TOP TEN REASONS WHy I'M NOT VOTING FOR NADER (ANY ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH)

by Gloria Steinem, President, Voters For Choice

10. He's not running for President, he's running for federal matching funds for the Green Party!

9. He was able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the past because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn a majority vote, or otherwise submit to democracy.

8. By condemning Gore for ever having taken a different position - for example, for voting against access to legal abortion when he was a Congressman from Tennessee - actually dissuades others from changing their minds and joining us.

7. Nader is rightly obsessed with economic and corporate control, yet he belittles a deeper form of control - control of reproduction, and the most intimate parts of our lives. For example, he calls the women's movement and the gay and lesbian movements "gonadal politics," and ridicules the use of the word "patriarchy," as if it were somehow less important than the World Trade Organization. As Congressman Barney Frank wrote Nader in an open letter, "your assertion that there are not important issue differences between Gore and Bush is either flatly inaccurate or reflects your view that...the issues are not important...since you have generally ignored these issues in your career."

6. The issues of corporate control can only be addressed by voting for candidates who will pass campaign-funding restrictions, and by conducting grassroots boycotts and consumer campaigns against sweatshops - not by voting for one man who will never become President.

5. Toby Moffett, a longtime Nader Raider who also served in Congress, wrote that Nader's "Tweedledum and Tweedledee assertion that there is no important difference between the major Presidential candidates would be laughable if it weren't so unsafe." We've been bamboozled by the media's practice of being even-handedly negative. There is a far greater gulf between Bush and Gore than between Nixon and Kennedy - and what did that mean to history?

4. Nader asked Winona LaDuke, an important Native American leader, to support and run with him, despite his likely contribution to the victory of George W. Bush, a man who has stated that "state law is supreme when to comes to Indians," a breathtakingly dangerous position that ignores hundreds of treaties with tribal governments, long-standing federal policy and federal law affirming tribal sovereignty.

3. If I were to run for President in the same symbolic way, I would hope my friends and colleagues would have the sense to vote against me, too, saving me from waking up to discover that I had helped send George W. Bush to the most powerful position in the world.

2. There are one, two, three, or even four lifetime Supreme Court Justices who are likely to be appointed by the next President. Bush has made clear by his record as Governor and appeals to the ultra-rightwing that his appointments would overturn Roe v. Wade and reproductive freedom, dismantle remedies for racial discrimination, oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, oppose mandatory gun registration, oppose federal protections of endangered species, public lands, and water - and much more. Gore is the opposite on every one of these issues. Gore has made clear that his appointments would uphold our hard won progress in those areas, and he has outlined advances in each one.

1. The art of behaving ethically is behaving as if everything we do matters. If we want Gore and not Bush in the White House, we have to vote for Gore and not Bush - out of self-respect.

I'm not telling you how to vote by sharing these reasons. The essence of feminism is the power to decide for ourselves. It's also taking responsibility for our actions. Let's face it, Bush in the White House would have far more impact on the poor and vulnerable in this country, and on the subjects of our foreign policy and aid programs in other countries. Just as Clinton saved women's lives by rescinding the Mexico City policy by executive order as his first act as President - thus ending the ban against even discussing abortion if one received U.S. aid - the next President will have enormous power over the lives of millions abroad who cannot vote, plus millions too disillusioned to vote here.

Perhaps there's a reason why Nader rallies seem so white, middle class, and disproportionately male; in short, so supported by those who wouldn't be hurt if Bush were in the White House.

Think self-respect. Think about the impact of our vote on the weakest among us. Then we can't go wrong.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), November 01, 2000

Answers

LINK

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), November 01, 2000.

2. There are one, two, three, or even four lifetime Supreme Court Justices who are likely to be appointed by the next President. Bush has made clear by his record as Governor and appeals to the ultra- rightwing that his appointments would overturn Roe v. Wade and reproductive freedom

The Reality

-- (it's@up to.you), November 01, 2000.

OK, Gloria hon, you convinced me. I won't vote for Nader.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 01, 2000.

>> 1. [...] If we want Gore and not Bush in the White House, we have to vote for Gore and not Bush ...<<

Right on, Gloria. Except, I have no great positive reason to want Gore, so I don't. The only reasons that Gore supporters tend to cite why I should want Gore are never positive. They never tell me what Gore will do that I apporve of. They tell me what Bush will do that I don't approve of. In short, they are threats. To me, either way I get results I don't approve of.

So, Gloria, why should I want Gore?

Gore hasn't moved any closer to me since the Democratic convention. He hasn't courted my vote. He hasn't made any reasonable attempt to move me from Nader, who speaks fairly well for me, to himself. He continues to strike me as willing to jettison everything I want, if he thinks it will serve some short term goal. Am I supposed to find this appealing?

I have watched as Clinton has preserved his personal political capital like a miser hoarding his gold. It is not meant to be spent, but only to be kept - the longer the better. I deplore that kind of "leadership". I see Gore as no different.

If Gore is so willing to walk away from me, why shouldn't I be willing to walk away from him?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 01, 2000.

Right on Brian.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 01, 2000.

I just love seeing all these liberals attacking each other. Oh God! Oh God! Save me, save me.

You hear that sound? That's the sound of you sinking into the abyss. See that light? That's the light of personal freedom shinnig through.

Hear that voice, that's the voice of thousands of babies who will see tomorrow.

It's over. The politics of socialism failed again.

-- freedomfighter (freedomfighter@minuteman.com), November 01, 2000.

Minuteman-

Thanks for the biggest laugh I've had all day.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.nut), November 01, 2000.

Here's one just for you Brian,

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED NOV 01, 2000 17:01:39 ET XXXXX

GORE OPS TARGET NADERBS SEX LIFE; MOVE CALLED 'DESPERATE'

**Exclusive**

Campaign 2000 took an aggressive turn this week after Gore campaign operatives began questioning Green Party presidential candidate Ralph NaderBs sex life, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"Look, heBs never been married," one Gore operative whispered to stunned reporters earlier this week. "Who is going to be sleeping in his bed at the White House if heBs elected president? IBm interested. ArenBt you?"

The whispering campaign comes as Nader, 66, appears to be taking support away from Democratic hopeful Al Gore in key states.

"This is the last act of a desperate campaign!" a Nader insider said late Wednesday. "If this does not open the eyes of the American people, nothing will. These people will do anything to keep power."

A senior Gore official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, blasted the whispering campaign. "If anyone is caught doing this, they will be fired immediately!" the official told the DRUDGE REPORT from Tennessee. "WhoBs ever doing this should knock it off -- and knock it off now!"

The SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE advanced questions about NaderBs private life after California state Assemblywoman Carole Migden raised the issue in an interview.

"Of course, I don't necessarily have that information, and I certainly don't want to say anything libelous or unreasonable," Migden said in an interview with CALIFORNIA TRIANGLE magazine. "All I'm saying is that we believe he has strong ties to the community -- and has for years -- and hasn't been forthright about it."

Nader told the CHRONICLE that he was appalled that an elected official like Migden would even bring up the subject.

"I've spoken out on gay and lesbian issues way in advance of Al Gore," he said, adding that -- unlike his Democratic opponent -- he supports both civil marriages and eliminating the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military. "But the answer to her inference is no."

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 01, 2000.

Reason # 2: "Bush has made clear by his record as Governor and appeals to the ultra-rightwing that his appointments would" ... "oppose mandatory gun registration," ... "Gore is the opposite on every one of these issues".

According to Steinem, Gore is for mandatory gun registration. I wonder what the Feds will do once they know where all the guns are? I am also wondering how many criminals will step right up to register their guns.


Tarzan,

Are thousands of abortions each day funny to you?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 01, 2000.

J,

It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has ruled that criminals CANNOT be forced to register their guns because it would violate their Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves.

How is that for twisted?

So yeah, it would only hurt law abiding gun owners.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 01, 2000.

Are thousands of abortions each day funny to you?

Thousands of babies with no provisions aren't funny either.

-- (not @t.funny), November 01, 2000.

What's funny to me are all the people rushing to claim victory for whatever their pet causes might be when the election is still too close to call.

If you don't find that humorous, then frankly you need to lighten up.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.nut), November 01, 2000.

Why vote for a candidate who pleads and begs for you not to vote for his opposition, and even asks his opposition to step down. Can someone like this actually be expected to LEAD this country?

-- The real Gore (act@of.desparation), November 01, 2000.

not@funny

So you're saying because you think babies may not be provided for, YOu want to kill them. Under socialism YOU demand we treat our pets better than that!

-- freedomfighter (freedomfighter@minuteman.com), November 02, 2000.

Well, Freedomfighter, I can't wait to see the answer to this question: Who will take care of the "precious babies" your side is so desperate to "save"? With the further dismantling of social programs certain in a Bush presidency (don't try to tell me it won't happen; why are 1.4 million poor children in Texas denied health insurance they *already qualify for*?) there is no safety net for the poor. Also, don't tell me that these children will immediately be snapped up by millions of upwardly mobile, utterly qualified adoptive parents. With the numbers of unwanted and abandoned children in the United States, we would just see more of the same. Churches and privately funded social programs' resources are taxed to the limit already by the working poor.

I don't see the pro-lifers adopting any of the hundreds of thousands of unwanted children in the United States. Of course -- silly me! -- they're not cute Caucasian babies!

I find it hilarious that you call yourself a "freedom fighter," but you won't allow women as a whole the freedom to their own reproductive systems. (This is probably because, as a man, you've never known what it was like to miss a period.)

-- Just another feminist (democrats@whitehouse.com), November 02, 2000.

Just another feminist,

Why don't we just let you have the "freedom" to shoot people when you have pms? I guess because I am a man, I wouldn't understand because I have never had pms, right?

He's fighting for the freedom of that baby to live. Which outweighs your "freedom" to be inconvenienced.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 02, 2000.

He's fighting for the freedom of that baby to live.

Only until it's out of the womb.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 02, 2000.

hmm,

Is your argument: because the child may not have the best of food, clothing, shelter, love, circumstances, etc., it should be aborted?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 02, 2000.

Yet another thread hijacked by the abortion issue.

>> Is your argument: because the child may not have the best of food, clothing, shelter, love, circumstances, etc., it should be aborted? <<

As I read hmmm's comment, it made no such point.

The point I derived from it was that hmmm thinks it is peculiar to believe the state has an absolute interest in fetuses and no particular interest in children.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 02, 2000.

Just another feminist,

I don't know who will take care of the babies, maybe the mother and father should have to take some responsibility.

But one thing I am sure of, when we as a society determine that we should devalue life to solve what you classify as a social problem, I fear whose life will become valueless next? (I know you will scoff at that concern but it is a small step from infanticide to genocide.) When you sit there and tell me the life of an unborn child has no value, because we as a society are unable to find a solution to your desires as a feminist to have control over your reproductive organs, I reject your self-interest.

This is not just about "saving babies", it's about a greater cause, it's about being a human being. It's about who we are. You want me to believe abortion is the best we can do. I reject that narrow minded, self serving, concept of problem solving.

Abortion may be a small part of an overall solution, but it is not the answer. Abortion kills nearly 1.5 million babies a year just in this country. Is this the best we can do? You, just another feminist, want me and everyone else to accept your answer, we won't.

You want me to fight for your rights as a feminist, but reject those rights of the unborn. That is why you will lose. You have taken the position that your rights are superior and that will not stand.

Freedom has one requirement, responsibility.

-- freedomfighter (freedomfighter@minuteman.com), November 02, 2000.

Brian is correct. The question raised by "Just another feminist" remains unanswered.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 02, 2000.

This is not just about "saving babies", it's about a greater cause, it's about being a human being.

Why isn't the health and welfare of toddlers and other "difficult to adopt" children such a big deal to you? How come the percieved plight of potential children gets people angry enough to kill, but children who are, in some cases, literally dying from neglect doesn't even warrant the bat of an eyelash? Are fetuses somehow more intrinsically valuable than actual babies? Does your greater cause end at cervix?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.nut), November 02, 2000.

Debra, reading this from Gloria Steinem only makes me sad that she has apparently morphed into just another political hack.

There was a time in the feminist movement when women discussed feminist goals, values, and the means that should be applied to achieve them, all very honestly, openly and frankly. They recognized the need to arrive at a strong philosophical and ideological framework as the most important precursor to political action.

This piece is nowhere in that tradition. It is like seeing a math test where the student didn't "show her work".

In my view, feminist goals must be far broader and deeper than simply defending abortion rights. They must be placed into a framework of a fight for justice on all fronts. By embracing Al Gore, Steinem is also embracing the WTO and NAFTA, the continued evasion of the Kyoto accords, continued drug war, US intervention in Colombia, and host of other back-sliding positions on fundamental justice for all. The least she can do is present better reasons than #4. Read that one again.

As far as I can see Steinem is making the usual calculation of birds in the hand. That is a legitimate calculation. I would applaud her if she made it far more openly and comprehensively. My view is that she is clearly holding one bird in the hand (pro-choice Supreme Court nominees), but she is weighing that not against a mere two birds in the bush, but dozens of regressive or rearguard positions taken by Al Gore and the prospect of regressive politics for decades to come.

Feminists need to be making these political calculations, boldly, comprehensively and openly, and not peddling this kind of shallow propaganda. When you buy a one-way ticket is it a good idea to know where it is taking you.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 02, 2000.

Dennis, Sorry, J:

"I guess because I am a man," That remains to be seen.

If I were selling gold, I would oppose people who destroy gold. Yes, I see the basis of your opposition to abortion. Yes, I do.

DB

-- DB (Debunker@nomore.xxx), November 02, 2000.

Ape Man,

No cigar here. You can't just take the part you want and leave the rest. And to think being human only means caring for the unborn? I also liked the way you margin an unborn child to "potential children". Has a real way of dehumanizing your subject, huh?

You will lose because killing babies is not the solution to any problem.

-- freedomfighter (freedomfighter@minuteman.com), November 02, 2000.

You can't just take the part you want and leave the rest.

But that's what you're doing.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 02, 2000.

freedom fighter has a fetus fetish. Not too worried about real, live kids though. Why do men get this obsessed, slavish devotion to unborn babies? When you start having the babies, then you can start calling the shots.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), November 02, 2000.

hummer, As are you.

-- freedomfighter (freedomfighter@minuteman.com), November 02, 2000.

Yikes!!! President of your college debate team, eh?

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), November 02, 2000.

You can't just take the part you want and leave the rest.

Funny, I was just about to say the same thing to YOU. The problem is, unwanted feti become unwanted children. You, and your ilk, are only too happy to force other people into caring for unwanted pregnancies so long as that pregnancy doesn't require any effort or cash outlay from you. However, the minute that fetus becomes a child, it requires food, shelter, clothing, and parenting, and all of a sudden, it's courageous (snicker) protectors are nowhere to be found.

And to think being human only means caring for the unborn?

Being human means caring for actual children. You know, the ones who are too dark, too old, and too imperfect to be poster children for adoption.

Since you failed to address every single point in my post which you responded to, I'll post it again. This time, try to practice the skills you learned in "Reading for Comprehension,".Why isn't the health and welfare of toddlers and other "difficult to adopt" children such a big deal to you? How come the percieved plight of potential children gets people angry enough to kill, but children who are, in some cases, literally dying from neglect don't even warrant the bat of an eyelash? Are fetuses somehow more intrinsically valuable than actual babies? Does your greater cause end at cervix?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.nut), November 02, 2000.

Dang! Ever since I started the chemo, I've had trouble with spelling and grammar. I guess I'm just too tired to be grammatically correct.

However, the minute that fetus becomes a child, it requires food, shelter, clothing, and parenting, and all of a sudden, its courageous (snicker) protectors are nowhere to be found.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swiningthroughthejunglewithouta.dictionary), November 02, 2000.

Maybe Steinem realizes that you can't win the war if you lose the most critical battles, and that even the broadest visions must be reached one step at a time. The hijacking of this thread by those whose minds are both closed and simple should illustrate the nature of the enemy, who is like a shark -- stupid, primitive, and deadly if you aren't paying attention.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 02, 2000.

Damn Flint!

Hash words. Well said, but harsh.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.nut), November 02, 2000.

Ape Man,

You fail to practice what you preach. I will not walk into your box. But know this, the solution to unwanted children is not killing them before they are born. One solution may be being responsible enough to not get pregnant in the first place.

Freedom has one requirement, responsibility.

-- freedomfighter (freedomfighter@minuteman.com), November 02, 2000.

It is the height of moral and political mischief to suggest that it makes no difference whether George W. Bush or Al Gore is the next president of the United States. Civil rights, reproductive rights, gay rights, the environment, genocide in the post-cold-war world: Who really believes that a Bush administration and a Gore administration would behave similarly in these fraught regions of policy? When Nader asserts that there is no difference between Bush and Gore, he is reviving the old radical axiom that the worse, the better. Perhaps he thinks that a Bush presidency is necessary to provoke this nation of dupes at last to adopt a radical agenda. If so, he understands precisely nothing about the political history of this country. Naderism represents the emotional satisfaction of the American left at the expense of the social and economic satisfaction of women, blacks, gays, and poor people in America. We say, the worse, the worse.

One of the strange things about Nader's notion that he is qualified for the presidency is that he is a man without any discernible views on foreign policy. Or he was until last week, when he proclaimed that Israel is entirely responsible for the recent violence in the Middle East and that Gore is "cowardly" for not saying so. Now that the Arab- American vote matters tactically, Nader has discovered the rest of the globe, and has decided to play the lousy game of identity politics that he used to scorn. "The curious thing of course is that though of Lebanese parentage, Nader has never made himself part of any Arab or Arab-American campaign ... [and] he does not devote much time to foreign policy." Those are the astute words of Edward Said, writing (in praise of the dissident, naturally) in Al-Ahram Weekly in Cairo a few months ago.

There is something even more curious than Nader's sudden pandering. (Excuse us, his sudden hunger for Levantine peace.) It turns out that Nader's cheapness on this question, and his conspiratorial view of the world, go back very far. They go back to March 1960, when the left's gaunt hero published an article called "Business Is Deserting America," in which he warned ominously of "our ingrained gullibility to internationalism." The remarkable thing is that Nader published his piece in The American Mercury, an obscenely anti-Semitic magazine. Nader's piece appeared in the same months that the magazine was publishing a series called "Termites of the Cross," which was full of such teachings as:

As soon as anyone demonstrates that he is willing to expose the enemies of communism or world Zionism, their vast machines start working to advance his interests. The Disciples of Judas do not even have to be openly pro-Communist or pro-Zionist to qualify for the big payoff....

The youthful mistake of the saint? Perhaps; but neither Gore nor Bush ever made quite such a mistake. In this respect, there is truly no difference between them.

-- Makes Me Want to Ralph (more@onralph.com), November 02, 2000.

You fail to practice what you preach.

Says you. You can be excused for not knowing my life, of course.

I will not walk into your box.

Translation: I don't give a rat's patootie about actual children, but I certainly don't want to look like a hypocrite, therefore, I'm going to continue to spout platitudes until you stop asking tough questions.

But know this, the solution to unwanted children is not killing them before they are born.

Clearly, you think the solution to unwanted children is allowing them to become children and then ignoring them as energetically as possible.

One solution may be being responsible enough to not get pregnant in the first place.

Oh yeah. Because everyone knows that all birth control is 100% perfect, no one ever gets pregnant when they've been molested or raped, and every married couple that gets pregnant is ready and willing to care for a child.

Freedom has one requirement, responsibility.

So when will you and your so-called "pro-life" ilk take responsibility for actual children?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.nut), November 02, 2000.

"The stench of big money pervades American politics." --Nader 2000 campaign website.

"[It is] some sort of independent expenditure [that] we have nothing to do with." -- Nader, appearing on CNN's "Inside Polities" on October 25, referring to the $320,000 national pro-Nader ad campaign bankrolled by his milliionaire friend Greg MacArthur.

-- Ralph Nader, Saintly Hypocrite (more@onralph.com), November 02, 2000.

Well, more on ralph, at least Gloria Steinem puts her name on her arguments. That puts her in a lot higher league than you play in.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 02, 2000.

What? Brian is carefully sidestepping the allegations to focus on the anonymity of the alleger? I think we can safely conclude that these allegations are correct. Brian's integrity places him above attacking the messenger, *unless* the message cannot be doubletalked away. In which case, well, you do what you think is best...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 02, 2000.

NOTICE: Due to his persistant pattern of distorting of my words, making nasty ad hominem characterizations, drawing wholly unwarranted inferences and peddling them as facts, and pursuing other extremely shabby debating tricks, I have foresworn responding to Flint.

My choice and he knows it. Baiting me is his choice.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 02, 2000.

Wow. Attacking TWO messengers. Now, as for the actual issue, well, you do what you think best...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 02, 2000.

Wow!

Nader may have had an article printed when he was 26 in a magazine that printed other articles that more on ralph thinks are "Anti-Semitic." Ralph Nader is now 66 years old.

Age 66? Age 26?

Could there be a difference in judgment? Nah! Couldn't be. People never change between the age of 26 and 66. Take my grandfather for example. Between 1928 and 1944 he voted for Norman Thomas, the Socialist candidate for President. From 1948 until the day he died in 1983, he voted for every Republican candidate for President that was on the ballot.

Is there an element of guilt by association going on here? Let's see. Ralph Nader prints an article in a magazine. His accuser prints not one quote from that article, but instead ptints a quote from a different article printed in the same issue of that magazine. This proves that Nader is somehow "Anti-Semitic".

This is Election Year Logic (tm) at its best. I say: Who the f*ck cares if the "accusations are correct"? I suppose that it is signifigant also that Ralph Nader used to shit his diapers! Shocking stuff!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 02, 2000.

Ah,... the youthful mistake of the saint! Perhaps; but neither Gore nor Bush ever made quite such a mistake. In this respect, there is truly no difference between them.

-- St. Ralph (more@onralph.com), November 02, 2000.

>> neither Gore nor Bush ever made quite such a mistake. <<

Funny you should say that on the same day Bush is revealed to have a DUI guilty plea in his youth.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 03, 2000.

Which is worse, driving while drunk or association with anti-Semitic bigots?

-- St. Ralph (more@onnader.com), November 03, 2000.