Would there have been more of a difference if the Dems had held Congress in 1994? Should we blame Clinton for the loss in 1994? Some observers claim that it came because he was too leftist, the failed health care plan and gays in the military. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Breslin <dbreslin at ctol.net> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Saturday, November 04, 2000 10:51 AM Subject: Re: (no subject)
>LeoCasey at aol.com wrote:
>> Like it or not, the constant whining about how poor, innocent
>> Ralph Nader is being smeared, coming as it does after
>> weeks of joyful and exuberant heaping of political abuse on the head
>> of Gore and those who supported his re-election here, is as
>> self-righteous as any piece of political discourse I have read
>> here. It may get under some rather thin skins that their favorite
>> terms of opprobrium can be so easily cast in their own direction,
>> but hey, if you build your political house on sand and make
>> it out of glass...
>
>My goodness I'm reading your posts! I can't let this go without
>comment. In this election I've been positively wishy-washy, or
>in a kindler and gentler language, ambivalent. Read context, Leo.
>
>Nader and a host of others have been heaping whatever on Clinton,
>Gore & Co. for a long time. Or haven't you noticed. There's nothing
>new here except for 1) the media has paid Nader some attention,
>perhaps smelling a story of Gore's demise, and 2) More people are
>paying attention. Indeed, there's a lot of folks like um, me,
>who know Nader's criticisms and then some, but generally cave-in
>and vote for the Dems.
>
>I give Henwood & Co. on LBO a lot of credit for making meaningful
>one fairly simple claim: compare Reagan/Bush to Clinton/Gore
>and there's not enough difference in principles, policies, or
>consequences to matter.
>
>It's a debatable point. I can't. The best I can do is resort
>to my knee-jerk contempt for Republicans. The Democrats have refused
>to debate it too, beyond assertions about the Supreme Court.
>
>Nader and others have hardly built their opposition on sand
>(Gore more appropriately has - and thats why he's so fragile).
>And its not all that strange why anti-Nader folk do the typical
>political side-step and ignore Nader's central challenge.
>The record poorly supports an argument in Gore's favor.
>More importantly, the peace that neoliberal's made with
>corporate capital and cultural conservatives was never
>done reluctantly. I mean there's precious little to weave
>heroic myths of defeat here. Say it ain't so, Leo.
>
>Dennis Breslin
>