Carrol,
>> Let's assume the worst - that Nader's candidacy threw the election to
Bush.
>
>Why is that the worst?
I was simply granting Brad's position. I don't see it as the worst at all.
>> Nader is right about one thing - Gore only has himself to blame for his
>> defeat. To focus on Nader and claim that he is THE reason Gore lost (if
>> indeed he does lose) is baffling to me.
>
>Let's not argue or apologize. Let's accept the credit. The left defeated
Gore.
>Hurrah! Whatever Nader wants to claim, I think quite a few of his active
>supporters had mostly in mind punishing the Democrats. And they succeeded.
I would take the credit, only I don't think we deserve it. I would have preferred a 5-7% vote for Nader, sizeable enough to throw a bunch of states to Bush. I think this really would have been a scenario where Nader "threw" the election to Bush, but also a scenario which would have energized the left more than the actual result, which is really what I was hoping for. The 3% he actually got was disappointing. The only reason to argue that Nader "threw" the election to Bush was the ridiculously close vote in Florida. But if 900 Bush voters had pulled the lever for Gore, Republicans could be bemoaning the fact that Buchanan threw the election to Gore. And that would be absurd. Nader simply didn't factor that heavily in the election, and Buchanan didn't factor at all.
>Doesn't it give you a warm feeling to imagine what the likes of Gitlin &
>Alterman and Steinem are feeling now.
Yes, it does. :-)
Brett, rooting for a bunch of college football upsets this weekend