🚀 go-pugleaf

San Francisco Examiner
October 17, 2000 

Lesser of 2 evils is still evil
Harley Sorenson 

If Benito Mussolini were a Democrat running for president of the United
States against Adolf Hitler, a Republican, who would you vote for...
assuming that Ralph Nader was the Green Party candidate? 

Easy choice, according to Examiner columnist Stephanie Salter and her
joined-at-the-hip buddy, Bernie Ward, of KGO Talk Radio. You'd hold your
nose and vote for Mussolini, the lesser of the two major-party evils. 

That's peculiar, because anyone with a scintilla of intelligence knows
that Ralph Nader, a true patriot who has already done more to serve his
country than perhaps any person alive today, is the only candidate even
remotely capable of leading us out of the undemocratic morass that
Washington has become. You would think a man like that would be a
shoo-in. 

You'd think that freedom-loving liberals and conservatives alike would
rush to the Nader camp. Given the choices we have, you'd think that even
the sappiest of all political thinkers, the Libertarians, would be
campaigning for Nader and dying to vote for him. 

You'd think on Nov. 7 it'd be Nader by a landslide, leaving those tired
old machine politicians so far in the dust they'd be invisible to the
naked eye. 

But Nader doesn't stand a chance, they say. Of course he's the best, but
we have to be practical, they say. A vote for Nader, say the liberals,
is a vote for George W. Bush. Although Mussolini/Gore would be bad for
the country, they say, Hitler/Bush would be disastrous. 

One wonders: If Mussolini and Hitler were the major party candidates,
and God were the Green Party guy, would folks like Salter and Ward still
urge you to vote for Mussolini/Gore... because God is down in the polls? 

Psst! Hey, Buddy! Don't vote for that God guy. Seriously. He doesn't
stand a chance. You've seen the polls; he's out of it. Vote for Mr.
Mussolini. Sure, he's not great, but he's better than that Hitler guy.
And he'll make the trains run on time. He promised. 

We are being urged by the leaders of both parties, but particularly the
Democrats, to put our principles aside and cast our vote for expediency. 

There isn't one Democrat in 50 who really likes Albert Gore Jr. We tend
to forget how he got where he is. If you remember 1992, Gore was
defeated in the primaries by Bill Clinton, then picked from the dung
heap by Clinton to join a winning team. 

Nothing that has happened in the last eight years makes Gore any more
attractive than he was when he got beat in 1992. He was nominated by the
Democrats this year only out of some distorted sense of courtesy.
Lacking a royal family, we Americans have taken to creating our own
royalty, the sons of successful people, or hangers-on like Al Gore. 

I've defended Gore in this space against the spurious attacks leveled
against him by Republicans, but, charming as he may be in private, he's
a pandering fool in public. Why he talks in public like an oversized
ventroliquist's dummy is anybody's guess, but his is not the sort of
conduct that inspires my confidence. 

George W. Bush, on the other hand, brings to the table these fine
qualities: He's no longer a drunk, he's no longer a cokehead, he doesn't
chase women any more, he's got a lot of money and his father is a bitter
failed president who eagerly seeks "revenge" against Bill Clinton. 

Bush has an advantage over Gore in that he's a tough guy, willing to
fight any man who dares tread on him or his. Mind you, Bush would do the
tough talking and hire someone else to do the actual fighting, but you
get the point. Talk like a tough guy and you'll win the support of 90
per cent of the Joe Six-Packs in America. 

Voting for either of these buffoons when Ralph Nader is running is an
act of immorality for most of us. If you're a millionaire looking for a
tax break, then of course George W. Bush is your man. If you're a
Democratic Party hack looking for advancement, then of course Al Gore is
your man. 

But if you're an honest, decent, loyal American who believes in the
principles of democracy, you have no moral choice: you must vote for
Ralph Nader. 

You must vote for the one person dedicated to destroying, not
preserving, the stranglehold monied interests have over the rest of us. 

Our cable television bills are too high. Our cellular phone bills are
way too high. Our Internet access charges are too high. Our utility
bills are too high. We pay too much for sugar. We pay too much for milk.
We pay too much to go to the movies. We certainly pay too much for
housing, spectacularly so in the Bay Area. You and I pay way too much
for too many products that should be relatively cheap. 

What that means is that we have to work too many hours for the stuff we
need or want. We are, in a sense, held in economic slavery. 

Why is that? What is there in the 
Constitution that says you and I have to work a little harder and make
do with a little less so that guys like Bill Gates and Larry Ellison can
become mega billionaires? 

The Democrat Party, under Bill Clinton, has done nothing to correct the
inequities in our economic system. Those inequities have grown over the
past eight years and will continue to grow under Al Gore. 

If George W. Bush becomes our next president, it's Katie bar the door!
The gentle push the Democrats have given us toward economic perdition
will become a nosedive. 

If democracy is ever to be restored to our country through the ballot,
we must make our voices heard. If we consistently vote for more of the
same, we will continue to get more of the same. We can cry and whine all
we want, but nothing will change unless we show character and
determination at the ballot box.
 
Voting for the lesser evil is, by definition, voting for evil. 
--------------------------------------

Dennis' Boxing & Labor
http://members.tripod.com/~irish_7x4/index.html
**Reload-Refresh Each Page**