Did Nader have a case . . .

[liberal72]

that Repubs and Dems were not that different back in 2000?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AVID]

2. short answer . . .

NO

Long answer, do some historical research

[7th_Sephiroth]

3. i believe that alot of people in 2000

thought that the presidency was a case of heres the new boss same as the old, the first thin out of my mouth when dumbya was confirmed was "oh boy, another war with iraq" but i thought that was gonna be the only change besides huge-er money for oil companies, i was planning on doing the military thing but i saw the war with iraq and decided to play it safe.

[drthais]

4. I think so...

and not because they are so different today
but more because times are so different today
the changes in this country in the past three years
make the differences very stark

we were pissed when the Supreme Court stopped the recount
but we weren't horrified (and we should have been)
we had no way of knowing the extent of the plans
to change this country

the difference in 2004 is this:
now we know

and there is only one thing to do
and that is to take Bush and his cronies out
as quickly as possible

only then can we begin to reasses
and make the party more progressive
or even vote once again for a third party
but that is not an option this year

[Kinkistyle]

5. Bush ran on a "compassionate" platform and Gore was distancing from Bill

So it SEEMED to the public like both candidates were trying to aim for the middle, but people who didn't watch FOX and CNN all day bash Gore and Clinton knew that they were different as night and day.

Under Gore, 9/11 never would have happened. This needs to be broadcast loud and wide.

[uhhuh]

6. Looks like some people

are already smarter than Nader, and are cutting him off at the pass.
http://www.nader2004.org/
www.nader2004.com is still available if anyone is interested.