>
>on the substance, these are logically independent premises, namely:
>
>a. Bush and Gore are the same (which I don't believe, but that's beside the
>point)
>b. Bush would mobilize enviros because he *looks* worse than Gore, not
>because he is worse
>
>Neither of these implies 'the worse, the better.' You could say (b)
>implies, the worse things *look,* the better. Now we could acknowledge that
>the worse things are, the worse they are likely to look. But that doesn't
>imply the worse things look, the worse they are.
>
Hi Max--
Nader seemed to me to be saying that Bush not only looked but was worse--his parallel was the good done by James Watt for the environmentalists. Certainly Watt not only looked, but was, far worse than any EPA head a Dem would appoint.
But if you're right and Nader's answer is there's no difference between Bush and Gore, but Bush *looks* worse, I think that's wrong. Bush's so-far-succesful strategy has been to "look" no worse than Gore on issue after issue, to "look" like the mythical 'compassionate conservative'.
Kevin
PS: not goin't to nawlins, unfortunately...