Elections are rolling around again, and once more we're presented with two corporate candidates so similar that at times during this first debate I honestly couldn't tell them apart. Bush and Gore are identical on crime policy, the military, free trade, biotechnology, and a whole slew of other issues where the differences are purely semantic. It is this appalling sameness leading to record low voter turnouts and increasing popularity of alternate candidates such as Ralph Nader. But every time I say I'm voting for Nader, someone confronts me with a Democrat invented line: "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush!" or "Bush will take away a woman's right to choose!"

Now come on. First of all, Al Gore is no friend to abortion advocates in his time in the Senate, he was THE most anti-choice of the Democrats. This sudden turnaround and heart-thumping solidarity with women is pure political rhetoric. Second of all, about 70% of Americans and 50% of Republicans are pro-choice. Even Dubya's not dumb enough to alienate that significant a fraction of the electorate. Bush is trying to appease the conservative electorate and Gore is trying to scare the liberal electorate, but the truth is that Bush's appointments to the Texas courts have been remarkably similar in outlook to Clinton's appointments on the national level. Some of our most liberal judges have come from Republican presidents, and while I can't guarantee that from Bush, I'd bet cold hard cash that our next Supreme Court justice will not be a member of the Christian Coalition.

But why does everyone keep thinking in terms of defeating George W. Bush, anyway? The man isn't the antichrist! Is defeating him more important than effecting real and long-lasting change? I offer an unqualified and emphatic NO. A vote for Nader is a vote for change, it's a vote that says corporations need to get out of politics, that the Democrats and Republicans have lost touch with the people. A vote for THEM is wasted, because they let corporate money drown out our voices. And you never know - Nader might win. It's not as impossible as everyone thinks. Even if he doesn't, even if he only gets 5 or 10% of the vote (though he's up to 27% in Alaska), well, the Greens get matching funds next election. Smashing a two party stranglehold on politics isn't easy, and it isn't quick - but it's vital if we want a true democracy in this country. I encourage everyone to check out www.votenader.org. And don't let a fear of Dubya keep you from voting your conscience - vote Nader in 2000!

Sincerely,

Lenny Molina