-I see the attacks on Nader as an increasingly vicious attempt at character -assassination, and I find it disgusting.
NEWMAN! said: "This is truly bizarre in the "folks can dish it out but they can't take it" category. . . . "
*I* did not complain about attacks per se. I did take note of some distortions of Nader's position, some blatant others devious. The bitterness of Nader's characterizations of Gore are well-taken. If I was writing his speeches I would have tempered those. Nor would I calibrate my campaign to cause Gore to lose, though I don't concede that's what RN is up to.
I am more put out by the historic and prospective marginalization campaign of progressives by Clinton/Goroids, which is partly personal. This dovetails with the support of Gore for an intellectual framework (and a legion of intelletual supporters) that I would sum up as follows:
a) government should be smaller b) free trade is the basis for economic development c) welfare reform is a great success d) the national debt should be paid off as soon as possible, in part to avert a disaster in Social Security and Medicare; e) the Federal Reserve as presently constituted is a legitimate steward of the economy
This leaves out a lot of other stuff pertaining to foreign policy, regulation, and civil liberties that I agree is important but in which I don't do any work myself.
Any one of the items above makes social-democracy much more difficult. All of them together make it unthinkable.
In this *specific* respect, THERE IS NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GORE AND BUSH. It's not a matter of Bush would cut down eight forests and Gore five, and five is better than eight. Five would be better than eight. I hope Gore wins and we only lose five. But Gore's problem is fundamental and lasting, and somebody has to try and say that.
mbs