Ok, I suffered a brain fart on the New Hampshire electoral vote point. I stand corrected.

Nevertheless, the official results of the election in Florida were (available on the FEC website) Bush-2,912,790; Gore-2,912,253; Nader-97,488. Had Nader not run, the only thing known with certainty is that Bush would have hade at least 2,912,790 votes and Gore would have had at least 2,912,253. Let's suppose, as you do, that 1% of Nader voters would have voted alternatively for Gore (I'll grant that this is highly likely). This would have given Gore an additional 975 votes and the result would have shifted from Bush up by 537 to Gore up by 438. (By the way, in NH Bush won by 7211 votes. Gore would have needed 1 in 3 of Nader's 22,198 votes to have overcome that difference. How do you know he would have gotten them? In the end, you can't.)

Back to Florida, can you honestly argue that the Bush team, which included the governor, the secretary of state, many, many county level election officials and ultimately the US Supreme Court, would not have figured out a way to recount the results so as to overcome that slim margin?

Well, you might argue, Gore likely would have gotten more than 1% of Nader's votes. Maybe, maybe not, which leads to my larger point. Once you open the debate to "what ifs", your argument loses any logical coherence. There are any number of counterfactual events that can be summoned to imagine the result you desire.

What makes your "what ifs" superior to those I listed in a prior post? What if Gore hadn't run the lamest campaign in modern American political history? What if Gore hadn't run away from the legacy of Bill Clinton? What if he had chosen a sane person to be his running mate? And on and on.... In the nearly seven years I've been arguing this issue, no one on your side of the debate has offered a compelling reason why Nader's participation in the 2000 election played a more significant role in the final outcome than did the Gore campaign's incompetence. Not once.

Another point you failed to address from my other post: John Hagelin got 2281 votes in Florida. David McReynolds got 622 and Monica Moorehead got 1804. All of these candidates were left of center. Under your line of reasoning had Gore gotten any one of these totals he would have prevailed. Why then is Nader being singled out as the villain? Why isn't that dirty fuckin' hippy Hagelin responsible for Iraq? Again, your argument has no basis in logical thought.

Finally, here's what I really don't understand about your position. In November 2002 Gore gave an interview on NPR in which he--to his everlasting credit--accepted full responsibility for his defeat. What a concept. If he is able to move on, why can't you and like minded people do the same? Just admit it.

And while you're at it, just admit that Bush is responsible for the past six and one half years of hell.

The after effects of the Cold War are still with us. Every day it seems more apparent that movement conservatives have become what they most hated: Stalinists (albeit a paler version).

One needs to look no farther than to the electoral strategies of Karl Rove and the media strategies of Steve Schmidt. You don't defeat our opponents, you crush them (see the Siegelman case in Alabama) and with public relations you create your own reality (see Tony Snow, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.).

That a prominent "journalist" with a national audience like Mike Allen stands in awe of Republican message control is evidence of the ongoing erosion of Enlightenment values (objective truth, verifiable reality, etc.) in the American public sphere. It also suggests that there is nothing inherently guaranteed in the Constitution. We must constantly and actively defend our own rights.

Glenn,

How dare you take these fine, upstanding Democrats to task. Everyone knows it's really Ralph Nader's fault.

There's an additional dimension to Glenn's analysis of cost-free moralism. Republican leaders love to condemn what they believe to be immoral behavior, but they rarely take definitive action to prohibit that behavior. Doing so would not only risk electoral backlash from those who have a more live and let live attitude, it would also make moot some of the Republicans' most potent get-out-the-vote issues (gay rights and abortion). They prefer leaving these issues unresolved in order to have something to righteously rail against come campaign time.

Glenn writes, "The Beltway ruling class -- political and media figures alike -- deserves nothing but scorn and distrust."

I would add derision to this list. Humor in the form of ridicule, satire and sarcasm can be a devastatingly effective weapon against power.

The point of this article is well made. Further, I agree the Webb amendment has to potential to effectively reign in the expansion of our Mideastern military aggression.

However, Jim Webb relinquished any claim to hero status--war or otherwise--when he voted in favor of the recent FISA legislation. Simply put, he broke his oath to defend the Constitution. This more than negates anything he accomplished as a Marine. The man has seriously compromised his honor.

Using his status as a "war hero", when it is helpful to one's argument, is as wrong as was the rightwing's attempted apotheosis of David Petraeus.