>> Nor am I proselytizing for the Green Party. I am advocating
>> the candidate I believe to be the best of three rather than
>> the worse of two.
> Not only are you proselytizing for the Greens and Mr. Nader
No, by strict definition I am, as I said above, advocating - declaring my
support for - Nader.
Proselytizing implies that I am trying to convert people, which I am not in
regard to candidates as much as I am in regard to their voting their
consciences. Certainly, vote for whomever you think is best for the job
(BEST - not better of the worse), but vote. And vote your choice because it
reflects your beliefs, not because you think they are the only choices
> either terribly misinformed on the number of candidates running for the
> presidency in the year 2000--by my count, at least 12,
Yes, and No. Of course I know there are more, but most of the discussion
has been around Bush, Gore and Nader, and the email I was responding to was
about Nader. However, I was not aware that there were that many. And your
count was off: of all active candidates, there are well over 60.
Very edifying! Thank you! My favorite was David Broida:
"While Broida maintained he was a serious candidate for President, his
comments were rather amusing. Check out his 20 statements, including: "5. I
have never served jail time. I am not a crook, yet. ... 10. I promise
nothing. I can back that up 100%. ... 16. I will not end racism. But I might
try to ban the Indy 500. ... [and] 20. I will not attempt to make a bigger
fool of myself than any other president ever did." A former warehouse clerk,
Broida withdrew from the race in March 2000: "I got a new job, so I really
don't care anymore," he explained."
> or you're a
> hypocrite. Let's be fair to all Lawrence--by acknowledging just 2 of
> Mr. Nader's fellow candidates and ignoring the other nine, you're simply
> practicing a form of political skullduggery that you claim your
> candidate opposes!