Regarding a Slate column claiming RN is trying to cause a Gore defeat . . . > > [The piece raises two questions: 1) Is this really Ralph's strategy? and > 2) > > Is it correct?] > > No and no. > > I noted before the difference between saying Bush and Gore > are the same and a "worse the better" posture. > > There should be no surprise at the idea that a goal of the > Greens/Nader would be to destroy the Dems. That's the > only way they would come to equal the major parties in > prominence. > > Of course, when you provide competitive pressure on > another party, they adapt to meet that threat. So the > 'threat' to the Dems is as much a threat to make them > change as it is to replace them. THAT'S THE ONLY > WAY YOU APPLY CREDIBLE PRESSURE. By > contrast, we can all see how Jesse's periodic fits > have worn completely thin. No threat, no pressure. > > It could be that RN is actually calibrating his moves > to cause a Gore loss. I wouldn't know, but I can > understand why. As the backbiting escalates, any > Nader symp is likely to feel increasingly p.o.'ed at > the statements of our pro-Gore comrades. I feel > this every time I read another liberal attack on RN > in the Post, knowing full well no response would > be permitted in the same forum. There has only > been the obligatory column by RN himself today, > which I didn't think much of, BTW. > > Just as the Clinton and Gore White House's have > and would provide no forum for progressives. Clinton > has feted people like Anthony Robbins and Charles > Murray. He had a forum on Soc Sec which basically > shut out left critics of the scare campaigns. Very > annoying, to put it mildly. > > So all I can say in response to this sort of attack > is "triangulate this." > > mbs > > > > >
