R
At 01:37 PM 11/16/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Ronnie Dugger is way premature to be saying this stuff. He is not using
>the leverage Nader gave for pushing the Dems to a more progressive agenda.
>I mean, wasn't that one reason the liberals justified a vote for
>Nader? He is giving away the store instead of heading to the bargaining table.
>marta
>
>
>
>>Ronnie Dugger, who presented Nader to the 1996 and 2000 Green conventions,
>>has rejected any Nader run in 2004 and agrees that it is absurb for Greens
>>to continue to deny their role in putting Bush in office. He states the
>>case for Greens reuniting with other progressives in a primary fight in the
>>2004 Democratic Presidential primary:
>>
>>http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021202&s=dugger (excerpts below)
>>
>>"We, the Nader people, certainly put Bush close enough electorally for the
>>Supreme Court to seize the presidency for him. Gore "lost" because of many
>>factors--including his own empty campaign--but the fact that an event has a
>>multiplicity of causes does not dissolve any of those causes or absolve any
>>group of players of their responsibility. National exit-poll data published
>>the day after the election suggested that Nader's candidacy cost Gore about
>>three-quarters of a million votes, but even exit polls that Nader himself
>>cites indicate that arguably we Nader voters made it possible for Bush to
>>win New Hampshire's four electoral votes (remember, Bush "won" by just four)
>>and clearly converted a Gore victory in Florida, with its decisive
>>twenty-five electoral votes, into the mesmerizing seesaw that the Supreme
>>Court stopped when Bush was allegedly up on Gore by 537 votes. It is very
>>clear--who can persuasively deny it?--that the more votes Nader gets in
>>2004, the likelier it is that Nader and his supporters will elect Bush.
>>
>>...To beat Bush, the question we must decide now is not what candidate to
>>run but what vehicle we can use to win the presidency in 2004. It cannot be
>>the Green Party. "