tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7004769.post109681292991615696..comments2024-02-21T19:17:51.003+11:00Comments on Ari on the web: No Moore NaderAri Sharphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06077102567908140945noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7004769.post-1096977003262810642004-10-05T21:50:00.000+10:002004-10-05T21:50:00.000+10:00Yeh, I'd have to say it's a fair stretch to blame ...Yeh, I'd have to say it's a fair stretch to blame Moore alone for the 2000 result. He may be a blatant polemisist but if he's shown us one thing, it's that the people who staged the coup for Dubya had no intention of losing. I truly don't believe it would've made a difference if it was 500 votes or 100,000.<br /><br />The real villian in that little drama is the US electoral system. Ever see "State and Main"? There's a gorgeous scene where the guy is caught, innocently, in a compromising position. He spins the girl a line. She'd clearly seen through the situation and never doubted him in the frst place and she placidly walks away. He's amazed she's so calm and says "You believed that? But it's absurd!"<br /><br />"So's our electoral system", she says, "but we still vote".<br /><br />It seems to me, on this evidence, that Moore is simply being pragmatic. Blind Freddy can see that Nader must do poorly if Bush is to be defeated. Sad, because Moore's 2000 comments are spot on. Ralphie boy seems to be a genuinely ultruistic individual. It's not Nader's fault he lives under a crazy first past the post system. <br /><br />How a country can call itself a democracy when the system they use is even capable of being exploited in that fashion, I do not know.<br /><br />Pete BAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com