How Many Dimes Worth of Difference Were You Wanting Again?
I don't like to rub people's noses in their mistakes, but I was thinking the other day that it might be nice if folks who supported Nader in '00 would admit that they were wrong about the amount of difference between Bush and Gore.
That is all.
I don't like to rub people's noses in their mistakes, but I was thinking the other day that it might be nice if folks who supported Nader in '00 would admit that they were wrong about the amount of difference between Bush and Gore.
That is all.
posted by Winston Smith at
10:21 PM
6 Comments:
My four-word answer: Vice President Joe Lieberman
Well, I voted for Nader in 2000 and I'm prefectly willing to admit that Gore would have governed in a radically different (and almost certainly preferable) way to Bush, but I also contend that the astounding amount of horrible shit (above and beyond the usual amount of horrible shit any U.S. president commits), that Bush has gotten away with have all been in the context of September 11th. 9/11 really was a Reichstag fire for the extreme right wingers who would never have been able to make the gains they have in a political environment not radically tainted by the terror attacks. Were it not for 9/11, the difference between a Gore presidency and a Bush presidency (probably doomed by the Enron scandal in a world w/o 9-11: Enron would have been the biggest news story going in the abscence of the "war on terror" and as such, Bush's incredibly tight connection to Enron would have actually gotten significant public airing) would have been more than a dime, but less than a dollar's worth.
David,
Four other words: Vice President Dick Cheney...
Four more: The Federal Marriage Amendment...
Matthew,
It's an interesting point, but Bush showed his true colors before 9/11. He was extraordinarily divisive well before then. Also, one of the factors you've got to take into account in voting is how the candidate is likely to act in a crisis. It's not hard to see that we'd be about 100 times better off with a president Gore than we've been with Dubya...and Gore'd undoubtedly be better than Nader as well, post-9/11.
Jeez, guys, you really should just concede this point. The Naderites messed up bad in 2000. I guess I can understand Nader supporters who voted for him because they refuse to compromise politically and are just too far to the left of Gore. But I can't understand someone who's still willing to assert that there's no significant difference between the two men.
Hell, that THAT was false because apparent during the recount debacle...
Hell, I'll pony up if no-one else will: I voted for Nader in 2000 on a "meh, Bush can't screw things up too badly, might as well try to strengthen a progressive third party" rationale, and oh sweet jesus do I regret it as one of the stupider moves of my life (and I voted in New Hampshire, no less, where if a third of Nader voters had gone for Gore, it wouldn't have mattered which way Florida went). Mea maxima culpa.
Nader said of George W. Bush, “Let’s not turn this guy into a Genghis Khan. First of all he doesn’t know much, second of all he’s lazy, and third he avoids conflict. Those are all assets.”
Two out of three right on the attributes, but completely wrong on the characterization and implication. They are not assets, and they did not lead to a disinclination to invade other countries.
God-dang good for you Mike! Not for voting for Nader, of course, but for having the vertebral fortitude to admit it was a mistake.
Heck, everybody makes mistakes and blah blah blah... And heck, maybe Nader would even have made a good president... I'm just astounded at people who are still willing to cling pathetically to the line that there was no big difference between the two candidates.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home