1. Literal: "A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader."
2. Indignant: "And why are you presuming that I'd prefer Gore over Bush?!"
3. Morality: "Hey, my conscience says Nader, and I'm tired of voting against it because of some 'lesser of two evils' spiel."
4. "By voting for the lesser of two evils, you end up electing just another evil."
5. Pragmatic: To vote for either member of the one party, two headed system, is a throw away vote, when you know better. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush: The Democratic Party has reduced itself to scare tactics. Its lone message to Nader voters is one of fear: "You'll steal a vote away from Gore, helping Bush!" That's offensive. It begins with the default assumption that your vote is a Gore vote. But the Democratic party doesn't own our vote. We do. Cast it as you choose.
"All the pundits -and the Democrats- tell us that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush because all Ralph will end up doing is siphoning off votes that would have gone to Gore. Well I've fallen for this before and I ain't fallin' for it again. This year, I'm not going to let the fearmongers scare me into voting against my conscience." -Michael Moore 7/20
Gore will defend Roe vs. Wade or we have to save the bench from the conservatives:
There are those who say that a woman's right to choose isn't about repealing Roe v. Wade, its about legislating it into irrelevance, bit by bit. This is true, as is the chipping away at our fourth amendment right to privacy. And neither Gore nor Bush have differentiated themselves from the legislative practice that we have been witnessing for years, and we can expect more of the same in the chipping away of personal freedoms from these two candidates.
The Supreme Court nominees of the past indicate that the Republicans are just as likely to balance out their conservative appointees with moderate ones and, in some cases, they even make a mistake and nominate a closet progressive.
Nader has a proven track record of acting from his sense of right and wrong and the law. He is not politically motivated and has been unbending when it comes to personal freedom. Why else is he one of the nation's most respected men?
"And between Gore, Bush, and himself, he's the only person running who would guarantee universal health care for all, the only candidate who would raise the minimum wage to a decent level, the only one who would get up each morning asking himself the question, "What can I do today to serve all the people of this country?" -- Michael Moore 7.19.00
"The Republicans will never repeal Roe vs. Wade, and if they did it would be the single greatest source of revival of civic action of our generation." -Ralph Nader
Sandra Day O'Connor: Appointed in 1981 by Reagan. She has a moderately liberal voting record, except in cases of sexual discrimination in which case she is vocally liberal. Important swing vote.
Anthony McLeod Kennedy: Appointed in 1988 by Reagan, part of centrist bloc with O'Connor and Souter.
David Hackett Souter: Appointed in 1990 by Bush. Moderate voting record, often resisting the pressure from the right-wingers to undo court precedents of the 1960s and 70s.
William H. Rehnquist: Appointed Chief Justice by Reagan in 1986. Appointed to the Supreme Court in 1971 by Nixon. Conservative, wrote several opinions reversing the liberal trend of the Warren Court. Aligned with Thomas and Scalia.
William Joseph Brennan: Served Supreme Court 1956-1990. Appointed by Eisenhower. Supporter of individual liberties and guarantees of justice to the poor.
Earl Warren: Appointed by Eisenhower. Became chief justice in 1953. Led court in a number of landmark civil rights and individual liberties decisions. Wrote decision in 1954 ending segregation in US schools (Brown vs. Board of Education). Also wrote decisions allowing right to counsel in criminal cases and protecting accused from police abuses. Very liberal decisions and opinions.
Warren E. Burger: Appointed by Nixon, chief justice in 1969. Conservative, advocate of judicial restraint. Less forceful than expected in limiting or reversing the liberal decisions of the Warren Court.
John Paul Stevens: Appointed in 1975 by Ford. Moderate and independent voting record. Neither liberal nor conservative. Became more liberal as the court in general became more conservative due to more conservative appointees.
Lewis Franklin Powell: Appointed by Nixon in 1971. Accepted position only after declining several times. Conservative in jurisprudence, he was socially liberal. Ardent supporter of school integration. Moderate stance of various issues. Voting with majority on Roe vs. Wade, upheld affirmative action in Regents of UC vs. Bakke but rejected use of quotas. Often swing vote.
"When George W. was asked if he knew what Roe versus Wade was, he said he thought it was the decision that George Washington needed to make when he planned to cross the Delaware." -- Anonymous
Gore is an Environmentalist:
Bush would open the Arctic wilderness (part of the biggest protected wilderness in the world) to oil drilling. Gore opposes drilling there (at least now because it is politically advantageous to do so).
Bush would open California coast (if he ever gets the chance). Gore might oppose opening up California.
Bush has completely dismantled and destroyed environmental agencies in Texas. Gore, at least, has a better than average environmental record (though his rhetoric is stronger than his actions). And actions speak louder than words.
Neither Bush nor Gore has a sound, sustainable environmental or energy policy geared towards our collective health. Better than average does not cut it anymore. Do we perform better than average on the job, as a parent, or a spouse? Why settle for less in your presidential candidate?
The fact is that over the past 23 years, Gore has solicited and accepted campaign cash from arms companies, the nuclear industry, bond traders, runaway firms to Mexico like Mattel, and exploiters of child labor. What makes us believe he will protect our natural resources from being exploited?
As to Gore's environmental stance specifically, we know from history that his position changes with the flood of PAC money he receives, and he is no more loyal to the environmental movement than a hooker is to a street corner. Look to the quality or your air, food, water and available non-renewable resources and ask yourself if we can afford not to vote for Nader.
Gore is for Universal Health Care:
We know that Bush will oppose all progress to extend universal health insurance coverage. It's argued that at least Gore will push for incremental increases, with the supposed first stop being poor children. If incremental is sufficient then vote for Gore.
The next time you fly, check the emergency procedure. The first thing you do when the oxygen mask drops down from the overhead compartment is put it on yourself and, then, you put it on your child. You are no use to your offspring if you are not breathing. The same can be said for the need for universal health care and Gore's proposal to cover children. The fact is that the health care coverage for your child will do you no good if you are suffering from cancer and cannot afford health care, or even if you can afford health care, what use is it if the HMO you belong to will deny you needed procedures.
Coverage for children is a shameless political ploy, designed to make him look good, as the concerned father, overlooking the fact that he doesn't have to worry about if he's covered or not when admitted to Bethesda.
Bush represents big oil: Bush is oil money. He became very rich while daddy was President, ran a failed savings and loan into the ground (at our expense) and got richer. Made buckets of money while governor, received free oil company stock by the truckload, and sold the entire future of the state of Texas to oil, chemical and other destructive interests (probably with support of his constituency).
So is Gore's old money any better? Gore raises big money in traditional ways, committing crimes by requesting contributions while using a government paid-for-telephone. In addition he solicits big money from foreign interests (China). Just because Gore retains a lot of Hollywood support, doesn't mean he's any better than Bush when it comes to receiving PAC money. Look at Carl Icahn's personal history. Before becoming a Hollywood producer he was an arms merchant.
Look at all the corporations that contribute to both candidates, this will give a broader perspective of how little difference there is between the two. All of this sounds like a good argument to vote for Nader.
"It is extremism when corporations corrupt our government, buy and rent our politicians, block our access to the courts, dominate our executive branch agencies, appropriate middle class tax dollars in the form of corporate welfare, subsidies, handouts, bailouts. That's extremism. It's not extremism to have a Green political party movement that wants to put an end to this." -- Ralph Nader 7.29.00
Gore will defend the Poor and Needy:
It's been asked: How do you think they treat the poor and sick in Texas? Pretty much the same way they are treated in any metropolitan area across the country, worse than working class citizens who have HMOs.
20 years ago many believed that Ronald Reagan would bring on WWIII, we were wrong. We survived. And we will probably survive Bush or Gore. The fact is who is enjoying surviving? Many of us are not surviving. Look at the alarming cancer rates, the quality of our air, water and food.
Can you look at your children in the eye and say, "I did what I could by compromising my vision and voting for the lesser evil."? They know that that excuse is based on fear. It's time we grew up and acted, not out of fear, but out of the aspiration and hope that we can make a significant and positive change, and the knowledge that we have a responsibility to ourselves, our children and every living thing to do so.
Nader provides that far more accurately than the political wavering rhetoric of either Bush or Gore. Of the three candidates he is the more temperate, thoughtful and pragmatic of them all.
"All these candidates talk about children. George W. Bush has pictures with minority kids all the time while he lets them rot in Texas. When are we going to decide that enough is enough?" -- Ralph Nader 7.29.00
Why is there no moderate between Gore and Bush? There is no room. They are of the same cloth. It's time for a new suit. Bush beats Gore? Gore beats Bush? Who cares? They're the same guy! Both are:
· Pro WTO
· Pro NAFTA
· Pro Reagan's SDI (Star Wars)
· Pro China MFN
· For increasing the Military budget
· For escalating the War on Drugs in South America and here in America
· Against Universal Health Care
· Supporters of the Death Penalty
"Trade is the clearest example of why Nader should be in the race. Not only are Bush and Gore solidly in the free-trade camp, but so were their rivals, John McCain and Bill Bradley. Only Nader has been willing to question the orthodoxy on free trade, arguing there can be no free trade with countries that aren't free. If Nader does not make the argument that free trade must be balanced against the needs to protect workers and the environment, then who will? --Steve Bailey, Globe Staff, 8/11/2000
Nader Can't Win:
Interestingly enough in '96, as a write-in candidate, Nader retained 4 Republicans for every 6 Democrats that voted for him. Imagine what he's going to do now that he is on the ballot, and what will happen if we get him into the debates. It is up to us. Daunting task. But it can be done. "It can't be done" used to be the argument for going to the moon. Anyone remember 1969? What is essential is getting him into the debates. As individuals we can lobby the commission as hard as possible, and engage each other in the issues, like you have by reading this list. In the interim find a legitimate excuse not to vote for Nader in 2000.
"To shut out legitimate third-party candidates from these debates is to limit the competitive democratic process on which the American electoral system is supposed to be built." -- Ralph Nader 6.25.00
"Can Ralph win?"
Well, stranger things have happened in the past decade. C'mon, think about it, not a single one of us ever thought we'd see the Berlin Wall come down or Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa. After those two things happened, I joined a new school of thought that said ANYTHING was possible. Jesse Ventura started with 3% in the polls and won. Ross Perot in '92 started with 6% and, after proving to everyone that he was certifiably insane, still got nearly 20% of the vote." -- Michael Moore 7.19.00
If this still hasn't convinced you that the time is RIGHT NOW for a huge change to our nation's direction then there's no hope for you. If you still believe that, on any level whatsoever, the twins offer anything but more of the same old, same old, then I highly recommend that you read no further on this site because, friend, I believe that voting for the lesser of two evils leaves you with one of the evils. Very little could harm this nation more.
Return To Front Page
Visit Our Other Unique Shops
Unique gifts for Buddhists and those who appreciate the loving messages of Buddha and Buddhism.
Unique, funny, silly gag birthday gifts for men and for women of all ages.
The Progressive Mind
Gifts for Progressive Minds, Liberal Christians and Buddhists.
Gifts for Filipinos, Fil-Ams and those fortunate enough to love those from the Philippines.
Silly, sexy gifts for just about everyone.