Re: Kristin's Comments

• From: shamsoftabriz
• Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 11:07:50 -0800
• Message-ID: <000T0LTG6.0014GHSFB.12170551-quizbowl_at_...>

I'm also a Green, but voted for Gore. For me,
Nader was the best choice, but I found myself torn
between my ideals and reality. Ideals are for heaven.
Reality rules on Earth. Ergo, I voted for Gore, because
out of ALL the democrats in the whole freakin' party,
Gore was probably the most radical environmentalist of
the bunch (unfortunately the Clinton administration
kept ignoring him in a futile attempt to get Congress
to compromise on other issues). Also a reality (if
Bush wins)is that large tracts of the Alaskan
wilderness will be opened up for oil drilling and another
four years will go by (two with repub. majority in
congress AND a relatively un-progressive Supreme Court)
that will see rampnat environmental neglect and damage
and other concerns of many Greens go unaddressed. I
know that Nader might want to take some classic
revolutionary stand that worse=more attention for the cause,
but I'm not willing to pay that price.

On the
one hand, Gore only needed to draw a few thousand,
let a lone half (acc. to Kristin's numers re: how
many might have voted for Gore) of the FL Naderites
votes to win the election. Like three thousand out of
94,000.

But lets not forget that up until the last 48 hours
of the campaign, Gore stank. If he wasn't able to
beat someone so utterly incompetant as Bush, he
deserved to lose. In the end, though Nader certainly had
an impact, the election would not have been so close
in the first place had Gore not been such a bad
politician.

I can hear it now: "I promise to descend and
prefect the Constipation of the United Slates...to the
best of my debility..." ;-)