Re: Nader's at it again

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Kobrin, Steve" <kobrins () wharton upenn edu>
Date: February 20, 2007 2:39:11 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: RE: [IP] Re: Nader's at it again

There is one additional point that has not been discussed here.  It is
one thing to argue that there is no real difference between the two
major parties from the comfort of an office in a university or tech
firm.  I suspect that if any of us were a single mother trying to scrape
by, someone who had to send their children to public schools in
Philadelphia or any other large city, a minimum wage worker with a
family, a young girl wanting an abortion, or some one who needs health
care without insurance we might have a very different view.  I am not
even going to get into issues such as the War in Iraq or the
environment.  While there are many arguments for a third party with a
more progressive outlook, arguing that there is no difference between
the Republicans and the Democrats is a conceit of the comfortable.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 2:13 PM
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: [IP] Re: Nader's at it again



Begin forwarded message:

From: Severo Ornstein <severo () poonhill com>
Date: February 20, 2007 2:04:17 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Nader's at it again

Most of those who responded to my message about Nader agreed with my
assessment, but a few persist in arguing for the rights to a third party
- pointing out the all too obvious faults with both the major parties
and their candidates. But people are dying - lots of them every day -
and a third party (though it would clearly be a good
thing) is obviously not going to happen right away. So third party
candidates can only be spoilers and a progressive candidate like Nader
clearly takes more votes from Democrats than Republicans. One can of
course argue that no matter what happened, there was going to be enough
fraud that Bush would have won, and several argue that Nader's
participation didn't throw the election to Bush. I believe that's simply
wrong. Of course the real trouble is that nearly half the voters DID
spring for Bush - even in 2004 when it had become crystal clear that his
administration was a catastrophe.

I believe an alternative voice such as Nader's is vital - desperately
needed. But when I saw how close the election was likely to be, even
though I live in a state (California) that was almost certainly not
going to go for Bush, I reluctantly decided not to vote for him. That
Nader himself did not withdraw at the last minute for the same reason
seems evidence of unforgivable arrogance.

Severo


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/@now
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/@now
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com