Did I expect 911 and the opportunity for Bush to ram through so much evil shit? No. But I expected it to be bad and I mocked folks hard for saying otherwise. You can't buy absolution by claiming that the anti-Bush folks like myself weren't loud enough in our warnings.
Read this piece I wrote the morning the Supreme Court handed the election to Bush. I had full expectation of the war on immigrants and civil liberties we've experienced. http://www.nathannewman.org/other/JimCrowFive.html "But the disenfranchisement of blacks, latinos and others who are rapidly becoming the new majority in America, is actually the very threat that has driven the GOP to this partisan election theft, from preelection purges of the rolls to the thugs at the Miami-Dade canvassing board to last night's Court decision. The GOP corporate elite sees the coming demographic shift and knows it may very well spell the end of their easy dominance through racial scapegoating."
And from LBO, highlighting the fact that the hard right of the GOP loved Bush and recognized how right wing he was, even if the left deluded itself in thinking otherwise:
http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/0008/0494.html (August 15, 2000) "Probably most important, the GOP folks want to win, from the moderates to the rightwing nuts, while a lot of traditional Dem voters aren't as convinced the election will matter. So GOP turnout and activism will probably be more successful or at least successful enough. Gore and Clinton are to blame for stupid trade policies that alienated the base but that lack of activism will be the reality that will probably put W in office in the fall.. . .So we'll have a chance to see if the Left does better with a GOP President in office so we can concentrate our opposition. Hope it works as well as folks predict."
http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/0008/0507.html (August 15, 2000) "It is not Nader's vote totals but the attitude of "it doesn't matter who wins" that he represents that will help move the election to Bush. Buchanan has collapsed not because he has alienated the Perotistas but because the hard-right of the GOP is incredibly jazzed about taking the Presidency and taking over the agencies and the courts. So they have no time for third party games since they are out russling up votes for W. "
http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/0009/1354.html (September 26, 2000) "Ehrenreich could be right that Gore would be worse than Bush for progressive organizations, but just because progressive organizations may thrive under reactionary conditions does not mean that the people we are supposed to help will thrive. It is actually easier for progressive organizations to do fundraising when they are losing big-time than when they are making marginal gains. I remember that in the height of the Reagan recession, all the progressive door-to-door canvasses did very well, because they could hire so many cheap progressive students because the job market was so bad. But inducing reactionary politics and suffering for average folks just to strengthen the progressive opposition organizations is not a particularly attractive strategy."
http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/0010/1918.html (October 25, 2000) "And if Nader does throw the election to Bush, the backlash against the Greens and any third party efforts will probably surprise the advocates. Every bad ruling by Bush's Labor Relations Board will be blamed on Nader and the Greens; similarly with any bad court rulings. In a sense, Nader and the Greens will become an excuse to blame the Left rather than Gore for the election loss. Those who think a Nader "spoiler" role will be an argument for the Dems moving left will be sorely mistaken. DLC types in the party will actually be able to use the Nader campaign as a handy scapegoat. And a heck of a lot of unionists, environmentalists and womens groups will join in the attack. My guess is that such a Nader success will probably kill any potential union support for the Greens or other third party efforts in a lot of areas."