**jcgmoi **, Thanks for posting the link and for your forecasts on spin-to-come. You might be right about the end-of-the-year wrap-up, but I still find the timing rather convenient.
To clarify: when I said “alleged” ex-Naderites, I didn’t mean that the people interviewed had no links to Nader, or that people like Conyers are actually in the Bush camp. Just that the way these articles are set up, using key quotations from those who are briefly described as disgruntled is, by their very nature, subjective. The journalist has lots of opportunity to cast people and their opinions in a certain light. My favorite example of this from the article you posted is:
“Having made the concession, [that there is a difference between Gore and Bush] Nader – who avoids eye-contact like an oncoming Ford Pinto – started scribbling notes to
himself, and said a Bush presidency will at least galvanize liberals.”
Plus those references to his “cramped” office and bachelor pad?
These kinds of things make me chuckle. I mean, to do a serious journalistic assessment of what the Nader campaign did in this election, what motivated the supporters (and the opponents), and where the Greens now stand would require a lengthy news analysis. Not just a handful of quotations from the pissed-off and the not-so-pissed off glued together between innuendos. But who am I kidding about the state of journalism?
Whatever the actual intent of the reporter, what we’re left with is the sense that Nader can be safely blamed for Gore’s loss. And all of that other stuff: the Big Money? the suppressed African-American vote? the Votomatic? the one-time only “Equal Protection” argument?..etc.etc.etc.?
Fuh-gedd-a-bout-it.
"Just stay tuned for the real spinning; Reagan/Bush Elder cronies equal Reagan/Bush Elder style newspeak."
Yes, its Ralph’s fault. If he had been allowed to debate(and I didn’t see Mr. Gore really trying to get him included, wonder why?)
then he would’ve been president and you wouldn’t HAVE to worry about the environment!
Maybe it was all those votes in East Liverpool, Ohio…
Though I, personally, would be upset if Ralph pulled out…heh heh
I think the point of all this blame-Nader stuff–and believe me, I blame the guy thoroughly–is that, for weeks or even months before the election, people (a) warned the Greenies that the only thing Nader would accomplish would be to swing the election to Bush, and (b) that this really did mattter. Does anybody seriously argue that there are no substantive differences between Bruce Babbit and Gale Norton?
In other words, we told you so. Now enjoy all those extra greenhouse gasses your votes just bought us.
I agree that Nader cost Gore the election. Some of my friends (and others throughout the country, no doubt) that were not very informed about the canidates decided to vote for Nader because he would legalize marijuana. If Nader hadn’t been running these guys wouldn’t have vote for Browne or anyone else, all they knew was little snipets they would hear through the grapevine. Here is how one conversation with one of these guys:
Me: Who are you going to vote for?
Friend: Nader, because he’s going to legalize pot
Me: Won’t that cut into your “business?”
Friend: Yeah, but it’s a good idea (to legalize marijuana).
This friend had told me that he was voting for Gore earlier in the election.
It was nice to see in that article to see Nader finally admit that, “well, gosh, Bush and Gore might not be exactly one in the same, oops.”
If you ask me, he did more to hurt the possibility of a three party system.
Minty, I voted for Gore on similar grounds so the position I’m about to defend isn’t actually my own position. “We told you so” is probably the wrong attitude to take since it assumes that the Nader supporters didn’t realize that they might be costing Gore the election. They did realize it, and while they undoubtedly did see “substantive differences” they also saw some substantive similarities ;).
Since you are obviously concerned about the environment, I’m sure I don’t have to tell you how the US behaved during the recent talks at the Hague. Did you notice how completely under-reported that story was, btw?
Here is an excerpt from a 1999 article (link posted below) that I think gives a sense of what some Naderites were probably thinking and, I imagine, still are thinking. The article is about the Clinton administration and the relentless assault it has faced from business and the political right.
"Though in many cases the Administration bent over
backward to compromise and enlist industry’s support, virtually every new measure it contemplated only fanned the flames of jihad. …New rules proposed by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to control grazing by Western ranchers on federal lands at below-market rates ignited a firestorm. Oil companies opposed new taxes on energy, while seeking drilling rights in Alaskan wildlife sanctuaries. Most firms in oil, paper, chemicals, electric power and related industries were up in arms over a proposed treaty on global
warming. Although the Administration revised the government’s approach to regulation along lines many industries had been demanding, efforts to put across legislation for environmental cleanup went nowhere, despite some significant business support."
From this view, environmentalists (and other activists) are locked in a stalemate along with the Dems; a stalemate that Gore’s election was not going to break in the least.
It’s widely believed that Bush’s election will help the Dems in 2002. In the meantime appointments like Norton and Ashcroft can give people plenty of reason to want their voices to be heard. Granted, this may be Pollyanna-ish. It didn’t persuade me to vote for Nader. But I can’t bring myself to condemn those who did. Nor would I want to discount the possibility that Bush’s shaky grasp on power, combined with his dubious agenda might just be what it takes to make people like Dignan’s friend want to pay a bit more attention.
Minty:*"Does anybody seriously argue that there are no substantive differences between Bruce Babbit and Gale Norton?..
In other words, we told you so."*
Minty, I voted for Gore on similar grounds so the position I’m about to defend isn’t actually my own position. “We told you so” is probably the wrong attitude to take since it assumes that the Nader supporters didn’t realize that they might be costing Gore the election. They did realize it, and while they undoubtedly did see “substantive differences” they also saw some substantive similarities ;).
Since you are obviously concerned about the environment, I’m sure I don’t have to tell you how the US behaved during the recent talks at the Hague. Did you notice how completely under-reported that story was, btw?
Here is an excerpt from a 1999 article (link posted below) that I think gives a sense of what some Naderites were probably thinking and, I imagine, still are thinking. The article is about the Clinton administration and the relentless assault it has faced from business and the political right.
"Though in many cases the Administration bent over backward to compromise and enlist industry’s support, virtually every new measure it contemplated only fanned the flames of jihad. …New rules proposed by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to control grazing by Western ranchers on federal lands at below-market rates ignited a firestorm. Oil companies opposed new taxes on energy, while seeking drilling rights in Alaskan wildlife sanctuaries. Most firms in oil, paper, chemicals, electric power and related industries were up in arms over a proposed treaty on global warming. Although the Administration revised the government’s approach to regulation along lines many industries had been demanding, efforts to put across legislation for environmental cleanup went nowhere, despite some significant business support."
[for url see the badly formatted post]
From this view, environmentalists (and other activists) are locked in a stalemate along with the Dems; a stalemate that Gore’s election was not going to break in the least.
It’s widely believed that Bush’s election will help the Dems in 2002. In the meantime appointments like Norton and Ashcroft can give people plenty of reason to want their voices to be heard. Granted, this may be Pollyanna-ish. It didn’t persuade me to vote for Nader. But I can’t bring myself to condemn those who did. Nor would I want to discount the possibility that Bush’s shaky grasp on power, combined with his dubious agenda might just be what it takes to make people like Dignan’s friend want to pay a bit more attention.
Mandelstam, I’m certainly not going to hold the Clinton administration up as the standard of environmental righteousness, but it was a heck of an improvement over the Reagan/Bush years. That’s a fact that any concerned Green ought to recognize. So now we’re back to another guy who thinks that the global warming data isn’t totally conclucive, so there’s no reason to do anything at all in the meantime?
I agree that the Dems are now posed to kick butt, at least in the 2002 congressional races. And I agree that “I told you so” isn’t the most mature response to this mess. But still!
[rant]I campaigned and voted for Nader. I’d do it again. I could not then and can not now vote for or believe in a man (Gore) who I remember fighting FOR the global free logging agreement. I could not support a man who supports the genocidal policies in Iraq. He took large campaign contributions, he supported SDI, WTO, NAFTA, the drug war and the list goes on. Oh and Joey Lieberman, what a punk! The man had the gall to show his face at a Human Rights Campaign (a GLTB political group) dinner after voting FOR the defense of marriage act (yes, HRC did invite him to the dinner and endorse him, despite his record).
Is GWB worse? Of course, but it is the difference between flying a plane into the ground at 100kph and 200kph. Same bloody mess in the end.
Nader was the candidate who pointed out there is a systemic problem of corporate power in the country (and world). He was the candidate who had worked and will continue to work to correct that problem.[/rant]
Blame Nader? Why not blame the electoral process? I don’t mean just the electoral college, but the whole system. It is dominated by moneyed interests, it is a winner take all system and does not even have a foundation for public participation in education and the media.
Why someone would argue a man of unquestionable character and long history of public service should not run is beyond me. Why not instead argue that a system which does not allow free elections is the real problem? Establish Instant run-off voting, run publicly financed campaigns and put the media back in the public interest. Then we’ll talk about Nader.
This is the problem with the entire presidential sideshow.
In other countries, the party is more important than the single candidate. Campaigns are short and you are focused on what the new government will look like.
Here, we say “We want a laid back guy, not a stiff guy” and totally forget that he’s bringing in literally hundreds of party stalwards to overhaul the machinery.
So we ask “What’s your tax program” and instead find out that he’s going to give away to big businesses even more than he’s going to refund taxes to the rich.
Ahem. If anyone is interested in the details of the seedy and potentially criminal acts of the Clinton Administration regarding the low-sulfur coal resources that Jackmannii mentions, read this link, last post:
Pretty disreputable, and I’ve not found a single liberal that can defend his administration’s actions there. Normally, they change the subject pretty quickly or ignore me, because while everyone is so concerned about oil, no one cares much about coal. So think about this little gem some, before you start to go after Bush’s as-of-yet unofficial policies.
I am a free-thinking, nonpartisan, well-educated, well-informed American citizen, and I want to make the following perfectly clear:
I never, ever had the slightest intention of casting my vote for Gore. Not only do I consider him utterly undeserving of the position, I also disagree vehemently on a number of issues that he’s supported (the gross overregulation of popular entertainment and…well, the environment, to name a couple).
My home state, Hawaii, has made some noise about “breaking the Democratic gridlock” but that’s all it is, noise. Gore won it by a considerable margin.
So my particular third party vote…and remember, all third party votes are !!COMPLETELY WASTED!!, so it makes no difference who it was for…did not in any way give the election to Bush.
As far as the environment is concerned, once again I direct you to Tom Tomorrow (yes, it’s astonishing how much I have to rely on this one cartoonist, but trust me, he really knows his stuff): http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2000/09/25/tomo/index.html. As Short already pointed out, the “marginally less abysmal” option doesn’t really appeal to a lot of voters.
I continue to be dumbfounded that virtually no blame is placed where it belongs, namely, with the people who voted for Bush, and with Gore himself, who made absolutely no attempt to appeal to Nader voters. Good lord. So it’s okay to vote for someone who’s already known to be manifestly incompetent for the position, but following one’s conscience is somehow unacceptable? And if you’re a Democrat, you’re under absolutely no obligation to present yourself as someone voters would want to choose for the job? That it’s okay to presume that EVERYONE is going to buy into that ludicrous “throwing your vote away” premise and choose you because they somehow have to?
Forget it. Go ahead, blame Nader all you want. Continue to be blind to the obvious. I will hear no more of it.
"Marginally less abysmal? I suppose that if one stands far enough away, the Dems and Repubs look close together on this issue, but really, people who aren’t quite that far left can easily tell the difference.
As far as voting your conscience goes, that’s up to each individual to decide for themselves. Just so long as nobody pretends that a noble sentiment like that can have real world effects, maybe disastrous, maybe positive.
Anthracite, you’d be doing your credibility a great service by posting a link to someone’s work other your own. Is there any independent analysis of the situation you can point us to?
Now, to take it more seriously: How competitive economically can coal actually be that’s mined halfway around the friggin’ world, hauled to a port, shipped across a huge ocean to another port, and hauled to a power plant somewhere in the West with coal actually mined in the same time zone as the plant? And pardon me, but I was under the impression (I have some background in this stuff too, but it may be obsolete) that the Wyoming Powder River Basin deposits, for just one example of Western low-sulfur coal, were not only cleaner but much larger and much more economical to surface-mine than the deep southern-Utah coal you’re worked up over, anyway. If the Utah deposits are so attractive, why hadn’t they been gone after already by the free enterprise system?
IOW, is your discussion based on actual economic studies, environmental impact (including the at-home vs. halfway-around-the-friggin’-world factor), and technological factors? Or did you not get a response earlier because it looked more like yet another evidence-free Clinton-hating rant, albeit not from one of the usual sources on this board?
Oh, to respond to the OP, I’d really like to hear from anyone who voted for Nader based on his environmental positions, however sincere they may have been. I’d REALLY like to hear from Nader himself over the pre-election reports that he’d actually have been happier with a Bush win, so that the environmental situation could be made worse and the Greens (and himself) would look better by the next election.
For purposes of this discussion, the campaign-reform-activist Nader supporters can be let off the hook, IMHO. There’s room for principled naivete in this world.
And what sort of “independent analysis” would you accept? Just by going to altavista.com and entering “Escalante” and “Lippo” I can come up with a great many hits on articles, the lion’s share of them (from casual glnce, mind you) agreeing with me as to the unsavoryness of the action. Kindly tell me which ones you believe, or choose not to? Or, perhaps, would you believe the researched opinion of one person in particular, who has consulted for all the companies in question, done research on the coal fields of the West and their economic, technical, and logistic issues for 8 years full-time? Probably not, since her e-mail address does not end in something like “nytimes.com”. :rolleyes:
And I don’t really get the crack about “posting a link to someone’s work other (sic) your own”. In the thread I linked, I was asked a question, and I gave my researched opinion on it. I thought that was clear. I did not rely on quickie web-links, I summarized from a report I wrote years ago. It sounds like you are implying I was avoiding doing that in the linked thread.
Pretty damn competitive, which is why Virginia Power (now Dominion Resources) has test burned Columbian and Indonesian coal at two of their power plants, and I have been personally involved in the economic studies that showed it could be cheaper than using the local Virginia coal. Or why the Spanish coal power plant I was at, oh, just 3 weeks ago could very competitively import coal from China, Korea, South Africa, and Australia; as opposed to using the locally mined coal just 10 miles away from the plant. Of course, from your overall tone, it is apparent that you do not consider me to have any expertise in this area… :rolleyes:
Wow - so it all comes down to just FOB mine cost now? Wow - guess I’m out of a job. :rolleyes: Rail transport costs and rail line usage and availability limitations, for one reason. Poorer heating value for another. And what do you mean “cleaner”? On a mass percent basis, or a Btu basis? And of course, there are the other issues that limit the usability of the PRB coals, such as, oh, the high moisture content problem, the very high calcium content of the ash, the slagging and fouling issues, etc. And one has to consider the type of plants which were targeted for burning this coal…naw, I guess that’s not important, is it?
Plus, there were several plans in the works that this locally mined coal would have been used to supply minemouth or short-haul merchant plants that would sell their power cheaply (well, competitively) to California. And we all know California doesn’t need any cheap power, right? In short, the free enterprise system was working - but with respect for future plans, not at the time that the fields were placed off-limits.
My post was an “evidence-free Clinton-hating rant”? Wow. I never knew. I will now be watching your posts to see you call each and every one of the “evidence-free Bush-hating rants” on the Board.
I posted my link because it dealt with coal. One thing I happen to know more about than anyone else here (oh wait, I forgot, you don’t believe that. Read some of my many other threads on the subject. Naw, that won’t convince you either. Guess I’m out of luck.) Yes, I know it’s akin to being the ice hockey champion of Ghana. Well, it’s one thing I do well. And regardless of how I feel aout Clinton, what was done in the “Escalante Memorial” was nothing more than a political payoff. Just as was done under Reagan, Bush, etc. in other areas. Clinton is not unique in doing this. But the topic at hand was not addressing those other actions - the point was a very specific, limited one brought up by Jackmannii.
Now if you will excuse me, I have to pack for a trip to a coal power plant which - guess what? Was one of the plants which would have purchased coal developed from that very region in question. You know, I have no problem with you asking for details to expand upon what I posted in the linked thread. No one who posts something should be afraid to tell where their sources are. But your tone and manner implies that I am just rabidly, anti-Clinton baselessly shooting from the hip on a subject that has the utmost importance to me - coal power. How dare you even suggest I would be partisan on this, with no counter-evidence offered of your own, just an attitude of “prove it!” As a result, I now have no respect for any points you make or questions you may ask in the future on this subject, regardless of your “background in this stuff too”.
: