From: Grlygrl201@aol.com
Date: Mon Nov 06 2000 - 20:45:30 PPET
In a message dated 11/6/00 8:06:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, kra@monkey.org
writes:
<< Of course, you both are right, the voters will think of it as
peacetime, and think of it as a great wartime economy, without
experiencing cognitive dissonance, the same way that Cheney can take
credit for "Desert Storm, the most successful military campaign in
recent history" - what, successful, when we're still spending
thousands of Iraqi citizens to this day? I thought successful wars
ended eventually!
>>
yesh, i hear you. troubling me more is the apparent confusion by voters
between "anti-government" and "anti-politics" platforms. nader is
pro-government; he believes the government should legislate what we eat,
drink, wear and drive. nader is anti-POLITICS; he thinks keeps government
from doing what's right for the people, which is to legislate and regulate.
His definition of politicking is letting big business lobbyate.
but even rush limbaugh seems confused. he used to rail against the
"nannyism" of nader . . . but not lately. it's better to let people think
nader's anti politics platform is somehow related to bush's anti government
spiel, that bush represents "reform." truth is, nader thinks of bush as
political bigbusinessas usual. truth is, nader hates democrats for becoming
too much like republicans. and truth is, nader makes gore look like a
moderate.
if you really really hate government, vote for harry browne. he's an honest
libertarian. if you think government can solve all your problems, vote
nader. he's an authentic govt. non-apologist. gore and bush represent the
middle, each painting the other as the extreme their supporters fear most.
they're real politicians.
over and OUT,
gg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 06 2000 - 20:50:57 PPET