Please do. Doug
It's appended. A few introductory, prejudicial remarks: By expressing a preference for Bush in some statements, Wilentz (SW) is inferring RN's support for a 'the worse the better' position. This does not follow. If you think Gush and Bore are the same, or similar, then one isn't worse than the other in a meaningful sense. RN 'prefers' Bush because he looks like what he is, whereas Gore is a fraud. (I've said before I don't think they are the same, BTW)
The abortion bit is a blatant, false imputation of quotes. What's in caps below is NOT what RN said in the interview. You can check for y'self and see the difference.
As for the Israel bit, this is idiotic on its face. The source for that is the Jewish Daily Forward in NYC. I'll leave Doug to explicate the morays (sp?) of the Forward.
mbs
CONCERNED SCHOLARS, WRITERS AND ACTIVISTS 2000
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, are appalled at the continuing national campaign by Ralph Nader and the Green Party. It is now plain that Mr. Nader will do anything and say anything in order to gain the 5% of the vote he seeks. Instead of a liberal or progressive force, his campaign now seriously threatens to elect the deceptive George W. Bush to the presidency. Despite Mr. Nader's past great achievements, and despite the good faith of his rank-and-file supporters, his has become a wrecking-ball campaign --one that betrays the very liberal and progressive values it claims to uphold.
Recently, Mr. Nader has said that:
--IF GIVEN A CHOICE BETWEEN BUSH AND GORE, HE WOULD VOTE FOR BUSH. Mr. Nader would happily throw the country to the Right, placing the Supreme Court and the entire executive regulatory system in the hands of the most retrograde elements in our political life.
--ENVIRONMENTAL REACTIONARIES SERVE A POSITIVE FUNCTION. Mr. Nader has argued that past appointments like Reagan's Secretary of the Interior James Watt usefully serve as "provocateurs" for change. He has also denounced the Sierra Club and other long-standing allies for their "servile mentality" in not supporting him.
--THE REPEAL OF ROE V. WADE WOULD BE OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE. Never a champion of women's rights, Mr. Nader claims that abortion rights might just as well be left up to the states.
--ALL U.S. AID TO ISRAEL SHOULD BE CUT. No matter what one thinks of the current situation in the Middle East, such rhetoric is not only irresponsible, it is inflammatory.
But these are only the latest Orwellian utterances from Mr. Nader and his supporters. From the start, he said his effort would help the Democrats gain votes in the House of Representatives -- while at the same time he has vilified the Democrats as no different than the Republicans. He has claimed to uphold the rights of organized labor, without once explaining his own firm anti-labor stance within his own organizations. The list goes on, from refusing to release his income tax returns like all other candidates -- this from the supposed paragon of honesty and openness -- to the disingenuous claims by his supporters in various states about a "risk-free" Nader vote in places where Gore or Bush are strong -- even as Mr. Nader himself aggressively looks for votes in liberal cities and on college campuses in vital toss-up states.
Should Governor Bush be elected President, and the Republicans hold the Congress, conservative Republicans will have captured control of all three branches of the Federal Government for the first time since 1930. Mr. Nader, who is also supporting divisive Green congressional candidates in some tight races, plainly does not care about this -- or worse, seeks it, under thenaive impression that it will heighten social contradictions and lead to what he has called "a progressive convulsion." This is sectarianism of a familiar sort in the century just past -- a sectarianism that had reaped nothing but catastrophe for liberal and progressive politics.
We implore all liberal and progressive voters to reject the Nader campaign on November 7 and to vote for the Democratic ticket.