[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SG-W:/ Re:Name that Natural Areas Preservation Proposal
I'd like to request that we refrain from lobbying about the presidential race
on this list. Unless a candidate takes a position about land use in this county,
I think the value is pretty limited.
But if folks are going to post to the list about the presidential race, let's
try to respect the fact that people of good conscience can hold very different
views. If they don't cross over the line, Jeff and Steve's posts come very
close to it, IMO. I personally think that Gore would do well by the environment
and make a better President than Nader or Bush, and I think that the history
of third-party candidates in this country is that they always help the party
whose positions are most opposed to theirs. But, I respect the opinions of
those who argue that a vote for Nader, Buchanan, Hagelin, or the Libertarians
isn't wasted because of the signal it sends, its long-term impact on the two
major parties, or its contribution to building a party they more strongly support.
That's what a democratic republic is all about.
And let's remember that the only guaranteed waste of a vote is the one that
all too many of us will choose in the fall: to not vote at all.
>>I'm going to vote for Christ b/c Nader is pretty much just like Gore and
>>just not pure enough liberal for me.
>>Really . . . .why?
>>On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Steve Bean wrote:
>>> Steve Bean
>Yes, really. I put these links in my sig file so people might take a
>little web trip to find out why. In particular, I recommend Nader's
>speech to the NAACP at
>You'll hear (read) the truth like you never have before from a national
>I'm a Green (since '88), which means that I'm not just an
>environmentalist (as I'm sure applies to you as well, Jeff). And the term
>"liberal" just doesn't work anymore.
>I've watched the conventions and the post-convention punditry, I read
>political news daily (my homesite is AlterNet.org, check it out), I've
>read the Sierra article on the differences between Bush's and Gore's
>campaign funding, I've been through the whole "a vote for Nader is a vote
>for Bush" debate. (Please don't send me email on this. Go find some
>uninformed swing voter who's leaning toward Bush and educate them
>instead.) I'm with Michael Moore on this: if you want to waste your vote
>on Gore, go right ahead. I'll be working to inform the majority of
>eligible voters--millions of non-voters and undecideds--that Nader and
>the Greens offer true representation for the asking, not rhetoric that
>you have to beg for or back-scratching in return for big donations from
>At the very least, if we live in a true democracy, Ralph Nader should be
>in the televised presidential debates. They're no longer sponsored by the
>League of Women Voters, by the way. The Republicrats took it over after
>Perot scared them in 1992. Corporate sponsors this year include Anheuser
>Busch--Nader's suing on the grounds that they're exclusionary. Details
>available on the Nader website. You can sign an online petition to get
>Nader into the debates there, too.
>smartgrowth-washtenaw: Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
>sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
>Postings to: firstname.lastname@example.org For info, send
>email to email@example.com with a one-line message body of "info
smartgrowth-washtenaw: Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
Postings to: firstname.lastname@example.org For info, send
email to email@example.com with a one-line message body of "info