I know most of us have stopped caring, but today's little piece of idiocy just made me want to scream. I hate self-delusion. He's not blaming his own lack of charisma, he's not blaming the bad decision of pretending Clinton didn't exist, he's not even blaming the Supreme Court or Ralph Nader. No, he's saying he lost the presidency because Bill Clinton got his dick sucked.

Your thoughts?

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Answers

He lost the presidency because Nader ran.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Nader ran against Clinton, too, though, in 1996. There had to be some lack in Al Gore that people didn't feel in Clinton.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Hoolawd, we gonna start this again?

~

Did Gore lose because of Nader? Umm, if you can count and make small easy leaps of logic, you can see that the technical answer is yes, I think.

But whatever, Gore blew it. I doubt we will- hope we won't?- see him in '04.

~

Finally, I wouldn't rely to much on any of the reports about those conversations- I mean, we're only getting "general tenor" reports, and everyone acknowledges that they were the only two in the room.

(unless Bill was sitting at his desk and . . . )

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Yes, I vote for Al. That said, I heard this on the news this morning. It cracked me up. As they say, denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

I believe the Clinton scandal did have an effect on the Gore campaign. The American people were understandably fed up with the whole issue, but mistakenly associated the problem with the Democratic party rather than the individual. Gore tried to hammer across that he stands as his own man. Unfortunately he wasn't convincing enough and personally I think it's pretty sad that he lost to a moron for all the wrong reasons.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Al Gore didn't lose because Nader ran. Nader ran in part for the same reason Al Gore lost: because Al Gore was a fundamentally weak candidate in just about every way imaginable. Politically, ideologically, personally, he was deficient in every category. Nader ran because there was no one else addressing progressive ("liberal", if you must) issues that were once the territory of the Democratic Party.

And I am doubtful that we'll be seeing much of Al in 2004, unless he's doing commentary on Comedy Central...

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

First of all let's not forget Gore didn't actually lose the election, he lost the electoral college vote. So I think the main reasons he is NOT PRESIDENT are:

1. the electoral college system 2. fucked up voting & counting procedures in Florida

The main reasons that the election was close enough for Bush to steal it were:

1. the average American is a lot stupider than we think, and used unbelievably stupid criteria to make up their minds 2. Gore's failure to run on the obvious successes of the Clinton/Gore administration

Clinton's extracurricular Lewinski stuff? A factor, but a small one that Gore should have and could have dealt with a lot better.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Gore did lose cuz of the X-Clinton. But not cuz of the adultery. He lost cuz of X-Clinton's "the era of big government is over." Lost a lot of commie liberal pinkos cuz of that. Nader just happened to represent the eviler of the two evils.

You know, saying he got his dick sucked by a young not too bad looking intern, especially in this male-dominated society, doesn't hold the same negative staining power as saying he was an adulterer. It almost seems like a badge of honor. "Well hell yeah Vern I was worried. She was down there slobberin' and a lickin' like Pooh Bear in a honey pot and I was sure Trent and Newt could tell something was up. Heh. I had to think quick and get 'em focused on something else. Hell, who doya think came up with the "Contract With America"?"

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Cruuuuuudeboy, cut back on your posts- I think you're stretching your wits thin. You used to be amusing.

~

And hate to tell the other poster, but that's how it's worked for quite some time- you lose the electoral college, don't get to be president. I hope this isn't news.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Well, even as canny a political operative as James Carville said that Gore was smart to distance himself from Clinton and not have Clinton make appearances for him because of the Monica thingee. Should he have used Clinton more? Maybe, in retrospect. Certainly, Bush's team WANTED Clinton to appear more, so he could plaster the two of them together in everybody's minds moreso than it was.

If the scandal had never happened, do I think Gore would have won in a landslide? You bet. Don't you? So I think he was actually right. Yet I think Clinton was right too, if Gore had been able to emphasize their record more, he would have won even the electoral college...

Would Clinton running have won? Probably. Yet there was a strong reaction from the "I did not have sex with that woman". Gore had a near-impossible task, of seperating himself from the scandals yet running on the record. And even at that, he did win the popular vote, remember....

Not TOO shabby. Yet like Rob, I don't think he should run again--- he just hasn't the personal touch needed for this sort of job---he'd do better as a Democratic advisor, a Teddy Kennedy type to the party.- --Al of NOVA NOTES

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

Yes, I think Clinton's scandal affected Gore's electability - because it forced him to have to work to run (whereas, had there been no scandal, just being the VP of a successful admin would have been most of the battle), and he blew it. He left fear of any association with Clinton keep himself from playing up what worked in the previous adminstration - which were the key items he had going for himself. Otherwise, so what if he was his 'own man' - without the successes of the job he's held for the last 8 years, what did he have to show for himself, other than a really stiff personality that he kept trying to morph into whatever he thought people wanted to see. There just wasn't much foundation offered during the election for voting for him.

Pandering to votes from people who'd have died before voting Democrat, and in the process losing the votes of people who normally would have, all because he was afraid that the scandal would break him. Clinton didn't lose him the election. Nader didn't lose him the election (by all that's right, he should have won by enough votes that a guy who didn't make his hoped-for 5% shouldn't have been an issue). Fear lost him the election.

I don't like who's there now.. but I wouldn't have liked that sort of weakwilled personality type up there either.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2001

I think Gore lost because of his awful body language. They say Nixon would never have won in the world of portable cameras -- even with the staged photo-ops of the late 1960s, Nixon's awful, stiff and devious self-presentation hurt him.

I'm not making any other comparison between Gore and Nixon. In fact, even Gore's body language is different from Nixon. I don't read Gore as devious, but he sure looked insecure to me. That stiff, bulky unibody look, where his torso followed his eyes, and that awful fake smile, are more suited to a late night ad by the owner of the local used-car lot than a Presidential contender. It screamed "amateur" and "faker," even if that wasn't the reality. I'm not prone to going with my gut, but I had a real hard time voting for him, because he never won my confidence. I trusted him to behave morally and follow the law, but I never felt we would be totally safe in his hands. I might even have voted GOP if the Republicans had offered someone with a serious resume.

Bush had his own problems. Sure, he looked great on camera during the election, but during the month-long recount process, when his face shrunk to half-size and his neck broke out in a boil that looked like a second head, he was a truly scary sight. By then, of course, it was too late for that to hurt him.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

I can't be a continuous source of amusement Curtis. Sometimes I have to mix in a little wisdom. Thanks for the advice. You do realize you may have had more of an impact if you'd have been slightly less codger-ly. You know, the old, "If you're gonna tell people the truth you better be funny.", angle. Maybe something like this would've worked better:

Roses are red, violets are blue, you suck.

I could've repected that Curtis. But keep trying!

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Right. Well, we're still waiting on the wisdom. So until then, keep it to funny.

With you, there is no do- only try.

(see, *that* was wisdom)

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

You boys are so cute when you're pissing all over each other. Do it some more.

Crudeboy: you're right; characterizing Clinton's problem as "dick- sucking" is misleading, but so is characterizing it as "adultery." I thought the issue was perjury, no?

I've never understood why anyone considered Clinton's situation as a broad problem with the Democratic Party as a whole. I'm no fan of the Democrats, but it's easy to see that the best thing for the party would have been for Clinton to say right up front, "Yeah, I had sex with her, so what?" His perjury, had he gotten away with it, would have benefited no one but Bill and Monica. I never understood why it was considered a reason to dislike Al Gore (especially since there are so many other good reasons out there).

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

I think the Pubelickans made way too much of the sex scandal. The impeachment attempt was just silly. They only hit it so hard because they couldn't pin him down on any of the other impeachment worthy scandals. Never fight when you're mad, you usually lose. And they did.

Anyway, my initial point was that Al Gore lost because of the administration's shift to the center. Lots of liberals felt tossed from the Mainstream Express, into a churning sea of political unrest and found themselves clinging to Naderite Greenpeace rafts for dear life.

My second point was that it would have been far more damning to X- Clinton if the sex stories focused on the sinister emotional aspects of matrimonial betrayal and not on his vaginal excavations with rolled tobacco.

Curtis, I reread my first post - did you do the last part in a hoarse Clinton voice? See, Bill Clinton is shootin' the shit with Vernon Jordan on the phone, he's got this confident, smug, "Who's ur daddy?" air about him, telling Vern about Monica sucking him off while the top two Republicans sat in his office and he takes credit for... awww nevermind. You're right. It wasn't that funny.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Beth, I think there are newsgroups for that sort of thing. J. can tell you how to hide what you download. Please don't turn this into 3WA.

~

Clinton's problems are Dems problems because they can't seem to come up with a suitable public face replacement for him- no one's even close. I might would have proposed Zell Miller (good article on him as Clinton's model in The New Republic btw), but he's too old and frankly, pissing me off right now.

I actually like Daschle, but . . . he's just not out there enough.

Another thing- I think there's actually something to this recently highlighted New Democract/Liberal Left split. Which is interesting for me, as I'm firmly split between the two ideological camps. My New Dem side wants to yell at the LL "wake up folks, the game is changing!" and my LL side gives an icy glare back and says "Don't forget your roots, cause the tree ain't grown yet."

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Gore almost assuredly would have won if it weren't for the Clinton/Monica scandal. Thus Gore is correct in saying it cost him the presidency. Why deny it?

I don't agree it was a bad decision to not use Clinton in the campaign. It might have been a bad decision from your perspective, because you could get over it. Many people could not. It's for *them* that Clinton wasn't brought into the campaign. Overall there's no way Clinton was an asset to the campaign. How could a lying, adultering, man-on-his-way-out sway any fence sitters?

Isn't it possible Gore did the best he could have and lost anyway? Hmmm. There's a concept.

As for Bush 'stealing' the election, dry your eyes already. He won fair and square.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

I wish non-Americans would stop commentating on our miserable state of governmental affairs.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Please, somebody, whoever you are, pull you're finger from the crack of Mar's ass so she can be jolly again.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Who died and made you moderator? I'm the only one who can order people to take things out of their asses.

Not that I would, of course. I use my power only for good.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

Damb. This bulletien board system definitely has its drawbacks. If I could edit above I woulda said,

"Mar's on a rampage. Quick, somebody pass me the Fabulous Mustard."

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

See, that's better.

Back on topic. Curtis said:

My New Dem side wants to yell at the LL "wake up folks, the game is changing!" and my LL side gives an icy glare back and says "Don't forget your roots, cause the tree ain't grown yet."

I'm feeling some of the same conflict, but I've decided to hold off on selling out to my moderate impulses until I'm old and dead inside.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

I meant to respond to Dave, as well:

I don't agree it was a bad decision to not use Clinton in the campaign. It might have been a bad decision from your perspective, because you could get over it. Many people could not. It's for *them* that Clinton wasn't brought into the campaign. Overall there's no way Clinton was an asset to the campaign. How could a lying, adultering, man-on-his-way-out sway any fence sitters?

Faulty premise, there, Dave. I didn't vote for Gore, and part of the reason I didn't vote for Gore is that I see him as dishonest and slick and spineless. I think there were others who bailed on the Democrats who felt the same way, and I'm not sure we were outnumbered by the moralists who would have associated him with Clinton's indiscretions. For that matter, if you were the sort of person who would turn away from the entire Democratic Party because of Clinton's perjury (or adultery, or abuse of power, or whatever), would you really be likely to be swayed by Gore's very transparent attempts to distance himself? I doubt it.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2001

I'm not sure what premise you're referring to. I only pointed out that your saying, "he's not blaming the bad decision of pretending Clinton didn't exist," shows that you liked Clinton. It was only a bad decision if the majority agree. I, for one, would not have voted for him if he closely aligned himself with Clinton. (Assuming of course that I had a vote. I didn't.)

Anyway, with the presidential race so close you can point at any one of a dozen factors that cost Gore the presidency. The Clinton scandel, Nader, etc. As far as your vote is concerned, you just told us that he lost the election because you "see him as dishonest and slick and spineless." I think this perception was unfairly manufactured by the media. For example, how many out there think Gore claimed he invented the internet? He never said that. Yet you heard it over and over again. "Gore claimed he invented the internet." Not true! click here for one fairly non-partison explanation. I could go on and on about how much Gore has been screwed over in the media. His debate gaffs were entirely of his own making, though, and, as a Gore supporter, I found them infuriating. Given his track record he should have been more careful. I don't think Gore was deliberately 'dishonest' or 'slick', as you say. Geez, you want to talk about 'dishonest' and 'slick', look at ol' Slick Willy. You know, the guy you said Gore shouldn't have distanced himself from so much...

No, if you examine everything that went on during the election Gore was just plain outmaneuvered by the Bush team. When, in their first debate, Bush said, "Not only did (Gore) invent the Internet, but he invented the calculator," why didn't Gore have a ready retort? It's unfathomable that he wasn't ready to defend himself.

Gore played it conservatively and it just didn't work.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2001

If you believe people were turned off by Clinton's sexual relations romp in the White House, I think you are buying into a bit of Democratics spinning. The fact that he could look you in the eye and lie, convincingly no less, was the major fuel that kept the partisan tractor wheels churnin'.

The X-Clinton machine stifled so many Republican attempts at bringing to light impeachment worthy scandals that even Democrats had to know that something wasn't right when papers just happened to mysteriously show up in plain view after months of being missing.

Sure, I'll admit, he was mercilessly badgered by the vast right wing conspiracy, but are there really those who believe that it was the sex and not the totality of the evasion, suppresion and mountain of suggestio falsi in his administration that provoked the impeachment?

Why couldn't the reason Al Gore lost be because he faced a politically worthy GOP candidate? He actually won half of the election, just not the half that sends you to the White House. I think Dems were spoiled by the Clinton/Dole outcome.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2001

I honestly question how anyone can be considered a legitimate "leader" when they have, at best, about a quarter of the population voting for them - and many of those doing it only out of some "lesser of two evils" thing.

It's like if two rival fraternities on a large university campus each chose one of their members as head of the house, then had a vote among the population of the university as to who should lead the student body. Sure, there would be lots of debate within the "greek community", and those who weren't in the community but went to lots of frat parties might get excited about it, but faced with such an irrelevant and closed choice, most students would simply not vote. Would this make them apathetic? No. Would it make Biff Squarejaw the legitimate head of all the students because slightly over half of the fraternity folks voted for him, while about three quarters of the campus did not? No. Then why do we pretend that a quarter of the population finding you the lesser of two evils is "the consent of the governed?"

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2001

a) If you don't vote then you must not care. So your consent is obvious.
b) There were more than two choices.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2001

I get David G.'s point on a sort of poetic level, but I don't think there's been a time where everyone has or will vote for some reason or another. I doubt we'll ever get over 80% of the citizens to the polls at any given election. Therefore, the consent of the governed must fall to those willing to give it.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2001

David, you wonder how GW can be the legitimate president with only 25% of the actual population voting for him, but let me ask you this: By the same reasoning, would Bill Clinton not have been illegitimate? He never recieved more than 50%of the popular vote. Hell, he hardly recieved more than 40% of the popular vote. Taking into account voter turnout numbers, isn't it true that the X-Clinton was put in office by less by a little more than 20% of the US population?

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

I think the constant stream of little lies hurt Gore a lot. The ones about tobaco, elephant grass, inventing EIC, etc. I think a lot of folks, espeically those in Tenneessee and Arkansas (where the lies were recognized the most), just didn't want four more years of an embarressing leader.

And of course Gore owes a lot to G.W. for his stupid attempt to hide his DWI ticket. Had Bush owned up to it during an interview on Fox network while Superbowl 2000 was on the air, he wouldn't have to worry about the SCOFLA casting votes for Gore.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

Yeah, but who cares when you've got five votes from the SCOTUS?

-- Anonymous, February 11, 2001

The thing is, GORE DIDN'T LIE!!! (much :) He never said he invented EITC. If you check the original quote on the bottom of this page, you'll see it reads thus:

[Bradley's proposals were] an old-style approach that spends a lot of money but doesn't have any new ideas. [He proposes] the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. I was the author of that proposal. I wrote that, so I say, welcome aboard. That is something for which I have been the principal proponent for a long time"

(Emphasis mine). As anyone can plainly see, Gore was very obviously saying that he authored "that proposal," that is, the proposal to expand EITC. He never claimed he authored EITC itself.

Some idiot misinterpreted this as Gore claiming to have authored EITC and the press just ran with it. Unbelievable.

-- Anonymous, February 11, 2001

NADER NADER NADER NADER NADER NADER. The tragedy of misplaced idealism killed once again. I suspect that most of the people who voted for Nader were too young to remember Reagan and the damage he caused. Oh well, the campassionate conservaitve, the nominator of Ashcroft, the birth-control czar of Africa will teach the ruddy- cheeked idealists a lesson in what it's like to have a conservative in the most powerful office in the world.

I saw a Re-elect Gore bumpersticker the other day (kind of funny, I thought). Gore may well run again in 2004. Nader, on the other hand, is at the end of his political career. And the Green Party is finished, too, after their role in this fiasco.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Did you hear what Jim Howard said when asked why Bush won the election? Just look above. He wrote:
"a lot of folks ... want four more years of an embarressing leader"

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

I love how idealism has turned into something to be mocked now. It is a sign of the deep cynicism that has soaked into this country. Perhaps a little more idealism in a greater percentage of the population would result in a better choice than we had in the last election.

I also love how Democrats keep berating Nader voters for "screwing thing up" for them by refusing to vote for the Bad Candidate in order to defeat the Really Bad Candidate...

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Especially since (yes, I said it earlier in this thread, but it bears repeating) Nader ran against Clinton, too. And didn't stop him from winning decisively in '96.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Ah, yes- deep cynicism. Deep cynicism is what keeps me from voting for myself as President, from believing that really, the cops have only my best interests in mind, and that hey, I won't ever have to compromise my idealism to get anything accomplished in this world.

Give me a break.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

That's nonsense, Curtis dear.

There is much that can be accomplished without compromising your ideals. You choose which ideals are so important to you that you can deal with compromising them, and you choose which accomplishments are so important to you that you will compromise to have them.

It's choice, not a 'have to'. Which is why people getting outraged by others making a different choice is a big load of crap. There isn't one right answer.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

I meant "...which ideals are so important to you that you can't deal with compromising them...", of course.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Hey, I didn't remember that Nader ran in '96. That's a good point Beth - finally.

I believe idealism, at a grass roots level, exists in the Republican and Democratic parties. It is one of the very reasons "christian right" was ushered onto the GOP bandwagon. If the GOP had not adopted the pro-life agenda into its platform I don't think that its big business anti-union stances would've been quite as successful at swaying a typical blue collar congregation.

I look at political greed myself sometimes and wonder how we are to fit love your neighbor as yourself into it. At least, whether you like it or not, President Bush looks to be advancing the line that his party takes on the issues. Much more than I can say for the "I just want to be re-elected." pollster politics of the X-Clinton. And, I am of the opinion that Al Gore's administration, as far as making changes on fundamental ideals, would've been somewhat similar to President Bush's.

Al Gore is a good guy. I believe, as governer supreme, his heart and mind would have been in the right place. Saddled with the untruth and scandal of the previous administration, I say riding the horse for 7.9 seconds is still an achievment.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

I guess I should mention that the post above was sparked by the sole association of Nader or The Green with idealism. It's just not the case. It has a lot to do with what Lynda B. writes:

"Which is why people getting outraged by others making a different choice is a big load of crap."

Idealism is fundamental to politics. The very act of a party claiming one particular take on the environment, social issues, etc., heavily suggests that another exists.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Lynda, love, let's see that approach in action in any nationally elected office.

I'm not talking about compromising the most fundamental ideals- I don't think you have to do that. But this cutting off your nose to spite your face stuff . . . c'mon.

As you point out, it's about carefully calculating what you're willing to trade for a particular outcome. For the most part, I think the Nader contingent either didn't make an informed calculation, or honestly just made a bad call. Whatever it was, I doubt it made much, if any, positive difference.

For me, Nader had enough negative ideological baggage with him that a vote for him (as an individual) would have been as much, if not more, a wash as a vote for Gore. That left practical outcome.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

When people get bent at Green Party voters for not voting for Al Gore, it feels a little like the Coke v. Pepsi discussion. People don't always enjoy more choices, it's what has given the Republicrats such a nice lock on political power in this country.

Is Bush the devil incarnate? Is stopping him from becoming president and gobbling up all our souls important enough to bully voters with a more progressive/liberal belief system than Gore's to vote for him anyway? It's bullshit. You vote for the candidate who represents your own beliefs. It's that simple, no matter what kind of "woooooo!" scare tactics Gore's supporters try to use.

I don't care how bad you think Bush is going to be. Gore couldn't win the hearts of undecided voters and also stay faithful to his party's traditional members, and he subsequently pissed away what should have been an easy victory. Appealing to centrists and party loyalists isn't impossible; Bush seems to have managed it quite well.

My advice to Gore and his sad sack followers would be to quit crying and finger pointing and start examining where they went wrong. It wasn't a blowjob that did him in.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Again, Curtis sweetypie - running for nationally elected office is a choice - among many paths that might lead to ones ability to accomplish something that matters (it was your 'accomplish anything' generalisation and the idea that you 'have to' anything that I was pinging you on).

You assume everyone's goal was yours, and therefore only see failure in terms of what you regard as failure. I don't think anyone who voted for Nader had even a passing thought that he might become the next president, so obviously that wasn't the goal.

You're welcome to suggest that the goal wasn't worth the trade off.. and for you, probably not. But don't assume that everyone shares your marker for what is worthy of compromise and what isn't. For some people, the Democratic ticket compromised themselves right out of the running by trying to mimic their opposition in order to win.

It didn't work - and perhaps not having worked, they will rethink a few of their strategies before attempting that again in four years. For some of us, that IS a success. Do you really win if what you end up with is your own party becoming the other guys just to get in office - do you really preserve any part of your goals if the person you're voting to represent you is willing to sell it away so his portrait can hang in the hall of Presidents? Long term goals matter too.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Lynda, doll, you're missing something. Or I am. Or at least my posts are- I didn't call any choice a "failure" or say that anyone *has* to vote any way. My point (in the context of the Nader discussion, at least) is that a vote for Nader was a *very* poor choice in some contexts, and that sticking fingers in ears and covering eyes while mouthing "I'm voting my conscience- it's all good!" was a far cry from the true "idealism" theme so many invoke.

As to Rob- whatever. I don't think there's any hardcore sad-sack Gore supporters here. But anyway, you keep punching that ticket. We're so proud of you for really stickin' it to The Man.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Oh, and I'm not getting into the Nader thing any further here- it's already been more hashed out than Keith Richards.

(btw, I voted Nader)

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Nader was nominated by the Green Party for president in 1996, he won the nomination, but he did not attend the Green Party convention, nor did he campaign for one single minute. Technically, you're right to say he ran against Clinton in 1996, but he didn't campaign. He didn't campaign at all. In fact, some Green Party activists were pissed at him for doing nothing.

Certainly, Nader didn't do the following when he ran against Clinton in 1996:

* Go to Florida in the last week of the campaign, a state he knew to be pivotal in the election of the Democratic and Republican nominee, and relentlessly criticize the Democratic nominee.

* Go to Michigan in the last week of the election in spite of entreaties by his old chums in Nader's raiders, who begged him not to go, and give a speech in Detroit blasting the Democratic nominee's support of NAFTA.

* Campaign in Wisconsin, also in the last week of the campaign, against the Democratic nominee's environmental record, calling the Democratic nominee for president "an environmental phoney."

I think the real miscalculation here is that Nader and the Green Party thought Gore was a shoe-in. They thought they could pick up the 5 percent of the vote they wanted for federal matching campaign funds without tilting the balance of the election. But when the election proved close, they kept right on campaigning.

What mystifies me is why Nader campaigned so vigorously against Gore in the last month of the election, and why he did it in states that Gore had to win such as Florida, Michigan, Oregeon, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and California. All he needed was 5 percent of the vote. He could have gotten that by campaigning anywhere. Instead, he purposefully chose states that were crucial to the Gore campaign.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Curtis, I suspect we're not going to achieve much by trying to convince each other of anything here. Lynda made an excellent point when she talked about what the Green Party was trying to achieve as far as the Democratic Party's ideology is concerned. If that's misguided in your opinion, then that's just where we have to stand, I guess.

If you approach politics like a football game, then there's a winner and a loser, and whatever you have to do to be the winner (including stealing pages from the other team's playbook and trying to make them work for you) is acceptable. I'm sure that's swell for football, but it seems like a pretty silly way to approach choosing the leader of your country.

I'll just cling to my misguided idealism for a bit longer. It fits me better than the idea of voting for Al Gore Inc. and trying to convince myself I didn't just vote for a Republican...

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

When the news of Gore blaming Clinton came out last week, I had to laugh. There are so many scapegoats for Gore, I doubt he'll ever own up to the fact that he blew it for himself -- Not Nader, Clinton, or even a vast right-wing conspiracy. There are always 3rd party candidates, so they always have to be taken into the mix -- if they're not pulling votes from your party's core, they're pulling them from the middle. Thus, a good candidate needs to be prepared either way. If Gore wasn't prepared to handle Nader, it certainly wasn't Nader's fault. Using Clinton/not using Clinton was a wash. Some people might have voted for Gore if he used Bill more, but others who did might have stayed away. I do think there is an exception to that theory -- the State of Arkansas. Let's face it, Clinton had scandals following him even before he was elected to his first term, yet he managed to win his home state, an historically Rebuplican state, twice. If he could have pulled Arkansas to the Dems one more time, Gore would be president. (Of course, if Gore had followed the advice of his own campaign staff, he might have won his own state, and thus the Presidency.) Lastly, Gore was misquoted and manhandled by the press and the Republicans. His response? "SIGH" Um, wrong answer folks. Yeah, responding to some stories just kept them in the news longer, but at least it would have left a more positive final thought. And, if he had corrected the misquotes immediately after they were reported right from the start, or at least made some light of them, he would then have his own running joke, uniting himself and voters against the media and other spin- meisters. By not doing that, he looked like a liar, instead of someone trying to remember a million things for a chance to pull out the most appropriate for a live 30 second sound bite.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

My Vote for Gore was Made Idealistically

Finally, I'd just like to say that my vote for Gore was made for idealistic reasons. I wanted to see liberals -- admitedly, not the solid liberals of the past that the Democratic Party used to nominate, but a liberal nonetheless -- stay in the White House.

Calculated choices can be made from idealistic motives. To call a vote for Gore "cynical" shows a lack of understanding of American politics. At the national level, you have to make calculated choices if you want your candidate to win. The Republicans learned that lesson in 1992 and 1996, when the religious right ran amok at their party conventions and ruined Bush's and Dole's chance of being re- elected or elected president.

The Naderites are like the religious right -- they are the flip side of the same coin. True believers. Taking vain pride in their idealism and unwillingness to compromise. Self-righteous at times. They'll probably be a thorn in the side of liberal causes for years to come.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

You're probably right, Dave... they will be, just as the hard-right is for the Republicans. As far as 'calculations' go, the Republican party does it better right now - they acknowledge their hardliners and (more or less depending on the individual in power) bring their concerns to the table. They know full-well and accept that if they fail to do so, those hardliners will turn on them much harder than the opposing party will. They don't expect loyalty from them will rejecting their ideals. And wouldn't it be arrogance to think any different?

Currently, and it's a trend that has been going for some years, the Democratic party has tried to distance itself from its own hardliners, and have for some unfathomable reason tried to chase the opposing party's people instead. This election shows the culmination of taking that too far - a VP from a successful administration unable to muster up a majority of the votes, the liberals defecting because they were faced with voting between Republican A and Republican B - and as a grand finale, not one word to those liberals that the party would pay more attention to their concerns, just a lot of blaming and sneering at the very ideals that separate them from the Republicans.

Anyone suspicious before that the Democrats no longer have any use its liberal end of the spectrum (except to insist that they shut up, sit down and vote the way they're told without expecting anything to show for it) has got to be getting confirmation of that now. For what possible purpose would a liberal vote for them? They don't reflect liberal thinking and haven't for awhile. It's one thing to accept less than wonderful - but the lower you allow the bar to be set without rejecting it, the harder it is to get it raised up again. (I don't see that as an idealist thought - I just have long felt that election going to bring forward 4 years of essential yuckiness no matter who wound up 'winning'. I voted for not entrenching it even worse down the road.)

As far as who lost who what... I think a lot more people who had intended to vote for Nader bought the scare tactics and voted instead for Gore, than vice versa. Mr. Gore and the Democratic Party did NOT manage to find enough people who agreed with their vision of the future to win. It's that simple. (And that said, had I been in a state that wasn't firmly in Gore's camp - so firmly that none of 'em bothered to stump here - I might have made a different choice. I don't know.)

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

"Mr. Gore and the Democratic Party did NOT manage to find enough people who agreed with their vision of the future to win."

Um.

The ELECTORAL vote, anyway.

Or the vote that counted---at the Supreme Court.

Because of course, he did win the..... popular vote.

If it were any other elective office, he would be the winner. Any.... other elective office.

I find the argument that Nader and the Greens "taught the Dems a lesson" to be very...well...

Painfully naive?

Are the Dems rushing towards the left right NOW?

Or are they almost sitting in Bush's lap, nodding and yes-sirring and going to the movies with the Prez?

No longer is their talk of "targeted tax cuts", for the most part, just how to keep Bush from getting EVERYTHING he's asking for.

PEOPLE GRAVITATE TOWARDS A WINNER. (Even if the winner got it because his brother ran the disputed state, and his campaign manager in that state was the attorney general.)

The Dems will turn more conservative now. After all, that's what won.... didn't it?

If Nader has a heart attack tomorrow, no one will vote for the Greens. Like Perot, like Teddy Roosevelt, like a lot of other third- party candidates (the last time Teddy ran, anyway), he IS the party. So, I'm not worrying about the Greens. When Nader dies, they do too.

Welllll, Bush is cutting aid to abortion overseas and is going to open the Alaska preserve to drillers and given his approval to not giving one CENT in tax cuts to someone BARELY MAKING IT at 20,000 a year....the average McDonald's worker or Walgreens clerk....yet under his own tax plan gives SIXTY THOUSAND in tax relief---to himself.

And the Presidency is only a month old.

And some of you "voted your conscience".

God help you.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Al..You're griping about the way the Presidential elections work... that was what Gore was shooting for, an electoral college win. Every other person running knew the constraints of that too - and obviously in most elections it's not an issue, because someone is a clear winner - someone has enough of a majority that there isn't much question about it.

You want to toss out the Electoral College, I'm right there with you. But no matter how you slice and dice this particular election, no one was running that had any large mandate of the majority of citizens in this country.

And the only one that *should* have was Al Gore - he had just about everything stacked in his favor. If the tiny portion that spun off to Nader was enough to take that away, he was riding too close to the edge already.

I hope you guys decide to take a look at that long enough before the next election to turn your party around. I'd really rather the Democrats win next time... if they decide to start looking like Democrats again.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

And if you think the Dems have become more conservative only since the election was held, I'm afraid you are the one that is very naive. If the party chooses to take that route, they're signing their own death warrant, because if you're gonna vote Republican, why go for the cheap soy imitation?

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Nevertheless, Lynda, the majority Democratic opinion since the election HAS been more conservative than before, to anyone watching what the senators and Congresspeople are saying. Again---people gravitate towards a winner.

No matter how the win was done.

One can talk until they're blue in the face, but those who approved of Nader's stances couldn't even muster a five per cent approval from the public at large, to get federal matching funds.

Whereas Bush's more conservative stance wowed 49% of the country, anyway....certainly no mandate, but it does indicate where much of the country is today.

Which way would a politically astute candidate aim his pitch?

I'm pragmatic. I would rather have had a Gore who at least half- represented my beliefs than a Bush that wholly repudiates them.

Will the present Nader/Green voters do the same thing next time, no matter how much the environment is abused, no matter what yahoo in league with the top oil industries wins?

I hope not. I hope they will think seriously about it...whether a principle--- is worth the loss of a wilderness.

There is such a thing as winning a battle with your conscience---and losing the war.

---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Wow, Al.

God help me?

That's an amazing sentiment. You sit there and tell us how the Democrats have crumbled and caved in to Mr. Bush, giving up the fight after barely a month, tossing out their so-called ideology with zero hesitation (in exactly the same way that Al Gore did in the election when he thought it would save him), and my response is supposed to be one of REGRET for not voting for Al Gore?

Whatever it is that you're smoking while you're watching the news, I'll have a double.

And check out the history of the Green Party while you're on this wacky trip. They've been around for a while, with moderate success in Europe as well as in this country, and if the Democrats are as flighty and spineless and rudderless as you indicate that they are, I suspect the Green Party will have some life in it in a few years. If not them, then someone else.

I hope they do, anyway. Progressive voters need to be able to turn to someone, and the Dems don't seem to have the stomach for the fight. This election was Gore's to lose, and he did a splendid job. I can only imagine what sort of dynamic leadership he would have provided had he actually won.

God help me, indeed...

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Hmmm. According to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan- june00/green_history.html the Greens have been around since the height of the Cold War, but didn't have a Green Party candidate for an office in the USA---until 1986. (This despite the ecological fervor of the mid-seventies.) They didn't have a presidential candidate till 1995---Nader of course.

I'll amend it this much, Rob. I think the Green Party will survive Nader's death...as a small party, somewhat similar to say, the Anarchist party...but I will be very surprised if, post-Nader, it is any potent force in American politics.

If by any chance we're still talking twenty years from now, we'll see.

No, I'm not going to apologize for the Dems' fecklessness. That's the nature of politicians, Democratic OR Republican...or Green, if they ever got any real power. Power corrupts, unfortunately. I can deplore it, but I'm not silly enough to think I can change that. I saw it in Nader this time, and he looked very opportunistic this time....something I never saw in Nader before. (For that matter, I think Bush ran a campaign that took several leaves out of CLINTON'S book---deliberately playing towards the middle, as Clinton did. So Bush basically "won", such as it is, by imitating the Democratic concern for education and other traditionally Democratic goals---as Clinton did the same to the Republicans, with concern for fiscal responsibility, etc.)

The odd thing is, Rob, there's probably not a hair's bredth worth of difference between your political stands than mine. But, yes, I do think it makes a difference which man went in the White House---that I wouldn't be worrying about the Alaskan wilderness or blowing the deficit if, say, Gore won.

Would you? On those two issues?

If you're going to only vote for your ideals, great. I'm going to vote for the guy who comes closest to my ideals---who can win.

I'll sleep a lot better that way. But that's just for me. There, everyone must choose what helps them ....sleep the best.

--Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Since Rob pretty much said what I would have, I'll settle for merely registering my first reaction to your win at any cost scenario, which was to drop my jaw and have the flashing thought of 'what would Jesus do' while I watched you sneer at principles. No, not 'everyone' chooses a winner over their principles, and I hope it always remains that way.

I do believe you to be a fair representation of the majority view of the Democratic party, however, and one of the few people I know who truly voted as you wished to, with no desire for a different set of choices.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Something this last election taught me: it pisses me off when someone tries to tell me why I voted the way I did. Any time you try to figure out why someone else voted in a particular way, you're going to offend someone. I wouldn't presume to tell Democrats that they were all cynics or dupes, and I resent having my political beliefs summarized (usually incorrectly) and handed to me as if this were useful information that might cause me to vote more responsibly the next time.

Feel free to tell us why you voted the way you did, but don't presume to know my motivations better than I do. And don't lecture me, either; I believe the idea is that I get to cast my vote, not anyone else.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

For me it was a simple logic problem (and likely not representative of other Nader voters).

I like in a strong Democrat state. I could have voted for Mickey Mouse, and Gore would have taken the electoral votes. In a case like that, my vote is usually meaningless - either I vote for the Democrat and get the questionable thrill of getting to waft through the next four years pretending it's a test where I managed to 'pick correctly', or I vote for the Republican where my vote will have no effect at al except to add one to the popular vote which usually is only an interesting bit of trivial, or I vote third party - which under normal conditions would also have no effect at all.

I am, by the way, still a registered Republican, although it has been a long while since I voted Republican in the main election. I voted in the primaries, where my candidate lost and the Republicans went for Bush instead. I have never voted for a Bush and had no intention of starting now, so that ruled out voting Republican.

Choices left were the Democrats, who have been veering more and more to the right, and their primaries turned up as crappy a choice as the Republicans did - a man who makes a fine second, but a LOUSY leader, and a VP that was the biggest conservative clone they could scrape up. I would have - unhappily - voted for them, while feeling my vote was essentially meaningless, until Gore started talking about his plans for continued expansion of the military's 'peacekeeping' role while refusing to acknowledge that not everything within the military is 100% peachy keen.

Now, I may not know much about huge budgets, and the rest of the issues put me all over the map from libertarian in bent to commie pinko lib, depending on which one you're talking about... but this issue I know about. And the military is NOT at a safe level of readiness, especially if you keep zapping them around the globe all the time. Eventually, one of those hot spots will erupt into a real war, and a reduced state of readiness is going to mean a resumption of the draft.

Simply put, I found that my ideology could *not* in good conscious vote for Gore, because if something ever happened to bring that on under his watch, I'd feel personally responsible for my part in a whole lot of deaths. (yep, that's idealism coming into this election.)

So, now I couldn't vote Republican, and I couldn't vote Democrat - in both cases due to principle. And that put me in the situation of having to choose from the remaining choices - still, mind you, knowing that no matter what, Gore was going to be taking my electoral representative's vote.

Among those left, the only two I seriously considered were the Libertarians or the Greens, and (again, since item for item, my ideology ranges across both) I could have lived with either one and slept nights. But a vote for the Libertarians might as well have been one for Mickey Mouse for all the effect it would have, and currently the Libertarian point of view is pretty well met within the Republican party, but the Democrats seem to have ejected the liberal point of view almost entirely.

So, I voted for the Greens based on two things: 1. It was the sole possible way for me to vote that might have had an effect, in giving them enough votes to be a legitimate contender in the next election - and 2. (again with the principles and ideals), I believe we are a stronger country for having all groups offered an arena for representation. I personally do not agree with everything the Green party stands for - but I damn sure think we need their voice out there, and strongly, if only to keep the rest of us straight. If there is no solid left to push against, moderates tend to start leaning to the right.

The one thing working against this being a completely troublefree choice was Nader himself. I didn't vote for Nader. I voted for getting the Liberal end of the spectrum back into the running for the next election, whether through the rise of a liberal third party (who could front a real Green in the next election should they so choose), or through the traditional party for liberals rediscovering it's need for its liberal constituency.

I failed at achieving the first, and I am waiting to see if the second will happen. The continued moping about Naderites and anything else they can latch onto to bitch about from both the politicians within the Democrat party and their voters is pretty discouraging. But I still do not see how the Democrats winning by disguising themselves as Republicans would have brought forward the Liberal voice of this country.

So, yea. I'm content with my choice and I do not believe it was in any way misguided.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

The Green Party wants to start a viable third party in the United States. One reason why I'm not attracted to the Greens, although I'm with them on a couple of important issues (I am, like the Greens, opposed to the death penalty and would like marajuana to be decriminalized), is I think starting a third party is not a realistic goal in the United States.

The last time we got a new, powerful, influential political party in America, it took a civil war. Or, to be more precise, it took the profound disagreements that led to the Civil War to launch the Republican Party.

Greens point to the success of Green parties in Europe to argue that Greens could be successful here, too. But European countries have the parlimentary system, where power is shared differently. Coalitions are made after the election is over in Europe. Third parties have a real chance. The United States doesn't work like that. Our Republican democracy makes it very hard for third parties to get going. Our history proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

One other thing: The Green Party in Germany, since the death of its founder Petra Kelly (she committed suicide in 1981), has been growing more and more conservative. It has abandoned its radical environmentalism and is nearly on par with the Democratic Party of the United States.

Nader is like the jolly Pied Piper who led his followers absolutely nowhere. His 2.7 percent of the vote spoiled Gore's chances of getting elected and didn't serve any purpose either, since the Greens will never grow into a viable party, if history means anything.

Remember: It's very, very hard for a Democrat to get elected President of the United States. Kennedy barely squeaked by Nixon. Johnson got elected on Kennedy's popularity. Carter won solely because the Republican Party was in disgrace and disarray after Nixon's resignation. Without Perot's 20 percent of the vote, Clinton would never have been elected in 1992. Apart from Johnson in 1964, no Democratic candidate since Roosevelt has ever been able to match the landslide victories won by Reagan, Bush I, and Nixon. We missed a darn good opportunity to get a Democrat elected. A chance like that might not come around for a long time.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

"We missed a darn good opportunity to get a Democrat elected. A chance like that might not come around for a long time."

I agree. So what's the Democratic Party going to do about it? Continue alienating themselves from their liberal allies while failing to convince true conservatives that it's anything more than just political pandering they can't trust? Whine and blame outside influences, or doing some serious analysis of where there party went wrong and decide what it wants to be when it grows up?

It's your choice, folks, and you have considerably less than four years to figure it out if you don't want the next election to be even worse. I don't think the conservatives will be resting on their laurels during these next few years.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

(Uplifted eyebrow). Lynda, if you think I have EVER voted for anyone because they EXACTLY reflected my ideals completely, then you are sorely mistaken. I vote for the closer of the candidates who might reasonably be elected to my own views---consistently. I submit---from what I know of your politics---you have too, with the possible exception of this election.

I think most of us do. I certainly might be wrong, though, and freely acknowledge that.

As for the "what would Jesus do"---if you think Jesus would have voted for anybody, (and I'm trying to transpose a 1st century Jewish viewpoint into the 20th/21st century)---if you think He would have been SATISFIED with any of the candidates, Nader included---you are free to fantacize at will. I think He would have been profoundly dissatisfied with all of them, personally. Again---Nader included.

I think you should avoid irrelevancies in the future, thanks.

---Al of NOVA NOTES

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Reading comprehension - I said you voted as you wished to, and were not sitting there wishing the Dems had put up some other candidate instead, not that he matches your ideals 'exactly'.

Per WWJD, I mean in terms of sneering at someone for acting on their conscience.

And with that, I will take your advice and stop posting irrelevencies, which is what any conversation where the other party isn't even pretending to pay atttention amounts to.

Continue your fingerpointing, it must be doing you some good I fail to recognize.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

As personal spokesperson for Jesus I feel I must confirm that he would not have been satisfied with either choice. However, since Democrats are the embodiment of evil and the letters in Algore's name can be configured in such a way as to add up to 999, I am sure the great people of this great nation's supreme court paced the right man in the White House and are in compliance with the Lord's wishes. Amen.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

"Reading comprehension - I said you voted as you wished to, and were not sitting there wishing the Dems had put up some other candidate instead, not that he matches your ideals 'exactly'."

Odd. There are many candidates that I might have preferred to Gore as the Dem candidate. (Patrick Monyihan--sp?--comes to mind. I like the Kerrys. I like Barney Frank, actually. There are others...)

I'm glad your so excellent reading comprehension includes MIND- reading, but you must have been peeking into someone else's mind. (If Beth dislikes someone saying why she voted one way, so do I---without foundation.) If Bradley had won the Democratic nomination, for instance, I would have certainly have voted for him over Bush---even though I disliked him more than Gore---because he would have been the better of the two reasonable choices, and would have represented my viewpoint better.

Not prefectly. Just...better.

And of course, he stood a chance of winning...

(BTW, will you ever tire to saying "Reading comprehension" in a belittling way when disagreeing with someone and thinking you have caught them in an error? It's a particularly cheap debating tactic, downgrading the other for a fault that you are as guilty of as any.)

And yes, I understood your "principle over practicality", of voting their conscience, in the odd WWJD example. I submit I never "sneered" at it, but I did question the results ---a President who is now going to open up the Alaskan reserves for drilling, who is now going to pour money into faith-based organizatons, blurring the distinction between church and state, who is stopping funding for any choice to women overseas....all things you have "sneered" at, if you will, in your weblog, with the exception of the Alaska thing.

I can't help feel that some people--not you, as you say, your decision made perfect sense in Maryland--- won the battle with their conscience, but it's a ....Pyrric (sp?) victory.

Nor do I include Xeney/Beth in the above "conscience" exasmple. She made it clear, months before the election, that she personally could not stand Gore, which is her right, also. I doubt if she would have voted for Gore even if his stands exactly matched hers and he had promised to make her Attorney General or give her a million dollars in Buddhist temple money. (IMO only, of course.)

I also submit that Jesus---who lived under the rule of Tiberius and Caligula and Claudius (with the ever-popular Messalina) knew better than most to go with the practical rather than the idealistic when it came to political systems. He did not exactly preach for people to throw off the chains of corrupt political systems, to follow their conscience in that regard, though He lived under a political system that makes modern America look positively utopian. Yet he urged no reforms, even to the most inhumane practices. Instead, He told people to render "unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and left politics alone as much as possible...until political factions killed Him.

I can't help but be bemused by that oddly inappropriate example---

Al of NOVA NOTES.
-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

At this point I think Jesus would probably close this thread.

Good thing I'm not Jesus.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Well, gosh, my apologies Al. I did not think noting that you were comfortable with the decision you spent months repeating was a good decision and the one we all should make would be taken as an insult - that was the one thing I was saying that was intended as positive - that at least you did seem to actually want the guy you were voting for. I trust that since that appears to not be the case you will not waste any more effort harping at those who didn't make your choice.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

"PEOPLE GRAVITATE TOWARDS A WINNER. (Even if the winner got it because his brother ran the disputed state, and his campaign manager in that state was the attorney general.)"

Ah, Al the Flordia AG was the campaign manager for Gore.

Democrat friends, you'll get through this. We Republicans felt the same way about Perot and the elections of 92 and 96. If we can keep our sanity during eight years of Clinton, you'll get by OK for the next eight years.

I feel your pain....really!

Jim

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

I spoke with Jesus over orange juice and bagels this morning. He would support a decision to close - nevermind, Jesus humor just isn't funny unless it's on a t-shirt.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

"Ah, Al the Flordia AG was the campaign manager for Gore."

LOL!!! All too true, and my bad, Jim. (In fact, if he and Katherine Harris, who I WAS trying to reference, had switched places....no, that way lies madness. Ahhh, what fun "what if" games we're playing these days.)

You're right, we'll endure four years of Bush as easily as you did eight years of Clinton---after all, judging from the Cabinet, we've experienced it all before...under his father's cabinet, which is practically the same. (Anybody see that hilarious Tom Tomorrow strip in which Bush went BACK TO THE FUTURE to get his father's old cabinet?) The best people of 1988 will lead our country into a bold new decade...*Grin*

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Deja-Vu All Over Again

"Democrat friends, you'll get through this. We Republicans felt the same way about Perot and the elections of 92 and 96. If we can keep our sanity during eight years of Clinton, you'll get by OK for the next eight years. I feel your pain....really!" -- Jim

Jim, how did you do it? How did you manage to keep your sanity through eight years? Did you take sedatives? Did you just ignore the television news all that time? Maybe take up a hobby like electric trains or needlepoint to keep from thinking about the mediocre man in the White House?

The whole mess is very depressing to me. I'm experiencing a weird kind of psychotic deja-vu, as if a Bush had been president before, and the economy tanked before, and the president, who favored having his picture taken with schooldchildren or soldiers, could do nothing about it on account of his incompetence.

This terrible sinking feeling in my stomach... Is that me, or is that the economy going down?

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

RE: That sinking you're feeling

Testament to Dick Bush's effectiveness at promoting principle over polling. Really, I think liberals would at least be able to admire him for not swaying like sea cabbage in a nor'easter even if they detest his politics.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

"This terrible sinking feeling in my stomach... Is that me, or is that the economy going down? "

I've had the same feeling since September, when I started warning that it looked we were heading into recession over in 3 way action.

I tried to ignore Mr. Clinton as much as I could, but he is a man who just will not be ignored, as we have seen over the last month.

Bush hasn't been in office a month, and I'm not sure he's signed a single law yet. Clearly to the extent that the President influences the economy, then then credit or blame for the current situation goes to Mr. Clinton.

Jim

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Where Clinton does deserve credit is helping the United States climb out of the recession of 1992. That was the recession that Bush's father was helpless against.

Hence my feelings of deja-vu.

So what was it, needlepoint? How did you survive those eight years? Truly, I'm feeling your pain and I want to know what I can take for it.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Try masturbating to pictures of the current Attorney General. Never worked for me during the X-Clinton regime, but it did keep my mind occupied.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

I'm so confused- what happened to the (c)rudeboy?

~

As to Beth's (many) complaints about people telling her what she "should" have done with her vote- I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean you're upset because people say they think you made the wrong choice?

~

With regard to the economy, let me give Bush a swift kick in the ass- it's all about perception, as "economics" is a bunch of voodoo bullshit (at least in the past decade). So why in the hell is he cheerleading us into a recession?

~

And finally, Al (and (c)rudy)- What Would Brian Boitano Do?

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Excellent point about Bush cheerleading us into a recession, Curtis. No one was even talking about it, until after the election night, and the uncertainty that lasted after it...

As for what Brian would do---Hah! Let's go to his delightful WWBBD website and see.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Argh. Just give in. Rob for President in 2004. (Hey as his Virginia campaign manager, it had to be said.)

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Rob(b)'s can't carry Virginia, Timmy. Better find another job.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

"Where Clinton does deserve credit is helping the United States climb out of the recession of 1992. That was the recession that Bush's father was helpless against. Hence my feelings of deja-vu. "

The recession of 1990 was over when Clinton took office. There had been 3 or 4 quarters of economic growth. When we Republicans pointed out that with just a little fiscal disipline we'd have a budget surplus by 1995 we were mocked by Clinton himself.

The president isn't some kind of magician, and he can't turn around a 3 trillion dollar economy in three weeks. A new President's policies can't have any effect at all until they are enacted, and then they need time to start working. Good, bad, or indifferent, whatever credit or blame for the economy in the year 2001 you asign to the President, you must assign to Mr. Clinton.

As far as "talking the economy down", that's just silly. Cheerleading can help a little, but refusing to face the fact that some things that should be up are down is a recipe for disaster.

Jim

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Um, like hell the recession was over in 1990. I graduated in 1991 at the height of the recession. Had a degree, skills and experience and couldn't get a job to save my soul that wasn't temporary.

Clinton did help us crawl out of the recession that Reagan and his buddy Bush helped create because I got a job not long after he was elected and so did a lot of my friends, who'd been struggling like I was.

There's nothing like going to a State Employment office and seeing people with 10 years of experience and advanced degrees living on $880 of unemployment insurance trying to make house payments and support kids.

Yeesh!

I *am* going to graduate school.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

"Um, like hell the recession was over in 1990. I graduated in 1991 at the height of the recession. Had a degree, skills and experience and couldn't get a job to save my soul that wasn't temporary. "

I didn't say it was over in 1990, that's when it was at its worse.*

A "recession" means two or more quarters in which economic grown is equal to or less than zero, which happened in 1990. Economic growth was positive for the last 2 or 3 quarters of 1991, and by 1992 the recession was over. Clinton's solution to the recession was a $16 billion "stimulus", which did not pass the Congress (then controlled on both sides by Democrats) for the good reason that it was too small to help.

Jim

* IMHO (no one can really know) the reason for the recession of 1990- 1991 was a normal downturn of the business cycle (which I hope is what's happening now) coupled with large reductions in defense spending thanks to our winning the cold war. The resumption of economic growth in the second half of 1991 and the subesquent strong growth years possibly reflect redirection of capitial into direct wealth creation activities instead of defense spending.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

I have to humbly agree with Jim, that you really can't pinpoint the cause of a recession. The dismal science (economics) doesn't have a solid answer for what casues them.

That said, and returning to the subject of this thread, it was NADER NADER NADER who lost the election for Gore.

None of the followers of the Pied Piper of Progressivism, Ralph Nader, responded to my point above, namely, why did Nader:

* Go to Florida in the last week of the campaign, a state he knew to be pivotal in the election of the Democratic and Republican nominee, and relentlessly criticize the Democratic nominee.

* Go to Michigan in the last week of the election in spite of entreaties by his old chums in Nader's raiders, who begged him not to go, and give a speech in Detroit blasting the Democratic nominee's support of NAFTA.

* Campaign in Wisconsin, also in the last week of the campaign, against the Democratic nominee's environmental record, calling the Democratic nominee for president "an environmental phoney."

Nader campaigned against Gore, not Bush. Why did he do that? And why did he do it in states that were pivotal to Gore? As Cindy pointed out, he could have campaigned for his 5 percent of the vote in New York, Texas, Maryland or any other state that was solidaly behind Bush or Gore.

As Aristotle remarked, the tragedy of misplaced idealism is the deepest form of tragedy. That's Ralph Nader all over.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

You mean why was he conducting a real campaign instead of behaving like a shill for Gore??

What else should he have been doing? Should I ask why Gore wasn't out urging people to vote for Nader and helping him get that 5%, or would it be safe to say that as the *Democratic Party* nominee, it wasn't really his place (nor would it be just to the people funding and working his campaign) to throw his efforts behind another party's nominee.

Is there some reason you think the Green Party candidate should have used far more limited Green campaign funds to do *less* than run his hardest?

He stumped harder for potential Gore voters than Bush voters, because confirmed Bush voters would not likely vote for him in any event. That's logical strategy, and the same reason why none of them bothered to campaign in my state at all - you don't put your valuable time and money where the outcome can't be changed.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

This is becoming a circular argument. I suspect that you don't want information, David, but are just interested in saying the same thing over and over. NADER NADER NADER! Lock up the kiddies, the Nader Monster is in the yard!

Are you asking why Nader campaigned against the man who sold out the party of progressives over and over and over? Who was he supposed to campaign to? Conservatives? Did Nader somehow owe it to Gore to help him win, even though Gore represented what was wrong with the system that Nader was fighting in the first place?

David, you and Al Gore are both laboring under the same misconception, that the Democrats somehow deserve the loyalty of the progressive/liberal voters whom they turned their backs on in the year leading up to the election. Keep making that mistake and you'll keep losing elections.

Would you like a tissue?

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

"Should I ask why Gore wasn't out urging people to vote for Nader and helping him get that 5%, or would it be safe to say that as the *Democratic Party* nominee, it wasn't really his place (nor would it be just to the people funding and working his campaign) to throw his efforts behind another party's nominee."

Actually, there was just such a vote-swapping proposal, put forth by SLATE and others, to allow a Naderite to vote for Gore when they were in states where the vote was very close and the small number of Nader supporters could make the difference. In exchange, a Gore supporter in a state that was overwhelmingly for Gore would vote for Nader. It would have been the best of both worlds, but there were some questions legally about the procedure. Too bad it didn't go through....

"Is there some reason you think the Green Party candidate should have used far more limited Green campaign funds to do *less* than run his hardest?"

Only the obvious logic. Gore, for all his faults, would not be opening up the Alaska preserve to drilling. Unfortunately, Nader showed us in the way he ran that his final concern is no longer with the environment, but with his ego and with the political future of the Green party.

All his protestations that there was no difference between the two parties fails on this one point: Gore wouldn't be opening up the Alaska preserve for drilling.

"you don't put your valuable time and money where the outcome can't be changed." Exactly. Which is why his running for President was a farce...he couldn't win,and knew he couldn't win---but instead someone who is much less friendly to the environment than either Gore or Nader-- was elected.

The choice for Nader was the Green Party possibly getting matching funds or not taking away support from someone who wouldn't spoil the Alaska preserve. He showed us which he valued more--- by his actions.

It was the act of a man who valued political advancement--- more than the environment.

I wouldn't have believed it of Nader a few years ago, honestly.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Thanks, Rob, I'll pass on the tissue, and I'll do you the favor of ignoring your sarcasm, which doesn't become your argument in the least.

You know that Nader's raiders, or some of them at least, made the same point that I made above? They believed it wasn't necessary for Nader to campaign in Florida, Wisconsin, and other states that were pivotal to Gore's winning the election, and they asked Nader not to campaign in those places. So, even to Nader's supporters and old friends, my argument has merit, and it should have merit with you, too, instead of being dismissed off-hand.

I guess what this boils down to is whether the Democrats really ignored progressive causes. I don't think they have. Granted, the national ticket in the past years has been more conservative than it was previously, but on gun control, the family leave act, affirmitive action, the minimum wage, national monuments and federal land set- asides, protection of the environment, the Democrats take the lead. The more liberal presidential candidates that you want the Democrats to continue fielding lost badly. Remember Michael Dukakis? Remember Fritz Mondale?

The idealism that Nader supports trumpet so loudly has got us Ashcroft. And who knows what else is waiting in the wings. I still think Aristotle was right: Misplaced idealism is the deepest form of tragedy.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

...and Gore would have continued expansion of our role in trashing other people's countries (military actions are not good for the environment) - so your point?

Al Gore and his campaign do not, so far as I know, own Slate. It was an interesting idea, but meanwhile, the Democrats were campaigning hard against the Greens - surprising that they took them seriously enough to put so much 11th hour effort into convincing people not to vote for him. In return, Nader campaigned hard against the Democrats. I don't 'blame' Gore for a tactic that likely lost the Greens their shot - it was a tough campaign, but it's pretty clear that they knew just how close to the edge they were running, and I do think it's a shame they refuse to look at their own responsibility for that fact.

If you're trying to convince me that politicians shouldn't be politicians, you're more idealistic than I am, or expecting him not to want to win after spending time here convincing us of the validity of wanting to win. Nader is a politician, and I would not expect him to not give his already vastly more handicapped campaign every possible chance it could. Those pivotal states were where his most likely votes were. He ran his campaign like a politician, and for some reason that seems to be surprising and offending some people. He was just a third party choice, not the messiah.

(Oh and Jim, I don't think you can really compare the Democrat's pain over this to that of the Republicans after Perot - Perot took nearly 20% of the votes, not less than 3%. Were it not for Perot, Bush would have won by a large margin. It's a lot easier to lay that loss on Perot's doorstep than it is to lay this one on Nader's.)

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Those pivotal states were where his most likely votes were. Nope. His most likely votes were in the states that heavily favored Gore. Obviously they would lean more toward Nader than the hotly contested states.

I don't think you can really compare the Democrat's pain over this to that of the Republicans after Perot - Perot took nearly 20% of the votes, not less than 3%. Were it not for Perot, Bush would have won by a large margin. It's a lot easier to lay that loss on Perot's doorstep than it is to lay this one on Nader's.

Nope. Gore would have won with Nader's votes, just like Bush would have won with Perot's. The numbers may be different, but the outcome is the same. A loss is a loss, whether it's by 15% or 1%.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Oh yeah, I also meant to point out that the purpose of an election is to choose a leader. One should think as much about who they don't want as who they do want. A vote for Nader might as well have been a vote for Bush.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

"A vote for Nader might as well have been a vote for Bush."

Yes indeed. A number of us figured that out BEFORE the election.

As to Perot spoiling Bush I's chances of getting reelected, the may well be true. And Perot got 12 percent (I think it was) of the vote in the 1996 election. Maybe Perot spoiled Dole's chances of getting elected, too.

The reason not a few of us are still arguing about Nader two months after the election is to prevent it from happening again. Perot ran twice, got nearly ten times as many votes as Nader, and now has nothing to show for it. Is Nader going to do what Perot did and play spoiler again? Ashcroft hopes so. I don't.

The Republicans should have been debating the Peronistas in 1992 and 1996, but they didn't do that. We're not going to make the same mistake with the Pied Piper of Progressivism, Ralph Nader, and his ruddy-cheeked, naive minions.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

"...and Gore would have continued expansion of our role in trashing other people's countries (military actions are not good for the environment) - so your point?"

Um. Wellllllll...

Nader became famous as an environmentalist par excellence and a foe of big business who could not be bought or corrupted.

Yet it seems he can be bought, can be corrupted---by the lure of matching funds for the GReen Party. Unlike you, I have never primarily thought of Nader as a politician, and when he ran last time, he did nothing to betray his own principles.

Here he did, showing him no better than Gore--or Bush--or Clinton--- or any other politician who preferred cash and prestige over principles. At the cost of the Alaskan preserve's purity.

Permit me to be disappinted.

The only overriding reason to vote for Nader for me is that he expressed my ideals rather than my practicality. If he no longer represents even his own ideals, why should I choose him over others?

As for the military actions---umm. Clinton continued a military action that Bush started, which started out as a humanitarian one, but came to a disastrious end, in Somalia.

He also fought a war in the Balkans that involved absolutely NO casualties by direct enemy fire during that action---unprecedented in our history, and a fact that I hope would be appreciated by a military brat and wife---

To stop---genocide.

One can argue if the Balkans are better now after our intervention than before it,(democracy and the disgrade of Milosevic seems to me to be positive, yet there are many downsides, admittedly) yet somehow I think turning our back on it---on genocide--would have been in the long run worse for us as a nation. Like tacitedly approving of the Holocaust.

No, I'm not sorry we did THAT action...

Whether Gore would have continued in the same vein is a moot question, but I'll grant you the possibility. Yet if we can't act to stop genocide, it seems to eliminate one great justification for the military.

--Al of NOVA NOTES.

PS. Good points, Roger.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

'He also fought a war in the Balkans that involved absolutely NO casualties by direct enemy fire during that action---unprecedented in our history, and a fact that I hope would be appreciated by a military brat and wife---'

Shall I assume you mean no US casualties?

I really have nothing to more to say about this. Gore directly said that the military was in no need of readiness improvements and that the US would continue - and trust me this way of putting it stuck in my mind - their role as the 'natural leaders' of the world.

That was the moment I knew I wouldn't be voting for him.

I may have issues with Bush, but I have issues every bit as strong with the possibility of Gore. My issues may not be yours, but I double damn guarantee you I put more thought into this one before the election than you ever put into worries over Alaska. Grab it if you want to now - I assume you need to grab at something, but Al Schroeder as the great defender of the environment is making me laugh.

(Per Nader - any state that was a 'strong supporter' of Gore would NOT be states favorable to Nader. If there were, they wouldn't be considering Nader over Gore. There was not much resemblence in their issues, which is something Dems do not seem to get. Quit believing Rush Limbaugh when he calls you liberals... Democrats haven't been liberals in some years.)

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

"I double damn guarantee you I put more thought into this one before the election than you ever put into worries over Alaska. Grab it if you want to now - I assume you need to grab at something, but Al Schroeder as the great defender of the environment is making me laugh."

Hmmm.

Well, I never claimed to be the great defender of the environment--- unlike Nader, who did--- but let me salute your mind-reading powers yet again---for ferreting out the secret depths of my environmental feelings, the hypocrisy and shallowness---obviously finding out about my secret life as a major environmental polluter.

Please feel free to tell me more about myself that I don't know, and that you have no possible way to know for sure.

Ad hominem attacks, I would have thought, would have been beneath you. My mistake...

Now, excuse me, I have a Shell (or is it Exxon?) board meeting to attend to, and a few oil spills to orchestrate....

--Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Actually, I can pinpoint several causes of the recession of the early 90's...it was a direct result of the items listed here as well as a healthy hideous dose of trickle-down Reaganomics-- 12 years of that crap would ruin nearly any economy.

And Al Gore lost the presidency because he sold out the liberals, has the charm of a steamed turnip and yes, because he refused to acknowledge the good stuff Bill Clinton did because he was so busy sidestepping the steaming poop of the sex scandal.

If he'd taken to his liberal causes, a lot more of us would have been singing his praises and he'd have kicked the Republicans' butts.

It was hard to vote for him. I mean I liked Bush better...he has charm. I don't agree with hardly a thing he stands for, but I liked him -- talk about conflict. Gore, stood for more of what I agree with, but I couldn't stand him. I was embarrassed to vote for him because I did feel sold out by him and he's such a stick in the mud, but I read some of the coverage of Nader's visits to San Francisco and just couldn't bring myself to vote for Ralphy because after all this time, he's still a little too whacky for me.

And I wasn't going to just toss away my vote. I felt like at least with Gore, the executive orders Clinton was signing would be kept. I felt like at least the Supreme Court wouldn't get mangled. I felt like at least the middle class I am part of would be granted some of the tax breaks they were due after allowing tax raises to pay off the deficit. Unfortunately with Gore, I wasn't enthused enough to vote for him other than on the basis of the lesser of the evils.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

"---obviously finding out about my secret life as a major environmental polluter."

That makes twice (in as many days...over the years? countless) that you take words, expand them exponentially, and then arguing the expansion.

If it matters how I come by this 'mindreading' - that you are no great defender of the environment, not your whackadoo assumption of what that means beyond just that - it is a span of years of listening to what your issues are and this one not being there coupled with a yearslong document in your own words of a steady diet of pre-packaged junkfood. Happy now?

It is NOT a slam, nor anything I'd even dream of raising with you just to ping on you about. I am not *asking* you to be a hotshot enviromentalist and I am not suggesting I'm any better. I just find it amusing how you pull out issues to *suddenly* become passionate about when and only when you need them to buck up an argument.

Now carry on without me. we are done on this subject.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

The Republicans should have been debating the Peronistas in 1992 and 1996, but they didn't do that. We're not going to make the same mistake with the Pied Piper of Progressivism, Ralph Nader, and his ruddy-cheeked, naive minions.

Well, golly, how could I possibly resist a party line like that one! Count me back into that Democratic ticket, fellas!

Honestly, David, could you be just a teensy bit more offensive? I don't think you're really trying hard enough.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

He learned it at the Al Gore School of Charm, Beth.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

I'm just finding it amusing that it's somehow my fault that the Alaska Wildlife Refuge isn't protected, because I didn't vote for the party whose president failed to make said refuge a national monument. Ah, yes, I see exactly why that's my fault.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

I was just going to ask if anyone knew what I could do about my ruddy cheeks. Surely there a cream or something I could buy...

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

"- it is a span of years of listening to what your issues are --"

"I just find it amusing how you pull out issues to *suddenly* become passionate about when and only when you need them to buck up an argument."

"T he Next Four Years", written in October 29th of last year.

Glad you think so. Yet the amusement cuts both ways...

Nor are my feelings about Nader new. "W hy I'm not Voting for Nader" save to note that he, towards the end, betrayed his own principles.

Just in point of fact...

--Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

Sigh. I used to watch this kind of infighting with great joy when it involved the GOP.

~

Debate of ideas is good- following party line because it's party line is bad (one of the reason's I'll vote Republican in my all-Dem run county).

But there's no debate of ideas at all here (or in 99% of the rest of the multiple incarnations of this discussion). I'm trying to figure out what's beneath this for me- I mean, I'll bet my politics are at least a 90% overlay with Rob's or Beth's (except I'll happy outlaw all cats).

What I'm upset about is I'm seeing too many Robs and Beths abandoning (what I see as) the only place liberals have a real chance to make gains on a national (and even statewide) level. So I'm left with a dwindling number of folks who can push Left from within the party. Ideology gives way to polling. And that just sucks.

(As as for the "but look at the upside to that!" response that I'm guessing will come my way- I'm almost entirely convinced the Greens are going nowhere- as folks have said, they've been around for a very long time, and with the exception of an odd candidate here and there (who's usually elected on his or her own personal uniqueness, rather than party platform), they have no real input on policy and politics. But its members feel good, and that's what counts.)

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

"Happy outlaw"?

Betch y'all wish you could write like me, doncha?

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

"Yet it seems he can be bought, can be corrupted---by the lure of matching funds for the GReen Party. Unlike you, I have never primarily thought of Nader as a politician, and when he ran last time, he did nothing to betray his own principles."

I think that's a little unfair to Nader. He's funded by tort lawyers, who will buy him all the rumpled suits he wants. Unlike certain recently retired politians, he seems pretty happy to just be a modest millionaire.

I know it was reported that there were many wealthy democrats who offered to donate more than the federal matching fund if only Nader would drop his campaign. We are only talking about $15 million dollars, it's not like the matching funds were big money. The impressive Democrat fund raising machine could have raised that over lunch if all Nader wanted was money.

Just look at Jesse Jackson. Every election he makes noises about running, and he's given a bag 'o cash, a free executive jet, and a speech at the convention and he shuts up about it.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

"I'm just finding it amusing that it's somehow my fault that the Alaska Wildlife Refuge isn't protected, because I didn't vote for the party whose president failed to make said refuge a national monument." -- Beth

You're a hard person to satisfy, there, Beth. You do realize that the Clinton administration protected more land in the continental U.S. than any administration since Theodore Roosevelt. Clinton set a record for land preserved by executive order: more than 4.6 million acres in the lower 48 states, more than any other administration set aside. You can read about it here: http://ens.lycos.com/ens/feb2001/2001l%2D02%2D16%2D06.html

Now you've got a passel of Texas oilmen in the White House seeking to overturn Clinton's evil deeds. Why don't ya cut the Demos a little slack for a change?

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

Because then she, and the rest of 'em, would have to admit they collectively made a mistake. Heaven forbid! This is clearly Gore's fault, not theirs! Gore just wasn't vote-worthy. Meanwhile, I hope they enjoy Bush's reign while they cling to their now wortheless "ideals."

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

Good to know that Bush won't make Gore's mistake of...continued expansion of our role in trashing other people's countries.

I know, I know. Cheap shot. Probably the trashing of the Iraqi command bunkers was needed, by anyone's standards.

I just found it a litle ironic, though....

I hope it's not a presage of what's to come.

--Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

Let's hope Bush finishes the job properly, and finishes off Saddam once and for all.

And, what makes anyone think that there will be no drilling in Alaska? There WILL be drilling, because someday, we're gonna need that oil. You can count on that.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2001

What makes you think I'm not gonna steal your money? Because [i] someday[/], I'm gonna need that money. You can count on that.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2001

This from Anthony Lewis's editorial, "Philosophy of the Worst," in today's (2/24/01) New York Times:

"The wonder to me is that Ralph Nader, intelligent as he is, does not see the dangers. My conclusion, on the basis of his recent statements, is that his thinking has been overwhelmed by obsessive hatred of the international trade agreements that Mr. Clinton made, such as Nafta.

"George W. Bush owes a lot to Mr. Nader: the presidency, no less. In fairness he ought to return the favor. If and when he opens the Tongass National Forest in Alaska to logging and the first 14,000 acres are clear- cut, he might consider naming the stumps the Nader National Forest."

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001

i think al gore(dork)lost because bush could kick his butt any time! now i dont know what was going through your gore lover little heads. now you know next time when there is someone with the last name of bushand they are running for any kind of election vote for them, and when there is someone with the the last name of gore dont vote for them when they are running for any kind of election.

thank you and if you have any problem with my message...i dont care.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Just curious, but has Ralph Nader built the progressive coalition yet? Has he laid the foundation for the progressive movement yet? How's the Big Green Takeover coming along? Is everything going according to schedule?

Or was a vote for Nader just a big fat total waste?

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

We'll find out next election, Jass. But I suspect it was a waste.--- Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

I guess it was only a waste if you liked another candidate but voted for Nader anyway. In that case, you're a moron. If neither candidate represented your beliefs, then I'd say it wasn't a waste.

How many times are Gore's apologists going to sing this sad song? Who lost the election for Gore? Why, I believe it was Al Gore. And if he didn't learn anything from this election, I suspect he'll lose it again, should the Democratic Party be stupid enough to give him the chance.

Time for a new candidate. Bob Kerry might be an interesting choice, if for no other reason than his controversial Vietnam War record will throw Bush's questionable service into stark contrast. That'd be nice turnabout for the Republicans. Kerry's also an intelligent man and something of a free thinker who, unlike Gore, hasn't shown an inclination to sell himself to the highest bidder.

We'll see. Don't hold your breath...

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

"Time for a new candidate. Bob Kerry might be an interesting choice, if for no other reason than his controversial Vietnam War record will throw Bush's questionable service into stark contrast. That'd be nice turnabout for the Republicans. Kerry's also an intelligent man and something of a free thinker who, unlike Gore, hasn't shown an inclination to sell himself to the highest bidder.

"We'll see. Don't hold your breath..."

Actually, I'm going to surprise you, Rob, and agree with you---I don't think Gore should run again. I don't think temperamentally he is quite suited for the campaign trial, although I think he would make a better president than the one we've got, and doing less environmental sell-offs as Bush is doing.

I would love to see Kerry or some of the other young Democrats run, and wipe the floor with Bush. For that matter, although I don't agree with some of McCain's stands, I do credit him with knowing where he stands on some issues, and would favor him far above Bush next election.

I don't think Nader's criticisms of Gore on his environmental record were quite on the mark, though---what you do as v.p. and what you do as Prez are two very different things. Bush wasn't just a mirror of Reagen in that respect, for instance, and that if Gore were president, we'd see much more subsidizing of alternative fuel research and no move to grab the oil under the Alaskan preserve.

I also find it ironic that some mock Gore for losing his native state, TEnnessee---while by the same criteria (total popular vote) Bush lost his native country, the United States. Only the oddness of the electoral college gave him the means to get the presidency, and that only through a very-disputed decision of the Supreme Court.

---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Al Gore won't run for president again. I wouldn't worry about that. Kerry probably will run, and I agree, he would make a fine candidate.

But here's the deal: Kerry would put forward the same agenda that Al Gore would have put forward if he had been elected president. Kerry and Gore are very much alike in their politics. Both are moderate liberals. The end result of a Gore presidency and Kerry presidency is pretty much the same.

Will the Greens trot out that "sold to the highest bidder" tripe with Kerry, too? Will the Greenies start mouthing their cliches about the two parties being the same if Kerry runs?

I find it kind of funny when Greenies badmouth Gore and then declare their interest in Kerry. Don't they understand that policy is what matters? We have an attorney general who's a right-wing kook supporter of the National Rifle Association. Environmental standards are being lowered. We have a Star Wars II missle system in the works. We have an incompetent foreign policy as regards China and the Middle East. We wouldn't have all that with Gore. The Gore is a Republican argument was hogwash.

I voted my conscience for Gore, so I don't feel too bad about the nitwit in the White House. The Greenies can't say the same.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Oh, shit. I just realized: You guys are talking about BOB Kerry. I was refering to JOHN Kerry, the senator from Massuchussets. He would make a very fine president.

Um, wasn't Bob Kerry recently accused of murdering women and children? That guy's "an intelligent man and something of a free thinker..."

Huh? The Greenie meaning of "conscience" is starting to come clear to me now...

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Hoo boy. Guys (or "guy," I guess): we don't have a lot of rules around here, but one of them is, don't fucking post under three user names to bolster your own arguments. I can see your IP address. And p.s.: let it go.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

In his usual exhuberant way, Michael Moore's got a few points to make on this subject:

Why Don't We All Just Cut the Crap Right Now and Crap. The Sequel: The Crap Ends Here

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

okay... *whimper* Beth, I need an editor...

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Gore lost because he is a BIG GOVERNMENT gun control freak. The guy is from the south and he loses the south including his home state. Like, HELLOW! Just as abortion is the bug-a-boo with Republicans. Gun control is bewitching the Democrats.

-- Anonymous, July 23, 2001

I though this thread was done. Al Gore is so last year.

-- Anonymous, July 23, 2001

Yup. I just saw an ad with Clinton on it, and it was like seeing a long-lost relative. Dude, where the hell did you go?

-- Anonymous, July 23, 2001

I just saw him on the front page of a tabloid ... HILLARY IS GAY, BUT OUR MARRIAGE STILL WORKS! I didn't read the story, but I assume he attributed his happy marriage to shared values, shared faith in God, and shared 19-year-old congressional interns. You go, Hillary.

-- Anonymous, July 23, 2001