn't even close.  Depressing, but a lesson in reality..... I think it's always gonna be a choice betw the lesser of two evils -- prob always has been -- assuming the world lasts that long.  W/ Bush in power, there's a real chance that it won't. Kerry has a better position on nuclear stuff, is less hated around the world, doesn't seem to want to restructure the Middle East.

Ken's right, Kerry's losing the election all by himself, or rather, by himself w/ the help of the rest of the dreadful, spineless, pro-Iraq war Demos.  But the comparison betw Bush and Kerry in the Sept FCNL (Friends Committee on National Legislation) newsletter shows a HUGE difference in the two candidates.  (It apparently went to press before Kerry (why? why? why?) said we were right to attack Iraq even w/o WMD, bec that bit of info is missing.)

And I also agree that if we can defeat Bush, we need to redouble our efforts in moving twds peace and justice globally.

Jenifer C.





--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenifer,

If Gore and Kerry could prove that they were better than George W. Bush,  maybe people would vote for them on their own merits, and Ralph Nader's  candidacy would not be an issue.  If Kerry wants the support of Naderites,  he'd better start supporting their issues, don't you think?  Personally, I  think it would be wonderful if all of the Kerry voters supported Ralph  Nader, and if Ralph Nader beat Bush.

Every four years, people say that THIS election is the most critical one in  history, and they throw away their principles.  They say that the NEXT  election, things will be different, but of course, things remain the same.   They will continue to remain the same until people are willing to take the  risk of calling for a real change.

If you truly support progressive values, it doesn't make sense to insult  Nader supporters who share the same values, does it?  It's very easy to  torment one's friends.  It's much more difficult to convince your enemies,  and the only way that Kerry is going to win is if people who currently  support Bush change their minds.  There are a lot more Bush supporters who  could be convinced to vote for Kerry than there are Nader supporters.  I  think it would be more effective (and less destructive) to focus energy on  them.

I already said that I'm voting for John Kerry for personal reasons, and I  enumerated those.  It was a painful decision.  Maybe you didn't read what I  wrote in its entirety, or maybe you're just callous.  Comments like "We  wouldn't BE @ war if Naderites had voted for 'the lesser of two evils' in  2000.  Duh," are probably meant to reinforce my decision to vote for Kerry,  but it comes off as antagonistic.  I hope that this election doesn't cause  deep wounds in the progressive movement that can't be healed.

--Phil



>Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:12:00 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
>From: jencart at mailstation.com
>To: Phil Stinard <pstinard at hotmail.com>

>
>We wouldn't BE @ war if Naderites had voted for "the lesser of two evils" 
>in 2000.  Duh.  And if Naderites throw the election to Bush again, there 
>goes what's left of our democracy.... think Supreme Court appointees....
>
>Jenifer C.
>