[Full-Disclosure] OT-POLITICAL: (Was: www.georgewbush.com)

From: J.A. Terranson (measl_at_mfn.org)
Date: 11/01/04

  • Next message: Sowhat .: "[Full-Disclosure] XDICT Buffer OverRun Vulnerability,funny :-)"
    To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
    Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:59:55 -0600 (CST)

    As long as this is a politics day :-)


     Paul Loeb workingforchange 10.29.04

    A final plea to Nader supporters
    Bush assault must be stopped, now

    If Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Barbara Ehrenreich, Jim Hightower, and Ralph
    Nader's former running mate Winona LaDuke haven't convinced you that
    voting for Nader is too great a risk this election, maybe nothing will.
    But the stakes are high enough to try.

    As Nader supporters continually point out, Kerry is a compromised,
    centrist Democrat, ambivalent at best on a host of key questions including
    the Iraqi war. And yes, Nader's positions are better, and it may feel
    personally gratifying to vote for them.

    But this election isn't about abstract stands. It's about Bush's threat to
    democracy. Not just Bush, but a larger Republican machine that purges
    African Americans from the Florida voting rolls, throws away voter
    registrations in Nevada, jams New Hampshire Democratic phone banks with
    hired telemarketers, shouts down Palm Beach vote counters, and shuts
    Congressional Democrats out of the legislative drafting process entirely,
    replacing their voices with those of industry lobbyists. That doesn't
    count waging preemptive wars and lying about their justification, passing
    over a hundred billion dollars a year of regressive tax cuts, smashing
    unions, plundering the environment, and branding everyone who disagrees
    with you an ally of terrorism.

    Either we stop these trends or we don't. And what we do this with is the
    ballot. If we place all our hopes in awaiting some nebulous citizens'
    revolt, we throw away a concrete opportunity to stop this assault in its
    tracks by voting Bush out. And that gives away an aspect of power that
    citizen movements have fought and died for. That's what we do by replacing
    a real vote against Bush with a symbolic vote for Ralph Nader.

    Think of the court appointments. Four years ago, the issue seemed
    abstract. After the gang of five justices installed Bush in office, it's
    urgent. William Rehnquist is 80 years old and sick, with thyroid cancer.
    John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have had
    cancer as well, and Stevens is 84. Do we really want another Antonin
    Scalia or Clarence Thomas to replace them? Or another Rehnquist? These
    justices didn't just anoint Bush as president. The same 5-4 majority
    recently validated Tom DeLay's mid-census reapportionment of key
    congressional districts in Texas, Michigan and Pennsylvania, to give the
    Republicans a near unbreakable short-term lock on the House of
    Representatives. Maybe O'Connor will have a change of heart, but if they
    appoint one more ultraright justice, all three branches will be controlled
    by a party that seeks not just victory, but the total annihilation of all
    opposition, as if we were the rats and insects that DeLay used to
    exterminate. Stopping this trend means stopping Bush.

    There's a reason Republicans have put so much money, time and
    organizational effort into getting Nader on the ballot in key states: it's
    a chance to consolidate power. And there's a reason every major
    progressive organization in this country begged Ralph not to run. And that
    three quarters of participants in Nader's "Committee of 100" from four
    years ago are now mobilizing for Kerry in efforts like the Unity Campaign.
    As Chomsky says, "...Anyone who says 'I don't care if Bush gets elected'
    is basically telling poor and working people in the country, 'I don't care
    if your lives are destroyed... I don't care about you'... Apart from
    [this] being wrong, it's a recipe for disaster if you're hoping to ever
    develop a popular movement and a political alternative."

    In fact, there's an odd parallel between Bush's total lack of
    accountability, and belief in his divinely anointed infallibility, and
    Nader's own. Nader insists that no matter how many how many long-time
    allies ask him to pull back, he has a direct line to the truth, and knows
    he's right. It's tragic that someone who has spent most of his life
    fighting to expand democracy is doing his best to make the worst of
    Florida's plantation politics our national political model.

    I've heard Nader supporters say their vote won't matter. Or that Nader
    will actually take votes away from Bush. As a recent Nation Institute
    survey showed, Nader actually draws three to one or more from those who'd
    otherwise support Kerry, but if you'd otherwise support Bush, please do
    vote for Ralph. If you want to get Bush out, however, and your state is
    remotely close, then you need to act as if every vote matters, including
    your own, and those of everyone you turn out. You need to assume that the
    366-vote margin in New Mexico (where Nader got 21,000 votes) or the 537
    votes that Katherine Harris certified in Florida will be the outcome in
    your state this round, and that your actions will make the key difference.
    You don't want to become one more Republican tool.

    Think about the 2002 French election. Progressives split their vote in the
    initial balloting, allowing neo-fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen to edge
    Socialist Lionel Jospin to make it onto the final ballot. In response,
    French progressives and moderates rallied around Conservative Jacques
    Chirac, because Le Pen was too great a threat to ignore. And Chirac
    surprised us all by refusing to go to war in Iraq. Bush's politics aren't
    as rightist as Le Pen, but their global impact is infinitely greater.
    Bush's Euro-bashing aside, this is one time to learn from the French.

    I'm all in favor of acts of conscience. But we also have to be strategic.
    We can find ample ways to express our direct voice after November 2. If
    Kerry wins, I expect to be marching soon afterward to get America out of
    Iraq, because it's going to take persistent citizen action no matter which
    way the elections go. But symbolic statements and symbolic actions will
    not stop the Republican assaults on democracy. At some point we'll need to
    vote them out. That point is now. Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The
    Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time
    of Fear (Basic Books, August 2004 www.theimpossible.org), and of Soul of a

    There's a reason Republicans have put so much money, time and
    organizational effort into getting Nader on the ballot in key states.
    (c) 2004, workingforchange.com

    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

  • Next message: Sowhat .: "[Full-Disclosure] XDICT Buffer OverRun Vulnerability,funny :-)"

    Relevant Pages

    • Eastman and Murphy -- Why Nader is the only choice.
      ... Vote as if Democrats and Republicans don't exist. ... Vote Nader! ... Vote in Kerry -- and you'll have four more years of intensified Bush ...
    • Re: Nadar nadir?
      ... FL the 90,000+ FL Nader voterss would have gone to Gore over Bush by ... 47% to 21% - easily enough additional votes for Gore, ... I'm thinking I might vote for an African American this year, I hear Cynthia Mc Kinney might get the Green Party nnomination. ...
    • Re: Toadless
      ... Bush presidency from which will be recovering for decades. ... compare yourself to Nader? ... Well actually Nader did have the effect of throwing the election from ... "Well it's not like if you don't vote for the Green Party ...
    • Re: Slick Willie: Never Again!
      ... >It took the GOP to put everything back on track. ... troops stationed in iraq. ... The Bush Administration didn't want to deal with any of the ... >>What date was that vote on? ...