Subject: Re: Olive Branch
Hi BartCop,
Just as you don't dispute the reasons I cited
for Gore's losing the election,
I don't dispute the fact that Nader's candidacy
did pull votes away from Gore - including mine.
Thanks you for taking responsibility.
Nobody wants to admit pulling the fire alarm that caused the fire trucks
to go to the wrong address,
thereby killing the people who needed the trucks for real.
Far as I know, you're the first.
But look at the bigger picture.
The Dems have to learn that they're not going
to win by pretending to be Republicans.
Objection - assumes facts not in evidence.
You can't win an election on the left-wing fringe.
Ask Presidents Mondale and Dukakis how well that works.
The only way a Demo can win is to be left of center, like Clinton.
They're not going to deliver an alternative to our current Roveocracy unless they're challenged to do so.
You mean challenged as in "out of power?"
You think losing by a whisker will make the Demo nominee move away
from most voters?
And the only person who's been able to challenge the Dems on the national stage has been Ralph Nader.
No, Nader got three percent.
97 percent of America doesn't like him, doesn't trust him.
I will say, you three percent are an organized bunch...
Only Nader and his supporters have made such
a compelling case for the Democrats
to take off their Elephant masks and rebuild
their support among America's left.
You think the Demos should pander to the people who put Bush in power?
I don't think that's going to happen.
If the Greens had any sense, they would've voted for Gore.
We're living with a Nader-designed nightmare right now.
If the Dems start taking the Green concerns
and Nader's candidacy seriously NOW,
they have a chance to build an alliance -
to adjust the platform in a manner that will garner
the support of many of us who bailed on Gore
last year. In other words, they'll grow their spines back.
What the hell does "take the Green concerns seriously" mean?
Run a race with no corporate money so Bush can win a second term?
Every time I ask what that means, I get bumper-sticker horseshit
"When you vote for the lesser of two evils,
evil always wins"
or I get a 25,000-word rambling thesis from Tim Robbins that puts me
to sleep.
But if the Dems follow your line - that Nader's
candidacy is illegitimate and is simply a manifestation
of his ego - then they'll make the same mistake
they did before. They'll wind up alienating the truly
progressive people that want to vote for a
Democrat but can't find one worth a damn.
So, you're threatening us with eight years of Bush?
That tells me how sincere you want change and reform.
That kind of talk makes Bush and Rove VERY happy.
Why don't you get a different candidate and see if we change our complaint?
Mister Three Percent isn't going to win anything - ever.
Nader's candidacy can help pull the Dems closer
to where they belong.
And that's good for all of us.
"Closer to where they belong" is farther away from the voters.
Nader............................Gore...................................................................................................................Bush
-------------------------the majority of voters-------------------------
Granted, this is my graph, but look where Nader is and look where you
want Gore to be.
It's the math - do the math.
BC, think it through. Urge the Dems to
act now on the issues raised by Nader and co.
rather than react with hostility in 2004 that
the man is presumptuous enough to run.
Tell you what - dump Nader and we'll talk.
...and take Michael Moore with you.
Tom Tomorrow I think we can save.
I know this piece is a bit too long - but we've got to get away from sound-bite rationale.
Best,
David