> On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, John Thornton wrote:
> > Most Nader supporters I know did not get 'exactly what [they] wanted'.
They
> > wanted Nader to garner enough votes to get federal funds for the Greens.
>
> That, to be completely honest, was probably a pipedream.
>
> > Due to circumstance well beyond Naders
> > control Bush was APPOINTED President. I don't personally know any Nader
> > supporters who "got exactly what [they] wanted'. How many of you know of
> > Nader supporters claiming the outcome of the election is 'exactly what
> > [they] wanted'?
>
> Perhaps I should rephrase: Nader got exactly what he wanted, and it seems
> that many, though not all, Nader supporters on the left got exactly what
> they wanted (to steal votes from the left and thus attempt to shift the
> Dems to the left in order to recoup them).
>
> If you wanted Gore to win, why didn't you vote Gore?
>
> > Marco Anglesio
That's a pretty big assumption to make. I can't recall at any time during this discussion stating who I voted for or if I even voted at all. I hate to berate an obvious point but Gore did win therefore Nader supporters who wanted Gore to win made no tactical error. I did vote Nader by the way, so that assumption was correct. I don't live in Florida so apparently that exonerates me to some. I also didn't care whether Gore or Bush won since I don't perceive enough of a difference between them. This is quite different from saying I WANTED Bush to win however. Nobody can say for certain that one outcome or another would or wouldn't have happened had Gore been appointed the presidency. Clinton gave us NAFTA and welfare reform, maybe Gore could have privatised Social Security and eliminated WIC or Food Stamps, we'll never know. There is very little that Bush can do that we know with any certainty that Gore wouldn't do or at least equal with something just as shitty.
John Thornton