[Am-info] Re: questions of 'integrity' II

[Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.]

> Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: questions of 'integrity'
> From: Mitch Stone <mitch@accidentalexpert.com>
> I think we agree on the allegations made against Nader....

I'm not interested in blame. I want to hear something from him now 
regarding the movement he helped build. I cited his actions in the
selection 2000 to indicate that I don't really expect much.

>Where we disagree perhaps is on whether it is appropriate to criticize
>a candidate for energizing their own voting base at the expense of 
>another candidate.

No, we don't disagree there. Where we seem to disagree is whether the
whole question of campaigns should take precedence over the fate of
the nation. Nader is a bright man. Nader knew ALL the implications
and costs associated with his actions and words at that time. Nader
made decisions that contributed to the undoing of much of his life's
work by contributing to the selection of George Bush.

>I believe the operating assumption here is that Nader, or any other 
>third party candidate, ought to engage in the same sort of "lesser of
>two evils" reasoning that we as voters often use; ..... Of course this 
>sort of reasoning condemns third party candidates to permanent ignominy.

I assert it is every thinking person's responsibility to avert 
disaster when the warning sirens are sounding. This isn't about 
propping up Gore, its about fighting the real and palpable threat to
every ideal Nader professed, as personified by George Bush. You may not
think that anyone should have seen the real George while listening to
his campaign speeches. But I for one am astonished at the number of 
intelligent people who looked at that man, his handlers, his family
and his past, and thought for one minute that he wasn't going to do
exactly what he has done throughout "the selection" and since occupying
the office.

>As a minority president, Clinton recognized that he had to run the
>country from the political center, and ..., he did. This is one aspect 
>of being a minority president I believe George W. Bush as not yet 
>reckoned with, and it may well come back to haunt him.

I think we are floating even farther away from shore here, but.....
Clinton WAS from the center, the REAL center, not that position just
to the left of Pat Buchanan that the right wingnuts call nonpartisan.
Clinton fought for and won every concession he could get from a VERY
right wingnut congress. The same congress that not only fought Clinton's
every policy, but conducted a very personal vendetta to erase Clinton
the man from history. And the same congress, with few changes, is still
there, but now is drunk on the power of their man's assention and the
great opportunity to further centralize their power in the wake of 9/11.
George Bush is that same right wingnuts point man. He has and will
continue to flush this nation down the drain in an effort to return
to the war-mongering, profit-mongering dark ages of his Daddy's day
and do his Dad one better. There is not one brain cell, not one 
synapse in George Bush's head that is devoted to contemplating the
meaning of having more than half the nation vote against him. The
people are irrelavent, and as time progresses, so are our laws, our
history and the truth. 
Why are the democrats so timid now? REAL GOOD QUESTION. But it does
not excuse either the Bush administration's actions or Nader's silence
on this particular issue. To cut my rant short, I would simply ask,
what would you have the democrats do under the circumstances?
When the public can accept ludicrous statements like "settling the
MS case is in the best interests of the nation" and "circumstances
since 9/11 would suggest a quick resolution is best", and give Bush
an 85% approval rating, what would you have the dems do?

-- 
Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.

University of Minnesota
Neuroscience Department
Room 6-145 Jackson Hall
321 Church St. S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55455

(612) 624-2991 FAX 6-5009 
glivezey@lenti.med.umn.edu
livezey@bigfoot.com