> He helped mobilize people disgusted with the Republicrats. What did
> you want him to do, win?
Well, I was hoping he could scare the Democrats a little. And don't get me wrong - they're scared. I could see the fear in Gephardt's eyes the other night when he promised not to repeal Bush's tax cut. Max might be right, though, when he says the Dems just need more scaring. Maybe another Nader run in 2004 could do the trick. In the popular memory, Bush won in 2000 because of the Supreme Court, not because of Nader, who was quickly forgotten in the Florida chad-war. Maybe that was just a fluke and future Nader runs will better concentrate Democrat minds.
The argument I hate, though, is the one that says you can't blame Nader for Bush's victory. Of course you can blame him. People are responsible for the consequences of their actions. When Nader decided to run, he knew that putting his name on the ballot would - for whatever reasons - induce a certain number of people who might have voted for Gore to vote for him instead. That made it more likely that Bush would win. If Nader hadn't run, Gore almost certainly would be president. If Gore had gotten the votes of only a tiny percentage of Florida Nader voters, he would have won Florida. Again, it's possible throwing the election to Bush will, in retrospect, years from now, turn out to have done some good. But if the opposite turns out to be the case, then we Nader supporters have to accept some part of the responsibility. At the same time, the Democrats have to accept responsibility for driving so many people into the arms of Nader.
Seth