OK. I've had enough. I really like Simon Phipps, and this has nothing to do with him specifically, but reading his reiteration of the "Nader split the liberal vote" or "Nader gave us Bush" argument just pushed me over the line.
Bush became president. Whatever happened, he is in office now. Lets all just deal with that. Focusing on the mess that was the election will just let another unfit person slip in.
But what about the campaign?
The election was Gore's to lose. Only by running a remarkably inept campaign did he squander: 1) an unbelievably popular president's support; 2) a strong economy; 3) a relatively peaceful world; 4) the weakest Republican presidential candidate running in years. Gore didn't even win his home state. How fucking hard could that have been? All he had to do was pay Tennessee a little attention, and he would be president.
That is right: had Gore's own constituents voted for him, he would be in the White House right now. If Gore had the backbone to say, "I don't care if he got a blow job, and neither should you," he would be in the white house. Had someone in the Gore campaign looked at the mess Bush made of Texas and made an issue of it, Gore probably would have been elected.
And here is the kicker: if 60 percent of registered democrats had bothered to get out and vote, Gore would be president right now. So if you want to know why Bush was elected look at the two Democrats nearest you, and point your finger (that is, of course, assuming you actually voted).
We have George Bush as a our leader because we are lazy, ill-educated, and easily distracted by insipid discussion of oral sex in the White House. We have exactly the president we deserve. And the whole world is suffering for it.
Making Nader a scapegoat won't do any good. You really can't complain one week that the election represents an "evil of the two lessers" situation, while at the same time imploring Nader to drop out because, even though you really like what he says, Gore isn't "quite as bad as" Bush, and we really don't want Bush to win. Yea. That seems like the best way to elect someone to run the whole country. This twisted kind of appeasement rarely works.
If the system is broken, fix it. Don't blame a person for doing what is his right: running for president.
So, my Democrat friends, focus on winning, not on whether or not Nader runs. Because if you focus on Nader, rather than Bush, you will lose again.
Bush became president. Whatever happened, he is in office now. Lets all just deal with that. Focusing on the mess that was the election will just let another unfit person slip in.
But what about the campaign?
The election was Gore's to lose. Only by running a remarkably inept campaign did he squander: 1) an unbelievably popular president's support; 2) a strong economy; 3) a relatively peaceful world; 4) the weakest Republican presidential candidate running in years. Gore didn't even win his home state. How fucking hard could that have been? All he had to do was pay Tennessee a little attention, and he would be president.
That is right: had Gore's own constituents voted for him, he would be in the White House right now. If Gore had the backbone to say, "I don't care if he got a blow job, and neither should you," he would be in the white house. Had someone in the Gore campaign looked at the mess Bush made of Texas and made an issue of it, Gore probably would have been elected.
And here is the kicker: if 60 percent of registered democrats had bothered to get out and vote, Gore would be president right now. So if you want to know why Bush was elected look at the two Democrats nearest you, and point your finger (that is, of course, assuming you actually voted).
We have George Bush as a our leader because we are lazy, ill-educated, and easily distracted by insipid discussion of oral sex in the White House. We have exactly the president we deserve. And the whole world is suffering for it.
Making Nader a scapegoat won't do any good. You really can't complain one week that the election represents an "evil of the two lessers" situation, while at the same time imploring Nader to drop out because, even though you really like what he says, Gore isn't "quite as bad as" Bush, and we really don't want Bush to win. Yea. That seems like the best way to elect someone to run the whole country. This twisted kind of appeasement rarely works.
If the system is broken, fix it. Don't blame a person for doing what is his right: running for president.
So, my Democrat friends, focus on winning, not on whether or not Nader runs. Because if you focus on Nader, rather than Bush, you will lose again.
posted by Eric Hancock at
2:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home