Posted by Kevin Matthews on November 01, 2000 at 22:39:42:
FYI -- KMM
====== Forwarded Message ======
Date: 11/2/00 12:54 AM
Received: 11/1/00 9:53 PM
From: Post Cassini Flyby News
dear kevin, thanks for your signing and the work on the petition referenced
in the following issue of post cassini flyby news. can you forward this, or
send me the email address for Carl Pope?
Post Cassini Flyby News
Editor - Jonathan Mark
P.O. Box 1999 Wendell Depot, MA 01380 USA
2 November 2000
The CBS show, Sixty Minutes II, which was aired last Tuesday on U.S.
Missile Defense and evidence of U.S. Government and Contractor fraud, was
simply powerful television. Millions of viewers got to see a taped live
telecast of Command Headquarters at the Pentagon to witness the second of
three rigged missile defense test failures. That last failed test cost U.S.
taxpayers about $100 million. Dr. Nira Schwartz, a soft-spoken former TRW
employee whistle blower, is like the mouse that roared. Her honesty and
courage, and association with Dr. Ted Postol of MIT, is truly inspiring,
with all the best elements of their being true American heroes. The show
ended with the positions of George Bush and Al Gore on missile defense; both
were in favor of current missile defense work, but the Bush/Cheney ticket
would be much more aggressive in financing this expensive, wasteful and
1) Strategic Voting and the Nader Trader
2) Sierra Club, Petitioners ask Nader to Stop in Swing States
1) Strategic Voting and the Nader Trader
With such a tight election brewing, our communications via the
Internet could make all the difference in the first election of the 21st
Century. Many folks are highly principled in their voting for Ralph Nader
and believe that the voting of a lesser evil is still evil, but you can
always look at this another way and realize that the pathway to hell is
paved with the best of intentions. A win/win solution is a possible solution
to have your cake and to eat it, too.
The following is from http://www.nadertrader.org
What's a Nader Trader?
A Nader Trader is someone who is leaning toward Ralph Nader in a
swing state, but agrees to discuss his
or her vote with a Gore-voting friend in a state that's strongly expected to
go for Bush. In other words, you might want to vote for Gore in your swing
state, while your friend casts a vote for Nader in a Bush-safe state, where
it will not do harm to the Gore/Lieberman ticket. It's an easy way to tip
the electoral balance away from Bush while preserving the national totals
for the Green Party. If enough people consider this option, there is a very
real chance that the Green Party's power will be increased AND that George
W. Bush and his cronies will be kept out of the White House.
If you're a Gore supporter in a state that's strongly expected to go
for Bush, phone or email a friend in a swing state who you think might be
leaning toward Nader. If you're a Nader supporter in a swing state, contact
a friend in a secure state for Bush. Even if you don't fit these categories,
you can still play a crucial part by passing on this idea through forwarding
this via email, telling as many friends as possible so that everyone hears
about it by election day. Encourage friends who may receive a partial email
http://www.nadertrader.org for more information.
Where are the swing states?
The state-by-state information at http://www.abcnews.com has been
keeping a running assessment of what
states are considered tossups, and they now include information about how
strongly each state is leaning toward one candidate. Don't just guess about
the status of yours-- visit the site (and others like it) or read on.
At the time of this writing (Wednesday, 11/1/00), there are over 150
electoral votes among tossup states.
Many voters in these tossup states would like to cast a vote for
Nader, but are unwilling to put Bush in the White House. Are you one of
them? If so, contact friends and family about moving your Nader vote out of
your swing states. Bring a Gore vote from a Bush-secure state into your
swing state. Move your Nader vote to a Bush state.
Where are the Bush-secure states?
Even the quickest look at the electoral map will make you realize
that there are a lot of states that are secure for Bush. There are millions
of Gore voters in these states who would love to cast a meaningful vote in
this election. They're currently stuck in a state that will go for Bush.
These Gore voters in Bush-secure states should contact friends and family
about bringing a vote for Nader into their state while their desire to vote
for Gore will appear in a swing state.
Bush-Secure States Include:
North and South Dakota
Isn't California secure for Gore?
Nader Traders should realize that California is not a secure state
for Gore. This cannot be overemphasized. Recent polls have shown a
once-strong California lead for Gore has eroded, leaving California as
merely leaning toward Gore with significant support for Nader. Many
California voters have seen recent articles in the LA Times and other papers
about the threat of Nader to Gore's chances in California. Gore voters in
California should not switch their votes to Nader under any circumstances.
California voters interested in Nader should contact friends and
family in Bush-safe states. Move those Nader votes down to Texas where they
won't hurt anybody!
How might this help Nader's candidacy?
The benefits of the Nader Trader idea for the Gore/Lieberman
campaign are obvious. But the idea will also almost certainly help Nader and
the Green Party as well. Potential Nader supporters who had been reluctant
(but willing) to vote for Gore can now be encouraged to find partners in
other states, actually raising Nader's national vote total! Thus, it's in
the best interest of all Nader and Gore supporters to work together to
spread the word about Nader Trader.
Is Ralph Nader on the ballot in all 50 states?
No, and NaderTraders should take this into account when talking with
friends and family. The map on Nader's official site currently shows that
North Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Dakota are the three states where Nader
is neither on the ballot nor will be counted as a write-in. Write-ins for
Nader will be allowed in Georgia, Indiana, Wyoming, and Idaho. Ralph is on
the ballot in the remaining states.
Is it legal?
"A spokesperson at the U.S. Justice Department, which investigates
potential instances of voter fraud, said it is, since the sites 'serve as a
clearing house. There is no pecuniary exchange, and it is an agreement
amongst private parties, no legal violation there in terms of violation
fraud. It definitely is an innovative campaign technique, to say the least.'
" (excerpted from the MSNBC article of 10/27, reachable through our media page.)
There's no way for authorities to know how or why you as an
individual casts your secret ballot. Any agreement with a friend is
informal, based on your personal relationship, and is not a legal contract.
Since you're contacting a personal friend about being a Nader Trader, you
can be sure your faith isn't wasted. You'll feel good about keeping Bush out
of the White House, and you'll feel good about voting for progressive
A vote for Nader on November 7 does not have to put George W. Bush
in the White House.
2) Sierra Club, Petitioners ask Nader to Stop in Swing States
To: Ralph Nader
We, the undersigned, endorse the following letter to Ralph Nader
from Carl Pope, Executive Director of The Sierra Club. Furthermore, we
respectfully call upon candidate Nader to cease and desist from campaigning
in swing states in the 2000 presidential election, for the many reasons
PO Box 18002
Washington, DC 20036
Yesterday you sent me (and many other environmentalists) a long
letter defending your candidacy and attacking "the servile mentality" of
those of us in the environmental community who are supporting Vice-President
I've worked alongside you as a colleague for thirty years.
Neither the letter nor the tactics you are increasingly adopting in
your candidacy are worthy of the Ralph Nader I knew.
The heart of your letter is the argument that "the threat to our
planet articulated by Bush and his ilk" can now be dismissed. But you offer
no evidence for this crucial assertion. Based on the polls today Bush is an
even bet to become the next President, with both a Republican Senate and a
Republican House to accompany him.
You have referred to the likely results of a Bush election as being
a "cold shower" for the Democratic party. You have made clear that you will
consider it a victory if the net result of your campaign is a Bush presidency.
But what will your "cold shower" mean for real people and real places?
What will it mean for tens of millions of asthmatic children when
Bush applies to the nation the "voluntary" approach he's using in Texas to
clean up the air. And what about his stated opposition to enforcing
environmental standards against corporations?
What will it mean for Americans vulnerable to water pollution when
Bush allows water quality standards to be degraded to meet the needs of
paper mills and refineries as he has consistently done in Texas, most
recently at Lake Sam Rayburn? And what if he eliminates federal financial
support for both drinking water and water pollution, as his budget calls for
and his record in Texas (46th in spending on drinking water) suggests?
What will it mean for communities of color and poverty located near
toxic waste sites, when Bush applies his Texas approach of lower standards
and lower polluter liability to toxic waste clean-up?
What will a Bush election mean to the Gwich'in people of the Arctic,
when the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is turned over the oil companies
and the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd on which they depend
are destroyed and despoiled?
What will it mean for the fishing families of the Pacific Northwest
when Bush amends the Endangered Species Act to make extinction for the
endangered salmon a legally acceptable option? If he refuses to remove the
dams on the Snake River or reduce timber cutting levels to preserve salmon?
What will it mean for millions of rural Americans whose livelihood,
health and communities are being destroyed by unregulated factory feeding
operations, if Bush weakens the Clean Water Act? When he appoints Supreme
Court justices who complete the task of shutting down access to federal
courts for citizens trying to enforce environmental laws?
What will it mean for the wildlife that depend upon our National
Forests when Bush undoes the Clinton-Gore Administration reforms, reverses
their roadless area protection policy, and restores the timber industry to
the mastery of the forests and the Forest Service that it enjoyed under his
father? If he doubles, or triples, the cut on those Forests?
What will it mean for millions of people in Bangladesh and other
low-lying countries when an American refusal to confront the problem of
global warming unleashes the floods and typhoons of a rising ocean upon them?
Your letter addresses none of these real consequences of a Bush
victory. Nor has your campaign. Instead, you indulge yourself in the
language of academic discourse when you claim:
"Bush's "old school" allegiance to plunder and extermination as
humanity's appropriate relationship to our world speaks a language
effectively discounted by the great tradition of naturalists from John Muir
to David Brower. Bush's blatant anti-environmentalism will lose corporate
favor as it loses popular support. It is a language of politics fading
rapidly, and without a future."
Candidate Bush may well be speaking a fading language. So was
candidate Reagan in 1980 when he ranted that trees caused air pollution. It
is power, however, not language, that determines policy. President Bush
would be vested with the powers of the government of the United States, and
he is an even more devoted servant of environmental counter-revolution than
Reagan ever was.
Because your letter is couched in this language, so divorced from
the real world consequences of your candidacy, and the real world choices
that face Americans, it is difficult to respond to all of its selective
misrepresentations and inaccuracies. A few samples, however, may show you
why I am so disappointed in the turn your candidacy has taken:
You claim that "Earth in the Balance" was "an advertisement for his
calculated strategy and availability as an environmental poseur." Can you
offer a single piece of evidence to support this quite astonishing statement?
You claim that the Clinton Administration stood up to the oil
industry on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge only because "focus groups
have shown him he cannot give" it up. In fact, most polls show that the
public is somewhat split on this issue, and there are certainly no focus
groups I know of showing that it is a third-rail which no President can
cross at his peril. Can you cite your evidence?
You lament that the Administration has "set aside lands not in
National Parks, but rather in National Monuments...." You are surely aware
that a President cannot legally create national parks, which require an act
or Congress; nor can you be under the misapprehension that this Congress
with Don Young as the head of the House Resources Committee and Frank
Murkowski as his counterpart in the Senate would have designated these areas
as parks however long a battle Clinton and Gore might have fought. No, you
simply took a cheap shot, and ignored the facts.
You have also broken your word to your followers who signed the
petitions that got you on the ballot in many states. You pledged you would
not campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states. Your recent
campaign rhetoric and campaign schedule make it clear that you have broken
this pledge. Your response: you are a political candidate, and a political
candidate wants to take every vote he can. Very well -- you admit you are a
candidate -- admit that you are, like your opponents, a flawed one.
Irresponsible as I find your strategy, I accept that you genuinely
believe in it. Please accept that I, and the overwhelming majority of the
environmental movement in this country, genuinely believe that your strategy
is flawed, dangerous and reckless. Until you can answer how you will protect
the people and places who will be put in harm's way, or destroyed, by a Bush
presidency, you have no right to slander those who disagree with you as
You have called upon us to vote our hopes, not our fears. I find it
easy to do so. My hope is that by electing the best environmental President
in American history, Al Gore, we can move forward. My fear is that you,
blinded by your anger at flaws of the Clinton-Gore Administration, may be
instrumental in electing the worst.
The Sierra Club
Please Note: While the letter above was written and distributed
publicly by Carl Pope, neither he nor the Sierra Club have been involved in
any way in creating this petition based on that letter. All those
responsible for establishing this petition are listed below.
You can sign and comment on this letter at
Note: Although Flyby News considers the statement in the last paragraph of
the above letter that Al Gore would be the best environmental President in
American history as an exaggeration, we encourage you to sign and comment on
this letter with hopes of encouraging the Green Party and Ralph Nader to
consider the significant difference for the next four years in comparison
with George Bush as President.
Asked how he would feel on Nov. 8 if [George W. Bush] was elected, he
smiled, and even seemed to suggest he would prefer that outcome. "A bumbling
Texas governor would galvanize the environmental community as never before,"
he said. "The Sierra Club doubled its membership under James Watt." --NYT,
The Bush Watch: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3750/bush.htm
You can subscribe to Post Cassini Flyby News from another address by sending
an email to firstname.lastname@example.org with "Subscribe" in subject field. You can
remove your address from the Flyby News list by replying with "Remove" in
the subject field.
====== End Forwarded Message ======