Novermber 2, 2000

Subject: Miscellaneous Subjects #36: Appeal from Nader + Faulty Logic + Sierra Club Pope to Nader + What are the dolphins going to eat? + What the Butterfly Knows + Comment on the US elections being a "passing interest" for non-US residents + Scarey quotes from Bush

Hello eveyone

This is my last post to you before leaving for some days.

Sorry for loading you up with so much stuff to read.

Have a great weekend ;-)

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000




Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000
From: Dave Boruff <revdave@musenet.com>

Dear Jean,

I have been getting your e-mail's for a while , and I always enjoy them.

I especially enjoyed your latest e-mail ...

- Miscellaneous Subjects #35: Is a People's Rebellion Against the Corporate Stranglehold on US Politics Heating up? + More Feedbacks to the Elections

I also managed to watch Ralph Nader on Hard Ball last night. I thought he was fantastic!

I have forwarded your Nader e-mail to some friends. I hope this is okay. I feel it's important to get this information out as fast as possible.

(NOTE FROM JEAN: Sure! Absolutely! Thanks!)

Dave Boruff
President/Musenet
E-Mail : revdave@deltanet.com
Musenet: http://www.musenet.com




From: "Rob Wheeler" <robineagle@hotmail.com>
Subject: Appeal from Nader
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 1

Friends,

I realize that people have a variety of opinions about who to vote for for
US President, which is how it should be. Personally, for those that are
choosing between Gore and Nader, I think it comes down to this: if you live
in a state that is pretty sure to go to either Bush or Gore anyway, then
vote for Nader. If you live in a state where Gore may need your vote to win,
vote for him. It's that simple.

In addition, I want to pass on this Appeal and position paper that Nader has
distributed. All the best,

Rob Wheeler

---------

From: Ralph Nader
To: Nader/LaDuke supporters nationwide

Dear Friends:

We're now in the home stretch of our historic run to establish the Green
Party as a permanent and prominent pro-democracy force on the national
political stage.

I'm writing to you with an appeal for support to make sure we accomplish all
that we can, and must.

While the dominant party cartel through its puppet debate commission locked
us out of the televised debates, and while the media continue to
under-report our campaign, the signs of a grassroots surge in support for
the Nader/LaDuke candidacy are everywhere.

Our super-rallies across the country -- in Seattle, Boston, New York,
Portland, Minneapolis and Chicago -- have attracted more than 10,000 paying
attendees each. That's way beyond anything the Gore or Bush campaigns have
generated. Our crowds are far more charged up than those at the staged
events of the corporate candidates -- precisely because our supporters are
determined to engage in a sustained effort to rescue our democracy from
corporate plutocrats, and they understand the importance of the Green Party
challenge. This grassroots surge is registering in the national polls, where
our support is growing fast.

We stand on the precipice of an electoral showing that will shock the
corporate and political establishment. Together, we will send a message
that:

* We must provide public financing for public elections and other basic
democratic tools for citizens to de-concentrate the power of the few over
the many;

* Health care is a human right, and our country must join the rest of the
industrialized world in providing universal health care, so that tens of
millions of our citizens no longer go without coverage in times of medical
need;

* The citizenry reject the corporate globalization model of the World Trade
Organization and NAFTA, which subordinates health, safety and environmental
protections to commercial imperatives;

* The richest nation in the history of the world must immediately commit
itself to eradicate poverty within our borders, by launching a Marshall Plan
against poverty, providing all workers with a living wage and removing the
legal constraints on unionization drives; and

* We can no longer delay addressing global warming and other environmental
crises to pacify the interests of corporate polluters and those who plunder
our natural resources.

Together, we will work to show that the Green Party program and values are
the program and values of an American majority -- and that the majority now
have a powerful vehicle to advance their interests.

Achieving these goals, however, will require us all to redouble our efforts
in the final week of this campaign. We need all supporters to talk to their
friends, colleagues and neighbors, to continue spreading the message of our
campaign and to make sure everyone votes on election day. Word of mouth is
credible and fast.

And for the campaign to make history this week, we need your financial
support. Your contribution will enable us to coordinate and expand our
grassroots mobilization, to make sure we use every tool available to
circumvent the debate/media blackout and reach millions of voters and
non-voters.

Please make a pledge right now to restore our democracy by contributing $50,
$100, $250 or whatever you can afford to our campaign.

We need $500,000 in the next few days for "get-out-the-vote" efforts
nationwide.

You can make the contribution over the Internet by clicking on
http://votenader.org/donate.html.

Thank you for your energy and support for this campaign to deepen our
democracy.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader


To subscribe, unsubscribe, and change options:
http://votenader.org/newsletter.html

Through this weekly newsletter you will get updates about the latest
happenings in the Nader 2000 campaign: you can find out how you can
volunteer (http://votenader.org/volunteer.html), how you and your friends
can make contributions (http://votenader.org/donate.html) and how to
ENCOURAGE OTHERS to VOLUNTEER and WORK to TRANSFORM THIS YEAR'S RACE INTO AN
OPEN DEBATE ON CORPORATE CONTROL OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND OUR LIVES. Please
forward this message to all of your friends and encourage them to sign up!

Paid for by the Nader 2000 General Committee, Inc.
P.O. Box 18002, Washington, D.C. 20036
campaign@votenader.org




From: Kathleen Gildred <Kgildred@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000
Subject: U'wa lawyer urges support for Gore

Hi Friends -

Here's an interesting piece of information I received from the Gore campaign
office. Please send this out to Nader supporters.

Thanks,
Kathleen

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Following is a letter from U'Wa lawyer Spencer Adler. Mr. Adler contacted us
a few days ago and wanted people to know that he supports Gore.

Please forward the letter.

"If you live in a state where the race is close, don*t even think of voting
for Nader to help the U*Wa tribe he so righteously hides behind. You won*t
be helping them. Instead, you*ll be sacrificing the tribe*s best interests
for Ralph Nader*s. And the U*Wa won*t owe you their thanks. You*ll owe them
your apology."

The full letter follows:

Why I won*t vote for Ralph Nader, by Spencer Adler

(October 31, 2000) Three years ago, I heard the story of a tribe from the
cloudforest of Colombia * five thousand people threatening to leap off a
cliff in mass suicide if oil drilling took place on their land.

Their plight moved me, and I got involved. I was the original attorney who
took up their case against Occidental Petroleum, of Los Angeles. I wrote the
shareholder resolution against the company, and spoke at the annual
shareholder meetings on their behalf. Last year, I was horrified when three
Americans working on the case were kidnapped in Colombia, and murdered.
As it happens, Al Gore*s family has long-standing ties to Occidental, for
which Ralph Nader has loudly criticized the vice president, pleading with
environmentalists to vote for himself, instead.

When his campaign began, Nader promised not to be the spoiler * not to pull
away from Gore the critical votes that might tip the balance in any swing
state. Unfortunately, that*s exactly what he*s doing * targeting the
undecided voters in the undecided states in one of the closest races in
history. Despite the fact that Nader himself owns Occidental stock through
his Fidelity investments, much of his anti-Gore rhetoric focuses on the vice
president*s Occidental connection.

Nader*s campaign now has every chance to lose the election for Al Gore. In
fact, the republicans recognize this vulnerability, and have hired a
Washington public relations firm to place Nader ads in crucial undecided
markets.

Once this election is behind us, most of the people who today are
impassioned over the U*Wa cause will move on. Ralph Nader will move on. The
voters will move on. I, on the other hand, will lobby either the Gore team
or the Bush team, depending upon who wins. Gore in the past has directed
Madeline Albright to pressure the Colombian government for justice for the U
*Wa, and I*m convinced that if he wins the election, he will do more. His
team is far from perfect. But they*ll return my calls and try to come up
with a solution. Bush*s team won*t. Ralph Nader claims there is no
difference between the candidates. But from my perspective, this difference
is as big as the rainforest itself.

If you live in a state where the vote is a foregone conclusion, you may want
to vote for Nader to make a point. Or you may want to help the Green Party
get the five percent of the vote they*ll need to get federal funding four
years from now. But if you live in a state where the race is close, don*t
even think of voting for Nader to help the U*Wa tribe he so righteously
hides behind. You won*t be helping them. Instead, you*ll be sacrificing the
tribe*s best interests for Ralph Nader*s. And the U*Wa won*t owe you their
thanks. You*ll owe them your apology.

(Spencer Adler is an attorney in private practice in Washington, DC. His
phone number is (202) 463-8600, and he is available for comment to the
media.)

The Law Office of Spencer Adler, P.L.L.C
a professional limited liability company
1250 24th Street, NW, Suite 350
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 463-8600

NOTE FROM JEAN: As I wrote to Kathleen and I asked her to call at Spencer Adler's office to check if he actually wrote this. She did and Spencer confirmed and entirely uphold what he stated! Now the doubt still remains that he may now be in league with the Gore campaign since it came from them. Or he may simply sincerely believe that Gore would be a lesser evil than Bush...




From: "Jeff Rogers" <jrcranial@earthlink.net>
Subject: Fw: Faulty Logic
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000

Dear Jean,

I've been reading your posts for almost a year now and have yet to send
anything from the far shores of Tucson but the Peaceguys letter just
happened to catch me in a moment that incited me to send tthe following
letter on.

It was written by a friend of mine who has more time to write missives such
as these and it seemed appropriate forward it to your news group.
I myself have been a registered Green for 10 years now and have been
disillusioned by the American Political Machine for pretty much my entire
voting life which is over 26 years. Up until now it has been more of a
political tic-tac-toe game...(ie; I don't want so and so to win but I really
am not to keen on whozits but I'll vote for him to block so and so)...Ralph
Nader may not be everybodies cup of tea but he's every bit as knowledgable
about the workings of U.S. Govt. as anybody running right now. When I hear
how the Green Party isn't perfect or else it wouldn't need the 5% vote to
get some $$$ recognition it really rankled me. It so happens that the "rank
and file" of the Republicrats includes some pretty huge contributers in a
variety of forms: Big Oil, Big Chemical and more that I'm sure aren't really
even known. I mean, the fact that Nader was competely shut out of the
Budweiswer sponsored "debates" says alot about the sorry state of our
so-called democracy.

Gores environmental record may look better than Bush but the fact remains
that Gores contributers are not all that different from Bush and the fact
also remains that the two of them agree on many of the same issues such as
building up the military and maintaining the death sentence just to name
two of many similarities.

It seems to me that Naders strong showing in the face of basically being
shut completely out of the mainstream medias coverage of the elections is a
sure sign that there are alot of folks that feel they are not being
represented by the "choices" of the two party system. And perhaps it will
ignite enough people to start taking a more active role in the political
process in the U.S.

And it's also possible that those of us that have been apolitical in the
past few years will help return the Congress to a Democratic majority by
going to the polls next week and voting for the candidate that is speaking
the truth. It's far more likely that a Green voter, given the choice between
a Republican and a Democrat running for congress will pick the Dem. If
anybody is interested in checking Michael Moores letters to the Non-Voters
of America check his website. He lays it out pretty clearly.
Anyway, I certainly hadn't intended to rant the way I just did... but I did.

And thank you Jean for the service you provide.

Happy Trails

Jeff Rogers

CLIP




Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000
From: Project NatureConnect Michael J Cohen <nature@pacificrim.net>
Subject: Sierra Club Pope to Nader

CARL POPE SPEAKS FOR THE SIERRA CLUB AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
I HOPE HE SPEAKS FOR YOU, TOO. THANK YOU FOR READING THIS,
AND PLEASE FORWARD TO RALPH NADER.

DOUG Korthoff, Southern Calif.

Dear friends and family. I hope you have time to read all of this.
Please think about the future.

Bea Morrow

The following is a letter from Carl Pope to Ralph Nader.
Please feel free to forward it to any lists you deem appropriate.

Dear Ralph:

Yesterday you sent me (and many other environmentalists) a long
letter defending your candidacy and attacking "the servile mentality"
of those of us in the environmental community who are supporting
Vice-President Gore.

I've worked alongside you as a colleague for thirty years.

Neither the letter nor the tactics you are increasingly adopting
in your candidacy are worthy of the Ralph Nader I knew.

The heart of your letter is the argument that "the threat to our
planet articulated by Bush and his ilk" can now be dismissed. But you
offer no evidence for this crucial assertion. Based on the polls
today Bush is an even bet to become the next President, with both a
Republican Senate and a Republican House to accompany him.

You have referred to the likely results of a Bush election as being
a "cold shower" for the Democratic party. You have made clear that you
will consider it a victory if the net result of your campaign is a Bush
presidency.

But what will your "cold shower" mean for real people and real
places?

What will it mean for tens of millions of asthmatic children when
Bush applies to the nation the "voluntary" approach he's using in Texas to
clean up the air. And what about his stated opposition to enforcing
environmental standards against corporations?

What will it mean for Americans vulnerable to water pollution when
Bush allows water quality standards to be degraded to meet the needs of paper
mills and refineries as he has consistently done in Texas, most recently at
Lake Sam Rayburn? And what if he eliminates federal financial support for
both drinking water and water pollution, as his budget calls for and his
record in Texas (46th in spending on drinking water) suggests?

What will it mean for communities of color and poverty located near
toxic waste sites, when Bush applies his Texas approach of lower
standards and lower polluter liability to toxic waste clean-up?

What will a Bush election mean to the Gwich'in people of the
Arctic, when the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is turned over the oil
companies and the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd on which they
depend are destroyed and despoiled?

What will it mean for the fishing families of the Pacific Northwest
when Bush amends the Endangered Species Act to make extinction for the
endangered salmon a legally acceptable option? If he refuses to remove
the dams on the Snake River or reduce timber cutting levels to preserve
salmon?

What will it mean for millions of rural Americans whose livelihood,
health and communities are being destroyed by unregulated factory
feeding operations, if Bush weakens the Clean Water Act? When he appoints
Supreme Court justices who complete the task of shutting down access to
federal courts for citizens trying to enforce environmental laws?

What will it mean for the wildlife that depend upon our National
Forests when Bush undoes the Clinton-Gore Administration reforms,
reverses their roadless area protection policy, and restores the timber
industry to the mastery of the forests and the Forest Service that it
enjoyed under his father? If he doubles, or triples, the cut on those Forests?

What will it mean for millions of people in Bangladesh and other
low-lying countries when an American refusal to confront the problem of
global warming unleashes the floods and typhoons of a rising ocean upon
them?

Your letter addresses none of these real consequences of a Bush
victory. Nor has your campaign. Instead, you indulge yourself in the
language of academic discourse when you claim:

"Bush's "old school" allegiance to plunder and extermination
as humanity's appropriate relationship to our world speaks a
language effectively discounted by the great tradition of
naturalists from John Muir to David Brower. Bush's blatant
anti-environmentalism will lose corporate favor as it loses
popular support. It is a language of politics fading rapidly,
and without a future."

Candidate Bush may well be speaking a fading language. So was
candidate Reagan in 1980 when he ranted that trees caused air pollution.
It is power, however, not language, that determines policy. President Bush
would be vested with the powers of the government of the United States, and
he is an even more devoted servant of environmental counter-revolution than
Reagan ever was.

Because your letter is couched in this language, so divorced from
the real world consequences of your candidacy, and the real world choices
that face Americans, it is difficult to respond to all of its selective
misrepresentations and inaccuracies. A few samples, however, may show
you why I am so disappointed in the turn your candidacy has taken:

You claim that "Earth in the Balance" was "an advertisement for his
calculated strategy and availability as an environmental poseur." Can
you offer a single piece of evidence to support this quite astonishing
statement?

You claim that the Clinton Administration stood up to the oil industry
on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge only because "focus groups have
shown him he cannot give" it up. In fact, most polls show that the public is
somewhat split on this issue, and there are certainly no focus groups I
know of showing that it is a third-rail which no President can cross at his
peril. Can you cite your evidence?

You lament that the Administration has "set aside lands not in
National Parks, but rather in National Monuments...." You are surely aware
that a President cannot legally create national parks, which require an act
or Congress; nor can you be under the misapprehension that this Congress
with Don Young as the head of the House Resources Committee and Frank
Murkowski as his counterpart in the Senate would have designated these
areas as parks however long a battle Clinton and Gore might have fought.
No, you simply took a cheap shot, and ignored the facts.

You have also broken your word to your followers who signed the
petitions that got you on the ballot in many states. You pledged you
would not campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states. Your
recent campaign rhetoric and campaign schedule make it clear that you have
broken this pledge. Your response: you are a political candidate, and a
political candidate wants to take every vote he can. Very well -- you admit
you are a candidate -- admit that you are, like your opponents, a flawed one.

Irresponsible as I find your strategy, I accept that you genuinely
believe in it. Please accept that I, and the overwhelming majority of
the environmental movement in this country, genuinely believe that your
strategy is flawed, dangerous and reckless. Until you can answer how you
will protect the people and places who will be put in harm's way, or
destroyed, by a Bush presidency, you have no right to slander those who
disagree with you as "servile." You have called upon us to vote our hopes,
not our fears. I find it easy to do so. My hope is that by electing the best
environmental President in American history, Al Gore, we can move forward. My
fear is that you, blinded by your anger at flaws of the Clinton-Gore
Administration, may be instrumental in electing the worst.

Sincerely,

Carl Pope
Executive Director, Sierra Club

Barbara Boyle [barbara.boyle@sierraclub.org]
Sierra Club
Sr. Regional Representative, CA/NV/HI
1414 K St. #300
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 557-1100 x. 105
(916) 557-9669 fax





Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000
From: Cacilda Casartelli <ccasarte@fmrp.usp.br>
Subject: What are the dolphins going to eat?

Dear Jean

Since you put in the net the message about my dream, I have been flooded
with messages. Very good there are so many dolphin friends.

I am sending you few lines of a message I received, because it is another
view of the same problem.

Love, Cacilda

From: Sharie Ramsey - sharieroseramsey@hotmail.com

I want to relay to you the recent reports published by the World Wildlife Fund. They had been researching the ecology of the world's resources since 1970: among other serious depletions such as clean air, the world's drinking water supplies has dwindled 50% in 30 years! And, according to the World Wildlife Fund, the ocean's ecology has dwindled 35%!!!!

What are the dolphins going to eat?

With the LFAS compounding the problem, the dolphins may be headed for extinction... humans too, for that matter.

And this idea of groups within a species creating an inter-connected field of thought -- schools of fish swimming together, birds flocking together and their synchronized changing of course in flight... humans resonating with their own race, while treating other races (and species of life) as
inferior

... I think this is something related which we humans have yet to integrate in our awareness and presence of being."




From: Brucie <Spiritedbc@cs.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000
Subject: Dolphins disappearing

Hi Jean,

Again I thank you for your time in sending us this sometimes awful
information. My heart bleeds almost every time I get a comilation of material
but I would be ignorant without it. I have spent my life on the sea, mostly
in the Atlantic ocean and the Carribbean Sea, and I am saddened to say that I
rarely see our Dolphin friends where they used to be plentiful. I used to
look forward to having them join our boat as they always bring glee to my
heart and to most others as well. They just arn't out there in the numbers
they were, and it's glaringly obvious, so when I hear of planned slaughters,
my heart goes out to all of us. Instead of wanting to fight to defend them, I
feel lost, alone, and incapable of moving.




NOTE FROM JEAN: Alan Moore, another founding member who was present at the Earth Rainbow Network meeting in December 97 in California, is an ardent defender of butterflies and occasionally publishes a compilation of butterfly-related info. Here is an except. Ask him the rest of it if you are interested.

From: Bflyspirit@aol.com
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000
Subject: October Update

CLIP

What the Butterfly Knows

When the Institute of Noetic Science - IONS - put out a call for "stories of
transformation" - unexpected life-changing events with a spiritual twist -
the responses came flooding in. Author and IONS editor Keith Thompson retells
some of these tales and explores their deeper implications.

“What the caterpillar calls the end of the world the rest of the world calls
butterfly."- Richard Bach

Wired for Wings

Metamorphosis. The word was seldom used by participants in the IONS study.
Yet the image of being made new and profoundly different occurred throughout
the stories. One participant's use of the caterpillar-butterfly analogy
points to the ambivalence that inevitably comes with knowing that some part
of us-literal, metaphoric, or both-dies in order for something new to be
born.

A growing caterpillar's cells, which later become the butterfly's cells, are
distributed at different locations within the body of the caterpillar. Small
clusters of tiny cells, called imaginal buds, embody the blueprint of the
butterfly. The caterpillar's immune system recognizes these as foreign and
tries to destroy them. ("You'll never get me up in one of those things," one
caterpillar is rumored to have told another as they watched a monarch ascend
from a cocoon in early spring). As the buds arrive faster and begin to link
up, the caterpillar's immune system breaks down and its body begins to
disintegrate.

Still, the butterfly doesn't "compete" with the caterpillar. There's no
battle for dominance; the butterfly is not an alien organism developing
within the caterpillar. The caterpillar/butterfly is a single organism, with
the same genetic code. Through a powerful, devastating process, it is no
longer a caterpillar. It is transformed and reborn as a butterfly.

People who experience being engaged with a powerful force that seems to lift
them beyond themselves seldom fully understand what happens in such moments.
Nor do they find it easy to talk about the experience. Something has been
annihilated. Something extraordinary has been born.

The lucky ones, like the butterfly, realize they have a limited amount of
time to spread their new wings, and soar.

(Imaginal buds or cells is a concept first discussed by Norie Huddle in her
book Butterfly which was written to help usher in what she calls the
"Butterfly Era" of global civilization.)
For the entire article What the Butterfly Knows get IONS - Issue 52, June -
August 2000 or go to
www.noetic.org/Ions/publications/butterfly1.htm

CLIP




From: "Graham" <info@interfaith.freeuk.com>
Subject: Re: Miscellaneous Subjects #34
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000

Jean

Thanks for the efforts you put into the Rainbow site. I find the articles very interesting. Without dismissing the significance of the US political scene to the rest of the world, though, I wonder if I could suggest a simple improvement to your mailings in the run up to and aftermath of the election?

To many of us outside the US these musings have little more than a passing interest and get in the way of reading other, dare I say it, more significant contributions. Would it be possible, just for a few weeks to send out one 'digest' with election related material and one with the rest?

Thanks, Graham.

ND MY REPLY WAS:

Thanks for your suggestion. This has been one of my concerns too - I live in Quebec and so can easily understand why the elections in the US could seem boring to others around the world. However it is difficult to not pay attention to what is going on there since this country has such a global influence. Even if I was living in the remotest part of this world, I would be frankly concerned that a man like George W Bush - and through him those he represents and dutifully serves - could become the next president of the most powerfully nation on Earth with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and an untold number of secret, exotic war-making technologies at his disposal.

As far as your suggestion is concerned, I would prefer to continue with my current format, keeping in mind the fact also that a fairly large percentage of the people on the ERN list are from the US.

CLIP




COULD NOT RESIST PASSING ON THIS ONE :-)

Subject: Fwd: Scarey quotes from Bush...
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000
From: Larry Morningstar <mana7@aloha.net>


Re Geo. W. Bush

The media should stop misquoting this man. Here with some accurate quotes.

"Actually, I -- this may sound a little West Texan to you, but
I like it. When I'm talking about -- when I'm talking about myself,
and when he's talking about myself, all of us are talking about me."
--Hardball, MSNBC, May 31, 2000

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."
--Reuters, May 5, 2000

"I think we agree, the past is over."
--On his meeting with John McCain, Dallas Morning News, May 10, 2000

"Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometime
until we get an objective analysis."
--Meet the Press, April 15, 2000

"I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close to
California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to
California."
--Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2000

"We want our teachers to be trained so they can meet the obligations;
their obligations as teachers. We want them to know how to teach
the science of reading. In order to make sure there's not this kind
of federal cufflink."
--Fritsche Middle School, Milwaukee, March 30, 2000

"The fact that he relies on facts -- says things that are not factual
-- are going to undermine his campaign."
--New York Times, March 4, 2000

"It is not Reaganesque to support a tax plan that is Clinton in nature."
--Los Angeles, Feb. 23, 2000

"I understand small business growth. I was one."
--New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2000

"The senator has got to understand if he's going to have he can't
have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the
low road."
--To reporters in Florence, S.C., Feb. 17, 2000

"If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and
principles, come and join this campaign."
--Hilton Head, S.C., Feb. 16, 2000

"How do you know if you don't measure if you have a system that
simply suckles kids through?"
--Explaining the need for educational accountability, Beaufort, S.C.,
Feb.
16, 2000

"We ought to make the pie higher."
--South Carolina Republican Debate, Feb. 15, 2000

"I've changed my style somewhat, as you know. I'm less, I
pontificate less, although it may be hard to tell it from this show.
And I'm more interacting with people."
--Meet The Press, Feb. 13, 2000

"I think we need not only to eliminate the tollbooth to the middle
class, I think we should knock down the tollbooth."
--Nashua, N.H., as quoted by Gail Collins, New York Times, Feb. 1, 2000

"The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case."
--Pella, Iowa, as quoted in the San Antonio Express News, Jan. 30, 2000"

"Will the highways on the Internet become more few?"
--Concord, N.H., Jan. 29, 2000

"This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what
you do when you run for president. You gotta preserve."
--Speaking during Perseverance Month at Fairgrounds Elementary School in
Nashua, N.H.

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."
--Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000

"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and
uncertainty and potential mental losses."
--At a South Carolina oyster roast; quoted in the Financial Times, Jan.
14,
2000

"We must all hear the universal call to like your neighbor just like
you like to be liked yourself."
--At a South Carolina oyster roast; quoted in the Financial Times, Jan.
14,
2000

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"
--Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

"There needs to be debates, like we're going through. There needs
to be townhall meetings. There needs to be travel. This is a huge
country."
--Larry King Live, Dec. 16, 1999

"The important question is, How many hands have I shaked?"
--Answering a question about why he hasn't spent more time in New
> Hampshire;
quoted in the New York Times, Oct. 23, 1999

"Keep good relations with the Grecians."
--Quoted in the Economist, June 12, 1999

"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job
is underestimating."
--U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2000

Please pass these quotes on. This man could be our next president.







BACK TO THE FIRST HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE