Moderator: Greg
Rick Reuben wrote:Then it's a pointless action to affirm the false choice offered by the controlled two party system, too.
Matt Gonzalez is Nader’s Vice Presidential Running Mate
Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 12:06:00 PM
For Immediate Release: Thursday, February 28, 2008
Contact Press Office: 202.360.3273
Matt Gonzalez is Ralph Nader’s Vice Presidential running mate.
In 2000, Gonzalez was elected to the 11 member San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which supervises a city with a budget of $6 billion. He became President of the Board three years later.
Gonzalez worked as a deputy public defender in San Francisco from 1991 2000, developing extensive trial experience.
Gonzalez is a 1987 graduate of Columbia University and a 1990 graduate of Stanford Law School.
At a press conference in Washington, D.C., Nader said that he first met Mr. Gonzalez during an anti-Iraq war speaking tour in California.
“I found him to be unwavering in his principles and committed to his politics with clear eloquence and humane logic,” Nader said. “I wanted someone who served in government and who knows what kind of challenges our cities face and who has a record of accomplishment in areas such as election reform, criminal justice, and the creation of the highest minimum wage in the country.”
“He profoundly understands that what we are trying to do is make this a better, stonger democracy,” Nader said. “We're both honored to be running together and look forward to addressing issues, conditions, and solutions ignored by the other major party candidates.”
Nader said that he chose Gonzalez because he “wanted someone who shares my sense of justice and opposition to the corporate state control over our society.”
“I wanted someone who is ready and able to stand up and fight the good fight,” Nader said. “I chose Matt Gonzalez because he's demonstrated – through his legal, civic, and political career – his steadfast commitment to the values and directions that have characterized my work and hopes for our country and its role in the world.”
Rick Reuben wrote:
Impact? I get great pleasure from making cowards and fools cling more tightly to childish fairy tales and conventional wisdom, so there's my 'impact' for you- making people dance to my tune, in thread after thread after thread.
Rick Reuben wrote:All I know is that anything I type improves the quality of the internet, so every post that the world can find and read is one more brick laid on the road to higher consciousness, for anyone who cares to take it. I know where the water is and I'll point you right at it, but I can't make you drink it.
Dr. Geek wrote:I once found a soggy dollar floating in a puddle on the side of the street. I carefully picked it out of the water before it sank to the bottom. It smelled funny after it dried.
greg wrote:I understand the desire to vote your conscience, but please remember what happened in 2000 and everything since clearly. There was never a more vivid example of your vote counting than that election. The difference in Florida was finally 600 people. Out of 6 million votes, 600 was the difference. Even if you believe there was mishandling there, another 2000+ votes for Gore, and the state, and presidency would have been his.
Instead of focusing solely on the votes Ralph Nader took from Al Gore, a balanced analysis would also take into account the following: (1) voters who were disenfranchised; (2) voting systems and procedures that failed; (3) the party-line United States Supreme Court vote declaring George W. Bush the winner; and (4) Democrats who voted for Bush or not at all.
"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush"
-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000
Even if none of the factors mentioned above had happened, the votes of Florida voters themselves show that Ralph Nader was not responsible for George W. Bush’s presidency. If one percent of these Democrats had stuck with their own candidate, Al Gore would easily have won Florida and become president. In addition, half of all registered Democrats did not even bother going to the polls and voting.
According to the official 2001 Statistics of the Presidential and Congressional Election of November 7, 2000, George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Florida by 543 votes. It is noteworthy that every third-party candidate received enough votes in Florida to have cost Al Gore the election.
Green Party Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader did not work for the Florida Secretary of State, the Palm Beach County Election Commission, the Al Gore campaign committee, or the United States Supreme Court. Yet, he has become a scapegoat among many Democrats for Al Gore’s loss of the 2000 election, and, beyond the election, the person to blame for the resulting policies of George Bush. These diehard Democrats are averse to looking at the failings of their candidate, and they are not blaming voters for failing to vote at all. Instead, they are upset that Ralph Nader did not acquiesce to dropping out of the race as many urged him to do. As a side note, if Al Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, he would have had the necessary Electoral College votes to have won the election and the Florida results would have been irrelevant.
The facts are compelling and undeniable that Ralph Nader is not the reason, and should not be blamed, for George Bush’s victory in the 2000 presidential election.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
