[CUGreens] My letter to the editor

[TREXLER ANDREW STEVEN <Andrew.Trexler@colorado.edu>]

I sent this to the CODaily today. I think we should send more like this
that add strength to the argument, as well as getting some "Forthofer vote
is a vote for change" letters out

Any thoughts

Andrew

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:19:17 -0600 (MDT)
From: TREXLER  ANDREW STEVEN <trexler@ucsu.colorado.edu>
To: editor@codaily.com
Subject: Letter to the editor

Dear Editor:

several month ago, I decided to start campaigning for Green Party
Presidential candidate Ralph Nader, not because I believe he will win, but
because I support the revolutionary political reforms that he is calling
for. These include, among other things,  universal healthcare, withdrawl
from the WTO (until it changes the current rules of global trade), public
funding of public elections, an end to the War on Drugs and the
legalization of marijuana, and several other radical changes. As well, he
is the ONLY major presidential candidate that I respect- Bush and Gore
have sold their souls to big business; oftentimes to the exact same
companies. 
Since deciding to campign for Nader, I've gotten a lot of flack
from friends. "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush", "Don't waste your
vote!", "You're going to help overturn Roe v. Wade" etc, etc. For such
folks as these, I've compiled a little "Myth/Fact" sheet about this
election:

Myth: A vote for Ralph Nader is a wasted vote
Fact: If Nader gets 5% of the national vote (nearly the same as his
current poll numbers), the Green Party gets nearly $15 million in public
funds to run a strong campaign for the Presidency in 2004. In other words,
five million Nader votes changes the American political landscape for
decades to come.

Myth: A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush
Fact: Each candidate has to earn every vote, and millions of Nader
supporters are one-time non-voters. I, for one, would be sitting out this
election if Nader weren't running. Even if Nader does attract would-be
Gore voters, Colorado polls show Bush with a strong lead over Gore:
the race here is over already.

Myth: If Bush wins, Roe v. Wade will be overturned
Fact: All of Bush's Texas Supreme Court appointees have supported a
woman's right to choose, A Nixon appointee wrote the Majority opinion in
Roe v. Wade, and Ford, Reagan, and Bush Sr. appointees have all supported
it since. This is nothing more than a scare tactic. 

Myth: Gore is a stonger environmentalist than Nader
Fact: Gore let a shopping Mall be built over fragile wetlands in exchange
for $31,000 in campaign contributions, owns $500,000 in stock in the
infamous Oxy Oil Co., and supports the WTO, the biggest
threat to the environment that the world has ever seen. Nader was
instrumental in creating the Environmental Protection Agency, protested
against the WTO in Seattle, and has been endorsed by David Brower,
Founder of League of Conservation Voters, Friends of the Earth, and the
Sierra Club

Myth: Nader has no popular support, and he won't get 5%, so you might as
well vote for Gore
Fact: Nader drew 10,500 people who paid to hear him speak in Portland, and
plans to do the same in Boston, Seattle, Minnesota, and maybe even Denver.
Thousands have volunteered time to his campaign in every state, and he's
at right around 5% in the polls.

Myth: Most Gore voters are really excited about his campaign, because he's
going to be a progressive, populist president. Didn't you hear his
acceptance speech?
Fact: When I was in LA, even delegates used the "lesser of two evils"
argument to get me to vote for Gore, and I've seen one Gore-
Lieberman Bumpersticker in the last month, as compared to about 50 Nader
stickers and signs all over town. 

Myth: You should vote for Gore, because he's the lesser of two evils
Fact: If we continue to buy this argument, politics will only get more
odious and someday, there will be even less difference between the "bad
guy" and the "good guy"

In this election, vote your hopes, not your fears!

Sincerely 

Andrew Trexler
Boulder
303-440-7754