 |
from Progressive Political Thinkers 'Vote as if Your Life Depends on It' Say Reasonable Voices 'No to Nader' E-mails See Only Disaster in Republican Win |
|
Compiled By GayToday
To Nader Voters: Organize More Locally, then Nationally "I strongly disagree with those who would vote for Nader. My main reason is this -- having lived through the Reagan Bush era, I do not believe that progressives will be helped or galvanized by a Bush win. Permanent damage was done, to unions, gays, progressives, feminists, the whole country. "Bush is just a corporate front man and a front for the extreme right wing. The minute he gets in they will be in the driver's seat for the next four years, with Bush putting a smiley face on it. "Yes Gore is the lesser of the evils, yes Gore and Bush are indistinguishable on most of the corporate issues, but there's enough of a difference to get my vote and I hope most other queers. "Progressives should be organizing on the local level, not in national politics, which we can't win. Signed: E. Think Strategically, not Idealistically
We could be statesman-like ourselves, and vote Nader because he is closest to our ideals, thereby aiding Bush, who is furthest. Or we could and must be strategic (OK, political!) and back Gore. Stop this leftist orthodoxy. Fundamentalism worked for the right in the 80's but will not work here, strategically speaking. Perhaps the only point I have to add is that the two strongest periods of radical/progressive political activity of the last century occurred during democratic administrations--the Roosevelt 30's and Kennedy/Johnson 60's. What asinine logic to believe that a Bush presidency will be good for progressives. Signed, M If Bush Wins Because of Him: Nader Deserves Scorn
The more I read about Nader's reasons for refusing to yield to Gore, despite
the fact that it might lead to a Bush presidency, the more I believe he is
insincere and driven by ego.
The fact that he ignores the overall Gore record on environment, which is arguably as strong or stronger than his own, to focus on a single instance back in 1992, is intellectually dishonest. Anybody can find contradictions in the career of any public official if you look hard enough. It is apparent, from reading between the lines, that he would like Bush to win, to strengthen his own hand through an emerging underground "progressive" movement. If that scenario plays out, the only thing that Nader would deserve to win is our scorn. Signed, Scott Miller A Life-Affirming Compromise I'm frustrated myself on both counts. I worked like hell for George McGovern and Jesse Jackson, and dream of having another more viable candidate from the left. But we don't have such a choice. Believe me, I don't like being forced by the threat of a Bush regime to vote for someone like Al Gore, whose support for the death penalty is just the beginning of his deficits. But holding on to my purity is not the end all of my life or politics. I think most progressive queers would agree that it makes a difference in the world who is in the White House and the congress. I voted for Ralph Nader and the Greens last election, but it seems disingenuous at best for Nader to be telling us that it makes no difference whether Bush or Gore is elected. In our hearts, we know that is not true. Those of us who lived through the Reagan-Bush onslaught know the difference their particular tyranny made to our friends who did not survive those bitterly abusive years. I will go to the polling place in Center City and pull the lever for Al Gore. My purity as a progressive may be called into question, but that won't keep me from hoping that other progressives around the country are making the same life-affirming compromise. Signed, D. |
