Dem leader has definitions wrong
To the editor,
In response to Melinda Mills' letter to the editor on Oct. 24, I think it's funny (in a scary kind of way) that the President of the Young Democrats does not understand the concept of negative campaigning. She states that negative campaigning is when "one candidate accuses his or her opponent of something untrue." Actually, this is called "lying" or "libel." Negative campaigning is where a candidate focuses on the shortcomings or mistakes of an opponent instead of running on the strengths of their own political agenda. A great example of this is when Al Gore accuses Bush of being a "slave to big oil" instead of telling us what he'd accomplish if he is elected president. Coming from a "man" who's been in bed with Occidental Petroleum and Arm and Hammer since the start of his political career, and whose father served on the board of directors for Occidental, these accusations bear little weight. Sorry Melinda, but our country would do very well to throw both the Democrat and Republican political parties/corporations out of office and install some free thinkers in our government. Watching this year's vertebrate-challenged candidates talking with silver tongues is giving syrup of ipecac a run for its money.
Eric Jensen
Geosciences graduate student
Arizona safe country for Nader
To the editor,
This letter concerns Cory Spiller's editorial in the Oct. 25 edition of the Wildcat. In his column, Spiller asserted that voting for Ralph Nader for president was equal to voting for George W. Bush. Spiller advised all liberals to vote for Gore, even if they disagree with some of his policies just to prevent George W. Bush from gaining the White House.
I could not disagree with Spiller more strongly. First, it should be noted that there is absolutely no danger in voting for Nader in Arizona. Arizona, as one of the most conservative states in the US, will, as usual, overwhelmingly vote for the Republican candidate. A true throw-away vote in Arizona, then, would be a vote for Al Gore. Voting for Nader, on the other hand, helps build the Green party for future elections.
Secondly, Spiller seems to believe that by electing Al Gore the public can be guaranteed reasonably liberal appointees to the Supreme Court. To this argument I would like to point out that two of the most conservative Supreme Court justices, Thomas and Souter, were confirmed by Democratically-controlled Congresses. Not one single Democrat voted against Souter's confirmation.
I would also like to point out that Al Gore is no leftist. He is, after all, the man who so passionately argued in favor of NAFTA, the agreement that cost thousands of Americans their jobs and increased sweatshop labor in Mexico. It is also important to remember his famous and long-standing ties to Occidental Petroleum-a truly evil empire that is about to drive the indigenous U'wa people from their land in Colombia.
He favors the death penalty, continuing the "war" on drugs and supports the prison-industrial complex. This man is undeserving of my vote, no matter how detestable his opponent.
Vote your conscience. Vote for the future. Vote against the status quo. Vote Nader.
Rachel Wilson
Psychology graduate student
Nader can bring change
To the editor,
In deference to your editorial of Oct. 25, I would like to reply that in fact, only a vote for Bush is itself a vote for Bush; a more accurate way to put it is that a vote for Nader is neither a vote for Bush nor a vote for Gore.
Sometimes it becomes necessary, even in the face of extreme adversity, to forgo practical considerations in favor of more idealistic ones. I sincerely doubt that there are any individuals intending to vote for Nader who would not prefer Gore over Bush. But the simple fact is that Nader's supporters no longer wish to accept the Aristotelian notion that Gore and Bush are the only logical, or even possible, choices for our next president. Green party supporters would very much like to broaden the political landscape, in the hopes of affecting some real change - a five percent showing and the federal money that entails would help in that regard. Most importantly, Nader's platform rejects a vision of our government that puts business and corporate interests ahead of the rights and interests of the people the government is intended to serve - the current status quo if you will. Neither Gore nor Bush have any interest in changing the status quo at all.
If you are looking for someone to blame if George W. Bush Jr. is elected in November, may I remind you that the real blame must be assigned to those that actually voted for him, period. If this possibility concerns you, I'd suggest using your editorial space to castigate those that would vote for Bush, not those who have no intention of it.
Ethan A. Cox
Cognitive science graduate student
