>From: Brian Siano <siano at mail.med.upenn.edu>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Anybody But Bush?
>Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:40:56 -0500
>
>mike larkin wrote:
>
>>I think Cockburn is right that it was Nader who put a spark under Gore and
>>made him competitive in 2000. But Nader should have dropped out in the
>>last two weeks when it became obvious how close it was. There was this
>>idea then that the temporary "creative destruction" of a Bush victory
>>would help progressives over the long term. That was a catastrophic
>>mis-judgement. Most likely the changes of the last few years are
>>irreversible.
>
>I disagree, but mainly on an issue of principle. Let's say that Nader did
>drop out just before the election, and even offered his support to Gore in
>order to derail Bush. I'm not certain that's the kind of statement we'd
>want to hear. For one thing, it'd kill any effort at cultivating a Third
>Party for the liberal-left: if even _Ralph Nader_ turns tail at the last
>moment, well, it'd just convince more people that third parties are not
>viable in and of themselves, but only as some weird tactic developed to
>nudge and lobby the two mainstream parties.
>
>For another, it'd reinforce the idea that progressives have nowhere to go
>_but_ the Democratic party. The DLC'ers have already decided that they
>really don't have to reach out to the leftish end of their constuency-- and
>if Nader had dropped out, all he'd have done was prove them right.
>
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
_________________________________________________________________ Compare high-speed Internet plans, starting at $26.95. https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)