<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
I know I'm sidetracking...<br><br>I agree that returning a child to his father may have caused political problems for Gore had he accepted help from Bill Clinton in 2000. But I do disagree that 'they forced that Cuban child back to Castro.'<br><br>They returned a child to his father after his mother's death. A child should be with his or her natural parents unless there's a showing that the parents are unfit. There was no such showing in the Gonzalez case. Instead we had politics sticking its ugly head into family business, just as we later saw in the Terry Schiavo case.<br><br>Extended family, wherever they're located, don't get to grab someone else's child unless the parent/s are unfit. We wouldn't allow the Beverly Hills relatives to grab a Moscow/Potlatch/Deary child from a parent just because the relatives had a big house with a cement pond.<br><br>Sunil<br><br><blockquote><hr>Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 19:04:17 -0800<br>From: donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com<br>To: sdredge@yahoo.com; vision2020@moscow.com<br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Romney drops out!?<br><br><div>Scott,</div> <div> </div> <div>In 2000 Bill Clinton had a 42% approval rating. Campaigning with Clinton in 2000 would have been a kiss of death. He had an even lower rating in Florida because they forced that Cuban child back to Castro. </div> <div> </div> <div>Yes, Gore lost the election because Florida's Secretary of State, Kathleen Harris, certified the wrong set of popular votes giving the electoral votes to Bush instead of Gore. Also, Nader split the Democratic vote in Vermont, giving the state to Bush. Gore didn't lose the election in 2000, it was stolen from him, and Nader made it possible. Nader doesn't have issues he is concerned with, he is only concerned about himself. The environment has been demolished and set back decades because Bush was allowed into office. </div> <div> </div> <div>Best Regards,</div> <div> </div> <div>Donovan <br><br><b><i>Scott Dredge <sdredge@yahoo.com></i></b> wrote:</div> <blockquote class="EC_replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px;"> <style>
.ExternalClass DIV
{;}
</style> <div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;"> <div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;">It's a stretch to suggest that Nader sabotaged the 2000 election. The reason Al Gore lost was because of Al Gore himself. Under the categories of coulda, woulda, shoulda, Gore coulda had Bill Clinton campaigning for him instead of distancing himself from Clinton. And Bill Clinton knows how to run a successful campaign.<br><br>I'd like to see a Clinton/Obama ticket running against a McCain/anybody ticket. Also, it doesn't particularly matter much to me which ticket wins, I'm just looking forward to the regime change even though George W. Bush is basically neutered at this stage.<br><br>-Scott<br><br> <div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;">----- Original Message ----<br>From: Ted Moffett <starbliss@gmail.com><br>To: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc@verizon.net><br>Cc: vision2020@moscow.com<br>Sent: Friday, February 8, 2008 1:36:56 PM<br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Romney drops out!?<br><br> <div><span class="EC_gmail_quote">On 2/8/08, <b class="EC_gmail_sendername">Garrett Clevenger</b> <<a href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net" rel="nofollow">garrettmc@verizon.net</a>> wrote:</span></div> <div><span class="EC_gmail_quote"></span> </div> <blockquote class="EC_gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Edwards would be good, as I like what he says, but my<br>preference would be Ralph Nader, who may very well<br>campaign for President. Appealing to Progressives is<br>good with me, despite whatever baggage Nader may have<br>(and really, who
doesn't have baggage?)<br><br>Nader has a record of working on changing America for<br>the better for 40 years. He is well connected to the<br>activist community, and engaging activists is key to<br>changing our country from it's disastrous course. An<br>Obama/Nader ticket sounds sweet to me.<br><br>gclev</blockquote> <div> </div> <div>Many progressives begged Nader to drop out of the 2000 presidential race, due to the potential of splitting the Democratic vote harming Gore's chances. We all know the result. Nader helped put Bush in the White House in 2000. Nader's Florida votes alone gave Florida's electoral votes to Bush, as the vote count actually was counted, though we also know that absent illegal voter disenfranchisement, deliberately pushed by Florida's Secretary of State and Bush supporter Katherine Harris, Gore would have won Florida, even with Nader's participation.</div> <div> </div> <div>Republican
operatives were running ads supporting Nader's 2000 candidacy, knowing this would hurt Gore. And Nader knew this.</div> <div> </div> <div>Nader even argued that a Bush presidency might be good for the nation in the long run, given that Bush would create such a back lash against his policies that progressives in the long run would become more unified and motivated. </div> <div> </div> <div>But as far as I am concerned, given the damage of the Bush administration, Nader's 2000 presidential run was an irresponsible application of idealistic principles over sensible practical politics, resulting in wounds that may not heal for decades. The pending US Supreme Court nominations in 2000 alone were enough of a reason for Nader to withdraw to allow Gore the best chance of a win. Nader and everyone knew there was zero chance of Nader taking the White House. His presidential run did not even result in a stronger party base supporting Nader
or those who support his policies. His supporters are more off the radar now than in 2000.</div> <div> </div> <div>I recall hearing from Nader supporters in 2000 how Gore and Bush both represented corporate big money, and entrenched elitist Washington power, and were not that different. Well, we have seen that however much this was true, there were substantial differences between Gore and Bush that would have taken the USA in very different directions on critical issues, the invasion of Iraq and climate change, for example. I do not believe Gore would have supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and he would have began to address climate change while the Bush administration was in denial, backing big oil and energy interests, who did not want to address climate change for obvious financial reasons.</div> <div> </div> <div>Nader would be a terrible choice for a VP candidate under Obama. I lost respect for him as a politician after
his sabotage of the 2000 presidential election. This showed he is not willing to compromise when the overall good of the nation is at stake. </div> <div> </div> <div>Ted Moffett</div> <div><br><br>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<br><br>=======================================================<br>List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a> <br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================</div></div><br></div></div>=======================================================<br>List services made available by First Step
Internet, <br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br>http://www.fsr.net <br>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>=======================================================</blockquote><br>
<BR><hr size="1">Never miss a thing. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs" target="_blank"> Make Yahoo your homepage.</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>