I have made no such statement. My position is that voting for Gore is a tactical error. Your feelings are not my concern.
On 7/11/00 at 1:58 pm, I wrote:
There are two strictly tactical reasons not to vote for Gore. In the short-term his presence in the White House will perpetuate weak liberal opposition to policies (such as economic, environmental, and military) that would have been pursued equally under a Bush administration but against much greater Congressional hostility. And this liberal apathy also applies to voters. (It's no coincidence that Republicans took over the Senate in 1978 and, after losing it again under Reagan in '86, captured both houses in '94). As to the long-term, a Gore victory means the Democratic Party remains firmly tied to corporate interests. If he loses, on the other hand, there's a chance that a genuine progressive will get the nomination next time around. And if not next time, then the time after that. The key is that the New Democrats consistently lose their bids for the White House. With a Republican in charge again, particularly an obvious ingrate like G.W., the midterm elections of 2002 would send at least one house of Congress back to the Democrats.
And on 7/12/00 at 6:56 pm, I wrote:
I can't imagine a worse fate for rightwing social movements than to have G.W. Bush as their standard-bearer. A Bush presidency will shock the nation into recognition of the fundamental stupidity of the Christian and free-market right. Four years of this guy is guaranteed to take the steam out of all the big issues of the right. Look what happened to the Contract with America. Who, besides Newt Gingrich, was capable of defeating Newt Gingrich? On the other hand, if Gore wins, the far right will continue quietly building strength, adding to our insecurity and keeping us locked in abject dependence on the New Democrats.
Let the enemy destroy itself.
Ted