response 1 of 175:

Oct 27 00:01 UTC 2000

(If you want gore to win this election, you should consider sending a similar
letter to the same address... you could probably call or FAX as well.. check
the votenader.org web site)

response 3 of 175:

Oct 27 00:47 UTC 2000

do you know what Nader's views are?  He wants to withdraw from the 
World Trade Organization and rescind our participation in NAFTA.  He's 
a trade protectionist, his views are identical to Pat Buchanan in that 
regard.  People just assume he's liberal when he's not.  A true 
liberal, in the tradition of FDR, would not support isolationist 
policies.  He also is saying he wants to raise the minimum wage from 
$5.05 an hour to $10 an hour.  A nice campaign promise to get all the 
lower income folks to vote for him.  Except if those not making $10 an 
hour do, and he gets that passed, many of them would be out of work.  

Im all for raising the minimum wage, it should be tied in to inflation--
but to just arbitrarily say, "okay, lets just say I'll double it" is
naive on his part.  This would cripple a lot of small businesses.  Plus 
he is showing how ineffective he'd be as president, pushing for 
something that no legislator in congress, democrat or republican, would 
vote for.

Nader is an "advocate", he's never had to compromise in his life.  He's 
never had to say he's wrong or go against his personal wishes in order 
to satisfy a constituency.  Nader flat out views corporate america 
as "the enemy".   "Corporate america" isnt just General Motors, or 
Time/Warner, or Exxon though-- its also the local used bookstore down 
the street from me, the owner of which would have to close it if he had 
to pay double wages to his clerks.   "Corporate America" is also the 
ISP that Grex uses for its 'Net service, no doubt a small company that 
needs room to grow if it is to continue to be able to provide low cost 
service to non-profits like Grex.

The point is that I think Nader's "us versus them" mentality is old and 
outdated.  He's not seeing the big picture.  He's still living his 
glory year in 1968 when he got GM to admit problems with their power 
windows.  

Nader doesnt even belong to the "Green Party", he's lending them the 
use of his name in exchange for an ego trip.  So now Nader's an 
environmentalist, even though he never wrote a bestseller on the 
importance of environmental issues did he?

Nader cant win, and it would be a shame if his ego trip caused the 
election to be thrown to Bush.  If Bush is elected, every issue that 
Nader really *does* stand for would be endangered.  

response 5 of 175:

Oct 27 01:28 UTC 2000

From: Michael Delizia <md@arbornet.org>
To: campaign@votenader.org
Subject: Please ignore all the emails telling you to withdraw

I hear lots of panicky Democrats demanding that you withdraw 
completely, or at least withdraw from the iffy states, lest you steal 
all the left-of-center votes from Gore and leave the dreaded GWB in the 
Oval Office.  (They usually follow up by pointing out that you're 
actually right-of-center anyway.  But that makes it seem unlikely that 
you'll attract many left-of-center voters, so I don't know what they're 
carrying on about.  Wouldn't it be funny if you withdrew and all the 
people who would've voted for you turn around and vote for Bush and he 
wins by a landslide?)  

Anyway, listen, I really don't think you're going to cost Gore the 
election.  I do think you'll send enough chills down the spines of Dem 
party leaders that the cowardly rightward drift of that party will 
finally come to a halt.  And if Bush does win -- well, guys like Bush 
have a way of rising to the office, so here's hoping.  Faintly.

Mike Delizia

response 7 of 175:

Oct 27 01:44 UTC 2000

I agree with md's #5, mostly.  Letting Gore win will not improve things on
the left.  Even losing, Nader can influence the next election by showing how
many people vote for him.  

Anyway, Nader is a pretty safe vote.  Nutball?  Wacko platform?  Well hey,
he's not actually going to get elected, and even if he does we could use a
shakeup.

response 9 of 175:

Oct 27 03:12 UTC 2000

I'm worried that Nader could cost Gore the election, but I don't think he'll
withdraw and I'd be disappointed in him if he did.

response 11 of 175:

Oct 27 05:26 UTC 2000

 From: Rane L. Curl <rcurl@cyberspace.org>
 To: campaign@votenader.org
 Subject: Please withdraw

 (You would do a lot better by making a deal with Gore to withdraw
 in exchange for a leadership role in the Gore administration. But
 be diplomatic about it - just admit that you are withdrawing in order
 to not jeopardize Gore's election, because of the many similarities of 
 your positions, but lo-and-behold, there might be a cabinet post in it
 for you, or perhaps just chairman of the ICC. At least, your opinions
 would be listened to more carefully
 by the new government.)

response 13 of 175:

Oct 27 06:14 UTC 2000

Why would those votes presumably swing to Gore?  

response 15 of 175:

Oct 27 12:43 UTC 2000

Testify, brother!   :)

Yeah, I agree with that.

response 17 of 175:

Oct 27 13:10 UTC 2000

Yep, the "teach those Dems a lesson, don't vote (or vote third party), let
the Republicans prevail for a while, show them you can't take progressive
voteers for granted"  theory has given us Engler for all these years.  

The "lesson" is usually not just for one term.  And the "lessons" are never
able to be remedied.  

response 19 of 175:

Oct 27 14:45 UTC 2000

I noticed the Gore has been gassing the environmental fire recently in order
to get more of the green party vote.

response 23 of 175:

Oct 27 14:59 UTC 2000

(Good post in #3, btw, Richard.)
(And of course MN would favor the third party. Look at the Governor. ;} But
winning a state and winning a nation are two entirely different challenges.)