Well since you put it that way, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that if ALL
the Democrats in Florida had voted for Gore in 2000, Gore would be President
today! Another case closed.

Your "so-called" argument makes about as much sense as you telling me that I
should plant only the vegetables that you prefer, in a garden that I am
planting for myself.

Except in your own mind, you have totally failed to prove your case against
Nader.

According to your logic, you might as well take a shot at the Reform Party
which garnered 17,484 votes in Florida or the Libertarian Party which
garnered 16,415 votes in Florida. Either of those parties candidates votes
could also have pushed Gore over the top, well except for one tiny little
factor, the people who voted for those candidates didn't vote for Gore
either! They voted for the candidate of their choice, and it wasn't Al
Gore.

You might as well say that George W. Bush cost Al Gore the election, since
he was able to convince Democrats to vote for him who wouldn't otherwise
have voted for him, if he hadn't run for the office of POTUSA.

Face it fella, until there is a constitutional amendment passed making our
political system a two party system, you'll just have to live with the fact
that not everyone agrees with the Democrat/Republican Party agendas. It's
politics in America, get used to it.

One question though: If by chance Ralph Nader were to pull out this time
around, which parties candidate are you going to blame if George W. Bush
wins again?

Bob C.
Idahoan for Nader
"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...
Bob in Idaho wrote:
How is it that I am "equivocating," when registered voters of the
Democratic
Party couldn't bring themselves to vote for their own parties choice for
POTUSA

You are equivocating because there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that if Nader
hadn't run in 2000, then Gore would be President today. Case closed.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.