On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 at 10:35am Nathan Newman wrote:
> Either the Greens justify long-term political gains from
> throwing the election to Bush or they aren't making
> serious arguments. Since the only power of third
> parties is the threat to play spoiler, they have to
> justify the gains from pulling the trigger on that
> threat, as Nader did in 2000.
-but this is a completely disingenuous argument on your part, -as you claimed the other day that the greens were already a -failure because of the fact that they haven't made -'significant' inroads yet.
How are those incompatible. I think the failure to make inroads shows that the longterm gains from Nader's run can't justify his spoiler role. And if Greens can't explain why the sum total legislative product of over a decade of organizing is One (1) (Uno) state legislative seat in Maine, why should I take them seriously?
I'll point out tons of legislative results from supporting progressive Dems.
>i'm not surprised you clipped the rest of my post as i
>think you are intelligent enough to realize that gore really
>fucked up by shutting up the activists in fla.
Um, excuse me-- I was the person who won money on this list predicting that Gore was such a bad candidate he would fuck up the election. Just because I think the Greens promote lousy strategy doesn't mean I praised Gore.
Again, the usual intellectual meltdown by third party supporters, throwing out non sequitors, as if other lousy strategic decisions somehow make theirs look smart.
-- Nathan newman