From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #323 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, November 9 2000 Volume 09 : Number 323 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re:for my part... [Stephen Buckalew ] Re: Nader [Ken Ostrander ] Re:for my part... [Terrence Marks ] magic number: back up to 362 [Eb ] Re: Sleeping Minority [Christopher Gross ] as I suspected... [Eb ] Re: magic number: back up to 362 [Capuchin ] Perhaps my last, really.... [The Great Quail ] Re:4 country reporter [GSS ] Re: Sleeping Minority [Capuchin ] Re: what a country [Christopher Gross ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:48:35 -0500 From: Stephen Buckalew Subject: Re:for my part... Hmmmm. I've been thinking alot about this electoral college thing. I too was in favor of eliminating the electoral college. But It protects small States from not being represented properly (because small states would be ignored by the federal government, because they would not be important for elections). Since we are very much a federalist nation now, policies that affect me in Pennsylvania would be determined by Californians for instance, and I'm not sure I'd want that. If more power went back to the states, I could see eliminating the electoral college. Although state's rights opens up the door for good things and bad things depending on your views and what state you live in, and could ultimately divide the country as more "like-minded" folk move to states that more closely reflect their views. Much food for thought....and not an easy decision.... Steve B (a dim bulb, but much more interested in the political process than he has been for many years) This whole thing might just topple the Electorial College. This is weird. Im feeling something akin to hope. I havent felt political hope since I was 15. Part of me is telling myself to not be insane--Bush will rule even without the popular vote. But part of myself is saying "No fucking way. No fucking way." Im angry and hopeful and....naive. Didnt think that could still happen. Hmmm, maybe Ill wake up tomorrow and be a virgin;-) K _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:50:20 -0500 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: Re: Nader >Hey, I thought you said this was the last political talkin' you'd do >for the next FOUR YEARS!! and you believed that? >>Never before on this list have I been so personally insulted or had >>my intelligence questioned so vigorously. some people take their politics very seriously. personally, i like to laugh at things while i work to change them. discussions can get pretty heated; but i hope that we can all rise above that. >>>Are you going to just sit back and piss and moan because now you >>>don't have any excuse for complacency? >> >>What I do is my own business, but your whole attitude just points >>out with increasingly more personal frustration that you Naderites >>just don't get what I am saying. Most of you are total idealists, >>and that may be fine in principle, but this time I think Nader went >>too far. i think that the democrats have gone too far...to the right. >>Nader's campaign could do no >>real good; except in the warped framework that he preaches, being >>there are no significant differences between the Dems and >>Republicans. And here's the thing -- you Naderites who believe that >>have got to understand that the overwhelming majority of the country >>disagrees with you. first off, the majority actually believes what it reads in the mass media. after months and months of being ignored, the nader campaign finally gets into headlines a few weeks before the election as the threat of a republican victory looms closer. what happened to the lead gore had in september? the debates are what happened. since both candidates talked in circles avoiding some very big issues, the public is left to use the usual criteria of who has the better personality. >>And faced with that, you go to great lengths to explain it away, >>investing your frustration in left-wing shibboleths such as the >>great sleeping majority, media mind-control, and corporate >>domination of daily life. While there is certainly some truth in >>these last two, I feel the greater truth is that the American public >>is content, and your favorite issues are not as important to them as >>you feel they should be. well, there is an increasing consumerization of our culture. we all have lots more stuff; but lots less time. the great economic boom of the nineties has created more millionares than ever before; but most people are still struggling with multiple jobs and an escalating cost of living. i wouldn't say sleeping; but rather distracted by the american dream. it's easier to just not think about all the things that are wrong. >>Again, I think Naderites who would have voted for a Democrat had >>Nader not been running are spoiled children, the cranky 1-3% who >>fucked it up for the more realistic and still left-leaning 47-50%. well, that excludes most of the green people i've been working with on this campaign. there are plenty of folks that i've convinced to vote for ralph who would have otherwise have voted for gore because here in massachusetts bush didn't have a prayer. your percentages reflect the national numbers; but you couldn't possibly know how many of the people who voted for nader would even have voted at all had he not been running. by the way, gore fucked it up all by himself. >>I for one reject your notion that I deserve Bush. it's interesting to think about what we as americans really deserve. whether we like it or not, corporations have assumed more and more control over everything from the media to our political process. corporate welfare is a reality that saps billions from all of us. environmental concerns have taken a back seat to profit. public resources are being practically given to corporations. the hypocritical lunacy of the drug war continues to escalate to vietnam-era proportions in columbia. our new world order and global economy are just new forms of colonialism. religious institutions are taking over hospitals and forcing planned parenthood to private clinics where patients are easily harassed. genetic engineering of foods is being literally stuffed down our throats. the standard of living is actually decreasing. to some degree, we have all let this happen. it's hard to know where to start. my support of nader went beyond mearly giving him my vote. i knew that he wouldn't win the presidency once he was kept out of the (corporate run) debates. what we are trying to do is build a movement. he didn't get the five percent for matching federal funding; but in many states the green party will be established. the real work really begins now at the local level. you will start to see people running for local offices on the green party ticket. obviously, things are not going to change all at once. we all need to do more than just hope for the best. ken "don't dream it's over" the kenster ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:08:20 -0500 (EST) From: Terrence Marks Subject: Re:for my part... On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Asa Land wrote: > The good which --may-- come out of all this is a damn fine shaking up of the > electorial system. They are going to --have-- to(arent they?) do a revote > in Palm Beach County. The ballots weren't contested before the election. If they met the state's legal requirements, then they're valid, whether or not some folks filled theirs out incorrectly. Terrence Marks Unlike Minerva (a comic strip) http://www.unlikeminerva.com HCF (another comic strip) http://www.mpog.com/hcf normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:19:51 -0700 From: Eb Subject: magic number: back up to 362 The data may be of varying degrees of currency, but.... CNN says the remaining Florida counties to be counted are Hardee, Manatee, Polk and Seminole. According to the website, these counties have approximately 6000, 110000, 170000 and 135000 voters, respectively. However, I wonder if Hardee has been counted now, and is responsible for the micro-jump in the magic number from 359 to 362. Different areas of the site have different update times, it seems. I've been somewhat suspicious of this faulty-ballot argument (sounded a bit desperate, on the Democrats' part), but when you see that bar graph showing the Buchanan vote from county to county, the enormous spike at Palm Beach County is undeniably startling. I also read that Buchanan's tally in the county was 10 times more than the county's number of registered Reform Party voters, and that his Palm Beach vote alone accounts for about 20% of his *statewide* vote. Wow. You can't shrug off facts like that. I'll send a JPEG of the graph to anybody who wants to email me privately. Meanwhile, the CNN site says Oregon ballots (*not* a recount, mind you) are only 87% counted after all this time? Is that right?? Congrats (I think?) to Jeme for possibly writing the longest post in the history of the Feglist. Certainly, the longest one *I* have seen. ;) Eb, always wary of people who wield the word "corporate" as an easy weapon (I assume Michael Moore was gungho for Nader...) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:46:25 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Sleeping Minority If I can jump in here.... Michael, I'm sorry, but I think you're full of hooey. Most of your long post is spent arguing the virtues of political activism. Fine. But I don't see how the Quail being mad at Naderites for throwing the election to Bush proves that he's against political activism! You're arguing against a straw man (sorry, Eb). Now I can't speak for the Quail, but *I* am all for political activism. But that does NOT mean that I have to join the Green Party, or agree with everything any self-declared activist says. If I think activists are choosing a bad goal, or bad tactics to reach a good goal, I'll oppose them. In the present case, I think Nader's campaign was a terrible mistake, I said so before the election, and I'm saying so now. Does that make me an enemy of progressive reform? No, that makes me a friend of progressive reform who happens to disagree with the Green Party about the ways progress can be accomplished. Some other stuff: On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Michael Wolfe wrote: > >I agree 100% with Chris Gross. Nader's campaign could do no real > >good; > > I could not disagree with this more. Ralph Nader's campaign > energized people. It got people interested in their fates, and > in what happened to them. It made them realize that they had a > voice, and that not only could they vote for what they wanted, > they could write, yell, picket, ride, and work for what they > wanted. GRRR! That's the whole problem with the Nader campaign! Great, so he energized 2.5 million people ... he energized them to vote for him. He energized them to split the liberal vote and put Bush in the White House. If the goal was to energize people to work for change, why couldn't he have energized them to work for change IN A WAY THAT MIGHT DO SOME GOOD?! Nader himself has spent half his life showing how much can be achieved outside of presidential elections. He could have energized people to work on grassroots causes outside of the election (and he didn't have to wait for election year to do it, either). Or, if he just had to get involved in this election, he could have energized all these people to work within the Democratic party, simultaneously making the Dems more progressive and guaranteeing that they would win this year. But no, instead, he had to energize all these people to vote for HIM, the most useless thing 2.5 million environmentalists could do! What could that accomplish? Nader obviously wasn't going to become President. All he could do was split the liberal/progressive vote. And if the Green Party really takes off, it will continue to split the vote indefinitely and hand a stream of easy victories to the right, united in the Republicans. By the way, don't knock liberals. Al Gore is only a moderate liberal, if that. And if radicals have ever achieved anything good in this country, it has only been by allying themselves with liberals. > 2.5 million people made a commitment to environmental > and social activism on Tuesday night. The WTO in Seattle was > 50,000. What can 2.5 million do? Well, when are we going to find out? When are those 2.5 million going to try doing something useful? > I'm sorry to sound so moralistic, but does my tone diminish the > validity of the ideas that I'm trying to get across? Actually, it took a while just to *find* your ideas under all the tone.... - --Chris, off to have some coffee before reading Capuchin's latest ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:55:54 -0700 From: Eb Subject: as I suspected... Hardee County *has* been counted. That leaves just Manatee, Polk and Seminole counties. However: CNN seems to be backing off the "magic number" concept. Now they've shown some press conference which disputes the figure, and they're crediting the number (still 362) to Associated Press instead of presenting it as their own information. Did you know that in Florida's Pasco County, Bush is beating Gore by a measly *18* votes? Wooow. Eb, sucking the corporate-media teat ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:19:16 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: magic number: back up to 362 On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Eb wrote: > Meanwhile, the CNN site says Oregon ballots (*not* a recount, mind you) are > only 87% counted after all this time? Is that right?? Understand that EVERYONE votes by mail here. So every single ballot has to be shelled and verified before being fed into a machine. This takes time. But it also gives us three weeks to vote. > Congrats (I think?) to Jeme for possibly writing the longest post in the > history of the Feglist. Certainly, the longest one *I* have seen. ;) I do believe I once wrote a post that had to be broken into three pieces before the list could accept it. > Eb, always wary of people who wield the word "corporate" as an easy weapon > (I assume Michael Moore was gungho for Nader...) He was. I tried to carefully distinguish between the evil of corporate control of public life and corporations as a whole. It can't be denied that corporations have HUGE influence on government (policies as well as participants) and that it's quite possible that the role of government to serve the public is somewhat compromised by that. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:29:23 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Perhaps my last, really.... OK, I am replacing my hat with a towel, and throwing that into the ring. I have read everyone's posts very carefully, and Jeme and Michael make some fine points. But for my part, I think it's past the point of arguing any more, despite a few frustrating cracks Capuchin made that stemmed from a deliberate misreading of my semantics. There is no way on earth I will change the mind of the Naderites, and they surely will not change my mind. In fact, Cappy's articulate post makes me realize just how radically different his political views are from mine, and Michael Wolfe's (a shade too self-righteous) idealism just makes me weary; though I totally agree that Greens should work from the grass roots upwards. I also think its obvious that the corporations control the media, but I can't find that as evil as Cappy does -- its just the nature of commerce, and I don't have to accept their views and opinions any more than anyone else, including Mother Jones magazine and Eat the State. That is why we are born with the powers of critical intelligence. I only wish more people would exercise those powers. (Meaning the general US population, not the Naderites.) Perhaps I am a grouchy cynic, but I hope, like doug, I have a heart of gold. I like to think of myself as a realist, as a concerned Democrat who constructively supports the left wing of my party. And I can accept that makes me the Enemy to the Naderites. I suppose I really didn't fully see that until Cappy's post. I can live with myself, and that is the important thing. All of us feel we are "fighting the good fight," and that's important, too. I just can't carry on this fruitless conversation, it's wasting my time, and I'm getting stomach aches -- the fact I am locked in a debate with Lefties shocks me to some extent; I have never felt more "right wing" than these last few days. (Hell, I think we should maintain a strong military, and I cry when I visit the Liberty Bell.) I think Cappy's post was very polite and well-worded; but I as the man famously said, we'll shall agree to disagree. I am glad the Naderites are enthused, and I hope one day they will prevail to the extent that this is a more tolerant and environmentally aware world, and I hope they will do that while still preserving our national integrity, and providing a sense of global and historical Vision that represents America at her very best. I like to think the Naderites have these same goals; and I will work for that same goal, in my own way, as compromised and tainted as they might think it. We are a great country, an exciting experiment, a work-in-progress in the process of perpetually evolving into something hopefully even greater. And the road is hard, but it is a noble struggle. So I will wind down my rampant political ranting now, and fall back into futile but gentle reveries of a Bradley/McCain race.... Good luck to all, - --Q ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:39:52 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re:4 country reporter On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Thomas, Ferris wrote: > Just one a net and a trident and the other a sword and a shield and just > chuck them both into some coliseum in central Florida to sort it out. > I was thinkin two 36 inch broad swords, bare-assed naked on Daytona Beach. Or maybe a couple .308 Remingtons at 800 yards, each with 10 depleted uranium rounds, and a pen knife in case they are both bad shots. That would be cool. gss np - gordon lightfoot - steel rail blues ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:53:36 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Sleeping Minority I hate to say this, Chris, because I see where Quail is coming from when he says I was insulting his intelligence, but I don't think you get it. There's either something fundamental here that you're missing or you're not expressing your view in a way that I understand at all. Let me see... On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Christopher Gross wrote: > GRRR! That's the whole problem with the Nader campaign! Great, so he > energized 2.5 million people ... he energized them to vote for him. He > energized them to split the liberal vote and put Bush in the White House. He energized them to evangelize and learn about the issues and understand what they're up against in creating real change. He energized them to attempt to create a national force that can, in the future, take down the one party with two heads. Understand that as far as Nader is concerned, Bush and Gore are the same guy. There are trivialities and nits to be picked, but the essentials are the same: Warmongers and corporate whores. Neither of them take a strong stance in favor of the people of the United States. Neither of them. > If the goal was to energize people to work for change, why couldn't he > have energized them to work for change IN A WAY THAT MIGHT DO SOME GOOD?! I do believe that's exactly what he did. > Nader himself has spent half his life showing how much can be achieved > outside of presidential elections. He could have energized people to > work on grassroots causes outside of the election (and he didn't have > to wait for election year to do it, either). Did you hear him speak at all? He made all of this VERY clear. He told this story several times and I heard it again from Larry King directly: Over the last thirty years, Larry King asked Ralph Nader many times why he didn't run for office. He said that he could do more good outside of public office; organizing citizens, founding organizations, creating charities. Larry King finally asked him, "Why now?" He said he could no longer continue the work he did in the past. It is no longer possible for a person to bring forward the real issues facing America today because the people are not at all important to the political machines. He used to be able to call up Senators and tell them about what was going wrong in their state... how such and so corporation was destroying this or that. The senator would listen and become aware. The senator would often take action and make a press stink and come home the hero. But now, such and so corporation puts $300,000 in the senator's pocket and owns the TV station and two newspapers. And if the senator tries to do anything, he won't be re-elected and his actions will be played as evil in such and so corp's media outlets. And being re-elected is now VERY important to the senator. Ralph said that his days as an organizer were pulled out from under him and he can no longer effect the change he had in the past. The money is running the show and that has to be stopped. > Or, if he just had to get involved in this election, he could have > energized all these people to work within the Democratic party, > simultaneously making the Dems more progressive and guaranteeing that > they would win this year. This is absolute BULLSHIT. The Democratic Party (and I don't care WHO they run, even a reasonably upstanding and honest person instead of Al Gore) has major corporate interests to serve. Drew nailed it when he said that the machine just wants more power for the machine. How much support are you going to get working in the Democratic Party's offices when you turn down that $100,000 from Microsoft? Not much, I promise. Al Gore said at the LA convention that he was going to fight for the people against the big businesses (in particular, insurance and oil). You can't fight the people who pay your way. If there was a need to make change, they should have made it by example. > But no, instead, he had to energize all these people to vote for HIM, > the most useless thing 2.5 million environmentalists could do! What > could that accomplish? Nader obviously wasn't going to become > President. All he could do was split the liberal/progressive vote. Yeah, he split the people that pay attention from the slavish followers of party politics. No loss there. There is no such thing as liberal/progressive policies in the Democratic Party. > And if the Green Party really takes off, it will continue to split the > vote indefinitely and hand a stream of easy victories to the right, > united in the Republicans. Abraham Lincoln was a third party candidate. If the Greens take off, they will supplant the Democrats as the party for progressive action and the corporate welfare, warmongering, socially destructive vote will be split between the Republicans and the Democrats. That is the goal and that is what needs to be accomplished. > By the way, don't knock liberals. Al Gore is only a moderate liberal, if > that. And if radicals have ever achieved anything good in this country, > it has only been by allying themselves with liberals. I don't think Nader is at all radical. I think the Socialist Worker's Party is radical. Nader is just trying to get rid of shit we shouldn't have in the first place: treaties that undermine our soverignty, corporate control of our public policies and institutions, and hand-outs to profitable corporations. > > 2.5 million people made a commitment to environmental > > and social activism on Tuesday night. The WTO in Seattle was > > 50,000. What can 2.5 million do? > Well, when are we going to find out? When are those 2.5 million going to > try doing something useful? We're trying every day... while you stare at a man who you admit is only moderately liberal at best and cross your fingers, hoping that he'll change in tiny little increments. > Actually, it took a while just to *find* your ideas under all the tone.... Just so you know, I didn't like Michael's tone much, either. > off to have some coffee before reading Capuchin's latest Enjoy. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 20:23:49 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: what a country On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Capuchin wrote: > > You are right -- he ran a poor campaign. There is no doubt about > > that. If he were stronger, he would have taken more Bush votes. My > > post was a response to Vivien's letter, not a total analysis of why > > Gore will probably lose. That has a lot to do with Gore's campaign > > mistakes, the media's coverage, and the very disillusionment that dmw > > touched upon. But according to most exit polls, Nader is an > > undeniably a factor in his loss. > > And his poor campaign somehow ISN'T? I mean, it's a factor, but it's a > late factor and only became a factor BECAUSE of his poor campaign and the > Democrats' weak stance across the board. Of course! No one is saying Gore's poor campaign isn't a major factor. (Well, his campaign spokespeople might deny it, but no one else.) But the reverse also applies: Gore's lame campaign doesn't mean Nader somehow isn't a factor. Gore would have won, lame campaign and all, if Nader wasn't in the race. > scrutiny of race. It's a band-aid. In some situations, unfortunately, > we're so terribly damaged that a band-aid is at least necessary for > now. Don't knock the band-aids... but they aren't doing anything to > actually seal the wound. I wish more Greens felt that way. Instead, the typical Green view seems to be "it's all or nothing; anyone working to get band-aids is really just in favor of keeping the wound." > But what is your compromise? What steps are you getting to take > forward? Gore has promised the status quo, more or less. He's promised > to protect the band-aids and maybe apply a new one here or there. What > REAL CHANGE is being proposed, even incrementally? I think this exaggerates Gore's lameness. But even if it is accurate, if the alternative is the guy who wants to expand the wound, I'm all in favor of band-aid man! You can call that "voting your fears" if you want. I call it "taking into account the likely practical results of the election." > But what you're suggesting is that the Greens should have sucked up and > accepted that their morals are meaningless to the majority and stepped in > line with ideals they cannot condone. Again, I can't speak for the Quail, but *I* don't think that's what the Naderites would have done if they supported Gore. If Nader supporters decided to accept the idea of compromise and work *with* or even *within* the Democratic Party, they could have accomplished at least *some* of their ideals. By fighting against both major parties, they guaranteed that they wouldn't have had to compromise, but they also guaranteed that they wouldn't attain *any* of their ideals, and they virtually guaranteed that Bush, the candidate much further from their ideals, would be elected. Since the example of the Christian Right has come up, let's take a closer look at them. The Christian Right is a minority within the Republican Party that has managed to make the whole party dance to its tune. They did this by being the most united, energized and active faction within the party, and by proving that they could deliver lots of votes to the party. They have to compromise, but as the leading faction in a major party they still get an awful lot of what they want. On the other hand, if the Christian Right gave up on the GOP and defected en masse to the Constitution Party, they would get nothing (except a luxurious feeling of ideological purity), and the Democrats would start winning easy victories against their divided foes. Now, what I would love to see is for the environmental movement to take a page from the Christian Right's book and follow similar tactics within the Democratic Party. (Though that would still only be part of the struggle. People have to move beyond electoral politics (and those way-fun street demonstrations) and promote positive change through education > Actually, I'm not doing that at all. I'm saying that you very well could > be right and the world or America or whatever very well may NOT be to the > left of the Democratic Party platform. And that the Democrats need to > wake up and think forward rather than run to stand still... their idea of > foward could be left or right or centrist or whatever... but they need to > focus on action rather than reaction. Here I agree with you. Though I'd rather see them do this from a position of power rather than while the Republicans are in charge. > But (to paraphrase an illustration I heard on a different point), if you > want to go to Canada and don't want to end up in Mexico and you're > driving south at a hundred miles per hour, it doesn't help to slow down to > fifteen... or even to come to a dead stop (so that your position is > "sustainable"). You have to turn around and move in the other direction. Two things. First, in this analogy, sustainability (in the environmentalist sense) should be the goal, the "Canada," not a state in relation to some other goal. Secondly, if you want to turn around, slowing down is necessary first step. The driver who wants to slow down to 15 is a definite improvement over the one who wants to speed up to 120. > But it got me off my ass. And Michael Wolfe, too. And it informed a few > people and it galvanized some people into evangelism and discourse that > may not have occured at all otherwise. So I'm thankful for it. It's good that Nader's campaign had this happy side effect; that doesn't change my opinion that the campaign was a mistake. And even if you needed Nader to get you off your ass, was running for President against Gore the only way he could do it? > The numbers CNN was dishing out were based on their "likely > voter" polls. And you know what those guys call a likely voter? You have > to be registered to a major party and you have to have voted in EVERY > election in the past ten years. > Well, those numbers are OF COURSE going to make it appear as though more > Nader supporters would have otherwise voted for Gore because independent > people and otherwise unlikely voters aren't even being asked who they > would have supported otherwise. According to the polls I've read, 30% of Nader voters would not have voted at all if Nader wasn't in the race. If the polls were biased in the way you describe above, then where would that 30% come from? It would be more like zero percent. No, the polls that I'm talking about (the ones that say 50% of the Nader vote would've gone to Gore, 20% to Bush, 30% to not voting) are *exit* polls -- polls taken among people who have just finished voting for Nader. > With a DLC Democrat in office, there may as well be no opposition at all. I think this is an exaggeration. But at any rate, that's why I want environmentalists and other reformers to work within the Democratic Party, to shift this powerful political force away from the DLC and "New Democrats" and toward more progressive policies. If even partially successful, this could do more good than any other political strategy I can think of. Carpal tunnel syndrome, here I come! - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #323 *******************************