Pat Buchanan has selected as his running mate a woman who is black and who also is a member of the John Birch society. That is a combination that is pretty hard to find, but Pat found her and had the political savvy to choose her. Thus he ensures an outpouring of support from (1) women, (2) blacks, and (3) Birchers. So I predict Pat will do very well in the upcoming election.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), August 22, 2000

Answers

If polls are any indication, "very well" translates to about 2% of the vote.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 22, 2000.

>> Thus he ensures an outpouring of support from (1) women, (2) blacks, and (3) Birchers. <<

More likely scenario:

Thus he ensures an outpouring of support from all black women who are Birchers.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 22, 2000.

It will probably work the opposite for him. He will get less support from women and blacks, and the Birchers don't really matter.

He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell to win this election, let alone get a significant percentage.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), August 22, 2000.

Buchanon vote = Nader vote = wasted vote.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 22, 2000.

>> Buchanon vote = Nader vote = wasted vote. <<

I just can't understand this reasoning.

The next logical step in this train of thought is that any vote that is not cast for the eventual winner is a "wasted" vote. In that case, the final stop on this train of thought is that the old Soviet-style elections (with only one candidate and a 98% voter turnout) resulted in the fewest "wasted" votes of all.

Sorry. That's one trip I don't want to buy a ticket for.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 22, 2000.

Brian--

I am not against 3rd party candidates. I just don't think either of these two guys can do more than marginally influence the general vote; probably hurting the candidate they would otherwise support. In the interest of ideological purity, let's cutoff our nose to spite our face. No thanks.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 22, 2000.

The only truly "WASTED" vote is for a Democreep or a Republicon and against good commom sense.How much debauchery need be displayed to prove these people are criminals?

And besides,one cannot waste that which is given freely.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), August 22, 2000.

DOES he,she, and them like Elephant Ears?

xoxo,sumer

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), August 22, 2000.

>> In the interest of ideological purity, let's cut off our nose to spite our face. No thanks. <<

I have much more practical aims in mind than mere "ideological purity". Such purity has never interested me. I prefer results.

However, I have seen the results of the past 30 years. One of the essential hallmarks of intelligence is: if it doesn't work, stop doing it and try something else.

Corporations now routinely give massive amounts of cash to both candidates at once. Both parties acquiese in this practise. Hell! They encourage it! Both parties have been given ample time to reform this open corruption, if they had the will to do so.

If I continue to give my vote to the perpetrators of this outrageous corruption, I will reward them for their actions and encourage them to give me more of the same. Look at GW Bush, for heaven's sake. He chose to turn down millions of dollars of untainted federal money, offered to him in return for his following some very minimal restrictions, and instead he is raising unlimited amounts of corporate money to finance his campaign.

This open sellout makes my jaw drop. I do not pretend Mr. Gore is much better on this count. He isn't.

It is my observation that, as corporate money has become more and more important to campaigns, that law-making has become more and more favorable to those corporate donors. Believe me, the donors have noticed it, too. They are only following that other hallmark of intelligence: if it still works fine, keep doing it!

I am not pleased. I am not going to reward that any more. If it takes the rest of my life to build the alternative, then that is what it will take. I refuse to put my stamp of approval on this crap!

Call that "wasting" my vote if you like. It looks to me like the only way out of this trap. And I am busting out, so help me god!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 22, 2000.

I felt when I started this thread that people would realize that it (e.g. the business of the outpouring of support from women and blacks) was an exercise in utter sarcasm.

Regarding third party candidates, I can see voting for one if he is half decent. But I regard Buchanan as unspeakable, and I think Nader in many respects is flat out nuts. (He is also more of a puppet of the trial lawyers than even Bill Clinton, which is really saying something!)

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), August 22, 2000.

Peter--

I agree. In fact, it is hard to imagine any candidate, ever, who will not be in bed with someone. Maybe that is just as well. As long as there is an elective process, we can always vote out the party in power. The one thing that concerns me more than a corrupt mediocrity is an efficient Philosopher-King.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 22, 2000.

>> He is also more of a puppet of the trial lawyers than even Bill Clinton, which is really saying something! <<

To be a puppet, one must have strings attached that can be pulled at the will of the puppeteer, rather than the will of the puppet. So, exactly how do you think this particular string is attached to him?

If you have any really telling dirt on Nader, I'd love to hear it. Spill the beans!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 22, 2000.

Brian:

I look at Nader and I see a mountain of red tape. Nader is surely honest and well meaning, paving the road to Hell. If his dreams were to come true, there would be three regulators for every regulatee, and everything not mandatory would be prohibited. His policies sound great, but would put us all under the iron rule of the Law of Unintended Consequences. We should be wary of his underlying philosophy that government is best that governs *most*.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 22, 2000.

>> If his dreams were to come true, there would be three regulators for every regulatee, and everything not mandatory would be prohibited. <<

Can you attribute any of these "dreams" you reference to any actual policy statements Nader has made?

I would ask you to leave aside quoting the Green Party platform, which Nader did not author. He cerainly feels no more bound to that platform than any of the other presidential candidates feel bound to their party's platform.

Both you and Peter E. seem to be involved in a political form of random whittling. The shavings pile up, but the stick doesn't acquire any definite form. I suspect you have no genuine ideas in mind. Do you?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 22, 2000.

Brian, I am going by a televised debate between Nader and a very good Harvard Law School professor whose name escapes me (Abrams, or Abramson, I think something like that.)

The Senate was considering tort reform legislation, with strong bipartison support. Senator Jay Rockefeller (Dem, W.Va) had worked heroically to overcome any valid objections to the bill.

Nader did nothing but repeat that the bill would hurt the little guy. This was the trial lawyers' mantra. In vain his opponent would say that the bill's sponsors had done this, that and the other thing to overcome this objection. His points were all ignored. Instead, Nader just repeated his assertion, with not a single counterargument.

(Clinton eventually vetoed the bill, with words that could have been written by the trial lawyers' association. This to the public dismay of Jay Rockefeller. But I have never in my life seen such a farce of a debate as Nader made of it.)

Maybe the puppet strings in this case are inside Nader's head, pulled by his deep prejudices. All I can say is that in following the trial lawyers' party line, he was so disgustingly slavish as to make a complete fool of himself.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), August 22, 2000.

Brian:

Perhaps the major reason that I'm voting for Gore in this election is that he's in favor of campaign finance reform. I have other reasons: My mom needs prescription coverage under Medicare. *I* need health insurance that I don't currently have.

To ME [and I don't want to sway anyone's vote], Gore has positive goals for this country. It's not like most folks aren't sick of what the election process has become, and yeah.... he accepted funds from Occidental and the whole tobacco fiasco is shameful. OTOH, I think he's committed to correcting these wrongs. I AM [kindof] growing into an evangelist on this guy and his platform. He's FOR the environment. He's FOR honesty.

Nader isn't the saint he purports to be either. Skeletons in Nader's Closet There ARE no saints running. I'd, personally, rather cast a vote for someone who WANTS change, realizes that corporate America and the owners of the press [specifically Rupert Murdock and Roger Ailes} are leading Americans down the path of no return.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 22, 2000.

Buchanan needs to be in the debates.

-- debater (de@ba.ter), August 22, 2000.

Anita, regarding Gore's honesty:

My mother, a firm Democrat, was for Bradley, and is still furious over the mendacious tactics of the Gore campaign. The flood relief legislation charge, the business about school vouchers (where Bradley had only supported a pilot project) she just can't stand Gore and I don't blame her.

And I as a McCain supporter feel the same way about the campaign W. ran to get the nomination.

Who will the two of us vote for? Probably Gore if only because of the Supreme Court. But neither of us will believe that we are voting for an honest man.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), August 22, 2000.

Peter:

Interesting that you should point that out. I would have voted for McCain, as well. I have no ties to the Democratic Party. As it stands, however, we have only so many choices. We look, we compare, and we vote for the person we feel most qualified OF THOSE OFFERED.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 23, 2000.

Peter,

Will vote for Bush for same supreme court issues you raise.

BTW, did you catch CPR's "outing" of you over at Poole's forum?

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), August 23, 2000.

Anita--

The "Skeletons in Closets" series by Real People for Real Change (whoever they are and what are their skeletons?) is fascinating. Congratulations on finding this source.

Nader's skeletons are significant. I have always found the guy creepy and off-putting and this info confirms my sense. But it totally skips his personal life except to confirm that he is arrogant and hates doggies. I mean he is a lifelong bachelor (isn't he?). What's the deal--is he straight or gay, bisexual or asexual? Sure, none of my business but he wants to be my President. I have a RIGHT to know the juicy stuff.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 23, 2000.

Carlos, no, I didn't catch what CPR said about me at Poole's forum. I don't go there, don't have a link for it. So what did our hero say about me?

Or, someone give me a link.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), August 23, 2000.

Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 23, 2000.

Seems I'm losing my touch.

Poole's Roost

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 23, 2000.

Anita, if you have a real need for immediate policy change, such as the prescription drug benefit, then a vote for Gore makes the most sense. My ends are more long term (reducing the power of corporate money over elections to nil, if possible) so my means are different.

As for the link to Nader's skeletons - I would never characterize any lawyer as a saint. But, if the accusations and the sources at that link represent the worst that can be said about Ralph and the best evidence against him, it adds up to pretty thin gruel. I mean, quoting Dave Barry?? Or, he made phone calls after midnight to a "lieutenant" of his, who resented it? This is hardly strong stuff.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 23, 2000.

"The only truly "WASTED" vote is for a Democreep or a Republicon and against good commom sense." capnfun

WRONGO! The only truly wasted vote is the vote not casted on anyone. What was the turn out last election? In the 60's wasn't it? Those who abstain ARE WASTING THEIR VOTE. Think about it, if the 40% who don't vote all of a sudden voted for Buchanna or Nader...

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), August 23, 2000.

The reason to vote for a third party is to break the stranglehold of the D's and R's. I really don't care if Nader has skeletons in his closet or is a bit of a nerd,I'm going to vote for him. Of course he's not going to get elected that's not the point-the point is to get other parties on the ballot. It will take years,but when 3rd and 4th parties start to get into the double figures % ,then we might have a chance to get away from this corporate tweedledum -tweedledee bull that the D'd and R's keep serving up. Nader and Buchanan are the only ones that are discussing NAFTA,this rush to globalization and its effects on the country. Nader, to the best of my knowledge is not accepting corporate campaign funding. Old Bill and Newt for all their supposed differences marched right down the aisle together on these. As would Gore and Bush I expect. h

-- h (biggguy79@hotmail.com), August 23, 2000.