>> The reason for this bizarre change of mind is simple: after the Bush
>> "selection," Moore completely bought into the Democratic lie that
>> "Nader elected Bush" (which is, of course, logically inconsistent
>> with Moore's position that the election was stolen by Bush).
>> Consequently, he has put as much distance between himself and Ralph
>> as possible. He has even suggested that he only campaigned for Nader
>> as some kind of personal favor. And ever since, he's been busy
>> getting in touch with his Inner Democrat.
>
> That's not necessarily the mechanism. In 2000, I thought Bush was
> pretty much like his father, and that the differences between that
> sort of Republican and Gore, while greater than zero, weren't great
> enough to miss the opportunity to try to build an independent
> party/movement. Two things happened - W turned out to be much much
> worse, and the party/movement-building never came to pass. I don't
> believe Nader's the reason Gore "lost" (though of course he won); the
> election was Gore's to lose, and he did because of his own weaknesses.
> But you can still reject the "not a dime's worth of difference"
> analysis in 2004 without getting in touch with your inner Democrat.
Also, of course, "Nader elected Bush" is not at all inconsistent with "Bush stole the election." Two things happened: Nader took some electoral college votes from Gore, thereby making the election turn on the Florida vote, which (Jeb) Bush stole.
(Actually, a third thing also happened: Gore ran a pretty bad campaign.)
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Had I been present at the Creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe. -- Attr. to Alfonso the Wise, King of Castile