gmidonnet on 29 Oct 2000 22:37:33 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: [Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Nader is important: get rid of him!

Title: RE: [Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Nader is important: get rid of him!

First of all Gore is not good choice. Actually he is terrible. He may be, in some areas, better than Bush, and in other areas worse: i.e. he is for one of the greatest abrogations of individual rights ever put forth in this country, and that is Hate Crime Legislation.

It is shear foolishness to vote for the lesser-of-two-evils. You are still voting for evil and 2 years later, 4 years later, 40 years later you are still voting for evil. Yes compromise is necessary, but so is action.

As far as the devastation of Alaska and a woman's right to choose -- that's a little hyperbole isn't it? Regarding Alaska, it has to pass through Congress and that will take 2 years and the electorate will have plenty of time to get involved. As far as the right to choose, as a worse case scenario he will appoint justices who are against Roe v Wade (which as you know is full of holes), they will have to pass a Senate confirmation committee and a vote on the floor, it will then take several years for an abortion case to reach the Supreme Court, and since Bush will be putting in a conservative judge -- which means someone who is for judicial restraint -- the judge may still back Roe v Wade because, as a conservative, he now considers Roe v Wade an important judicial precedent that cannot be lightly overturned.

And, worse case scenario continuing: After Roe v Wade is overturned, states have to pass laws making abortion illegal, and it will happen in a few states, but in the overwhelming majority of states abortion will remain legal. And you KNOW that. So stop panicking.

Better to panic about the new wave of anti-individual nonsense coming through, that is the push of Hate Crime Legislation.

Gilbert Midonnet

-----Original Message-----
From: joy garnett []
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 1:47 PM
Subject: [Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Nader is important: get rid of

Ivan Zassoursky wrote:

>      [also To:, CC:]
> <snip>
> Vote for Nader. It will make you feel better.
> ivan zassoursky
> __________________________________

great, just what we need: a bunch of righteous idealists running around *feeling
better*. After Bush gets elected and sets about the devastation of the
environment in Alaska, the right of women to choose, and a host of other things
we all hold to be dear, (not to mention a host of policy we don't even
understand or think about). I'm sure those feeling better might start to feel
pretty bad... Don't be fooled by Nader: he isn't so different from these other
guys running. He'll do anything to get ahead in some way, just like them,
including undermining Gore and his campaign. Afterall, he *is* a politician.
Nader's appeal to progressive-minded,  well-educated, disenfranchized liberals
is manipulative and misleading; it will make a difference, one very big
difference, if Bush gets in. This is so obvious and the appeal to 60s nostalgia
so pathetic and wrong-headed  you'd think any toddler could point it out at a
distance. (And I used to really look up to Susan Sarandon); what we need is
pragmatism, not dreamy 60s revival idealism that will remain just that. One
thing that would help in this fight would be to face up to what a simplistic,
right-leaning, puritanical culture this really is; the dream of Nader is
exciting, it's radical, but it's a dream. I don't buy that voting for him is an
expediant measure --not for an instant. As for *fear*: people are afraid of Gore
because he is intelligent, and an aristocrat (god-forbid) and therefore not one
of them. He represents a classic ego-threat to the American Puritanical

Keep the Republicans OUT.
Just do it.
This is a crucial election.
Don't throw it away. Don't vote Nader.
Consolidate: vote Gore for all it's worth. Vote against Bush.

j. garnett
flaming liberal pragmatist

Nettime-bold mailing list