Barkley,
I'll take responsibility for my position.
Let's assume the worst - that Nader's candidacy threw the election to Bush.
What are the alternatives for someone like me? I don't think Nader is far _enough_ to the left to be a good match for me. So I'm supposed to vote for Al Gore just because he's slightly better than Bush?
Al Gore is responsible for the deaths of Iraqi children in Iraq. Al Gore is responsible for tremendous pain and suffering in Serbia and Kosovo. The bombing of the Sudanese chemical plant is on his head. He favors NAFTA and free trade policies generally. Domestically he is a big proponent of the Drug War. Etc., etc., as you said. He's a nightmare.
One problem is our winner take all system, which forces folks like me into a choice between voting my conscience and risking a Republican victory. A more rational system would recognize the small progressive following of Nader an allow the Greens and Dems to form a coalition to keep Bush out of the White House and to maintain a slight liberal political advantage nationwide. Hopefully in the wake of this election there will be more pressure put on the major parties to allow third party candidates into the debates. Perhaps there will be an effort to eliminate the electoral college (I'm not going to hold my breath though). Perhaps it will spark other activist efforts. If this is the case then the Nader campaign was a success, in my view.
And finally, is a Bush presidency really such a huge defeat for the left? Everyone recognizes that he doesn't have much of a mandate, and the Congress is practically 50/50. It will be impossible for Bush to enact all of his pet programs unadulterated. Would an Al Gore presidency be very much different? I see it as a modest defeat, certainly not a disaster, and the Nader effort could yet yield some benefits, although that remains to be seen.
Brett
>> Guesses are cheap. The Nader people themselves
have said that 70% of their Fla. voters would have gone
for Gore otherwise.
Look, I was a Nader trader and wanted to see him do well nationally without throwing the election to Gore. Those who persisted in voting for him swing in states should face up to the implications of what they have done and not shilly shally around with half-baked phoney arguments that are not supported by the data, especially this pathetic fantasy that almost none of the Florida Nader voters would have voted for Gore with Nader not on the ballot.
I thought that the hard core Nader supporters on this list supposedly see no difference between Bush and Gore. Hey, Gore is killing children in Iraq!!! etc. etc. I would suggest that those who are now whining that they are not responsible for Bush being elected should stop whining and live with their responsibility. Let's all hope for the best (James Brown, and all that). But let us not have people being deluded. I live 20 miles from the West Virginia border and an awful lot of the discussion on this list has had an incredible air of unreality about it, including what Gore would have needed to do to win. Barkley Rosser