Let's not forget the issue of Presidential Vetoes, either.  President
Clinton has used his item-veto power and his full veto power alike to check
the worst, most stridently anti-environmental forces in Congress.  This has
been notable especially in the case of the "riders"  that people like Tom
DeLay and Larry Craig and their allies have squirreled into bills by the
scores.  If you want the Sagebrush Rebellion and the Wise Use crowds at
Dubya's elbow working to hamstring EPA, the Forest Service, Interior, BLM,
NRCS, et al., vote for Nader and help assure Mr. Bush's election.  Lott,
DeLay & Co won't have to fiddle with riders anymore, not if they're running
Congress and Dubya's in the Oval Office:  they'll be shoveling so much bad
legislation to his desk, we won't be able to even track it all.

Nader is basically doing what he's always done, and that's sounding the
charge against corporate abuses of power.  These abuses are certainly real
and dangerously widespread.  Corporate counter attacks on the environment,
through lobbying, harassment and silencing of citizen activists through
lawsuits, etc., are growing; corporations' corrupting influence on local,
national, and international politics is also very, very real.  When this
election is over, however, Ralph Nader will still be caterwauling while the
corporate folks do their thing.  Dubya has shown that as Governor of Texas,
he has been little more than a front man (and occasional leg-breaker) for
his corporate cronies.  "The Message" of voting for Nader to chastise the
sound (but not perfect) environmentalist Al Gore will be gone within 48
hours of Bush's election-vacuumed up and discarded by some of the slickest,
anti-environment p.r. crews around.

In other words, a vote for Nader that helps assure the defeat of Al Gore is
just what the polluters and exploiters and Capitol Hill connivers want.
Don't let "the perfect become the enemy of the good!"

Bill Witt

P.S.  I'll confess:  I "sent a message" that I was fed up with Carter in
'80: I voted for John Anderson.  (John Anderson:  c'mon don't you REMEMBER
JOHN ANDERSON??)  We all know what we got instead of Mr. Carter.  I will not
make such a mistake again.  Please don't repeat it on November 7.



-----Original Message-----
From:   Iowa Discussion, Alerts and Announcements
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lyle Krewson
Sent:   Friday, October 27, 2000 12:15 AM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Re: Gore/Nader

Well put, and Right ON!, Cindy.

Thanks for your always cogent thinking.

Lyle


As of 10/26/00 9:50 p, Cindy Hildebrand at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> I hesitate to post this message, since it's a touchy topic and most minds
are
> made up.   But I will speak once and then forever hold my peace.  Feel
free
> to skip what's below if you are weary of this subject.
>
> 1.   Some states, at least compared to other states, have
> environmentally-friendly governors, legislatures, budgets, and voters.
> These states have demonstrated their willingness to go above and beyond
> federal standards, programs, and funding to protect the environment.
>
> With certain notable exceptions, Iowa does not fit this description.   To
a
> large extent, our environmental policies will depend on what is handed to
us
> by Washington.   In that sense, Iowa has a bigger environmental stake in
this
> presidential election than some "greener" states.
>
> 2.  Fear can be a legitimate motivation.  I have a deep fear of waking up
on
> Nov. 8 to the realization that President Bush will be choosing new members
of
> the Supreme Court and appointing a new cabinet and otherwise setting
> environmental policy for the next four years.    Given the effect of
Supreme
> Court decisions, he'd actually be setting environmental policy for
decades.
>
> I also fear what it may do to my nervous system in the following weeks if
> political analysts conclude that the deciding factor in electing President
> Bush was the Ralph Nader vote.
>
> 3.  I know several Iowans who would like to vote for Nader, but who have
> carefully considered the potential consequences, especially in a state
that's
> still considered to be undecided.   They have decided to vote for Gore
> instead.   I am grateful to them.
>
> Now I'll shut up.
>
> Cindy Hildebrand
> [log in to unmask]
> Ames, IA  50010
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
> [log in to unmask]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]