> Now, I'd gag if Lieberman got the nomination, but I'd still vote for him
> against Bush, since the difference is still yawning. Lieberman opposed the
> Homeland Security bill in a major defense of federal labor unions. He voted
> against Bush's tax plan. He has a 100% NAACP rating and is rated highly by a
> lot of other liberal groups. Yes, he sucks on foreign policy, and maybe
> that's why people would not vote for him, but the other differences are so
> large I'm still trying to figure out why he gets singled out, such that it
> would be okay to elect Bush as long as Lieberman didn't get the Presidency?
I'm sure that the Bush camp is praying for Lieberman to be their candidate. Since Lieberman is a Republican in Democratic clothes, there will be enough people who will vote for the incumbent Republican or just not vote at all, to put Bush back in the White House.
I think it would be really funny if Nader ran again, because it would piss off the people who continue to push the canard that there is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
Remember the last time the Left was presented with the "Anybody but Bush" campaign? We got eight years of Bill Clinton.
<< Chuck0 >>
Homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/ Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Monumental Mistake (blog)-> http://chuck.mahost.org/weblog/index.php Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Infoshop Portal -> http://portal.infoshop.org/ Infoshop Science -> http://science.infoshop.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty
"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees."
-- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)