>Who said "own". What silly rhetoric, but then rhetoric is the left's
>substitute for strategy. And it's bad strategy to piss on voters you want
>to have vote for your candidate. I stated the fact that Nader's strategy of
>campaigning in swing states failed to gain substantial votes in those
>states, while alienating voters in safe states. It was bad strategy. It
>has nothing to do with anyone "owning" anyone.
Well, if not "own," then what -- owed? You talk of bad strategy and of pissing on votes, but I'm not sure what Nader should have done to reassure nervous Gore voters. Lie about Gore's record? Not run in "swing states"? Why? You say my "rhetoric" is "silly," but your "logic" keeps boiling down to Nader helping Gore win the election. Again, why is that his concern?
I live in Michigan, a "swing state" and nearly succumbed to the fright stories about Bush's New Order. Then I realized that if Gore couldn't carry Mich, a union stronghold (such as it is), then my vote wouldn't help him -- nor should it. Dance all you wish, Nathan, but the bottom line is that you feel Nader owed it to Gore to stay out of his way.
As days go by, I'm increasingly glad Nader did what he did. Your collection of press clips highlighting the attacks on Nader solidifies this feeling (oh, Harvey Weinstein, how we failed you!). The hysteria coming from libs in the past days has been a marvel to watch. Entertaining as it is instructive.
DP