----- Original Message ----- From: "Luke Weiger" <lweiger at umich.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 12:09 AM Subject: Re: Gore did it to himself
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 8:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Gore did it to himself
>
>
> > "Excuse" him? Since when does the leader of a rival political party owe
> the
> > candidate of his opponent's party his support?
>
> He shouldn't bother running when the interests he supposedly serves will
> likely be done a disservice by his presence in a race. Are the issues
> progressives care about more imperiled because Bush, and not Gore, won? I
> would think so.
===================
Have you been harmed physically or financially by Nader's candidacy? Has Nathan or Brad or any other US "progressive"? Please specify the harms.
>
> > What's to excuse? No apologies. Bush sucks, but the only thing we
> Naderites
> > regret is that our guy didn't do better.
>
> I guess the recent gift the Senate gave to creditors everywhere really isn't
> cause for regret, then.
=================
Who taught you causal analysis of social systems?
>
> Those unwilling to honestly account for the foreseeable consequences of
> their support are apologists. Since you apparently lack any inclination to
> defend the ridiculous assertion that Nader's candidacy didn't play a crucial
> role in Gore's defeat, you may well not belong in that category.
==================
Who played a bigger role in Gore's defeat, G or N? No hemming or hawing, who played the *bigger* role.
>
> > You guys are the apologists. You have something
> > to apologize for. We don't.
>
> Only if you think "the worse, the better" is a coherent electoral strategy.
>
> -- Luke
====================
Do you prefer the lesser of *two* evils as a coherent electoral strategy?
Ian