response 25 of 56:

Nov 6 08:09 UTC 2000

I don't think your last sentence is true, Steve.  If the goal is to start out
by getting the 5% of the vote to qualify for matching funds, doing so in an
election that wasn't nearly as close would presumably be considerably better.

But I really don't think the Presidential election is an effective place to
start a party's move from obscurity to power.  Unless experienced candidates
are willing to defect to the party, it leaves the party running inexperienced
candidates for the country's highest office.  It also requires a fairly
unknown party to build up support throughout the entire US at the same time,
which is a pretty formidable task.

An easier way for the Green Party to launch itself onto the National stage
would be to go after a few Congressional seats.  Rather than rallying for a
marginally useful, if that, five percent of the vote across the country, they
could concentrate their efforts on a few very liberal Congressional districts,
and they might have a shot at actually winning.  Once they got a few members
into Congress, given how close the balance of power is between the two parties
now, one of the major parties would probably need to form a coalition with
the Greens to get anything done.  At that point, the Greens could wield
considerable power, as well as possibly getting their candidates the name
recognition and experience required to go after higher offices.

response 27 of 56:

Nov 6 11:51 UTC 2000

(the added benefit of having someone from your party at the top of the
ticket means that you can vote a straight party ticket, which a large
number of voters do.)

response 29 of 56:

Nov 6 17:39 UTC 2000

The Green Party *is* going for Congressional seats... an old friend of mine
is running in the 8th district (Lansing area).

response 31 of 56:

Nov 6 18:34 UTC 2000

I'll take a shot at Ms. Steinem's points.  This may get longish
so feel free to abort.

    10. He's not running for President, he's running for
    federal matching funds for the Green Party!
 
Can you really run for one without the other?  Perot doesn't count. ;-)

     9. He was able to take all those perfect progressive
     positions of the past because he never had to build an
     electoral coalition, earn a majority, vote, or otherwise
     submit to democracy.

Yep, the way I'd put it is he hasn't had to compromise on some very
important issues because of a years of political gamesmanship.  I don't
think he's at all afraid of the democratic process.  I expect he would
bring a fresh perspective to some issues that have been getting mostly
lip-service at election time and not much else the rest of the time.  I
think when Ms. Steinem states Nader might not "submit to democracy" what
she's really afraid of is that he comes in without the usual IOUs and all
bets are off.  No prob here. 

      8. By condemning Gore for ever having taken a different
      position - for example, for voting against access to legal
      abortion when he was a Congressman from Tennessee - actually
      dissuades others from changing their minds and joining us.

Yowser, that's a stretch.  I don't think the average person who has a
reasoned change of heart will be less inclined embrace a new opinion
because Presidential candidate Gore did the same to follow political
aspirations and match a party platform.  Which is what I think happened
here.

      7. Nader is rightly obsessed with economic and corporate control,
      yet he belittles a deeper form of control - control of reproduction,
      and the most intimate parts of our lives. For example, he calls the
      women's movement and the gay and lesbian movements "gonadal
      politics," and ridicules the use of the word "patriarchy," as if it
      were somehow less important than the World Trade Organization. As 
      Congressman Barney Frank wrote Nader in an open letter, "your
      assertion that there are not important issue differences between
      Gore and Bush is either flatly inaccurate or reflects your view
      that...the issues are not important... since you have generally
      ignored these issues in your career."

Last I looked Nader was very pro-choice and I don't get Steinem's comment
about his belittling deeper forms of control.  In fact, I see Nader as
quite the crusader for the powerless and disenfranchised.  "Feminism" has
eroded over the years to represent a special interest group made up of
mostly whiny women.  My kind of feminist is the person who is looking out
for the civil rights of all persons and is reluctant to target any
specific sex as more worthy of attention.  I suspect Nader would do a fine
job attaching importance to areas where civil rights are taking a hit. 
And again, Steinem is supposedly commenting on Nader yet the emphasis is
on Gore and Bush.  


       6. The issues of corporate control can only be addressed
       by voting for candidates who will pass campaign-funding
       restrictions, and by conducting grass roots boycotts and consumer
       campaigns against sweatshops - not by voting for one man who will
       never become President.

So, who do you think takes the issue of campaign-funding more seriously,
Gore and Bush who are grabbing the money all the while saying they don't
like the system and will see the rules get changed next time around, or
maybe the guy who won't even take the big bucks now and who is willing
to demonstrate his commitment to change right now, starting with his
own campaign?
 

      5. Toby Moffett, a longtime Nader Raider who also served in
      Congress, wrote that Nader's "Tweedledum and Tweedledee assertion
      that there is no important difference between the major Presidential
      candidates would be laughable if it weren't so unsafe." We've been
      bamboozled by the media's practice of being even-handedly negative.
      There is a far greater gulf between Bush and Gore than between Nixon
      and Kennedy - and what did that mean to history?

My response to this is personal.  My radar on Gore is that he is a
chameleon and that he has and will say whatever he needs to to advance in
the Democratic party and get elected.  Every time he gives his wife a big
wet kiss in front of banks of cameras my feelings get validated.  I don't
know what kind of a real difference there is between Bush and Gore on the
issues.  I don't think anyone really knows. 

      4. Nader asked Winona LaDuke, an important Native American leader, 
      to support and run with him, despite his likely contribution to the
      victory of George W. Bush, a man who has stated that "state law is
      supreme when it comes to Indians," a breathtakingly dangerous
      position that ignores hundreds of treaties with tribal governments,
      long-standing federal policy and federal law affirming tribal
      sovereignty.

I don't know anything about Native American issues.  But in this comment
Ms. Steinem is saying Nader is wrong to run on a platform which is very
supportive of minority rights because if he does Bush might win.  Yuck. 
Electoral terrorism.  I'm so glad Nader isn't willing to buckle and pay
the ransom. 

      3. If I were to run for President in the same symbolic way, I would
      hope my friends and colleagues would have the sense to vote against
      me, too, saving me from waking up to discover that I had helped send
      George W. Bush to the most powerful position in the world.

This response reminds me of the "I have met Mr. Kennedy, sir, and 
you are no John Kennedy."  I'm embarrassed for Ms. Steinem.

      2. There are one, two, three, or even four lifetime Supreme Court
      Justices who are likely to be appointed by the next President. Bush
      has made clear by his record as Governor and appeals to the
      ultra-right wing that his appointments would overturn Roe v. Wade and
      reproductive freedom, dismantle remedies for racial discrimination,
      oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, oppose mandatory gun
      registration, oppose federal protections of endangered species,
      public lands, and water - and much more. Gore is the opposite on
      every one of these issues. Gore has made clear that his appointments
      would uphold our hard won progress in those areas, and he has
      outlined advances in each one.

Yep, this is scary.  But I also know Bush is looking for a second
term and this will, hopefully, temper his appointments.  Meanwhile
I think the whole two party system will have been given a wake-up
call and we'll be presented with better candidates next election.
And I hope Nader is back again.


      1. The art of behaving ethically is behaving as if everything we do
      matters.  If we want Gore and not Bush in the White House, we have
      to vote for Gore and not Bush - out of self-respect.  I'm not
      telling you how to vote by sharing these reasons. The essence of
      feminism is the power to decide for ourselves. It's also taking
      responsibility for our actions. Let's face it, Bush in the White
      House would have far more impact on the poor and vulnerable in this
      country, and on the subjects of our foreign policy and aid programs
      in other countries. Just as Clinton saved women's lives by
      rescinding the Mexico City policy by executive order as his first
      act as President - thus ending the ban against even discussing
      abortion if one received U.S. aid - the next President will have
      enormous power over the lives of millions abroad who cannot vote,
      plus millions too disillusioned to vote here.  Perhaps there's a 
      reason why Nader rallies seem so white, middle class, and 
      disproportionately male; in short, so supported by those who
      wouldn't be hurt if Bush were in the White House. Think
      self-respect.  Think about the impact of our vote on the weakest
      among us. Then we can't go wrong.

I couldn't agree more with her first sentence.  And again, Ms. Steinem
spends not one word on disagreeing with Nader's stance on the issues but
rather rants on about Bush and Gore.  Does she not know where Nader is on
these issues?  I suggest she doesn't much care past the point at which she
has decided Nader is an unelectable underdog.  Not quite my idea of
ethical voting, although I'm sure it works for her.  I won't vote for an
inferior candidate when a better candidate is available.  I won't cave in
to threats that voting for Nader is dangerous, not when I see both Bush
and Gore as risky.  I am thinking about the poor and disenfranchised,
as I'm sure Gloria is.  But I also wonder if she isn't thinking about
her past White House visits and how that all goes bust if Gore isn't
enthroned.  
 

response 33 of 56:

Nov 6 23:17 UTC 2000

        Thanks for your commentary, Mary.

response 35 of 56:

Nov 11 03:51 UTC 2000

I'd say it's a tie so they should both be president.

response 37 of 56:

Nov 11 05:34 UTC 2000

I think when the Michigan House was split 50-50 they decided that first one
party would be in charge for a year, and then the other.  Letting each of Bush
and Gore have a 2 year term would be a decent solution.  Or we could cut out
half of each guy's brain and emplant it in a neutral brainless host
(Buchanan?) and let that be President.  I'd say both these outcomes are
equally likely.

response 39 of 56:

Nov 12 04:17 UTC 2000

Lawrence Summers could be President in January... I found that mildly amusing.
=}
(After I found out who Lawrence Summers was, of course...)

Reason, according to the source: If this nonsense isn't resolved by 1/20, the
House might be compelled to conclude that, pro tem, the rules for dead
presidents apply. After all, Clinton has to go. Rules: First the VP (who also
has to go), then the House Speaker, then the President Pro Tem of the Senate,
then the Sec of State, Sec of Treasry, and so on through the cabinet.

Assuming the house Speaker (I forget his name) and the Senate Pro Tem
(Thurmond) decline to quit their day jobs to be Pres, it would skip Albright
(not native born) and go to Summers (Treasury).

I doub thighly that would happen (for that matter, I don't even know if my
source is right), but it *IS* amusing.

response 41 of 56:

Nov 12 06:08 UTC 2000

Why should they expire? They are not elected, and serve until their
successors are appointed.

response 43 of 56:

Nov 12 20:41 UTC 2000

Article XX. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon
on the 20th day of January ... of the years in which such terms would have
ended if this article had not been ratified. ... If a President shall not have
bheen chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term... then the
Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have
qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither
a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring
who shall then act as President.

My reading of that and Article XII suggests also that this scenario is
possible: Bush gets 271, Gore gets 267. Two electors are disgusted enough with
Bush's behavior that they choose not to vote fgor him, but they DO cast their
ballots for Cheney. The court battles in Florida have taken so much time that
the Electoral College date is moved, and so theHouse doesn't have enough time
to vote for a replacement for Bush. Come Jan. 20, CHENEY is sworn in as
President pro tem. Again, that doesn't seem very likely, either, but it seems
LEGAL, at least as far as I can tell.

Yet another possibility: Gore wins in the House, while Cheney wins in the
Electoral College. Have they changed the system, so the President and VP HAVE
to come as a pair, or is it still the same way as described in Article XII?

BTW, my read of Article XII is that, when the House breaks an Electoral
College non-majority, each STATE gets a vote (for a total of 50): But in
choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation
from each State having one vote. Am I reading that correctly, and, if so, has
anybody done THAT math? Even though the House is narrowly Rep (so a
one-vote-per-rep vote would go to Bush), some states are heavily Republican.
How would a one-vote-per-state vote go?

response 45 of 56:

Nov 13 00:12 UTC 2000

I would imagine the split delegations would have to decide how to vote, and
vote. They'd get one vote. It sounds like, to get that majority, the Reps
would only have to get one of those four split states to vote for Bush. that
wouldn't be that difficult, I imagine... IL might be difficult, but AK or NV
should be easy.

response 47 of 56:

Nov 13 04:48 UTC 2000

resp:43  (D.C. [or one of the other whatchamacall'ems] would be the 51st
        vote, I'd imagine.)

response 49 of 56:

Nov 13 04:52 UTC 2000

Nope; DC does not have representation in the Congress.  They get three votes
in the Electoral College, but none in the House and Senate.

I wonder if Guam's representative gets to vote on these matters?