Gore Unleashes the Attack Dogs on Nader
 by Matthew Rothschild - (his words in blue)

So the Gore campaign is getting nervous about Nader. They should be.

Many progressives are not voting for Gore for the simple reason that they
believe he has not earned their vote. They believe he's forfeited their vote.

It's not this guy's fault, but that's cheating.
How many progressives are not voting for Gore?
"Many" would mean what?


Pigboy does that constantly.
"A lot of people think Clinton is a drug-dealing, raping murderer."

Gee, Rush, could those be ...your friends?
How many people is "a lot" of people?
So already, this guy's selling hypebole by the yard.

...and while I'm thinking about it, I should say this:
I've been meaning to write this for a year.
Pigboy can lie in hundreds of ways.
One of his best lies is the incomplete sentence.

He's a master at this.
He'll say something like,

And Hillary, hoo boy, this woman, (laughs) this woman...
You wanna talk about felonies? hoo boy!

I'll tell you the truth, my friends, this woman stops at nothing.
There's nothing I wouldn't put past her - nothing!

And she's a first lady, ...and, ...what she's done,
without any regard to the laws or other people's lives...
I mean in all the history of this country...
Is that what we need in the White House?
The things she's gotten away with,
...things we don't even know about yet???
and laughing at us, the whole time, as far as I'm concerned.

I mean when it comes to the serious crimes...
You think Bill Clinton is a dangerous man?
Well, I've got some news for you - meet Hillary.

There's no doubt ...her crimes, serious crimes, too,  she's uh,
...over the years, uh... pale by ...uh, pale by her husband,
...and another thing is how think they've gotten away with it...

You see?
He can slur Hillary for minutes at a time without stopping, but when you say
"How dare you assault the First Lady, that way?" he says, "What did I say?"

..and when you go back and try to string together an actual attack,
you see these fragments of accusations that make their point without
the words ever even coming out of his mouth

These progressives have spent years and years campaigning against the Iraq
sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands of children. Al Gore is in
favor of Iraq sanctions.

These progressives have spent years and years defending poor people and the
safety net. Al Gore urged Clinton to destroy welfare.

Oh, horseshit.
It's getting harder and harder to get thru a few paragraphs without some moron
assuming facts not in evidence. If this nut was under oath when he said that
he would be guilty of perjury (if the lie was germaine)
"Al Gore urged Clinton to destroy welfare."

That is so Limba-esque, you should be kicked in the groin.

These progressive have spent years and years opposing the death penalty.
Al Gore is in favor of the death penalty.

Now, you're off on a whole new tangent.
Now, you're saying Gore's taking your party too far to the right.
Like it or not, America is for the death penalty.
Ask President's Mondale and Dukakis how the electorate feels
about candidates who are seen as "too weak" to pull the trigger.

If you're the type who wants to vote for a guy who can't win,
you're backing the right horse with Nader.

These progressives have spent years and years clamoring for a reduction in
Pentagon spending. Al Gore wants to boost Pentagon spending.

There you go again.
Military readiness is a top priority with voters.
The voters already buy the "we're too weak" theory,
now you're bitching that Gore's spending too much?
Is this your first political campaign, Sir?

With the race for Presidency tightening, Al Gore is not recanting his views on
these issues to appeal to progressives. No, he's sending out surrogates to
browbeat these progressives into eating their spinach and being good little boys
and girls and voting for him, no matter how bad he is.

Einstein, you only have two choices.
Can you count to two?
George W. Bush can.

Gore and Bush are eligible to win this contest.
One of them will win.  We've been down this road before.
In your eyes, Nader is a 1, Gore is a 4 and Smirk is an 8.
Since you can't have 1, you're going to help elect the 8?
That's illogical and it suggests you're unfit for command.
Sorry, that's from Star Trek.

Their hyperbole is getting out of hand.
Jesse Jackson says, "Our very lives are at stake."
Paul Wellstone says George W. Bush will "repeal the twentieth century."

But many progressives won't be scared or bullied into voting for Gore.

More horseshit with "many" progressives there, Matt.
Are there 5?   5,000?  5,000,000?
And by mocking those warning of a Bush Presidency, you're rebuttal becomes
"A Bush presidency wouldn't be all bad."
Again, that suggests you're neither sane nor liberal.
Your position is - "If Nader can't win, neither can Gore."

They believe that they have a right to decide who to vote for on the merits
of the candidates.  They understand that on many issues, there are no
differences between Bush and Gore.

There you go again.
Yes, "many" similarities - they're both tall, they both eat meat, they both speak Spanish.
Are you really a professional writer?
And you can't put a sentence together any better than that?
Have you ever worked with words before?

And they understand that politics is not just an exercise one day out of every
four years, but that it is a regular activity, and that real, fundamental
change--including securing abortion rights--happens in this country not by
voting for this Republican or that Democrat, but by building a mass movement.

As Barbara Ehrenreich wrote in The Nation of August 21/28: "We didn't get
legal abortion in the first place because nine men in black robes were kind
enough to allow us to have it. Women fought for it by every means possible,
illegal as well as legal. Surely the anti-Naderites of the left can agree that Roe
v. Wade wasn't the the author of women's liberation, just as Brown v. Board of
Education did not create the civil rights movement."

Ehrenreich continued: "Deep social change is made by deep social movements,
not by edicts. But the leftwing Gore-ites often seem oblivious to the dynamics
of real social change. They say we have to build an alternative politics--only
not just yet."

Let's examine the Supreme Court argument a little more closely.

Wait, before we leave here, what the hell did you just say?
What are those last three paragraphs about?
"Change comes from building?" as opposed to what - voting?

And what did you do in that second paragraph besides imply that
women might keep Roe if they're willing to fight hard enough for it?
One vote for Gore would be a lot faster, cheaper and safer.

First of all, it's not a given that George W. Bush will appoint arch conservatives
who will vote to overturn Roe V. Wade.

ha ha
That's Limba logic: "There's always the chance the probable won't happen."

Republican presidents have appointed many justices who turned out to be liberal:
George the First, W.'s dad, appointed David Souter.
Ford appointed John Paul Stevens.
Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade.
And Eisenhower appointed William Brennan.

Again, thanks for gambling with OUR freedoms.
I don't like the way you crazy people play poker.
You're betting without looking at your cards.

But the doomsayers say we're in more ideological times today,
and that Bush the Younger would never appoint another Souter.

How can they be sure?

The Supreme Court is a torn and tattered card that Democrats whip out
of their sleeve every four years to enforce obedience.

Wait a minute - if Democrats are "they," who are "we?"
If the Democrats are the enemy, who the fuck are you?

It is an argument that says, no matter how bad the Democratic nominee is on a
whole range of important issues, you've got no choice. But this year, Al Gore is
very bad on many basic issues, and progressives do have a choice.
Here are some of the issues where Gore and Bush are the same.

They are both in favor of:

The ongoing sanctions against Iraq.
 Majority of Americans Agree

The continued illegal bombing of Iraq.
 Majority of Americans Agree
 and assumes facts (illegal) not in evidence.
 What a sloppy, cheap-ass shot that is.
 That's more Limba talk - you should be ashamed.

U.S. aid to the brutal military forces in Colombia.
 Again with the assumed facts (brutal)
Can't you say anything without a cheap-ass ambush?

An increase in Pentagon spending to levels above $300 billion a year.

Maintaining the stockpile of U.S. nuclear weapons.

Tightening the Cuban embargo.
 GOP is hard for it, Demos are luke.
 If it wasn't for Elian, we might've opened that door.

Backing Israel, no matter its repressive actions in the Occupied Territories.
 Jesus, I hope you didn't use your real name on this piece!
 Tell me, on your map, can an Israel even be found?
 What are you, nuts?
 You're pro-bus bombings?

 No you don't.
 You gotta marry Buchanan if you go there.
 For NAFTA, it was Rush and Clinton against Buchanan and Jesse Jackson.
 Wait - let me guess - there's no difference between the policies of
 Bill Clinton and Rush Limbaugh, is that what you're saying?

 NAFTA is the strangest bedfellows ever, so this issue is a wash.

Fast track.
 It used to take 90 days to get to France.
 Now, it takes 9 seconds if your modem is pre-1990.
 That's why we should elect competent president, so he can
 make the RIGHT deal when a deal is there to be made.

The WTO.
The IMF.
The World Bank.
 I'll give you those just to be a sport.
 I don't know Smirk about any of 'em.

The destruction of the welfare safety net.
 Now I know why the right-wing calls us "socialists."
 Compared to you, suddenly I'm Pigboy.
 Where are these starving millions?

Faith-based social programs.
 I'll give you that one...
 Religion is always a bad idea, even when a nut rails against it.

A privatized health-care system dominated by the insurance companies.
 Your plan is dominated by who?
 The good people with the big hearts and the good program?
 All these words you're using - and not saying anything.

The Victims' Rights Amendment.
 Geez, I'm getting tired.
 This piece does have an ending, right?

The punitive war on crime that has put two million Americans behind bars.
 Re-do the drug laws, for sure.

The war on drugs that has eviscerated many of our civil liberties and has led to
the locking up of 271,000 nonviolent offenders, 100,000 for mere possession alone.

And the death penalty!
 MOAA with the death penalty.

On all of these issues, Ralph Nader takes the diametrically opposite view,
a view that is 100 percent progressive.

 ...and 100 percent unwinnable.
 Didn't the Reagan landslides tell you anything?

So when the Democratic attack dogs snarl at progressive Nader supporters,
they are saying, in effect, these issues don't matter.
If our "attack dogs snarl," it's because they can smell a loser.
Very, very much of what you said doesn't matter, but some did.

They do.

Yes, there are big differences between Gore and Bush on some important
issues, including:

Affirmative Action.
The courts.
The environment (though Gore's record here is nowhere as green as he claims).
Gay rights.
Labor union protections.
And Social Security.

Gore supporters are seizing on these differences and are shrieking,
with shriller and shriller rhetoric, that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."
 No, the laws of mathmatics say that.
 Gravity is a mathematical equation.
 If an apple falls, it's not "shrieking," it's just falling.

But people have a right to vote their conscience. If some progressives believe
that Nader better represents their views, they are not voting for Bush at all.
They are simply voting for the person they think is the best candidate. That is
their right.

You also have the right to pencil in Popeye the fucking Sailor man,
 but he's not going to win, either.

Secondly, Nader votes don't somehow "belong" to Gore, anyway.
Gore, like any other candidate, has to earn people's votes.
They are not his by some right of inheritance.

Don't you understand your argument is with mathmatics?

And thirdly, a lot of people, especially young people, who are drawn to Nader
would never even show up at the polls if he weren't in the race. They don't
want to make their first vote a tumble down the muddy slide of pragmatism.

"A lot of people," eh?
What would that be?  16?   600?   60,000?
A lot of people think you're crazy.

They favor Nader because his campaign connects up with, and is the electoral
expression of, the Battle of Seattle, the protests against the IMF and the World
Bank, the anti-death-penalty activism, the anti-sweatshop campaigns on
campuses, and the living wage initiatives across the country.

Take away the global stuff and you sound like Democrats.
Only Buchanan agrees that isolationism is the way to go.

And that is one of the beauties of the Nader campaign. It is part and parcel of a
new movement in America that is demanding a more peaceful and humane
foreign policy and a more just society here at home.

ha ha
Shangri-La, run by Tom Delay and his cabanaboy, President Smirk!
Thank Koresh your movement isn't catching on.

So I understand why many progressives will vote for Nader.

You say, "...many?"
That would be how many?
a hundred?
twelve hundred?
nine thousand?

And I understand why many progressives will vote for Gore.

Make him stop with the "many" crap. It means nothing.
It's a word that shouldn't be used.

There are legitimate arguments on both sides.

Love that strategy.
In your closing breath, you throw the vast, vast majority a bone.

But what is not legitimate is to deride and denounce and heap scorn and shame
upon any progressive who might dare to stray from the narrow confines of the
Democratic Party.

You're straying into the arms of Lott, Helms, Barr, Inhofe and Bush,
and it's not legitimate to denounce that?

Tell you what
- if Gore loses by two points and Nader gets 4 percent, if Nader says,
"Sorry, I was wrong," we'll forgive him and vote for him in 2004.

Fucking NOT!

Nader's only chance of avoiding a tsunami of Democratic resentment
is if Gore kicks Smirk's butt in spite of all Nader's help.

Matthew Rothschild is the Editor of The Progressive.
Copyright © 2000 by The Progressive, Madison, WI.

Privacy Policy
. .