<nettime> electoral drift digest [x4]

["nettime's_man_behind_the_curtain" <nettime@bbs.thing.net>]

"Dan Wang" <danwang@mindspring.com>
     Re: <nettime> Nader is important: get rid of him! [digest x7]
"Kevin Paul" <kpaul@nmia.com>
     Re: <nettime> (Voting for)? Nader (is|was) important, get rid <...>
"Benjamin Geer" <benjamin.geer@btinternet.com>
     Re: <nettime> Nader! Bush! Gore! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! digest [x4]
Miroslav Visic <visic@pipeline.com>
     Re: <nettime> Nader is important: get rid of him!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:15:59 -0600
Subject: Re: <nettime> Nader is important: get rid of him! [digest x7]
From: "Dan Wang" <danwang@mindspring.com>


----------
>From: "nettime's_man_behind_the_curtain" <nettime@bbs.thing.net>
>To: Nettime <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>
>Subject: <nettime> Nader is important: get rid of him! [digest x7]
>Date: Sun, Oct 29, 2000, 10:54 PM
>

> bring on the long knives, have fun. i'm voting
> Gore.
>
> jg

You're right, but so are the Nader-voters. To me, the big picture is
this: whoever wins, Nader likely will have made a serious impact. If
it's Gore, okay, we get a slightly less barbaric administration, but
the progressive forces will also inevitably let down their guard, and
the stealth-corporate Gore will inevitably rise to the surface. If
it's bush, then it's four years of hellish attacks on anything
civilized, mixed with blunt incompetence. But that will force
progressives into more offensive postures, take more risks, sharpen
counter attacks.

Gore wins, fine, it will have been just barely and Nader will have
helped create a base that the dems can no longer take for granted.
Bush wins, not so fine, but the Nader base becomes an instant
foundation of real opposition that did not exist in such form even a
year ago. And the Democrats will have to build bridges to that base as
the proof of not doing so will be the lost election.

This is a rare opportunity to actually have that vote count: Gore
wins, okay. Gore loses, but Nader gets five percent, okay. Gore loses
and Nader gets less than five percent, but the total of the two is
more than Bush's total, okay. Important messages and political
strength shown in all those scenarios.

Gore loses, Nader less than five percent, the total of both less than
Bush's? Then this country is in worse shape than I thought, I wouldn't
have believed that possible. So vote for either Gore or Nader, just
not Bush.

dan w.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:31:36 -0700
Subject: Re: <nettime> (Voting for)? Nader (is|was) important, get rid <...>
From: "Kevin Paul" <kpaul@nmia.com>

You know, I remember the first election in which I was eligible to vote:
1980, and I was really excited about a third party candidate running that
year, John Anderson.  I had every intention of voting for him until shortly 
before the election when it became painfully clear that Ronald Reagan, god
forbid,  might very well become the next president.  I realized that I had
to do everything in my power to prevent that from happening, which meant
voting for Jimmy Carter.  The rest, of course, is history.  Twenty years
later,  John Anderson has disappeared from the fray, Ronald Reagan is
drooling into his Fruit Loops as we speak, and Jimmy Carter is the best
ex-president we've ever had.

Anyway, what I learned from the experience is this: 1) my vote means nothing
in the big picture, therefore,  2)  in order to invest my vote with real
meaning, I vote for the candidate who I really  want should be president,
and that 3) life goes on no matter which corporate toady is sitting in the
Oval Office.  


--
Kevin Paul
University of New Mexico: Department of Theatre & Dance
voice: 505.277.2441  fax: 505.277.9625 


----------
>From: "nettime's_man_behind_the_curtain" <nettime@bbs.thing.net>
>To: Nettime <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>
>Subject: <nettime> (Voting for)? Nader (is|was) important, get rid of <..>
>Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000, 1:45 AM

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Benjamin Geer" <benjamin.geer@btinternet.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:07:59 +0000
Subject: Re: <nettime> Nader! Bush! Gore! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! digest [x4]

> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 05:51:38 -0500 (EST)
> From: David Mandl <dmandl@panix.com>
> Subject: Will a Bush victory start the revolution?
> 
> > From: "Benjamin Geer" <benjamin.geer@btinternet.com>
> 
> > Actually, I think that a Bush presidency would be one of the best
> > things that could happen to Nader.  A Bush administration would no
> > doubt strengthen dissent in the U.S., increasing the appeal of the
> > Green party.
> 
> The way Reagan's election (twice) and Bush Sr.'s election strengthened
> dissent in the U.S.?

Well, I think they did, actually.  But on reflection, I think
Clinton's policies (e.g. NAFTA, and the dismantling of the welfare
system) did as much to strengthen dissent as anything Reagan or Bush
had done.  I'm sure that Gore would have the same effect.  So whether
Bush or Gore wins, it will help Nader's chances next time.

-- 
Benjamin Geer
http://www.btinternet.com/~amisuk/bg

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:42:02 -0500
From: Miroslav Visic <visic@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Nader is important: get rid of him!

I agree that a vote for Nader means a vote for Bush - if that would make
anyone feel better. I see no reason why Nader would be just like the other
two candidates. At least he is not as corrupted by the corporate America
(yet) like other two. I would like to vote for a candidate who would sign a
federal law to provide that every working American is treated like a human
being, not like a slave. Some rights to privacy at workplace where  we
spend most of our life and mandatory 6 weeks of vacation like in Europe,
should be the minimum to start with. We have some bogus laws on sweatshops
in China, etc. while at the same America is the biggest sweat-shop on
Earth.

joy garnett wrote:

> > great, just what we need: a bunch of righteous idealists running around
 <...>

--

_________________________________________________
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net