[sixties-l] Re: sixties-l-Gore v. Bush

From: Jeffrey Blankfort (jab@tucradio.org)
Date: Thu Jun 22 2000 - 00:58:16 CUT

  • Next message: Jeffrey Blankfort: "[sixties-l] Re: sixties-l-Vietnam Memorial"

    Looking back at the last election, and at Clinton's record over the past
    8 years, it is legitimate to question if he was the lesser evil. Had
    Dole, who hovers in the same charismatic category as Gore, been elected,
    it is unlikely that we would have seen the passage of the welfare deform
    act, the "effective Death Penalty and Counter-Terroism Act, and the
    erosion of the basic constitutional liberties that we have witnessed
    under the Clinton administration. And had Bush been re-elected in 1992,
    it is more than likely that he would not have been able to pass NAFTA.

    The reason for all of the foregoing is that the Democrats who blindly
    follow their leader would have been free to oppose the Republican
    policies. While not endorsing Bush, and while urging a vote for Nader,
    I suggest that it would be more appropriate to speak of who would cause
    the least damage as opposed to who is the lesser evil. Given that both
    parties are controlled by the large corporations, whoever is elected
    will have limited parameters in which they can act on issues of concern
    to those corporations. Re NAFTA only certain corporations benefited
    hugely. For others it didn't make much difference. Other. On domestic
    issues, such as a woman's right to choose, the corporations couldn't
    care less.

    In the long run it probably doesn't matter whether its Gush or Bore. We
    and the rest of the living things the planet are in deep trouble.

    Jeff Blankfort
    > Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:55:23 EDT
    > From: StewA@AOL.COM
    > Subject: Re: [sixties-l] Gore v. Bush
    > re - Ted re- Nader -re Bush v. Gore
    > I would prefer Nader being president by a limitless amount. But there is no
    > chance of that. Gore or Bush will win - and nobody disputes this. Between the
    > two, Gore is 5 per cent better. Not much better but on some issues - like
    > being pro-choice on reproductive rights - it counts, it's significant. Now,
    > if it turns out that Oregon (where I live) is a walk a way for Gore - I'll be
    > supporting Nader big time. But if that support might throw it to Bush - then
    > I can't do it. It would like voting for Bush. What a horrible thought!
    > Stew Albert
    > http://hometown.aol.com/stewa/stew.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 22 2000 - 03:20:49 CUT