The disfranchisement of one-quarter of Black males due to felony records
is a consequence of Clinton-Gore drug and tough love policies. The
number of eligible Blacks intimidated from voting by Florida police
and/or election officials was alone enough to swing the election to
Gore. To ignore both of these factors is white chauvinism pure and
simple.
As Gore was unwilling to raise these issues or to demand a re-vote
at least in the country where Buchanan himself admits he got more votes
intended for Gore than necessary to put the state in the latter's
column, why be concerned with Gore? And what on earth do any of the
above have to do with Nader?
The clearest indication that millions of voters really don't care
much which man wins is indicated by the lopsided number shown in
yesterday's polls to favor accepting the certification of Florida for
Bush. Clearly, nationwide literally millions who voted for Gore did so
because they are habitual Democratic voters and not because they saw any
difference.
William
Mandel
Bard382@aol.com wrote:
> Regarding the Florida debacle, the effect of Nader's myopic campaign
> turning the infected side of American politics up to the light is
> obvious.
> But at what cost? Are we ready to validate the division in our society
> since
> the Viet Nam/Civil Rights battles? Are we ready to take on the "old
> fools"
> and their robotic political offspring? Is Gore the leader capable of
> that?
> Tough questions now. Nader pulled off the scab and blood is beginning
> to
> seep. I think this could stop any progress the left has been slowly
> but
> steadily making allowing for unproductive and polarized battles over
> non-issues, like the dead-horse flag-burning scam, worthy of WWF
> television
> matches. Thanks Ralph.
> Mark Hebard
> Aptos, Ca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/29/00 EST