as a way of dodging chuck0's valid and interesting questions, you said, "I admit he's [kerry's] the lesser evil and will vote for him as better than Bush." this after shoveling propaganda at this list about how liberal kerry is, how great his record is, how well he's going to do as president and how we should all support him.
now it's "others" who are telling you that kerry is the "lesser evil." (do you believe in UFOs?) for some bizarre reason, third party candidates, particularly nader, have to demonstrate to you they are "pure." otherwise, "we're back" to what you term "strategic voting." strategic voting is a nice term for exactly the way you told everyone on the list you plan to vote, for "the lesser evil." who are you to demand a higher standard of anyone than the standard you apply to yourself?
you insist on dodging your own rhetorical fallacies in favor of pointing at what you falsely characterize as mine. when i discuss your rhetoric -- propaganda is the better term since i find what you write neither effective or persuasive -- i quote you. yet, you didn't read the article i posted before responding to it. you didn't read the answer i wrote below before responding to it. you insist on taking material out of context simply because you've no valid response to the remainder.
you "urge other people" to join you in voting for what you term "the lesser evil." is this what it means to be a Democrat? that isn't complicated at all. it's just that for one brief moment, you were candid. it was refreshing. now, you'd like us all to ignore it and go back to nice nathan who says that nader -- who many people in your party despise because doing so takes their minds off their own failures -- has "done a lot of good things." so saying that somehow sets you apart and above?
in a posting to this message board you also didn't read, i forwarded a poll which indicated nader is drawing votes from both kerry and shrub. almost in equal measure. with nader's current buchananesque stance, he's liable to continue drawing votes from bush. so how is he a "threat," as you put it in fine paranoid language, to kerry?
as for your statement that you haven't yet heard a "good (another of those emotive, value judgment words like "pure" again) argument for how voting for nader accomplishes ANY goal ....", try asking someone who's intending to vote for him. and who likes arguing with you.
R
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Newman" <nathanne at nathannewman.org> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 1:40 PM Subject: Re: Nader Goes Buchananite (Re: [lbo-talk] Vote Nader/Camejo 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