Nader Goes Buchananite (Re: [lbo-talk] Vote Nader/Camejo 2004!

Nathan Newman nathanne at nathannewman.org
Wed Jun 23 13:40:53 PDT 2004


What "litmus test"? I've said before that I support Kerry and oppose Nader. Others tell me that Kerry is the "lesser evil" and you should only support "pure" third party candidates. It's not a litmus test to note that Nader is not pure but is merely a "lesser lesser evil", which means we are back to a pure strategic choice in voting.

Check your own rhetoric-- you're the one playing litmus tests. I continue to say that Nader has done a lot of good in his political life, as have many Democratic politicians. You're the one who categorically attacks the Democrats with some purist test.

As for me, I just think Nader is not the best choice in this election and urge other people to instead vote for Kerry, as the best strategy to defeat Bush.

Nothing too complicated. I've yet to here a good argument for how voting for Nader accomplishes ANY goal, other than helping to elect Bush.

Nathan

----- Original Message ----- From: "R" <rhisiart at charter.net> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:16 PM Subject: Re: Nader Goes Buchananite (Re: [lbo-talk] Vote Nader/Camejo 2004!

did you read beyond the article's headline, nathan? the story's lead was "In the 2000 presidential election, 1.9 million Americans cast ballots that no one counted. "Spoiled votes" is the technical term."

it wasn't about felon disenfranchisement. disenfranchised felons don't cast ballots, nathan, right? it's about jim crow, which should be of more concern to the democrat black caucus than getting nader to drop out of the race. which should be of great concern to you and a "range of democratic politicians." it's about jim crow, of which felon disenfranchisement is merely a part.

you're not sure what my point is because you didn't read the article. you're too busy running purity checks on third parties, a purity you know you'll never achieve in the democratic party -- which, to use your own word is running an evil candidate, be it the lesser evil.

but since, like shrub, you have some mystical connection to the aether, you believe you are the one chosen to apply the "pure" litmus test to third parties.

now that you've finished bragging about your and a range of democrat politician's involvement in fighting felon disenfranchisement, which can't be doing too well since florida still has that bogus felon list and plans to use it, read the article. if you can come up with a question or issues based on the material, we'll discuss it.

R

----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Newman" <nathanne at nathannewman.org> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:20 AM Subject: Re: Nader Goes Buchananite (Re: [lbo-talk] Vote Nader/Camejo 2004!

----- Original Message ----- From: "R" <rhisiart at charter.net>
> swell, nathan. while you're neck deep in the alleged lesser evil, and
> fatuously claiming the burden of proof for purity is on others, consider
how
> your party is going to deal with this political reality and statistical
> fact.
>
>" One million black votes didn't count in the 2000 presidential election
> It's not too hard to get your vote lost -- if some politicians want it to
be
> lost!"

Since I work at one of the key national institutions litigating and fighting felon disenfranchisement, a fight supported by a range of Democratic politicians, I'm not sure what your point is?

Nathan

___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list