The American Spectator

Reader Mail

p> NADER COSTS br> Re: Jay D. Homnick's Nader Parties in Florida : /p>

With respect to Jay Homnick's musings on Florida 2000: His argument seems to be that every one of Ralph Nader's 94,000 voters would have stayed home had Ralph not been on the ballot? Please... That Nader vote is sufficiently large relative to W's final victory margin (537) that it is not plausible that Ralphie did not cost Gore the election, thank God. It thus is obvious that Gore would not have lost by 537 but for Ralph. Given that, we now can talk about the early networks calls for Gore and mistaken reports of voting booth closure in the Panhandle. We can talk about vote fraud in New Mexico. The last-minute dirty trick with respect to W's DUI. Lots and lots of things could have been different, and W still would have won. But the narrow argument that Nader cost Gore no votes in Florida is preposterous.

p>By the way, the Dems/leftists nurtured Nader, encouraged Nader, suckled Nader, etc. for decades precisely because his eternal lies served their political ends. For them now to blame Nader for their problems and to pursue every possible strategy to keep him off the various state ballots is hypocrisy crass even by lib/left standards. br> -- Benjamin Zycher br> Agoura Hills, California /p> p> EDWARDS ON THE TABLE br> Re: William Tucker's

topics:
Health Care, Business, Sports, Islam, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, NATO, Africa, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Oil