I got this forwarded email from a friend who was voting for Gore. I wrote a response explaining why the arguments in this argument are completely weak.

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 18:29:16 EDT
Subject: ACTION: Nader Raiding: Far Too Close for Comfort

Dear Friends,

Please forgive this form email, but the urgency of the situation demands that
each of  us connect--and spread out, in ripple effect--by email as swiftly as
possible. It truly looks as if Nader will cost Gore the presidency.
MoveOn.com--the pro-choice, independent, grassroots, Internet activist
voters' group--has written to its core list with an alert, which I am passing
along to you in this fashion.

In key swing states--Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Maine, New Mexico--Nader
has garnered enough support to throw the electoral votes to Bush. Even in key
battleground states where Nader support is thin, like Florida, Michigan,
Nevada and Pennsylvania, he could take enough votes from Gore to swing the
electoral votes to Bush.  Latest polls even show Gore at risk of losing
California, with Nader pulling away 6% of the vote.  With the election
tightening in every state of the union, no state is safe. If you want a
reliable, objective, updated breakdown of how alarmingly close the
percentages are, go to the website of MoveOn.com and see for yourself.

Nader, who originally swore he would not campaign in states where the race
was too close, has now announced, "Well, I've  changed my mind."  After
months of saying that his candidacy would not after all really help Bush,  on
October 26, Nader actually said, "I could live with four years of a Bush
presidency." He has claimed there is "no difference" between Gore and
Bush--but when  confronted, for example, with their totally opposite stands
on reproductive freedom and freedom of sexual choice, Nader has dismissed
what we've fought for for 30 years as "gonadal politics."  Perhaps it isn't
coincidental that Winona LaDike, Nader's VP running mate, has been virtually
invisible on the campaign trail of late.

On October 27, the Republican National Committee began releasing commercials
in key swing states urging progressive Democrats who are disenchanted with
Gore to "vote their conscience" for Nader. That in itself tells the story.

Former Nader's Raiders tell us that the Nader camp is deeply divided over
whether they should endorse Gore--at least in swing states.  Many say that
they never got into the race to play the spoiler, but rather to qualify for
federal funding and to build a third party over the long haul. Many are aware
that if Bush wins because of Nader, the backlash against the Green Party from
progressive voters will effectively destroy all hopes of building that party
as an alternative. What had originally been positioned as a safe protest vote
has now become a kamikaze vote, with the specter of a Bush presidency
looming. But Nader isn't hearing them, and won't stop.

It's crucial to let Nader know our feelings.  His contact information is:
 campaign@votenader.org  /  fax: 202-265-0183 /  phone: 202-265-4000

MoveOn asks that we  send copies of  our emails to Ralph Nader to them at
naderletters@moveon.org.

As a sample, I've attached below my own open letter to Nader. Feel free to
copy or adapt it, but your own  personalized message is preferable. I ask
that you forward this message, or your own, to every person in your email
address book, to the newspapers and broadcasters in your area, and to anyone
else you think of.  With the race so close and so few days left until the
election, it's time for action.

AN OPEN LETTER TO RALPH NADER
at:  campaign@votenader.org.

Dear Ralph Nader:

Over the years you've done many fine things for US consumers and the American
people. Yet now you are about to do us serious harm. Your candidacy in this
election, as in previous elections, has been important.  You've raised
crucial issues that need to be addressed. But your message has gotten out
now, and the point has been made. It’s time to jettison abstract ideology,
rhetoric, and ego. Otherwise, you will ensure that George W. Bush is the next
president. And if he is elected with a likely Republican Congressional
majority, we will lose the social, economic, and environmental progress we
have won over the last 30 years.

Consider a Bush Supreme Court. Bush has made it clear that he will appoint
activist conservative judges who will seek to take away a woman’s right to
choose. (Unconcerned, you have responded that his father appointed
"moderates" O 'Conner and Souter--but George W. himself has said that his
model justices are Scalia and Thomas, both of whom have publicly stated that
Roe v. Wade should be overturned.) Such a conservative Bush Court will oppose
affirmative action. It will strike down burgeoning lesbian and gay rights. It
will overturn whatever hate-crime legislation may stand any slim chance of
passing in the first place. It will support precisely those corporate
interests you have opposed for years, by promoting "tort reform" which, as
you well know, disempowers the average citizen and takes away the right to
sue corporations who do damage or cause death. Furthermore, a Bush Supreme
Court will be anti-environment, siding with the exploiters and polluters who
sacrifice public health and safety, and the planet itself, for short-term
profit.

Consider the environment. As governor, Bush put the polluters in charge of
the state's environmental program: Texas is now an environmental disaster.
Although he doesn’t articulate it in the campaign, the Republican agenda
includes doing away with the Environmental Protection Agency. Whether or not
you acknowledge it, Mr. Nader, Al Gore did recognize the danger of global
warming before most people had heard the term--and against the advice of his
political advisors, he salvaged the Kyoto Accords. But a rabid Republican
Congress has blocked their implementation along with almost every other
environmental effort put forth by the Clinton Administration. (You’re right
in saying that Clinton/Gore haven’t got a lot done. If you’d been president
these past eight years, neither would you.)

Consider Campaign Finance Reform. You warn us of the power and influence of
corporations, yet you threaten to help defeat the only candidate with any
chance of doing what might help solve this problem. You know that Bush and
the Republicans publicly refuse to support Campaign Finance Reform. You know
that Gore has publicly committed himself to working with McCain and Feingold
to bring about such reform. How can you oppose this?

I could go on and on--about how VERY different Gore and Bush are, regarding
Social Security, the deficit, health care, education (and vouchers), foreign
policy, gun control--my god, even in the basic use of ratiocinative thought
processes and language. But you get the point.I might wish they were even more
 different than they are--and it's our job as citizen-activists in all social
justice movements to both educate the electorate and pressure Gore
relentlessly. But it's a wild untruth for you to claim there's "no difference
at all."

Mr. Nader, you have stated publicly that you would rather see Bush win than
Gore, that "Bush will make things so bad the country will rise up." The
trouble with your scenario is what will happen in the meanwhile.

In the meanwhile, women will again bleed and die in backstreet alleys from
butchered illegal abortions. In the meanwhile, more James Byrd, Jr's and
Matthew Shepherds will  die at the hands of bigots who know they can torture
and lynch with impunity. In the meanwhile, more poor people--the majority of
whom are women and children--will die of poverty while the Two Texas Oil Boys
play real-life Monopoly in the nation's boardrooms. In the meanwhile, guns
will proliferate and fundamentalist godliness will flourish. We've heard your
strategy before. The strategy that "things must get worse before they get
better" happens to be the same strategy employed by the German Communist
Party between the two world wars, and by secular insurgents in Iran who sided
with fundamentalists against the Shah. They got, respectively, Hitler and
Khomeni. Ooops.

You say you are willing to sacrifice the short run for the long haul--but if
you help Bush win, you will have single-handedly done fatal damage to the
possibility of building a watchdog party or progressive third-party
alternative in the US. You will go down in history not as a courageous
crusader but as a tunnel-visioned spoiler--and the Green Party, while it
might pocket its federal funding, will never survive the groundswell of
progressive backlash against it. Instead, you can prove yourself still a man
of conscience, principle, and strategic wisdom, and build on that for a very
different future.

As someone who has agreed with you on many issues in the past, I ask you to
"vote your conscience," and do the right thing.  This election is
frighteningly, historically close. Now is the time for you to throw your
support behind Gore, at least in the swing states. Please don't sacrifice
your own reputation, and our democratic reality, for your personal definition
of an abstract good.The "long term" is NOW.

Have you forgotten that the ends never, never, never justify the means?

Sincerely,
Robin Morgan