>FWIW, and without withdrawing any of my arguments
>re: Nader, third parties, and the Dems, I think it must
>be acknowledged that so far there is little to show for
>the effort. Nader has some kind of organization, exactly
>what I couldn't say, and his message has spread to
>good effect, but what I would call noteworthy returns
>have yet to be registered.
>
>But Rome wasn't sacked in a day, was it?
>
>mbs
>"Bring the pain."
DC watchers, what do you make of the impending passage of campaign finance reform?
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/06/politics/06DONA.html "House Speaker Schedules Vote Next Week on Campaign Finance Overhaul By ADAM CLYMER and ALISON MITCHELL WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 — Speaker J. Dennis Hastert announced today that the House would vote next week on a long-stalled bill that would amount to the broadest campaign finance legislation since the Watergate era. [clip]"
Perhaps Naders presidential campaign had some positive effect on the push for reform? At first glance it looks like the Dems will be hurt by this since Repugs receive much more in legal, "hard" contributions. What do people think? The Prez says he won't veto it. Good for the Dems and the few Repugs who are going along with it. Perhaps it will weaken the duopoly and pave the way for better politicians.
pkk "Did it for the nookie."