>On the other hand, any one who argued for a
>moralistic approach to the election, and campaigned
>for Nader in order to punish, defeat and/or destroy
>[take your pick] the corrupt, unprincipled Democrats,
>deciding that whatever licks labor, people of color,
>women, gays and lesbians and environmentalists take
>from a Bush victory are just the price they will have
>to pay to get at the Democrats, are clearly full of
>principles and entirely self-respecting. Thus, if some
>third party employed the same "language of betrayal"
>to describe you that you used to describe supporters
>of
>a Gore victory, that is outrageous name-calling and
>motive impugning.
Good God, Leo. Are you still on this kick? So you favored Gore. So what? I'm sure all those black men and women whose homes were invaded by DEA cops during the Clinton/Gore era will be happy to know that you favor a continuation of this benevolent policy. After all, under Bush, the cops would probably rape them then shoot them then toss them in a shallow grave. At least under Gore, they would just go to jail for 10-20 years. It reminds me of something Bertrand Russell once said, and I'm paraphrasing: If the conservatives called for the sterilization of the poor, the liberals would insist on clean needles. Hey, better than dirty ones! Vote Gore for clean sterilization!
DP