>I am saying that measuring left success merely by a failed movement to
>protect the Sandinista revolution is lousy argument for optimism for a Bush
>Presidency. Haiti was just a counter example. I've given my real reasons
>for supporting Gore- marginal gains in the labor board, court appointments,
>a few decent executive orders, and a few vetos. I make no strong claims for
>a postive gain from Gore, just a negative claim that mass movements will
>have a better ability to organize without the federal government in full
>scale legal assault on unions and other mass organizations.
>
>But the argument is sort of irrelevant. The exit polls are coming in and it
>looks like Bush will win, although it will be a squeaker in a number of
>states. We will see if Nader is the margin of victory for Bush.
I wouldn't call the resistance to Reagan's wars in Central America a "failed movement." Indeed, as I've said, it was this very resistance that forced Reagan and company to go clandestine which led to that administration's greatest scandal. If the Dems had been alert, or better still, willing to seize upon these impeachable crimes during the Iran/Contra hearings, Reagan could very well have been brought down. If the Dems -- our friends who need our votes every four years -- refused to finish what the left had started, then what good are they? Instead, our friends assisted the Reagan White House in damage control. They had no real desire to see Reagan impeached, and I don't blame them. They had plenty of Nicaraguan blood on their hands as well.
I have little optimism no matter who wins. It will be a struggle, no doubt about it.
DP