Perhaps the low point locally of the Democrats' efforts to lure their long- forgotten left-leaning base into the Al Gore camp came at a press conference held Oct. 26 by over a dozen of Seattle's progressive elected officials and community activists: Velma Veloria, Judy Nicastro, Richard Conlin, Heidi Wills, Dawn Mason, Ron Judd, Karen Cooper, John Fox, John Shaw, Charlie Chong, Matt Fox, Sue Anderson, Tim Harris, and others. They were making their case to the public as to why Nader supporters should vote for Al Gore. I count many of these folks as my personal friends as well as political allies, and I respect their political judgments. I have no problem with their desire to see Al Gore elected, and their willingness to advocate for him. But I was extremely disturbed by the knowing or unknowing dishonesty with which speaker after speaker made their case. Gore's record is good on some things, bad on many others. Consistently, speakers cited issues on which voters should be concerned about Ralph Nader or the Republicans--without acknowledging that they were the very issues on which Gore and the Democrats have been bad. If I were a Republican, I would have had a field day.

Consider:

* City council member Richard Conlin blasted Ralph Nader for specifically campaigning to achieve a national 5% vote and become eligible for federal matching funds in future elections. Conlin said that he was appalled at how low Nader had sunk, to be campaigning cravenly for money. Fair enough. But this is the same Richard Conlin who not two months ago pissed off much of his constituency, including the entire Green Party, by voting to raise the maximum allowable limit for city council campaign contributions. In other words, Conlin was criticizing Nader for seeking more money for his campaigns; Conlin went out of his way to pass a law generating more money for his own campaigns.

* Two different speakers invoked the "spirit of Seattle" and last year's WTO demonstrations as reasons why people should continue to build the progressive movement by electing Al Gore. Hello? Al Gore was the enemy last November. This is the same Al Gore who was picked as the country's fiercest advocate of free trade to debate Ross Perot on NAFTA in 1993. The only conceivable way a Gore presidency would help the anti- globalization movement is the same way in which the Reagan presidency jump-started the nuclear freeze movement--out of sheer terror.

* Heart of America Northwest head Gerry Pollett--one of the city's true unsung heroes, in my book--warned that, if elected, Slade Gorton and George Bush would favor restart of Hanford reactors. Pollett was the very person, two months ago, who tipped me off to the fact that Maria Cantwell--Gorton's Democratic opponent, whom he did not name in the rally--also favors a Hanford restart.

* Several advocates invoked the environment. One specifically praised Gore's record--one of the only times his record was mentioned--on global warming, which Bush denies exists. Yet it has been Gore who for years has led the Clinton administration's stonewalling on international agreements to address the crisis.

* No fewer than three speakers mentioned by name Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia as the type of dangerous Supreme Court justices George W. Bush would nominate if elected. As a senator, Gore voted to confirm Scalia, and enthusiastically supported Thomas' judicial philosophy, before the story of his sexual misconduct broke.

* The head of a clinic that provides surgical abortions warned how difficult it has already become in most counties in the Pacific Northwest and the U.S. to obtain an abortion, as a reason to fear Bush. It has become twice as difficult to obtain an abortion in the U.S. during the Clinton/Gore Administration, and Gore's campaign has never advocated any measures for slowing or reversing this trend.

* Viewers were warned that the gap between rich and poor would grow worse under Bush. It has, however, reached its worst point in American history under the intentional policies of the Clinton/Gore Administration.

* Former legislator and city council candidate Dawn Mason warned that George Bush would be awful on the issues of race and affirmative action. Yet it was Gore who, under the Reinventing Government program, tried to dismantle affirmative action in the federal civil service. Bush is bilingual and has numerous Hispanic advisors; also, due to his oil connections, he has several Arab advisors and is much better on Middle East issues than the Israel-right-or-wrong Gore and Lieberman.

* Another speaker warned that peace-niks should fear Bush, who wants to double the military budget. Yet Gore is far more interventionist, advocating military strikes anywhere in the world any time the U.S. claims humanitarian motives or that its interests are at stake. By comparison, Bush is a dove.

* Someone (I honestly forget who) invoked the specter of a White House controlled by big oil. Yet Gore's fortune (and his father's, too) comes from interest in Occidental Petroleum.

And on, and on, it went. This was politics, and it was ugly. This is not to rag on Al Gore or the Democrats--there are a number of issues on which Gore is legitimately far better than Bush (health care, taxes, and federal appointments, to name three that weren't mentioned), and I will vote for Cantwell, anyway. But the public deserves to not be misled in its expectations by people who are in a better position to know about the political record of their chosen candidate. I look up to these people, and I expect better. I was appalled.