Subject: Disappointed

Hi BC,

Just saw the page you gave to dissecting my pro-Nader argument.
A few points that I think worthy of your consideration in future debates:

1. When someone sends you an argument, it would be fair for you to publish
the piece uninterrupted, so that the logic and thoughts are presented completely,
before you pull it apart and offer line-by-line refutations.

How can I do that?
You run thru a list of statements, and then what?
I repeat each one of those with my replies and corrections?

Reminder:
I'm going to keep saying this until somebody shuts me up.
Show me another site where those who disagree get to speak.
I don't think it's fair to compalin IF I'm the only one providing a forum.
 

2. You'll benefit from remembering that we are, essentially, on the same side here.
You're allowing your ego, and your insistence on always being right, to influence your
political judgement. The simple truth is that your party is doing nothing to stop Bush,
Rove and Co.  On the contrary, they're facilitating the coup. Who's gonna wake them up?
A few webmasters?  Doubt it.

Hey, we voted against Bush.

3. You're assessment of Gore's position throughout the election as "slightly left of centre"
is far from correct.  Gore did everything he could to ape the Bush position on nearly every issue.
He pandered to the whoreacracy throughout his candidacy. Gore refused to acknowledge the simple
truth that the Clinton administration was the best and most effective since the Second World War.

We seem to be going over the same ground, letter after letter.

4. Your argument about the math is seriously flawed as well. In Florida
- you've got a point, kinda.  (Keep in mind that the scumbag repubs were
gonna rig Florida no matter what - Nader or no Nader - but that's beside
the point.)  Many of us who voted for Nader did so in states that were
so clearly Bush country that a Gore vote would have been the wasted
one.  In my case, I voted for Nader in North Carolina - a state that has
voted for Republican presidential candidates without fail since the 50s.

When I say "do the math," I'm talking about the 537 vote "margin if victory"
for Smirk vs the 92,000 votes Nader took from the Demos.

I'm not sure what you want, BC.  You vent your frustration at the Dems for playing dead,
and then you utterly dismiss the one party that wants to fight Bush and co.

I hear you claim that, but I don't think it's true.
You could've had President Gore, but you chose Bush, instead,

Your extremist assessment of Nader's candidacy is way off-base.  For the Dems to rebuild
their base, they don't have to move to the leftist fringe.  But they do need to go left of centre
(where the Big Dog was!).  Today, they're all scurrying about trying to win Bush's lapdog
of the month award.  When I suggest that the Dems work with Nader, I'm not saying that they
should adopt his entire platform - but they should consider key planks, most importantly,
campaign finance reform.

We'd need a Demo president and a filibuster-proof house & senate to make that work.
 

And, come on, BC - do you REALLY believe that Nader's candidacy is
funded by the Bush Evil Empire?  That's paranoid absurdity.  If you've
got a shred of evidence for it - even anything in Nader's record that
would suggest a likelihood of his collusion with the Republicans - then
you might have a case.  But there is no evidence along those lines.  The
man is a citizen.  And he is willing to put himself on the line for what he believes.

Every time I hear a Green say, "Gore deserveS to lose," I do.
Who else, but a Bush voter, thinks Gore deserveS to lose?
 

You can publish this if you want to - or not - it's your site.  But I do
think you're allowing your ego to interfere with your political judgement.

Best,

DT

I think you have "ego" confused with "refuses to roll over."
You want us to be happy with Nader paying Bush's airfare to Washington?

Na Ga Da