Bush's ridiculous energy and tax policies were well in place BEFORE 9-11. Can any of you imagine any human being this side of Stalin being worse at DOJ than Ashcroft? Look at the recent edict re the status of fetus. Look at the appointments of Abrams and Reich, of Scalia, and just wait till we get to the Supremes.
I think it is true that Gore was not deserving of the progressive vote, but it is equally true that there was a far greater difference betwen Gore and Bush and Nader KNEW it. And, in that regard, Nader proved himself just like every other politician -- say whatever it takes to get elected.
eric
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> >I have all the criticism of Gore in the world -
> remember I was the one who
> >bet on him blowing the election, while everyone on
> this list was confidently
> >predicting he would win the election.
> >
> >But the fact is that he won more votes than Bush
> and actually won a higher
> >percentage of the vote than any Democrat since
> 1976. And if Nader hadn't
> >divided the progressive vote, he would have
> translated that numerical vote
> >into winning the election.
>
> That you think that Nader cost Gore the election
> suggests that you
> only half-believe he blew the election. Given a
> strong economy, the
> incumbent party should have won big. Nader shouldn't
> have made a
> crucial difference, even assuming he did. And don't
> forget, in
> Florida, it was Monica Moorhead's fault (and can't
> you just imaging
> Bill C in the Oval Office, ordering, "Monica! More
> head!!").
>
> Besides, you can't just assume that Nader's votes
> came from Gore.
> Many Nader voters probably wouldn't have voted
> otherwise.
>
> Doug
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com