Skip to main content

View Diary: The Ethic of (Ir)Responsibility (238 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Re: Weber not applicable in 2000 (none)
    I disagree. Nearly everything that critics of Bush warned would happen has happened: giving tax-breaks to the rich; selling out to oil companies; undermining abortion rights; throwing environmental regulation out the door; and being anti-European, anti-UN, and anti-multilateralism.

    Sure, 9/11 gave Bush an incredible opportunity to advance his own agenda, but that agenda is hardly surprising. Anyone before the election with an intact prefrontal cortex could tell you that Bush was a HUGE risk to the very issues that Nader claimed to uphold.

    •  We forget that Bush is not a dictator! (none)
      None of this would have happened if the Democrats had fought and taken their case to the people and in the streets (if necessary).  But then the people might actually get the idea that they indeed have power to change this country.  That's why Howard Dean, whose political ideas were hardly radical, was such a threat and had to be taken down...

      People are terrible. They can bear anything.

      by soulfrieda on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 04:44:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  second (none)
      that disagreement there.

      Unless you based your understanding of Bush in the 2000 election strictly on the mainstream media, you were more than aware of what he stood for and the drastic steps he would take to curtail the freedoms dems supposedly stand for.

      I did vote for Nader though. It was protest vote and i voted-shared with someone from Texas. I felt safe diong so though cause i am Marylander and there was no way that Maryland was going to go for Bush no matter how many Nader votes there were. If i had known that the election was going to be decided by New Hampshire going to Bush because of Nader votes, i would have backed off my support. In the end, the frustration that people felt/feel with the Democratic Party doesn't justify giving the country over to the Republicans. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.

    •  Links? (none)
      What evidence do you have to support this?

      Remember, they'd have to be pre-Nov2000.

      Provide your evidence and we can then discuss their merits, and whether they were in the "common knowledge" as you are supposing.

      I recall no such dire/doom warnings to any extent that told me they had credence or carried more or less weight than any other campaign "the opposition is bad because..." argument.

      Bush/Kerry'04--Independent has never looked so good!

      by xysrl on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 04:54:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site