> "Suppose Nader were elected president in November. How many
> million people do you guys think he would kill in his administration?"
>
> finally, a clear, logical argument, to convince people to shun this
> mass murderer when they go the polls...
Well, of course I was speaking provocatively, but the point is that, supposing Nader or some other excellent candidate such has he were elected, there would be the U.S. armed forces, the CIA, the giant corporations he has taught us to hate, etc., etc., still in existence. Very little of this edifice could be wiped out with a stroke of the pen, or a computer keystroke -- perhaps the CIA (but even that would require some legislation, I think). So it would continue to go on doing its thing, which includes killing, torturing, impoverishing, etc., many people around the world. If a President (Clinton, Bush, a prospective President Kerry) is to be blamed for all the evil things that occur during her/his administration, President Nader would also have to be blamed for what happened "on his watch," as the quaint saying has it.
I don't know any place where Nader has explained how he would deal with this problem of turning the ocean liner around (as I like to think of it -- changing the course of a huge political/economic juggernaut), but perhaps he has worked out how he would do it. Certainly he would have to have a very strong popular movement behind him -- exactly what he has not proven very good at building.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Had I been present at the Creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe. -- Attr. to Alfonso the Wise, King of Castile