From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #318 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, November 8 2000 Volume 09 : Number 318 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: interesting [Eb ] Re: what a country [GSS ] Re: what a country [The Great Quail ] Re: what a country [hbrandt ] Re: what a country [Christopher Gross ] Re: what a country [Eric Loehr ] Re: what a country [dmw ] Re: What a country [Michael Wolfe ] Re: what a country [The Great Quail ] hello from the old country (third party call) [Jim Davies ] Re: what a country [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: hello from the old country (third party call) [Eclipse ] Re: what a country [Christopher Gross ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:08:02 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: interesting >http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/08/ballotbox.found/ Never mind...it didn't contain marked ballots, after all. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:19:04 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: what a country On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, The Great Quail wrote: > But this is a bitter, bitter time. I keep thinking of the line from > the Bowie/Belew song, "Pretty Pink Rose" -- "The left wing's broken, > the right's insane." But at least the Right didn't throw away their > vote on Buchanan. Instead they threw it away on Bush, as did the Dems on Gore. I think the vocal minority has a damn good reason to be pissed at both the sorry ass Democrats and the piece of shit Republicans. They are the ones who have been running this country. They are still the ones who will be running this country and nothing has fucking changed. We still have lifetime politicians and lifetime pigs. Smoking a joint can get you thrown in jail, while drinking a half gallon of whiskey is ok. We still have the death penalty and we still have closed borders. We sentance rapists and child molesters to probation and we put people in prison for a decade for simple possession of a controlled substance. Should I continue? Well, lets just thank the Democrats and the Republicans. Did I say thank, I meant FUCK. gss ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:37:08 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: what a country Cappy: >> --The Great "Bring me the head of Ralph Nader and a couple of Cokes" Quail > >I really think you should reconsider that. It's a rather shallow >assessment of the situation. All right then, - --The Great "Bring me the head of Ralph Nader and a couple of Pepsis" Quail PS: This was a soft-drink post, not a political post. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 13:44:35 -0700 From: hbrandt Subject: Re: what a country > Thank you, > Mr. Nader, for a new Republican regime. All the good you have ever > done has been pretty much swept away. >at least the Right didn't throw away their > vote on Buchanan. > > --The Great "Bring me the head of Ralph Nader and a couple of Cokes" Quail I voted for Nader because Colorado tends to vote Republican and I guessed (correctly) that Nader wouldn't be a spoiler in this state. I wanted to help let a third party candidiate have a voice in the future; I was furious that Nader was shut out of the debates. I "voted my conscience". I knew it was a lost cause and prayed I wasn't helping to elect W. I had hoped for a Gore win nationally with Nader receiving his coveted 5%, and as I said, I felt safe doing that here in Colorado. I still despise Bush/Gore the two-headed hydra, but, alas, the worst-case scenario has happened. Nader spoiled Florida; Bush wins, even though the popular vote goes to Gore. This makes me sick and I now see the folly of the Nader campaign with 20/20 hindsight. Obviously, America is not embracing a third party. We can also forget debating the controversial "butterfly ballots" that the stupid hole-punching seniors in Palm Springs couldn't navigate (why are we still punching holes in this tech era? And who designed that fucking ballot?!) It's going to be President Dubya. Nader should've pulled out (ala McCain) and looked to the future. Goddammit. Ultimately, though, the real problem is the Electoral College. We don't need elitists casting votes that don't reflect the actual will of the people as we'll see in this election. It's not the year 1800; minorities and women can now vote and we are clearly saturated with easily accessible information on the issues/candidiates. I realize that altering the constitution is difficult, and nothing was done after the tight 1960 or 1976 elections, but NOW is the time to eliminate the Electoral College. And, of course, we need campaign finance reform. And, while we're at it, let's dismantle the FCC and give the airwaves back to the people. My $.02. /hal, who is glad that my vote counted for something in this state: the medical marijuana amendment passed; gunshow background checks passed (I live in Littleton); requirements for consent to abortion failed! np- PJ Harvey's latest. I like it and think her new mature "look" is sexy as hell. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 16:03:23 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: what a country Some half-assed thoughts of my own: On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Viv Lyon wrote: > I > know how this will be spun, and that makes me even more likely to get an > ulcer. If Gore eventually wins, the Democrats will say, "Good! We didn't > need those radical lefties anyway!" If Gore eventually loses, the > Democrats will say "Fuck those degenerate selfish radicals! We can't > trust 'em, don't want to work with them, they can go to hell." Well, this part is obvious. What else would you expect them to say? The Greens were competing as hard as they could *against* the Democrats! If Gore wins, it will be in spite of Nader, so obviously Democrats will not have needed the Naderites. If Gore loses (more likely, but not definite yet), it will arguably be because Nader ran against him. (47% of Nader voters polled [NOT "30-40%"] say they would have voted for Gore otherwise; 47% of Nader's vote in Florida would be more than enough to put Gore over the top. Hell, even 25% of Nader's Florida vote would do it.) In this case, Democrats are naturally going to feel that Nader and the Greens stabbed them in the back, probably leading to a certain amount of bitterness. No surprise here! Who expects the Democrats to say "Well, Green supporters condemned us as irredeemably corrupt, claimed there was no difference between us and the GOP, fought us tooth and nail, and lured away just enough of our votes to put Bush in the White House. Boy, I can't wait to cooperate closely with them!" In my humble opinion, Nader's whole campaign was a BIG mistake. I respected him personally more than any other candidate, but in the last year I've really lost a lot of that respect because he really screwed it up in this race. No matter what happened, he was doomed to weaken his own causes. Take it for granted that he couldn't actually win the Presidency. What other possible outcomes were there? He could have failed to reach the magic 5% while still getting enough votes to hand Bush the victory ... thus guaranteeing us at least one term of Bushite hostility to environmental protection, corporate regulation, and so on. Or he could have failed to either get 5% or change the course of the election ... thus making all of his causes look like fringe issues with no mass support. Or, all his dreams could have come true and he could have won enough to make the Greens a major party ... thus permanently dividing the liberal and progressive vote between two parties while the right remains united behind the Republicans. Where was the good scenario? Where? What on EARTH was Ralph thinking? ... Admittedly, his actions made a bit more sense given his point of view that there is no real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. (Without going into this once again, I'll just say that I think he is wrong there.) But still.... Even IF the Democrats are no different from the Republicans, Nader should have known full well that almost all liberals and most leftists currently vote for the Democrats, and no matter how well he did, he couldn't win all of those votes. How much more sensible it would have been to try to work WITHIN the Democratic party! He who hoped to energize a third party could certainly have energized a faction within one of the big two. Sure, if you think the party is hopelessly corrupt, this will seem prohibitively difficult. But "prohibitively difficult" is still better than "guaranteed right-wing victory," which is what splitting the vote will get us. And if Gore won a narrow victory, Nader could have claimed credit! His influence would have skyrocketed overnight. As it is, he has probably LOST a lot of his national influence. On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Capuchin wrote: > And I still say Gore and Bush would have enacted the exact same policies > and just lied about which parts were intended and which parts are > compromise. And I still say you're wrong. We'll never know for sure. (Though in my more bitter moments today I've pictured Florida Green voters rocking back and forth, clutching their teddy bears and mumbling "Gore would have done the same, Gore would have done the same" as air quality standards are rolled back, corporate liability awards are limited to fifty bucks, and the oil derricks start to go up in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge....) > They are men of compromise, just like you. And that makes > their morals impossible to pin down and their values impossible to > measure. Compromise is NECESSARY in a democracy. There are only two groups of people who can honestly foreswear compromise: those accepting that they will probably accomplish nothing, and those hoping to become dictators. On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, dmw wrote: > look, blame nader all you want, but at 3pm i show: > > buchanan: 438,655 > brown: 376,248 > hagelin: 87,915 > phillips: 101,199 > harris: 21,077 > > if any of them were on the ballot (or written-in in signficant numbers) in > florida or any of the other closely contested states, votes for them > could've changed the outcome as much as votes for nader. In theory this is true. In practice, Nader got far more votes than any of these guys -- 2,655,233, according to the Post -- so he's far more likely to have been the deciding factor. Finally, an article relevant to our Nixon discussion a few weeks ago: http://Slate.msn.com/HistoryLesson/00-10-16/HistoryLesson.asp - --Chris ps: In a race this close, I think we can definitely say that if Gore wins, it will be because I wore my lucky frog-print boxers to vote. ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 16:23:32 -0500 From: Eric Loehr Subject: Re: what a country among Christopher Gross' full-assed thoughts: >ps: In a race this close, I think we can definitely say that if Gore wins, >it will be because I wore my lucky frog-print boxers to vote. Easily the most astute politcial observation of the last several weeks. If I'd been drinking Coke (the pepsi, not being worth drinking, would just have been poured over Ralph's head) I'd have spit it all over the PC. Eric ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:48:46 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: what a country On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Christopher Gross wrote: > On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, dmw wrote: > > > look, blame nader all you want, but at 3pm i show: > > > > buchanan: 438,655 > > brown: 376,248 > > hagelin: 87,915 > > phillips: 101,199 > > harris: 21,077 > > > > if any of them were on the ballot (or written-in in signficant > numbers) in > > florida or any of the other closely contested states, votes for them > > could've changed the outcome as much as votes for nader. > > In theory this is true. In practice, Nader got far more votes than any of > these guys -- 2,655,233, according to the Post -- so he's far more likely > to have been the deciding factor. no, this is true in practice! i started modelling this based on some broad assumptions, but i just found hard data for florida on CNN's website (pre-recount): bush: 2909175 gore: 2907437 nader: 96837 brown: 18856 buchanan: 17356 phillips: 4280 hagelin: 2287 in palm beach county alone, buchanan shows 3407 votes, more than enough to tip the balance. in volusia county, both brown and phillips garnered more votes (3211 and 2927 respectively) than nader (2436) nader is not the problem. the fundamental ambivalence of the country, as demonstrated by the dead heat, is the problem. - -- d. - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = guitar pop ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 21:45:30 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: Re: What a country Moaned the Quail: >*deliberately* fuck over the other 48 and hand control over to >the other side, all so they can sit back and feel good about >their infantile desire to forsake the mature reality of >compromise. > >And Ralph Nader thinks this will "wake up" the Democrats? Thank >you, Mr. Nader, for a new Republican regime. All the good you >have ever done has been pretty much swept away. Yep. My question for you, now, Mr. Quail, is, what are you going to do about it? What actions will you, *personally* take? I'm intensely curious. Are you just going to sit back and let all that good get "swept away?" Are you going to just sit back and piss and moan because now you don't have any excuse for complacency? If so, you got exactly the president you deserved, whoever ends up taking Florida. If there's something to be learned from Ralph's candidacy, it's that the entirety of US politics can be diverted by one person, without the backing of a major political party, without the backing of any major corporations. One person, Quail. What are you going to do to make a difference? - -Michael Wolfe ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 17:06:53 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: what a country If this may be considered a reply, and not a new post, maybe I can make this without sounding too much like I am breaking my word already.... (Aha! The Greens think, just like Al Gore!) And also, I am sorry if my last email was harsh and insulting. I have been very very angry about this election, and it's been hard to keep a cool head. Please forgive me if I crossed the line and offered personal insult to anyone -- and really, if you voted for Nader and would have positively not voted for Gore, then I really can't blame you for anything. Though I still don't see how any liberally can truly not see any significant difference between Gore and Bush; but that is another issue. Cappy, >You think the Dems are going to be upset at Gore? I think so, too. Yes, of course, but really Jeme -- I think you are totally underestimating the amount of anger Dems like me are feeling towards Nader. I have been getting some pretty angry responses from other Dem friends. The generally feeling is that he should be dropped into a vat of quick-drying cement. >Well, at least they should be. You are right -- he ran a poor campaign. There is no doubt about that. If he were stronger, he would have taken more Bush votes. My post was a response to Vivien's letter, not a total analysis of why Gore will probably lose. That has a lot to do with Gore's campaign mistakes, the media's coverage, and the very disillusionment that dmw touched upon. But according to most exit polls, Nader is an undeniably a factor in his loss. >I, for one, could not vote for Gore. Then you might have not voted, or voted for Buchanan. Fine. You are in the smaller percentage of Nader voters, according to the CNN exit polling of critical states. >He supports war and corporate >control. Colombia, Kosovo, Iraq, WTO, IMF, & WIPO. Those are the only >important issues. Roe v. Wade and affirmative action are band-aids for a >society with no respect for individuals. Oh, give me a break. That's just insulting, and a very easy thing to say for a fairly affluent, WASP heterosexual male living in Oregon. >Gore does not represent the >opposite of this. Though I disagree with you on the abortion, affirmative action, and Colombia issues, you may be right on the others, because -- and this seems to be the hard thing for you guys to grasp -- there will be no second American revolution any time soon. Most people don't even know what WIPO stands for, and they actually *support* sanctions against Iraq. This is a large, heterogeneous, prosperous society and they vote like one. In the absence of a revolutionary overthrow, changes must be made one step at a time, which is why I will vote Democratic - -- I understand compromise. Watch what happens in the next four years. None of your lofty goals will be realized, while even your "band aids," as you so insultingly call the right to choice, will be under even more erosion than they would be under the Dems. But you've heard all this before -- and I can accept that you have different priorities. I only wish you Naderites wouldn't be so sanctimonious about it. >I'd vote for Buchanan over Bush or Gore for exactly >these reasons. At least he work toward resolution of the global >problems. We could fix the domestic problems he created later. You would have really voted for Buchanan? Well, what can I say? I think that's just.... wow, I don't know. Your voting priorities are very different from mine. >You said that we don't see right wing Christians voting for Buchanan at >the expense of Bush's candidacy. That says to me that you don't >understand the situation. Thank you for enlightening me again and pointing out my intellectual deficiencies; though I confess I am not sure how we disagree. The fact is, the Christian Right *did* support Bush -- for the most part, Republicans know how to hang together as a party. They are too canny to really defect to Buchanan. Again, I am looking at the bottom line, the reality of the situation. >The Democrats DO need to "wake up". But not to the idea that the world is >more left than they are, Two things: What part of the world would that be? China? France? Sweden? Russia? Iran? You seem to imply the world as a whole is generally more left than America, which is untenable. So I'll assume you mean Europe, Canada, and parts of Latin America. OK, fine, but that's still not the question, is it? The question should be, is AMERICA more to the left than this? And I think the answer is no. I think you Oregon people should spend some time in Central PA or Missouri. I think you consistently underestimate the right-leaning feelings of white middle-class Americans. More below.... >but that they have to have platforms beside >"protect this" and "maintain that" in order to succeed. Sustainability is >a red herring. We need fecundity. I would agree with you in principle.... Though I would not dismiss "sustainability" as cavalierly as that. >There is no DIRECTION for the >Democratic party. They only serve to anchor us to the now and prevent >"backsliding" by the Christian Right. I think you are mistaken. Again, like a broken record, I say, America *likes* itself right now, dead Iraqis, corporate control, Coke & Pepsi and all. The sad fact is the average American is NOT going to be a Green any time soon, and the Democratic party is always in danger of moving more rightwards to MATCH the public! Jesus, they move any more to the side of even a McGovern, they will lose even more votes. Jeme, HALF of America didn't even vote! But that may be generally apathy and contentment -- I think this election again proves that there is no sleeping Green giant waiting the call to rouse itself. But of course, you'll just blame the media, and the restricted debates, and general public ignorance, and of course, people like me who are afraid to vote for a third-party candidate. Part of this may be true, but certainly not to the idealistic extent that the Naderites carried out their mission. >That's extraordinarily harsh and untenable. Bush isn't going to disband >OSHA, PIRG, or auto safety. And those things will have done more good in >the long run than any damage you imagine Bush capable of incurring. Well, I agree with you on the first part -- It was harsh and untenable. I am very angry. Believe it or not, I used to like Nader. I have a lot of disillusionment here, too. I think he just acted irresponsibly, serving only to harm the one group that he needed most to cooperate with -- the Democratic left. Rather than staying in the party as a gadfly or staying outside as an agitator, he ran a short-sighted campaign that only served to alienate moderate Democrats and seriously harm the left wing.As I recently told one impassioned Nader supporter, your heart may be in the right place -- but stubbornly sabotaging the Democrats' chance to maintain the Presidency is a self-destructive act. It is a spoiler, nothing more, and in the long run -- hell, the short run -- has served to alienate the very people you need most for bigger support -- people who are already Democrats. I know I sound cynical and jaded, but I see absolutely no evidence the world is going to conform to what I want it to be in my heart -- therefore I try to nudge it along one step at a time. >And I still say Gore and Bush would have enacted the exact same policies >and just lied about which parts were intended and which parts are >compromise. They are men of compromise, just like you. And that makes >their morals impossible to pin down and their values impossible to >measure. Please, the personal insult isn't even thinly veiled. You do realize that compromise does not mean moral relativity, don't you? Nor does it mean lying or dissembling? I mean, I would LOVE to end the drug war, but I am not voting for Nader for that reason. Instead, understanding that change comes in small increments, I voted for Gore, who I think will be better than Bush. But in your book, I am a bad guy, merely because I understand not everyone agrees with me, and you need to work together for solutions. That's part of what Democracy is all about. >Actually, I was a bit worried about this, so I'm glad to see it in print >(even if you have to make a realistic compromise about it later). Well, politics never gets in the way of friendship. I know that my post was harsh, and insulting to Naderites, so I can take a little insult upon myself -- I deserve it. But in the end, I only care about how people treat me and my friends, not who they vote for or what god they bow to. >Last I saw, about 30-40% of Nader supporters would have voted for Gore. Yes, I say that stat too -- coming from Nader's office, or so I was told. CNN tells a different story, and it varies across the states, especially in Florida, where Nader really threw a spanner into the works. I find it funny that Naderites seem so willing to mistrust and bash everything not-Nader, and always so willing to forgive, excuse and swallow anything Nadery. >>From the looks of the actual returns, they probably did exactly >that. I think that (if the returns are accurate, which I have serious >cause to doubt) the few points that Nader did get were people who wouldn't >vote for Gore no matter what else was at stake... like me. If that helps you sleep at night through the next couple of Republican years, so be it. And from what I understand, a lot of you NaderFegs really are one issue voters -- the all-mighty Evil of Corporations. I can tell you, I think this whole election is fucked, and like doug says, please let this be the end of the Electoral College. It certainly has made my mind up on that! - --Q ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 22:16:52 GMT From: Jim Davies Subject: hello from the old country (third party call) Fegs, We've had third and fourth party politics for some time, and the whole issue of tactical voting is rather old, if still unresolved. For me, Quail comments notwithstanding (hey! evolve! new genes!) it's s-s-s-simple. Prisoner's dilemma on one iteration, people get memory. Game Theory. With one round. You vote for what you most believe in. Unless there's a big, big difference between the greater and the lesser evil. Of the likely mass alternatives. And, f=me2, from outside yr loud family, if you had to believe in something, it couldn't be Gore. And it couldn't be Bush unless you were cynical to the point of undiluted evil. Or - like 99% of the statistically dull - just plain ignorant. But you guys do that better than we ever could :*~ And we get pure uncut Murdoch - you just get his taxes. So only a ignorant, blustering, moron would slag someone off for voting Nader. You might disagree, but to assume you have the future on your side - in such a circumstance - would be just plain dumb. Right or wrong, you'll never be more than plain, plain dumb. Viv. Jeme. If it's Bush. How about moving over here? For a week, at least? ... Robyn on the 17th and 18th? I know, I know. xoyoxxx Jim p.s. spot the Scott Miller connection - which song am I thinking of? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 17:17:52 -0500 From: Ben Subject: Re: bayard is back, and there's gonna be some trouble... > Did anyone post anything about the two shows at the Middle East (Boston)? > that was about when i left for Panama... spiffing country by the way! > Travelogue and pics to come, via web page.... > > =b While you were gone we banned all discussion of Robyn Hitchcock in favor of a purely political content for the list. P.S. apparantly there's some kind of close call in an election somewhere.... :-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:42:11 -0700 From: Eb Subject: too little, too late Gore already has cut Bush's lead by 34 votes, via the recount in progress. Whoopee. :( Is anyone even bothering to declare a winner in the Oregon election? Returns point toward Bush, but you'd never know from watching the news.... Eb, wondering if this list will still be around in a decade or so, when Hillary decides to run for President ;) np: Mouse on Mars/Instrumentals ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 11:52:31 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: what a country >if we finally dismantle the electoral college as a result of this mess, >i'd have to say it's about a wash. It took just this sort of mess to change things here in NZ. A few years back the seats in the house were split between three parties: (from memory) 49-48-2. Serious talk abut changing the voting system occurred not long afterwards. James ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:04:04 -0800 (PST) From: Eclipse Subject: Re: hello from the old country (third party call) > Viv. Jeme. If it's Bush. How about moving over here? For a > week, at least? ... Robyn on the 17th and 18th? I know, I know. whoa, this list is still about Robyn? - - Eclipse ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 18:06:08 -0500 From: drop the holupki Subject: Re: too little, too late when we last left our heroes, Eb exclaimed: >Eb, wondering if this list will still be around in a decade or so, when >Hillary decides to run for President ;) well, feg's been around since autumn 1990, so i think we can weather another decade. one way or another. woj ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 18:24:13 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: what a country On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, dmw wrote: > no, this is true in practice! i started modelling this based on some > broad assumptions, but i just found hard data for florida on CNN's website > (pre-recount): > > bush: 2909175 > gore: 2907437 > nader: 96837 > brown: 18856 > buchanan: 17356 > phillips: 4280 > hagelin: 2287 > > in palm beach county alone, buchanan shows 3407 votes, more than enough to > tip the balance. in volusia county, both brown and phillips garnered more > votes (3211 and 2927 respectively) than nader (2436) Well, I dunno. It works arithmetically, but it still sounds unlikely to me.... Assuming these numbers are correct, in Florida Gore trailed Bush by 1738 votes. Therefore we could say that a third-party candidate decided the election if he lured away 1739 or more votes that would otherwise have gone to Gore. I could easily imagine at least 1739 of Nader's voters -- only about two percent -- voting for Gore. But it's much harder to imagine that ten percent of Buchanan or Brown's voters were lured away from the Gore camp; Libertarians and Buchananites, especially the latter, generally seem to be consistent, committed foes of the Democrats. And that goes even more so for Phillips voters. I doubt even a dozen of them, let alone 1739 out of 4280, would ever have considered voting for Gore. Now, Hagelin and his 2287, maybe. Maybe. But I'm still pretty sure that if any one candidate shifted enough votes to swing Florida from Gore to Bush, it had to be Nader. I think if the non-Nader third party candidates had an important effect, it was only by luring away potential Bush votes, so that Gore came within a hmuh's breadth of winning Florida. Other random thoughts: Did anyone else see Nader on TV last night, being asked what he thought his campaign had succeeded in accomplishing, and replying "Just look at the Democrats in 2002"? AAAARRRGHHH! After months of saying the Democrats were hopelessly corrupt and un-reformable, he takes comfort in possibly making the Democrats a little more Green? That infuriated me! Assuming Bush has won, at least he'll only have tiny Republican majorities in Congress, and many of those Republicans will be fairly moderate. Hopefully this means he won't be able to do anything too extreme, no matter how much the Religious Right begs or threatens. Though I am pissed off at Nader, I still blame Gore's loss primarily on Gore. Aside from the problems in his programs, he just ran a clumsy campaign, and he just isn't an inspiring person. I wonder what would have happened if the Democrats had nominated Bill Bradley instead? Sure, he's as awkward and un-charismatic as Gore, but at least Bradley has more of a reputation for integrity. Maybe that would have made the critical difference? (BTW, when I tried that autmoted political quiz on Salon a few months ago, it said my closest candidate was Bradley, followed by McReynolds the Socialist, with Gore in third place.) Did I say my lucky frog-print boxers? I need more caffeine. Actually I wore my lucky turtle-print boxers to vote, and the frog pair today, for the Florida recount. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #318 *******************************