…is that, in watching him on “Meet the Press,” I found myself agreeing with just about everything he was saying about Democrats, Republicans, and the various issues. Compare his performance with the hesitant, fear-mongering, redundancy-filled appearance by Bush and you see what it’s like when a man of genuine intelligence is speaking. The only disingenuous statement he made was claiming that he shouldn’t be singled out for Gore’s loss in Florida because, hey, Pat Buchanan also got votes. Which is ridiculous since Buchanan’s voter base wouldn’t have voted for Gore if he’d been the only candidate available. Still, it’s annoying to find that I’m more in synch with his opinions than I am with Kerry et al, considering Nader’s unelectable.
I very much doubt Nader will have any serious impact this time. Democrats are so focused on wanting Bush out, I’d be amazed if even one half of one percent were willing to risk that by throwing away their votes on Nader again. Still, if I were the GOP, I’d be mobilizing volunteers to go work for Nader in order to try and get him on as many state ballots as possible, ’cause you never know. At the very least, Bush should send him a nice fruit basket.
PAD
• 
Oh, and Gregor, thanks for the shout-out.
To all those thinking about voting for Nader….
There’s one reason that we need to be particularly worried about Bush being reelected, and I think you need to consider a bit of pragmatism this year – the Supreme Court. If Stevens or O’Connor (or likely both) get replaced with an Antonin Scalia type, there’s serious risk of the recriminalization of abortion and homosexual behaviour. The Supreme Court would become a rubber-stamp for the Bush administration, and that would stay the case for long after his term is over. We cannot afford the risk of getting any more Scalias in the court; the man is dangerous. And he’s Bush’s favorite justice.
And he’s Bush’s favorite justice.
Not to mention Chaney’s favorite fishin’ buddy.
Bring on Nader…
The only thing Democrats can agree on is that they want Bush out of office. They can’t vote on any issues because all they have is raising taxes, and spending more money on a socialist health care system that doesn’t work. Not to mention the fact that Bush has taken every single issue from them during his term they have nothing to run on. (Health care? Check. Prescription drug plan? Check. Education spending up the wazoo? Check.)
I had this discussion last week with a friend before Nader was in. Bush will take 45 states easy. The only states Kerry will get will be CA, NY, MN (their brains are too frozen from the cold weather to know any better, and I lived there for 21 years), MA, and one other state.
Watch for claims from democrats about voters being unable to vote but with no proof to back it up. (After all, it is the seriousness of the charge that matters.)
Waiting for my first born to come in to this world, I have no problem making abortion illegal.
Nader just came out and said he would not be critical of the Democrat nominee. Well, that just makes no sense to me. If one party has a guy who has positions you don’t disagree with why run?
Maybe Nader thinks he can attack Bush in a way that Kerry can’t. I dunno, I suspect Nader overestimates his power. I remember seeing him way back in 1980 at a college speech, salivating over the opportunity to take on Reagan. “we can’t wait!” he said, “we’re gonna have fun with Reagan!”
Time will tell.
I know this sounds crass or arrogant but I honestly think that Nader supporters don’t get how government works.
In other words, the president doesn’t just wave a magic wand and make all the policies he supports happen.
Even if Nader got elected by some act of God, he would face a hostile Congress — not just because it’s GOP controlled but because he would have zero support, perhaps even less, among Democrats. He would accomplish nothing.
This is why I supported Kerry more than Dean even before Iowa — Dean always struck me as someone who would not be capable of dealing with a GOP Congress, while Kerry — with his background in the Senate, which unlike the executive nature of being a governor, requires more of a sense of compromise — would be able to get more done.
The presidency is not an entry-level position. I’m not crazy about the Big Two, either. I usually vote for Democrats but as a classic liberal (usually referred to as a libertarian), I’m not at home with either party (and I hate the identity politics of Democrats).
So, I would love to see a third party that represented my views more fully. The way to do that, though, is not to run for an office you could never win but to create a base of support — representatives in Congress, governors, and mayors as a start. And then, after years of this, you run your candidate for president. But this ášš-backwards way is just… dumb.
That said, I find the resentment toward Nader unfair. If Nader can convince people to vote for him, he’s not stealing votes. It’s up to the Democratic nominee to earn those votes. Gore has himself to blame for Nader’s relative success in 2000. He selected a *conservative* Democrat as his running mate, after all, when he was already worried enough about Nader that he’d asked him not to run. Didn’t make a lot of sense to me then but Al Gore is not the greatest politician in the world.
I personally feel that both the Republicans and Democrats sold out the middle class a long long time ago. It’s a shame that such pressure to not run for office in sevice of this country is applied to people who speak their minds or their consciences rather than a party line shaped by their party’s patron political interest groups’ money.
If non-Republican and non-Democrat candidates get more votes this year than in the last election, then a vote for the right independant candidate whose goals and values seem to match your own is not wasted. It gives a voice to your stand on those goals and values that other politicians will listen to when shaping their future platforms if they think that it will gain them enough votes to be elected. It is also taking us one step further away from the two party system in which we are stuck. If I have the choice of voting for someone with good ideas and seemingly good intentions or voting for the lesser of two evils then, regardless of the apparent electability, I’ll vote for the “good” over the “evils” every time.
>There’s one reason that we need to be particularly worried about Bush being reelected, and I think you need to consider a bit of pragmatism this year – the Supreme Court.
I’d swear I heard that argument four years ago… and what changed? Oh but now we REALLY mean it.
Sorry. Not cutting it.
**Re: “Andrew” who posted “Here’s hoping someone will put a bullet in Nader before November rolls around.”
I realize you addressed inappropriate comments in a previous thread. Also, you wrote movingly of “taking threats seriously.” Does this constitute the yelling of “fire” in a crowded theatre?**
No, nor does it even constitute falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, which is the actual quote. My major concern is how people treat each other here so as to avoid needless flame threads.
That said, I believe that although the poster wasn’t serious, it’s still an exceptionally inappropriate thing to say…and yes, in this day and age, if said about Bush, could get you a visit from the Secret Service. Wishing a violent death upon just about anyone is just poor taste (I admit I’m leaving the door open for anti-bin Laden comments, although my desires for him would be more along the lines of slow torture…)
I just want Raplh Nader to come out and say, “I was wrong, the last four years would have been different if Gore had been elected.”
Sweet, I managed to piss people off.
While I don’t actually want someone to shoot Nader, he needs to be taken out of the race.
The stuff about Bush and the hillbillies stands, however. The less teeth a person has due to an excessive intake of white lighting, the more likely they are to vote for Bush.
RE: the idiotic threat against Nader’s life.
It’s not really a matter of saying something about the president in “this day and age” that would get you a visit from the Secret Service. It’s always been the case that threatening the president’s life — even in jest — was a serious matter. Just ask Groucho Marx.
While Nader is not president nor even under Secret Service protection, it is incredibly rude to make such a suggestion or even to “hope” that something so horrible would happen to him.
And even as a joke, it implies a lack of respect for diversity of opinion and free expression. Why would you find Nader that dangerous?
What annoys me is the belief that somehow there is a finite number of votes to be had. So few people vote in U.S. elections that I’m sure that about twice the number of people who voted for him didn’t vote at all.
Three quick thoughts:
1) Run-off voting. We needed it in 2000, we’ll need it in 2004. We should have it. It works.
2) I voted for Nader in 2000 with a clear conscience, given that the state I lived in was an electoral lock for Gore. Had I had a run-off option, I’d have voted for Nader as my second choice. I will not be voting for Nader in 2004, even though my state will (likely) be an electoral lock for the Democratic candidate, becuase this time around Nader’s not running as a Green, so I have no interest in party-building that I can express via a “wasted” vote for him.
3) Nader’s lost a lot of my respect. His postions are still solid and sensible, and his record of accomplishments for consumers, the environment, and “average citizens” is all-but unimpeachable. But this run is egotism at its most plain and pathetic. He’s forgotten the cardinal rule of good environmental thinking (and good government): just because you can do something and have the right to do it doesn’t mean you should.
Andrew: The stuff about Bush and the hillbillies stands, however. The less teeth a person has due to an excessive intake of white lighting, the more likely they are to vote for Bush.
You really are going out of your way to alienate people today.
You have advocated the assination of a candiate for president of the united stations and now you are offending the 49% of the voters in this county.
I voted for Bush. I find your language insulting. I have the usual number of teeth and do not excessively intake white lightning.
Can’t say much that hasn’t already been touched by others, so I’ll be brief:
1. I’ve never voted for Nader, but I support his decision to run. It’s a free country, after all — at least until John Ashcroft and Paul Wolfowitz gets through with it…
2. Blaming Nader for “making” Gore lose the 2000 election is silly. The proper dispensation of blame would require doling out 10% of it to Gore (for not running a better campaign), and 90% of it to Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, John Ellis, Sandra Day O’Connor, Clarence Thomas, and William Rehnquest.
3. I suspect the majority of Nader supporters this time around will say, “Sorry, Ralph, we love you, but this election is too important to waste my vote on sending messages.”
4. Wouldn’t it be amusing if an independent right-wing candidate were to try to run as well? Just to toss the election into a four-way ideological horse race? I hear Roy Moore is considering such a move…
As a native and current inhabitant of Georgia, and a long-time observer of Zell Miller, I have to admit to seeing some truth in what Andrew is saying.
The hillbillies, they do love a man who looks out for them.
“THEM, n. Folks who could buy fifty pick-em-up trucks like the one I drive to my minimum wage job and still be rich.”
Gore didn’t lose the election because of Nader. He didn’t lose it at all.
Bush, however, found it easier to steal the presidency than planned thanks to Nader.
Oh, and no, for the thick, I have neither a pick-up truck nor a minimum wage job, so don’t bother parsing that definition for personal info. I was using the Jeff Foxworthy If You Can’t Read This, You Might Be A Redneck Dictionary.
Balder, I will admit to not paying all that much attention when it happened, but I’m pretty sure that Bush’s health care plan and prescription drug plan weren’t exactly lauded by either side. So, in that sense, I don’t think he really took anything away from anyone as far as issues go. As far as educational spending up the “wazoo”, I don’t know. Maybe it hasn’t gone into effect yet, but I just read about my old high school now charging seniors to park in the parking lot, and charging $100 (and due to increase) for every extra curricular activity a student wishes to participate in from football to the foreign language club. I find that sad and disturbing.
As for your impending first born, congratulations. I (well, my wife, really) had our first five months ago. But, not to get waaaaaay off topic, I don’t support making abortion illegal. One reason is I don’t want to tell someone what they can or can’t do with their own body. Two, is I don’t consider a fetus a true human life until sometime in the third trimester, where it could feasibly survive outside the womb (as in premature births). Yes, it can’t fend for itself, but it can breath on it’s own and it’s crucial bodily functions can happen on their own. Anytime before that, it’s more or less a parasite. I don’t think abortions should be used wantonly like birth control, but I think there are circumstances where it could be necessary (such as a 13 year old being raped and impregnated among others).
Sorry for the tangent.
Monkeys
The hillbillies, they do love a man who looks out for them.
Well, ANY group loves a man/candidate who looks out for them. Goes without saying, doncha know…
I’m trying to see how “hillbillies” isn’t just a derisive way of referring to poor people from the South. It’s disrespectful. There are many poor people who live in trailer parks who are decent and upstanding. They deserve better than that. In this regard, I think Nader is right about how similar Republicans and Democrats are — they both seem to represent the rich and the fortunate with no real regard for the poor and unfortunate.
I’m trying to see how “hillbillies” isn’t just a derisive way of referring to poor people from the South.
Zell Miller’s a hillbilly and he’s a rich guy from the South. It’s more an attitude of peevish small-mindedness than an economic thing.
My father’s side of the family are all pretty much hillbillies. They’re all small-minded, under-educated, racist, Baptist, salt-of-the-Earth folks, too.
Guess who they voted for?
I very much doubt Nader will have any serious impact this time. Democrats are so focused on wanting Bush out, I’d be amazed if even one half of one percent were willing to risk that by throwing away their votes on Nader again.
Actually, I think my daughter’s going to vote for Nader. And I can’t argue her logic. After all, in 1980 I voted for astronomical longshot John Anderson, an independent, rather than vote for Carter again. And I sure didn’t feel as if my vote was wasted.
Well, ANY group loves a man/candidate who looks out for them.
Um, not sure you had your Irony Meter on when you read my post…
If having to deal with Bush was the price to pay for sending a message to the democrats that they need to change their methods, then I’d be more than happy to see him win.
As much as I dislike Bush, I don’t like Kerry any more…and for the past decade or so (starting in Clinton’s second term, if not sooner), the Democratic party has been run by a bunch of ineffective, wimpy, hypocritical jackassaes. They don’t deserve to win. They’re politics may be *slightly* less corrupt and immoral than the Republicans, but not by much…and at least the Republicans have the ability to get stuff done, even if nobody likes the stuff they’re doing.
I’d love it if Kerry gets his ášš kicked in this election, with Nader splitting the Democratic vote be fifty percent. That would be beautiful. That’s what it would finally take to make the Democrats wise up and realize that they’ve become a joke.
John Kerry? That’s the best they’ve got? John Kerry is so bad he almost makes me miss Howard Dean.
The stuff about Bush and the hillbillies stands, however. The less teeth a person has due to an excessive intake of white lighting, the more likely they are to vote for Bush.
What I find scary is that Al Gore, who almost all Democrats were swooning over four years ago, and who missed being president by an eyelash, is now the social leper of his own party. How crazy is THAT??!! The “Man Who Would be President in 2000” is now the man who recently torpedoed the chances of his own former running mate AND the then Democratic front-runner (Dean) — all in the space of a few weeks! Saturday Night Live’s recent spoof of Gore’s plight was dead-on.
I’m thinking of it more as the vote of someone who just doesn’t want four more years of Bush and firmly believes Nader, with zero years of governing experience and zero political support, not only can’t stop that from happening, but could conceivably help make it a reality just by his presence.
You know, I’m actually hoping that Bush wins because when the Islamic fundamentalist faction takes over Iraq after a bloody coup in 2005 because Bush is rushing to make a show of turning over power before November, the political fallout will get ugly. If Kerry or whoever wins, it’ll take the GOP about three seconds to conclude that it was entirely his fault.
On the other hand, if Bush wins, they’ll have to stick with their usual strategy of blaming it on Clinton getting a bløw jøb.
On the Supreme Court:
I’d swear I heard that argument four years ago… and what changed? Oh but now we REALLY mean it.
Actually, what’s changed is
(a) We have first-hand evidence of the sort of judges Bush would appoint were a vacancy to open up. The recent recess appointments are proof enough of that.
(b) All the justices are four years older and even more likely to step down than in 2000. (The average age there is about 127, I think. I could be wrong, though.)
So yes, I think things have changed. I don’t consider it THE overriding reason to want Bush out, but it’s pretty high up on the list.
And from our own god of love and peace, Balder…
The only thing Democrats can agree on is that they want Bush out of office.
Which puts them one-up on Republicans, who are starting to splinter over whether they want Bush back in.
You over-generalize, I’ll over-generalize. Sheesh.
Not to mention the fact that Bush has taken every single issue from them during his term they have nothing to run on.
He’s tried. Given that most state legislatures are rebelling against No Child Left Behind, I think education is in play. The health-care issue is still very much on the table — how many people can you name who think Bush’s policies have actually helped them?
(Of course, he’s also handed them issues like a job-losing economy and two invaded countries in chaos — but hey, pick and choose your facts all you like.)
I had this discussion last week with a friend before Nader was in. Bush will take 45 states easy.
I’ll take that bet. What stakes are you offering?
I mean, I don’t especially like Kerry and have my doubts about whether he’ll win — but your claim is outright absurd. What are you willing to put up in defense of it?
Watch for claims from democrats about voters being unable to vote but with no proof to back it up. (After all, it is the seriousness of the charge that matters.)
“The seriousness of the charge” — and the ability of the people IN CHARGE to conceal all the evidence. Not that I’m buying into conspiracy theories at the moment … but for you to maintain in turn that the voting process in this country is above reproach is quite frankly moronic.
Waiting for my first born to come in to this world, I have no problem making abortion illegal.
And waiting in turn for MY firstborn to come into the world, I’m just as happy that my wife and I are doing so by choice rather than by executive fiat, thanks very much. I don’t know exactly who appointed you overlord to tell my wife what she can do with her body, but I plan on making sure you don’t get the chance to use this self-appointed ability.
TWL
looking around for a dart made of mistletoe
What I find scary is that Al Gore, who almost all Democrats were swooning over four years ago, and who missed being president by an eyelash, is now the social leper of his own party. How crazy is THAT??!!
In politics, the only thing worse than being a loser is being a bad one.
You have advocated the assination of a candiate for president of the united stations and now you are offending the 49% of the voters in this county.
Actually, around 100 million people voted in the 2000 Election iirc.
So that’s around 1/3rd of the population of this country.
And half of the 100 million voted for Bush, so that’s 1/6th of the population of this coutnry.
That’s only ~17%.
Now, 17% of the population of this country isn’t redneck, inbred, or otherwise, but the %-age is still noticeable. 😉
I just want Raplh Nader to come out and say, “I was wrong, the last four years would have been different if Gore had been elected.”
Actually, he said the exact opposite, even claiming that Gore would have invaded Iraq. Which I don’t believe for a microsecond, if for no other reason than that the GOP congress would never have given him the power to do so.
PAD
Why do we have a two-party system in this country? Because our method of voting demands it. A single-round winner-takes-all system is inevitably going to result in a two-party system. Any third party is going to appeal more to members of one party (call it the More Desirable party) than the other (the Less Desirable party), and will thus draw support away from that party. This has the effect of (relatively) strengthening the Less Desirable party. Anymore, most people can figure this out, and therefore will vote tactically.
Some here have claimed that Lincoln’s win in 1860 was a third-party win, but by then the Republicans weren’t a third party. The Whigs had ceased to exist after the 1852 election and the ’56 election had been, in part, a fight between the Republicans and the Know-Nothings for status as the new second party. The Republicans won.
Since then, the most successful third-party effort has been Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party…and all that accomplished was to split the Republican majority in the electorate and hand the Presidency to Woodrow Wilson.
In short: unless a third-party candidate shows signs that he or she can actually outright win (Ross Perot before we found out he was a paranoid loon), people will not take the chance of strengthening the Less Desirable party by voting for a third party.
The only way I can see to change this is to change the way we elect people. (We could move to a proportional representation system, which wouldn’t greatly affect the Presidential race but would give third parties a real shot at seats in Congress, or we could move to a preferential ballot system which would let people vote for who they want without taking support away from who they can stand.) Unfortunately, any such change would inevitably reduce the power of the two major parties, so fighting it would be something they could both agree on. In the face of opposition like that, I don’t see it happening.
Dav2.718
Democrats should worry less about the people who voted for Nader and more about the Democrats who didn’t vote at all in the last electon and figure out how to get them to the polls this year. Seriously, half the people I hear around my office complaining about Nader today didn’t even bother to vote in the last election and I bet they won’t in November either.
I can’t believe I’m about to comment on one of these political threads. The quote that people are disecting with New Math:
You have advocated the assination of a candiate for president of the united stations and now you are offending the 49% of the voters in this county.
He didn’t say “49% percent of the population”. He said “49% of the voters in this country.” If you define the voters in this country as the people who actually voted in the 2000 election (hardly a radical interpretation given the context of his statement), then you can simply use the percentage of the popular vote that President Bush got as the number this fellow was trying for. There is no need to try to chop that number down with demographic guesswork to make appear President Bush less popular than he is.
Oh. Final Note: I’m not one of that 49% of the voters who voted for Bush. I don’t plan to be part of whatever percentage votes for him this year. I plan on seeing if the Democratic canidate passes the all-important Yellow Dog Test. If he does, that’s the way I’m going. Anybody But Bush. However, playing numbers games to make it appear like he’d have lost if all eligible citizens have voted is pointless and just wishful guesswork. The sad truth is that about half the people eligble to vote didn’t care enough to do so. Let’s just assume they decided to mark the invisible “None of the Above” box on ballot and move on.
It should be noted that hillbillies are from Kentucky..ie, the Blue Hills…
Southerners are Red Necks.
Not according to Websters. I’m not gonna fall into the rhetorical trap of quoting the dictionary, but if you look it up, you’ll find it defined rather more broadly than that.
Redneck is more specifically tied to a region, and yes, it’s the South.
Again, there’s a reason most of the South handily goes for Bush.
You did hear that a major GOP operative (one behind the mob scenes stopping Miami ballot recounts in 2000) was actually running Al Sharpton’s campaign. [See this link for details.]
So what you suggest isn’t quite so farfetched…
So, explain to me why it is your contention that only the uneducated and ignorant voted for Bush, when the Dems are supposed to be the party for the blue-collar worker, those that have the high school or less education? Or is that just rhetoric to gain their vote?
Actually, he said the exact opposite, even claiming that Gore would have invaded Iraq. Which I don’t believe for a microsecond, if for no other reason than that the GOP congress would never have given him the power to do so.
I think you’re right. In fact, I expect that that we’d still be mired in congressional hearings investigating Gore about intelligence failures relating to 9/11 and the independent counsel statute would be revised so that one could be appointed to investigate Gore as well.
**It should be noted that hillbillies are from Kentucky..ie, the Blue Hills…
Southerners are Red Necks.**
So, in other words, All hillbillies are rednecks but not all rednecks are hillbillies. 🙂
So, explain to me why it is your contention that only the uneducated and ignorant voted for Bush, when the Dems are supposed to be the party for the blue-collar worker, those that have the high school or less education? Or is that just rhetoric to gain their vote?
The fact that blue collar workers have been abandoning the democrats in droves over the past 20 years should answer your question.
Boy, I’d sure like to believe that Ralph Nader’s on Meet the Press delivers the election to President Bush. But I have a feeling that Nader’s vote catching success in 2000 won’t be repeated in 2004.
Four years ago, the Clinton administration was a fresh memory, and many Democrats, especially left-wing Democrats, were very embarrassed by it. The Clintons’ high living and big money..their endless scandals..and then finally their poor record of delivery on left-wing agenda items..all together persuaded many Democrats that 2000 would be a good year to vote their consciences rather than their party loyalty. (Many Republicans felt the same way in 1992.)
Democrats are voting tactically this year. They want to win much more fiercely than they did four years ago. They are making compromises and facing facts. Fact number one is that there is no mass movement of angry, disaffected nonvoters out there waiting to be galvanized by a charismatic populist. Howard Dean spent $41 million..and pulled fewer than 400,000 people to the polls to vote for him before he quit for good. There’s a lesson there, and the angry anti-Bush constituency has learned it. My guess is that the dropoff in Nader’s vote between 2000 and 2004 will be even sharper than the plunge in Ross Perot’s. If President Bush is to win this race, he will have to do it on his own power.
My father’s side of the family are all pretty much hillbillies. They’re all small-minded, under-educated, racist, Baptist, salt-of-the-Earth folks, too.
Assuming “salt-of-the-earth” is used more to describe how these people think of themselves, not how you truly see them, I’m rather annoyed to see “Baptist” listed in there in that group of insults.
It’s tantamount to using “Muslim” in place of “Terrorist,” in my mind. Just because some Baptist teachers seem to thrive on spreading small-mindedness doesn’t mean that all Baptists are guilty of that crime. It also doesn’t mean that their teachings are truly indicative of the basic tenets of the Christian faith (or the Baptist subset of said faith).
There was a rather cogent comment on this in the forum boards for the San Diego Union-Tribune (www.signonsandiego.com/forums/upload). As best I can reproduce it from memory:
“Nader’s right, there is a cancer on the body politic. However, in 2004, the body politic is also suffering from multiple puncture wounds and blunt-force trauma, there’s blood everywhere, it’s in the ER, the doctors are working frantically but nobody’s sure how it’s gonna come out. We’re engaged in triage right now, and if we don’t take care of the short-term problems, there might not be a long term to worry about.”
I have absolutely only one thing in common with Nader. I think it should be easier for him or anyone else who wants to run for office to simply do so. If people want to throw away their vote on an unelectable candidate, it’s their right to do so.
I also have a question. If everyone is so sure that Gore would have been president if Bush hadn’t “stolen” the election, why didn’t Gore run again? Seems like the Dems would have simply given him the nomination and the presidency. Also, why didn’t Gore endorse Lieberman. Other than the fact that I don’t think the Dems will EVER vote a black or Jew into office, and they call Republicans racist, I have to wonder.
Re: Tim Byrd’s rebuttal on Gore and the Internet. Um, I’ve been on what became the Internet since 1980. Initial funding for the start of it came from DARPA in the Defense Department. Later significant funding came from the NSF. But Usenet originally had funding on a site by site basis, usually sneaked in under other budget items; no direct government funding at all.
By 1988, yes, funding was welcome and useful, but it certainly would’ve happened within a year or two anyway because it had proved its usefulness in the tech community and would’ve been high up on the wish list for funding generated bottom up, instead/in addition to top down.
And what truly irks me in Gore’s statement is the word “created”. No, it’s not “invented”. But at best, Gore assisted the middle stage development of the Internet by being an advocate for funding that would increase the reach of something that already existed. To be honest, the followup question I wanted to see, but to my knowledge never was, would’ve been a very simple “Mr. Gore, please state what your first email address was, and when you obtained it.” I’d bet it wasn’t until the late ’80s, whereas guest accounts (with remote access via DARPA TIPs) were available at MIT back in the late 70s, and UUNet was active in the D.C. area from the early 80s.
Now, if Gore had said something like “While in Congress, before it became generally known, I recognized the importance of the Internet and advocated/initiated funding for its expansion.”, no problem. But “created”? Nope, not even close.
I was waiting for Tyg’s rebuttal of Tim’s rebuttal.
Tyg being one of the dinos of the internet:-)
Rednecks are Southern.
They generaly farm or ranch and drink beer.
Hillbillies are more northern. They hunt with big muskets and drink moonshine.
Bugs Bunny cartoons wouldn’t lie.
Regarding the Supreme Court issue….
There are other differences between now and four years ago. One BIG one is that there’s evidence that the justices agreed, in exchange for taking Bush v. Gore, not to retire until after the term was over (thus so that their decision couldn’t be affected by a desire to retire). Were it not for the Supreme Court issue, what we’re worried about now would have happened in 2001 (most likely just O’Connor not Stevens, and Rehnquist, who’d get replaced by someone very similar and thus doesn’t really count). Unless the Supreme Court decides this election as well (which I think we can safely say won’t happen) the winner of the 2004 race will appoint at least 2, and maybe as many as 4 justices.
The biggest effect Nader had was making states like Oregon, Wisconsin, and Washington competative. If Nader had not been running Gore would not have to waste time and money in those states. He could have concentrated more ofhis efforts on Florida, NH, Tenn, Ohio, or NV and won at least one of them.