response 33 of 406:

Sep 25 20:23 UTC 2000

I agree with gull.  I'm very unhappy with the choice of Bush vs. Gore, so I'm
voting Nader.  

A vote for a third party candidate is not a throwaway vote; it's a vote
against the Republicrat system we're currently stuck with.

response 35 of 406:

Sep 25 20:44 UTC 2000

not in the national parks, but on federal property that is currently excluded.
Clinton has signed a lot of this land into the Federal monument system that
makes in not available to drilling, even though they know there is oil there.

response 37 of 406:

Sep 25 22:38 UTC 2000

We can always depend on richard for a mantra...

response 39 of 406:

Sep 25 23:47 UTC 2000

A'ight, now, I have briefly reviewed the comments posted so far, and I have
a few things to say myself that may/may not have already been said, and that
may offend some--my intentions are not to offend.

Firstly; we do not need more oil refineries, we need less greedy consumers.
I am going to have to inherit this administration, and the environment it
leaves behind.  I was a girl scout as a child, and in that came to realize
just how completely unbelievable this nation's thirst for oil is.  Its
absolutely rediculous.  We wage wars, operate international relationships,
and destroy a shrinking world because we can't bring ourselves to deal with
one another and not leave the environment in ruins.

Also, someone mentioned Lieberman being an unacceptable vice president. 
Forgive my ignorance on this, my life has been consumed y the 'campus bubble
of college life'.

Another thing; I am a registered Democrat, this will be my first election,
period although I have followed primaries/conventions/etc losely since I was
eight years old.  Unfortunately, and as a democrate, I think this race belongs
to Bush.  It will be VERY close by the popular opinion, and at least twenty
votes by the college.  Al gore is a good man, but he is not a very good
politician.  I have my doubts about any family dynasty (and am well justified,
I am descended from a very large one), and the Bushes walk, talk, and smell
like a family dynasty.

At any rate, those are all the comments I wanted to make.

response 41 of 406:

Sep 26 00:18 UTC 2000

You like the extreme right-wing demagogues riding into power on W's
coat-tales, along with their anti-woman, anti-science (teaching of
evolution) and anti-rights agendas? (This re #39)

response 43 of 406:

Sep 26 01:03 UTC 2000

Re #36: You're assuming I'm voting for Nader because I think he'll win.  I
don't.  It's not a vote for President, for me, it's a vote to expand the
political system.  If it takes having Bush elected to have that happen, I'm
willing to risk it.  I'm looking at the long term, here.

response 45 of 406:

Sep 26 02:10 UTC 2000

In a parliamentary system with multiple parties, the key compromises
are made after the election, when governing coalitions are formed
between the parties.  In a system like ours with a single powerful
president, elected nationwide, politics tends to coalesce into two
competing blocs, and all the compromises are made before the election.

Nader and Buchanan are running as if they were in a parliamentary
system, where getting 10% of the vote might make it possible to
impact policy.  But in the U.S. system, those votes make no practical
difference as to how the nuts and bolts of policy will be decided
during the upcoming term.  So, the only reward available is a kind
of moral victory, a subtle change in the national debate, some kind of
influence on the major parties.

The phrase I like to use is: They're working on changing the color of the
sky.  A possibly worthwhile project, long term, but at the same time a
fool's errand.  One person, one candidate, might cause a change in that
pallette, but even if it happens, it is unpredictable, and most often, it
is hard to see how a difference was made.  Still, some people persist, and
that dedication is surely admirable.

What tends to happen, in our elections year after year, is that the people
who ultimately go to the polls and vote decide (or realize) that the nuts
and bolts of the upcoming term of office are more important than changing
the color of the sky in the long term.  The real race is between the two
major party candidates, like them or not, and in the end, even those who
were attracted by the third and fourth candidates don't want to be left on
the sidelines.

The poll numbers for protest and new-way candidates may be impressive in
August and September, but history has shown again and again, it's downhill
from there.  The reason has to do with the inherent contraints of our
political system combined with human nature.

response 47 of 406:

Sep 26 03:46 UTC 2000

polygon is right...I mean I used to be idealistic and vote for the most
liberal candidates (heck I voted for Paul Simon in 1988-- the senator, not
the singer, and I was glad when Michigan voted for Jesse Jackson because
I thought his was a noble cause)  But after suffering through eight years
of Ronald Reagan, I came to realize that the only thing thats real is
who has the power, that you cant do good things *unless you get elected*
Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan know they wont get elected--they are there
to make noise and get attention, partially because both have pet causes
but also (and dont kid yourself, because both make their livings in
non-election years off their name,on tv and the rubber chicken (paid
speech)circuit)  

What is real, what is a fact, is that the next president of the United
States will be either george w. bush or al gore.  That is the reality we
will have to live with for the next four years.  People's lives and 
freedoms are at stake.  Our economic prosperity and freedoms could be
at stake.  It is irresponsible to ourselves and ourchildren of future
generations to look at this election, and effectively either sititout
or avoid the issue, by not makingthe real choice.  This election is
much too important, this choice is muchtooimportant, to say "well 
I'll just refuse to vote for either of thetwo who have the chance of
winning, and vote for Bozo the Clown or PatPaulson or Naderor Buchanan
or Mary Remmers.  Yes, if Mary votes for Nader, she may ase well cast
awrite in vote for herself for all the good it will do.

The republican and democratic candidates were nominated by their parties
via thevotes of millions of party regulars and registered voters.  
They have been vetted, they are the choices we have beengiven.  If you
respect the process and respect traditions of this democracy,youshould
be willing to make the responsible choice between the two peoplewhom
the majority of the electorate have asked you to choosefrom!

response 49 of 406:

Sep 26 04:40 UTC 2000

I vote because I want to do what I can do to influence the outcome of the
election.  Voting for Nader won't do that.  Voting for Gore or Bush will. 
There are a lot of things I disagree with Gore and Lieberman on.  None of
those are issues on which Bush is any better.  There are a lot of issues on
which Gore and Lieberman seem incredibly better than Bush, and given the
choice between the two it seems pretty easy.

But for that matter, even if I were voting soley for the candidate I liked
best, without regard for whether my vote would do anything useful, why would
I vote for Nader?  Does he workable ideas about how to run the country?  Does
he have ideas I ought to agree with?  Does he have any experience as a mayor
or city council person, let alone a political position dealing with National
issues?  If he did have a chance, voting for him would seem even stranger.

response 51 of 406:

Sep 26 04:45 UTC 2000

How much difference was there between the Whigs and the Republicans?  It
seems to me that the first disappeared about the time the second arose.

response 53 of 406:

Sep 26 05:47 UTC 2000

Richard continues to claim that he is a genuine liberal at heart, but his
remarks betray a person who will wholeheartedly support his party no matter
what line is followed.  This is chiefly observable in his use of certain
issues  to argue for support of his party.  Religion's involvement in the
country and the concept of restrained entertainment media, once spouted as
ulimate evils of the Republican party and proof of the democrats' superiority,
are little more than passing annoyances once adopted by his own beloved
candidates.  

A more legitimate liberal dem supporter would recognize those weaknesses seen
in his or her own party, voice disagreement, and attempt to help reconcile
others with similar doubts.  It is possible to support a party without
agreeing with every part of the platform.  Richard's prefered method involves
much less thought, and appears to involve strongly stated arguments without
much substance concerning "tradition" and "loyalty" that convince no one and
alienate many.  Larry at least has done well in his illustration of the
pragmatic necessity for voting for a candidate that one has some issues with.

Other select people, it seems, prefer to dismiss their high-wraught virtues
of open-mindedness and acceptance when it suits them to attack "the enemy"
with innaccurate stereotypical bigotry.

response 55 of 406:

Sep 26 14:36 UTC 2000

of course it possible to support a party without agreeing with every
part of the platform and I do.  Thats what Ive been saying.  Senna,
if you read my last post as closely as you read polygon's, I was talking 
about governing.  Governing is about making choices that arent governed
solely by idealism and advocacy.  There are people here saying they wont
vote for Gore because either he or leiberman arent liberal enough.  The
party system, and the primary system within the two major parties, is
there for a reason.  It is there to clarify and distill the choices we
have so that it is possible for whoever wins ultimately to govern.  one
cannot govern unless coalitions have been built along the way.  Unless
whoever you elect has a foundation to build upon once in office.  And yes,
this system is tradition now, its a tried and proven way of maintaining
our democracy and should be respected.

So I think it irresponsible if you are voting third party for no other
reason than neither major candidate represents 100% of your views.  

response 57 of 406:

Sep 26 16:12 UTC 2000

You still aren't addressing what I said. :)  I wasn't just referring to your
last response, by the way.