There are Democratic attack dogs--=they turned them loose on Nader. Fact of the matter is, the Dems do not believe in anything or stand up for what they do believe in. Their idea is that we should vote for them nonetheless because the alternative is worse. That is why I am not a liberal in the sense that you describe. I voted for Nader and I would have done if my vote had tipped the election. --jks
>
>Why haven't the Democrats gone on the offensive? I think the left should
>adopt much more vicious tactics. The Republicans have managed a coup
>d'etat
>and we should not give it any legitimacy. All this talk of 'healing' and
>'bipartisanship' is sickening. Why are liberal pundits taking the high
>road on CNN and MSNBC? Liberals need more attack dogs in their ranks.
>
>The only thing I see on CNN are Republican pundits whining about Senator
>Hilary and her book contract. The Republicans are going to control all
>aspects of government and they are still on the offensive.
>
>Finally, I don't think it is too out of line to have a backlash against the
>Nader faction. This is a two party system, and liberals need to learn to
>vote strategically.
>
>Pissed off,
>
>Vikash Yadav
>
>
>
>Chris Kromm writes:
>:
>: The Coup
>: Alexander Cockburn
>: Dec. 19, 2000
>:
>: Can you imagine if it was the other way round, and it was Bush who'd won
>the
>: popular vote but lost the Electoral College after a U.S. Supreme Court
>: dominated by Democrat appointees had voted 5-4 to stop counting votes
>likely
>: to assure a Republican victory in, let us say, Illinois? We think we can
>: safely guarantee that the Republicans would not be taking the soft path
>of
>: "coming together" and reconciliation. They would be screaming about
>stolen
>: elections, constitutional illegitimacy, and pledging to resist the "coup"
>by
>: any means necessary. By now we would have had the Republicans in both
>House
>: and Senate vowing to boycott the Inauguration. Unlike the Democrats,
>: Republicans take losing and winning seriously.
>:
>: You can tell the Republicans know this is going to look bad in the
>history
>: books. Why else have they floated the notion that it might be wise, in
>the
>: interests of civic tranquillity, to put all of Florida's ballots under
>lock
>: and key for all eternity? It seems that Christie Todd Whitman, the
>governor
>: of New Jersey, first put the idea up on MSNBC, claiming that a recount of
>: the sort promised by the Miami Herald would somehow delegitimize the Bush
>: presidency. Then Jennifer Dunn, the right-wing Republican from Washington
>: state, hammered the point home by announcing on "Capitol Hill Gang" that
>: "Those ballots are going to be sealed right after the election."
>:
>: You'll note that neither Whitman nor Dunn entertain any romantic notion
>that
>: a recount of Florida's ballots would propel George W. Bush into an
>assured
>: and unchallengeable majority. Florida would assuredly have reflected
>Gore's
>: popular victory across the rest of the country, by a margin that has now
>: risen to 540,435 votes. A useful article in the Philadelphia Inquirer by
>: John Duchneskie and Stephen Seplow gives us the final official national
>: tally with all absentee ballots counted. According to The Inquirer's
>review,
>: Gore has 50,977,109 votes to 50,436,674 for Bush, thus giving a margin
>way
>: wider than that enjoyed by Kennedy over Nixon, which was 119,450.
>:
>: After all the sonorous sermons about "closure" and "finality," it is
>slowly
>: dawning on people that this really was an amazingly corrupt election, far
>: worse than the notorious shenanigans in Cook County wrought by JFK's men
>in
>: 1960. I've already met three people here in Northern California who are
>: eager to travel to an "anti-inaugural" in Washington, D.C., to coincide
>with
>: the swearing-in of the beneficiary of the stolen election. The phrase
>: "Republican coup d'etat" is not overly dramatic. There's no need to labor
>: the major episodes, from Secretary of State Harris' summary decisions to
>the
>: final intervention by Bush's supporters on the Supreme Court, at least
>two
>: of whom, Scalia and Thomas, should have recused themselves from the
>decision
>: because of conflicts of interest involving members of their families
>working
>: for the Bush campaign.
>:
>: The weeks since Nov. 7 have entirely vindicated the accuracy of Nader's
>: assault on the corruption of the two-party system. We've seen Republicans
>: toss aside their supposed dedication to states' rights, same as did
>Scalia,
>: as he bent his supposed principles to elect a president he hopes will
>make
>: him Chief Justice. We've seen Democrats equally eager to assert states'
>: rights, while exhibiting absolutely no disquiet about the actual
>application
>: of states' rights in Florida, meaning the racist efforts described above
>to
>: stop blacks and other minorities from voting at all. Not enough words
>from
>: Gore on this.
>:
>: Of course the real president is someone who hasn't been elected, even by
>: fraud: Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. He'll determine, just as
>he
>: did with Bush Sr. back in the early 1990s, whether George W. will preside
>: over economic rubble for four inglorious years. Inside that framework how
>: will "bipartisanship" work? Not much. The Democrats want to look
>combative
>: so they can consolidate control of the Senate and win back the House in
>: 2002. Tom DeLay and Dick Armey aren't too interested either, unless it
>: involves a coalition to hurt the poor, on Medicare or social security.
>:
>: As for Nader, I wish he'd stir himself more to underline the corruption
>of
>: the system that permitted the fixing of the Florida vote. Now is the time
>: for the agenda of the Greens to shape up for the next four years, and the
>: Florida coup d'etat is a wonderful kicking-off point.
>:
>:
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com