[Am-info] Re: Global Resistance at home

[Felmon Davis]

On Tuesday 06 November 2001 11:20 am, Mitch Stone wrote:
> --- From a message sent by Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D. on 11/6/01 7:15
> AM ---
>[...]And
> > the DOJ/Microsoft 'settlement' is just another example of the
> > "integrity" these bastards have "returned to the WhiteHouse". I
> > still don't know why anyone not directly benefitting from his
> > Reverse-Robinhood policies (and that is a MAXIMUM of 5% of the
> > populace) would ever support George Bush, directly or indirectly.
> >
> >I don't know if Mr. Nader has enough of his own integrity left to
> > do something positive in this case. But it sure wouldn't hurt for
> > him to try.
>
> I'm going to resist this characterization, which became very
> popular among Democrats last year. Neither Nader nor anyone else is
> required to make an excuse for running for public office, or ask
> permission from the major parties, or consult with them with
> respect to campaign tactics. His presidential run does not reflect
> on his "integrity." Even if he did serve as a spoiler, this does
> not delegitimize his effort. Last I checked, the two-party system
> was not an article of the Constitution.
>

is there some reading disease going around, maybe called 
'decontextualitis' or the inclination to take words out of context 
and react to them?

there surely _is_ an issue of integrity here that has absolutely 
nothing to do with whether we should have an n-party system where n > 
2.

it would be a matter of integrity for Nader to admit that, contrary 
to his assertions, the election of Bush _does_ make a difference, and 
so his campaign made a contribution to producing this difference. if 
you also think he should admit the difference is for the worse, then 
you might want honest reflection from him in the aftermath about 
whether what he did was a good idea. 

what does this have to do with the Constitution and the two-party 
system? 

F.