QandOQuestions and Observations |
||
|
||
| Comments | ||
|
Equally as glaring is Russert's failure to take him to task about that. Its a FALSE premise, but he's never even challenged over it. Posted by: McQ at February 23, 2004 01:18 PM |
||
|
So far, what I have seen is that all left leaning interests--globally--whose oxen have been gored by the "Bush Doctrines" are doing and saying whatever they can to help defeat him. I see Nader as no exception. Now, what if the focus here is switched to issues of voter-energizing and turnout? Nader is in a position to draw off the Angry Left while keeping it in viable electoral play, allowing the Dems to run a little closer to center--going after the all important undecideds. The coming--and well timed-- "Dubya dirt stories" can be broken thru Nader with less DNC damage. Particularly the "corporate" stuff. Long about the third week in October, Nader bows out with a very strong "half a loaf is better than none" endorsment of Kerry. Quid Pro Quo a Naderite EPA (at least) in a Kerry administration. Were the McAuliffe/Nader conversations really as simple as Ralph...pleeeeze don't do this to us? Naive I would think. Far fetched? Certainly. Unthinkable? Hardly, given what we've seen so far. And, these tactics would be consistent with what one would expect from folks with a Euroentric love for parliamentarian-style factional politics. What other way around the constraints of our electoral college? Posted by: Stephen at February 23, 2004 03:32 PM |
||