G'day Ricardo,
You point out:
>...and there's no contradition stating that Nader had every right to
>stay 'till the end (and to have participated in the debates) and
>concluding, if only at the last minute, that since Nader's campaign
>was going nowhere, and since the Gore-Bush campaign was so
>close, and since one is intelligent and more sentitive to social
>concerns and the other is an idiot, then one should vote for Gore
>and not Nader.
Quite right. But voting for Nader is not something that should be
represented (although it will be) as lefties cutting off their noses to
spite their faces. The Democrats HAVE been taking diabolical liberties with
their constituency, and have been getting away with by ever offering the
less appalling alternative in a well-judged balancing act. The fight to
knock down the walls of the ever-narrowing corridor thusly made has to start
somewhere and that means a nettle has to be grasped at some stage or other.
At least then the public consciousness, or more accurately (I suspect), its
morale, might be raised to the idea that it could just demand something
beyond the walls - that they're supposed to express the boundaries rather
than their betters. If the electoral college goes against the voting
majority, that'll heighten it all the more. Good. So I guess I'm arguing
there is nothing contradictory about stating that Gore is better than Bush,
but that one should have voted for Nader, anyway.
Cheers,
Rob.
