By Hillel Aron
By Joseph Tsidulko
By Patrick Range McDonald
By David Futch
By Hillel Aron
By Dennis Romero
By Jill Stewart
By Dennis Romero
The Nader campaign raises the gut issues for the disenfranchised that Gore and Bush are ignoring: living wage, race and affirmative action, corporate welfare, etc. But the reality is that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and the two major-party candidates are not fungible, especially as regards Supreme Court appointments. If Bush wins, the disenfranchised suffer more, a great deal more.
Robert Scheer, syndicated columnist, author of Thinking Tuna Fish, Talking Death: Essays on the Pornography of Power
I believe there is such a thing as voting for the lesser of two evils. Obviously, I agree with almost everything Nader says. But there are plenty of people I agree with. I don’t think Nader offers anything but a spoiler role in this election. Nor do I think Nader has been strong in the way Jesse Jackson has on the issues of poverty and race, which I think are the most critical. It does matter that the Supreme Court has only upheld affirmative action by a one-vote margin. The next president will probably get to appoint three or four justices, and Gore is solidly on record as favoring affirmative action as well as a woman’s right to choose. And that’s important. Certainly I agree with Nader that both parties sell out to the major corporations, but the Dem ocrats want to make sure there are more crumbs from the table. If your survival depends upon those crumbs, be it Head Start, food stamps, scholarship money or health care, then that’s important.
Stanley Sheinbaum, Los Angeles activist
I’m voting for Gore, because we cannot take the chance that Bush might win. The entire race is just too tight, state by state, including in California. Nader has about the best grasp of what’s awry in this country, but he does not have the power to implement any of the policy suggestions he has. Even if he wins, he is not the kind of politician who could implement what is necessary to control the corporate world. My primary concern, though, is to stop Bush. He’s kept his agenda pretty well under the table, about being against choice, but his tax cuts would be devastating to the economy. He has too simplistic a view of the system. It’s pretty well known Gore’s appointments to the Supreme Court will be a lot better than Bush’s. An even bigger concern that has not been talked about much is that Bush will be able to tilt the Federal Reserve Board in a way that will hurt the economy, given his view on how the economy functions.
Andrew L. Stern, president, Service Employees International Union For me, this is an easy choice: Gore. We have elections to vote for somebody who can win. To use your vote as a protest to me is unwise. Al Gore has been with us on the picket line, organizing home-care workers in California, and he saved the public-hospital system in Los Angeles. Ralph Nader has wonderful positions on the issues, but he’s not going to be in Washington, D.C. To me, an election is about who’s actually going to do something, not just what they say. Our members absolutely economically can’t afford George Bush as president.
I am voting for Al Gore. A vote for Ralph Nader is a symbolic protest vote. While Nader’s message is appealing, he lacks a strategic vision for building a progressive movement that forges alliances between workers and communities of color.