Question Time Washington DC
Jennie Kermode
Washington DC in a couple of weeks for a US election special, and is
looking for audience members (who may be successful in submitting their
questions). I couldn't help but think of Klaatu, and I wondered if
anyone else here might be interested. Details are on the website:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/questiontime/
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode
jen...@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com
klaatu...@gmail.com
Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The BBC's esteemed 'Question Time' programme is going to be in
> Washington DC in a couple of weeks for a US election special, and is
> looking for audience members (who may be successful in submitting their
> questions). I couldn't help but think of Klaatu, and I wondered if
> anyone else here might be interested. Details are on the website:-
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/questiontime/
Could I send poor Mr Hardman in my stead?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBYgzWt-mXU
Note, if you will, that these remarks on the economy go back to April.
Aside from that, let me mention that I don't really have a horse in
this race, so to speak.
Both are unlikely to deal with the profound danger to North America of
massive population increase mostly due to immigraiotn, legal or
otherwise.
Neither takes a sane stand on global warming. The McCain/Palin team
don't believe in either anthropogenic global warming and both are
basically opposed to all forms of birth control other than abstinence,
and Palin is vehement in her opposition to abortion as a safe and
legal last resort for women, much less as an acceptable elective
method.
Obama and Biden both support a woman's right to choose, but also
support massive immigration -- legal or otherwise -- of populations
that generally avoid birth-control and have already deforested most of
the Amazon and seem intent on deforesting North America as well, to
judge by what I've seen them almost universally doing in our own area.
Sadly, the combined campaigns regard population growth control as a
fringe issue not worthy of discussion, and to be vociferously
relegated to the category of "only freaks and weirdos ever consider
this".
I rather suspect I shall be voting for Mr Nader again.
Jennie Kermode
> Could I send poor Mr Hardman in my stead?
Well, you know, I rather thought _he_ might be in his element.
> Aside from that, let me mention that I don't really have a horse in
> this race, so to speak.
I'm sure that wouldn't be necessary. By all means ask a
question that's difficult for both sides.
klaatu...@gmail.com
Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2008-10-11, klaatu.re...@gmail.com <klaatu.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Could I send poor Mr Hardman in my stead?
>
> Well, you know, I rather thought _he_ might be in his element.
Oh, the poor fellow is intensely uncomfortable in a suit, moreso when
surrounded by people who are comfortable wearing suits. In any case,
locally the sort of folks who even watch BBC News are the sort one
reasonably suspects to divide their time between horse-country polo
matches and the sort of upper-crusty f^tes one saw in the film "Pretty
Woman". The sort who would actually attend a BBC questions-and-answers
session here in the DC Metro area would tend to be the policy-wonkish
subset of that crew; I'd feel about as much a pretender as Julia
Roberts's character did in that film.
>
> > Aside from that, let me mention that I don't really have a horse in
> > this race, so to speak.
>
> I'm sure that wouldn't be necessary. By all means ask a
> question that's difficult for both sides.
How about "what will your administration do to halt our descent into
the terminal phase of the ongoing Holocene Mass Extinction".
I think it's so big that nobody outside of the hardcore sciences can
quite grasp it. Politicians don't seem to have a clue.
Peter H. Coffin
> Obama and Biden both support a woman's right to choose, but also
> support massive immigration -- legal or otherwise -- of populations
> that generally avoid birth-control and have already deforested most of
> the Amazon and seem intent on deforesting North America as well, to
> judge by what I've seen them almost universally doing in our own area.
See, the immegration only continues while/when the US is richer than
other places. I don't think that situation will last too much longer.
Whether the US tanks before other places grow wealthy is a matter for
handicappers to sort out, but the end result as far as immegration is
councerned is the same. The economic basis for doing so goes away.
> Sadly, the combined campaigns regard population growth control as a
> fringe issue not worthy of discussion, and to be vociferously
> relegated to the category of "only freaks and weirdos ever consider
> this".
I think it's more that the positions of those involved are well enough
known and intractable that if the issue is one that's important enough
to decide a voter's vote, there's no point in discussing it anymore. The
decision is already made. If one considers the question as being less
important than many other issues, such that a voter may not know already
know what the position are, then the time spent discussing is probably
better spent on more important things. It would be compariable to giving
press time to the fact that at least the candidates aren't Catholic.
> I rather suspect I shall be voting for Mr Nader again.
As your heart moves. Personally, I think the guy's a very smart nutbag
and by no account should be allowed to be *in charge of* anything more
important than a newspaper column.
--
64. I will see a competent psychiatrist and get cured of all extremely
unusual phobias and bizarre compulsive habits which could prove to
be a disadvantage.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
klaatu...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:52:42 -0700 (PDT), klaatu.re...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Obama and Biden both support a woman's right to choose, but also
> > support massive immigration -- legal or otherwise -- of populations
> > that generally avoid birth-control and have already deforested most of
> > the Amazon and seem intent on deforesting North America as well, to
> > judge by what I've seen them almost universally doing in our own area.
>
> See, the immegration only continues while/when the US is richer than
> other places. I don't think that situation will last too much longer.
> Whether the US tanks before other places grow wealthy is a matter for
> handicappers to sort out, but the end result as far as immegration is
> councerned is the same. The economic basis for doing so goes away.
Right, no argument there. However, this sorts out into a few extremes.
On the one hand, certain extremists who are approaching the issue from
the "all about race" side of things, they're saying "so all we had to
do to get rid of the fleas was to burn down the house? We should have
come out with the kerosene and lighters earlier". Other hand, there
are the folks saying "well, what's the point in turning the US into
Argentina is that's what it takes to make people go back to Argentina,
they're already used to Argentina and given that things are the same
either place, why not stay where you are and not have to travel". On
another hand, yet, there's the argument that "okay, so the US is flat
broke and nothing works there, but they're not starving in the US and
we are starving here in Guatemala". Migration pressures are certainly
of multiple variables.
The one thing we won't likely see is "easy credit" from the polleros/
coyotes helping people get to the US as indentured servants working on
"spec". There's no point in letting people run up a tab who can't
possibly ever pay. No percentage in it.
> > Sadly, the combined campaigns regard population growth control as a
> > fringe issue not worthy of discussion, and to be vociferously
> > relegated to the category of "only freaks and weirdos ever consider
> > this".
>
> I think it's more that the positions of those involved are well enough
> known and intractable that if the issue is one that's important enough
> to decide a voter's vote, there's no point in discussing it anymore. The
> decision is already made. If one considers the question as being less
> important than many other issues, such that a voter may not know already
> know what the position are, then the time spent discussing is probably
> better spent on more important things. It would be compariable to giving
> press time to the fact that at least the candidates aren't Catholic.
Ah, yikes, that's a bit of overkill there, but I can see the analogy.
Look, when it comes to the Radical Republicans (all there is on the
ticket this year). yes, that's a done deal, they might as well have
"the Pope controls my reproductive system" stamped on their foreheads,
and it's all the weirder because AFAICT neither of them is actually
Catholic, they're Fundies who seem to take a much stranger and
stronger stance on reproductive rights than do the rank-and-file of
mainstream US Catholics.
Obama and Biden seem to be unwilling to offends their very strong
Catholic supporters, even those who think female clergy might be
acceptable and that a woman's choice is a woman's choice. So
population never comes up; to modern Democrats, birth-control is a
right and a resort but the idea of Family Planning to Save the Planet
seems to be outside of their concepts.
> > I rather suspect I shall be voting for Mr Nader again.
>
> As your heart moves. Personally, I think the guy's a very smart nutbag
> and by no account should be allowed to be *in charge of* anything more
> important than a newspaper column.
Same thing with some of the other 3rd-party people I've voted for;
it's not that I could stand it if they won. It's that I like to have a
fairly large range of people for whom to vote who can't possibly win,
but who send a message to the established parties. IMHO nothing gets
the bipartisan system back onto track faster than a credible threat
from someone catering to what tghe two parties have jointly decided to
ignore.
In other words, if they leave me in a position where I don't have a
horse in the race, I'll get my own damned horse, thanks. And if it
runs well this go-round, maybe next time the two main parties won't
trot out their best mud-track runners for the astroturf race. They
need to send out their bests, not their wannabees on the one hand and
their relics on the other.
Satori
<klaatu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:084b96af-599b-4f79...@d31g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Obama and Biden seem to be unwilling to offends their very strong
> Catholic supporters, even those who think female clergy might be
> acceptable and that a woman's choice is a woman's choice. So
> population never comes up; to modern Democrats, birth-control is a
> right and a resort but the idea of Family Planning to Save the Planet
> seems to be outside of their concepts.
What do you think the United States should do about family planning outside
of the United States? An Obama administration will certainly stop the U.S.
government's current abhorant policy of only funding "abstinance-only" type
AIDS prevention in Africa, and put more money into condom distribution and
the like. But the global population explosion is not happening in the U.S.
What else do you want us to do?
>> > I rather suspect I shall be voting for Mr Nader again.
>>
>> As your heart moves. Personally, I think the guy's a very smart nutbag
>> and by no account should be allowed to be *in charge of* anything more
>> important than a newspaper column.
>
> Same thing with some of the other 3rd-party people I've voted for;
> it's not that I could stand it if they won. It's that I like to have a
> fairly large range of people for whom to vote who can't possibly win,
> but who send a message to the established parties. IMHO nothing gets
> the bipartisan system back onto track faster than a credible threat
> from someone catering to what tghe two parties have jointly decided to
> ignore.
I don't know if that's really true. And I'm speaking as a former state chair
and national committee alternate to an American third party. Nader may have
cost Gore the election in 2000. Did the Democratic Party move to the left as
a result? Hardly. Perot may have cost Daddy Bush the election in 92, but in
what ways did the Republican Party move towards Perot's platform?
The major parties in this country consider 3rd parties nothing more than
noise on the margins. We don't have a credible third party like the Lib Dems
in Britain or the NDP in Canada. Nor does it look like we will anytime soon.
And the way a party gets that level of credibility is to win elections.
You're much more likely to see a third party taken seriously if it elects a
couple Congresspeople rather than shave off a couple percent more in a
Presidential election. The Greens haven't even held a state legislature
slate in ten years. For the Libertarians, its been closer to twenty.
> In other words, if they leave me in a position where I don't have a
> horse in the race, I'll get my own damned horse, thanks. And if it
> runs well this go-round, maybe next time the two main parties won't
> trot out their best mud-track runners for the astroturf race. They
> need to send out their bests, not their wannabees on the one hand and
> their relics on the other.
Who would you consider to be the bests? What candidates would have made you
more comfortable as the major party nominees?
Satori
"Satori" <dwis...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ZByIk.91$Ax1...@newsfe12.iad...
<snip>
> The Greens haven't even held a state legislature slate in ten years. For
> the Libertarians, its been closer to twenty.
That should have read "state legislature seat".
klaatu
> <klaatu.re...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:084b96af-599b-4f79...@d31g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Obama and Biden seem to be unwilling to offends their very strong
> > Catholic supporters, even those who think female clergy might be
> > acceptable and that a woman's choice is a woman's choice. So
> > population never comes up; to modern Democrats, birth-control is a
> > right and a resort but the idea of Family Planning to Save the Planet
> > seems to be outside of their concepts.
>
> What do you think the United States should do about family planning outside
> of the United States? An Obama administration will certainly stop the U.S.
> government's current abhorant policy of only funding "abstinance-only" type
> AIDS prevention in Africa, and put more money into condom distribution and
> the like. But the global population explosion is not happening in the U.S.
> What else do you want us to do?
We desperately need to reverse three decades of outright prohibiting
any foreign-aid that even mentions family planning. Indeed, we need to
fund massive condom distribution all over the developing world,
especially where HIV is epidemic. Presently that is banned. Obviously
you know that but a lot of people do not know that.
Indeed, we should be promoting the example of Iran, which according to
the UN is a model of family-planning.
If I thought there was some way to keep it outside of expiration -- to
wit, temperate and dry -- I'd say that we need to ship The Pill across
the globe, and IUD where The Pill can't be expected to be effective
due to climate or inadequate technical levels to assure effective
storage.
>
> >> > I rather suspect I shall be voting for Mr Nader again.
>
> >> As your heart moves. Personally, I think the guy's a very smart nutbag
> >> and by no account should be allowed to be *in charge of* anything more
> >> important than a newspaper column.
>
> > Same thing with some of the other 3rd-party people I've voted for;
> > it's not that I could stand it if they won. It's that I like to have a
> > fairly large range of people for whom to vote who can't possibly win,
> > but who send a message to the established parties. IMHO nothing gets
> > the bipartisan system back onto track faster than a credible threat
> > from someone catering to what tghe two parties have jointly decided to
> > ignore.
>
> I don't know if that's really true. And I'm speaking as a former state chair
> and national committee alternate to an American third party. Nader may have
> cost Gore the election in 2000. Did the Democratic Party move to the left as
> a result? Hardly.
Could they possibly _get_ farther left?
> Perot may have cost Daddy Bush the election in 92, but in
> what ways did the Republican Party move towards Perot's platform?
They didn't; they did take new direction -- and won because of it --
from Newt Gingrich. Perhaps because he wasn't as out-there as Perot,
but was radical nonetheless? Something other than the Old Boys GOP?
>
> The major parties in this country consider 3rd parties nothing more than
> noise on the margins. We don't have a credible third party like the Lib Dems
> in Britain or the NDP in Canada. Nor does it look like we will anytime soon.
http://www.radicalcenter.org/ and help me set up a MoveOn.Org
contributions scheme and help me generate some buzz, and I think we
can attract droves of Moderate (non-Fundie) Republicans -- think of
"Connie Morella Republicans" -- and probably some Conservative/
Patriotic Democrats. Some still remain, you know.
> And the way a party gets that level of credibility is to win elections.
> You're much more likely to see a third party taken seriously if it elects a
> couple Congresspeople rather than shave off a couple percent more in a
> Presidential election. The Greens haven't even held a state legislature
> slate in ten years. For the Libertarians, its been closer to twenty.
You're right that it's important to get State legislatures, or
governorships. Think Jesse Ventura, eh? But still... if the Only Two
Parties know damn well that We the People put a boot in their ass in
large numbers, they might stop thinking of it as a game of strategy
and start focusing on serving the public.
>
> > In other words, if they leave me in a position where I don't have a
> > horse in the race, I'll get my own damned horse, thanks. And if it
> > runs well this go-round, maybe next time the two main parties won't
> > trot out their best mud-track runners for the astroturf race. They
> > need to send out their bests, not their wannabees on the one hand and
> > their relics on the other.
>
> Who would you consider to be the bests? What candidates would have made you
> more comfortable as the major party nominees?
For the Democrats? Hillary Clinton. I dislike her mostly because she
reminds me of my mother, only all gone lefty. I shudder. But the
implacability and skill and drive must be admired as well as feared.
For the Republicans? Mitt Romney. But I strongly suspect he'll be
back.
I totally think that the general strategy for the Republicans for this
election is to give the old war-horse a chance, he has been in the
traces long enough, deserves a shot. And he'll fight hard for it! But
I think the idea is to have him lose gracefully, and not by much,
while Obama gets handed Great Depression II or the closest that could
be arranged, so that by the time Romney or another such has a shot at
the election, people will be as tired of Democrats and "young people"
as they are tired of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove now.
whisky-dave
"Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrngf3h9m.4kr...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
> On 2008-10-11, klaatu...@gmail.com <klaatu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Could I send poor Mr Hardman in my stead?
>
> Well, you know, I rather thought _he_ might be in his element.
>
>> Aside from that, let me mention that I don't really have a horse in
>> this race, so to speak.
>
> I'm sure that wouldn't be necessary. By all means ask a
> question that's difficult for both sides.
I'd like to ask all politicians whether they'd accept a charge (similar to
treason)
that if they were found to be lying to their public (UK, US or wherever)
they'd agree
to the punishment of execution in order to protect their country from liars
and cheats.
As that's the only politition I'd vote for. :)
Satori
"klaatu" <thar...@thomashardman.com> wrote in message
news:927b9d32-f658-4e46...@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> What do you think the United States should do about family planning
>> outside
>> of the United States? An Obama administration will certainly stop the
>> U.S.
>> government's current abhorant policy of only funding "abstinance-only"
>> type
>> AIDS prevention in Africa, and put more money into condom distribution
>> and
>> the like. But the global population explosion is not happening in the
>> U.S.
>> What else do you want us to do?
>
> We desperately need to reverse three decades of outright prohibiting
> any foreign-aid that even mentions family planning. Indeed, we need to
> fund massive condom distribution all over the developing world,
> especially where HIV is epidemic. Presently that is banned. Obviously
> you know that but a lot of people do not know that.
Yes, and as I said, I would expect that to change under an Obama
administration.
> Indeed, we should be promoting the example of Iran, which according to
> the UN is a model of family-planning.
I'm not familliar with Iran's family planning program. What do they do that
you feel sets an example?
> If I thought there was some way to keep it outside of expiration -- to
> wit, temperate and dry -- I'd say that we need to ship The Pill across
> the globe, and IUD where The Pill can't be expected to be effective
> due to climate or inadequate technical levels to assure effective
> storage.
So that women in countries with exploding populations can have access to
them on a voluntary basis?
>> > Same thing with some of the other 3rd-party people I've voted for;
>> > it's not that I could stand it if they won. It's that I like to have a
>> > fairly large range of people for whom to vote who can't possibly win,
>> > but who send a message to the established parties. IMHO nothing gets
>> > the bipartisan system back onto track faster than a credible threat
>> > from someone catering to what tghe two parties have jointly decided to
>> > ignore.
>>
>> I don't know if that's really true. And I'm speaking as a former state
>> chair
>> and national committee alternate to an American third party. Nader may
>> have
>> cost Gore the election in 2000. Did the Democratic Party move to the left
>> as
>> a result? Hardly.
>
> Could they possibly _get_ farther left?
Seriously? When was the last time a Democrat suggested we nationalize the
steel industry? And did you see how quickly Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank
ran to the give-away of taxpayer dollars to big business as suggested by the
former head of Goldman Sacks in his capacity as a member of an essentially
lame-duck Republican administration? Even with a majority in Congress, the
Democrats haven't been able to pass much progressive legislation because the
Blue Dogs and DLCers won't support it. And we're talking about after the
2000 loss, when the Democrats were even more afraid to appear weak on
national security and pretty much green-lighted everything the Neocons in
the Bush administration said was necessary, up to and including the
authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
Yes, there are members of the Democratic caucus that are fairly left-wing.
But, despite having a Speaker of the House who was once part of the House
Progessive Caucus, we still have a pretty centrist group actually
controlling the legislation. And the Senate is even less left-wing. Senators
like Ben Nelson and Ken Salazar are hardly flaming leftists.
So, yes, the Democratic Party in this country could get further left. And
despite Nader (arguably [1]) successfully sniping from the outside at their
Presidential nominee in 2000, they didn't move to take on any of Nader's
platform, and in fact, may have moved away from it as a result of fear of
public popularity of the Bush administration post-9/11.
>> Perot may have cost Daddy Bush the election in 92, but in
>> what ways did the Republican Party move towards Perot's platform?
>
> They didn't; they did take new direction -- and won because of it --
> from Newt Gingrich. Perhaps because he wasn't as out-there as Perot,
> but was radical nonetheless? Something other than the Old Boys GOP?
That had been building for a long time, and had little to do with Perot.
Newt had run GOPAC since the mid-80s, with the specific purpose in mind of
building a GOP farm team in states that had moved to the Republican Party in
Presidential elections, but still sent nominal Democrats to Congress (many
of whom were conservative "Dixiecrat" types, anyway). 1994 was a result of
backlash against the early Clinton administration from trying to push too
far left too fast (gays in the military, the first attempt at national
healthcare, Joceyln Elders, etc.), rampant corruption in the ruling
Democratic caucus (exemplified by the indictment of Ways and Means Chairman
Dan Rostenkowski), and the demographic shift of the once solid Democratic
South moving Republican downticket.
Besides, in 1993 Congress ratified NAFTA over the very public and loud
objections of Perot. You may notice in the roll-call vote [2] that both
House Republican Leader Robert Michel and Mr. Gingrich, a year away from
ascending to the Speakership, voted Aye. In fact, the Repulicans'
overwhelming support of NAFTA got it passed, as the majority of the
Democrats, who still controlled the House, voted Nay. So on the vote that
Perot rallied his people against, your Radical Republicans passed it despite
the Democratic Majority voting against their new President to defeat it.
This just under a year before Newt Gingrich's GOPAC army won the
Congressional election.
>> The major parties in this country consider 3rd parties nothing more than
>> noise on the margins. We don't have a credible third party like the Lib
>> Dems
>> in Britain or the NDP in Canada. Nor does it look like we will anytime
>> soon.
>
> http://www.radicalcenter.org/ and help me set up a MoveOn.Org
> contributions scheme and help me generate some buzz, and I think we
> can attract droves of Moderate (non-Fundie) Republicans -- think of
> "Connie Morella Republicans" -- and probably some Conservative/
> Patriotic Democrats. Some still remain, you know.
And what's your plan for getting politicians to abandon the entrenched
2-party system? It's not easy. I was chair of the Libertarian Party of
Nevada at a time that two (Republican) members of the Nevada State Senate
were card-carying LP members. They would not change their registration, or
publicly mention said affiliation, for fear of losing an election. Running
as something other than a D or and R makes it very difficult to convince
voters to consider you, and maybe more importantly, donors to give to you.
>> And the way a party gets that level of credibility is to win elections.
>> You're much more likely to see a third party taken seriously if it elects
>> a
>> couple Congresspeople rather than shave off a couple percent more in a
>> Presidential election. The Greens haven't even held a state legislature
>> slate in ten years. For the Libertarians, its been closer to twenty.
>
> You're right that it's important to get State legislatures, or
> governorships. Think Jesse Ventura, eh? But still... if the Only Two
> Parties know damn well that We the People put a boot in their ass in
> large numbers, they might stop thinking of it as a game of strategy
> and start focusing on serving the public.
Jesse Ventura was a fluke, and an Independant, not a member of a national
third party. The ability to get someone with huge name recognition to
occasionally win a race outside of the 2-party system is not the same as
building a sustainable political party.
>> Who would you consider to be the bests? What candidates would have made
>> you
>> more comfortable as the major party nominees?
>
> For the Democrats? Hillary Clinton. I dislike her mostly because she
> reminds me of my mother, only all gone lefty. I shudder. But the
> implacability and skill and drive must be admired as well as feared.
And what major policy differences between Clinton and Obama do you see? Yes,
on the margins, there are some differences (Clinton is more hawkish on Iran,
and had more mandates in her health care plan). But for the most part,
they're both moderate Democrats with similar stances.
> For the Republicans? Mitt Romney. But I strongly suspect he'll be
> back.
Romney has a base problem. There are a significant number of Evangelicals
who won't vote for a Latter Day Saint.
> I totally think that the general strategy for the Republicans for this
> election is to give the old war-horse a chance, he has been in the
> traces long enough, deserves a shot.
That's an entrenched part of the Republican mentality. If the GOP had picked
Llamar Alexander in 1996, he'd have beaten Clinton. But they went with Bob
Dole, because it was "his turn". They usually play it safe. And the "his
turn" thing may be an advantage for Romney next time. But as a former
Governor of "Taxachusetts" who's flip-flopped on several major conservative
issues, I think he's going to have a problem from the Right. Especially
since a lot of conservatives are going to say McCain lost because he wasn't
conservative enough. And again, being LDS will be a disadvantage to him with
many Republican primary voters.
> And he'll fight hard for it! But
> I think the idea is to have him lose gracefully, and not by much,
> while Obama gets handed Great Depression II or the closest that could
> be arranged, so that by the time Romney or another such has a shot at
> the election, people will be as tired of Democrats and "young people"
> as they are tired of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove now.
The last Democrat to inherit a Depression from the Republicans went on to be
the only President in the history of the United States to serve more than
two terms. FWIW, I'm not convinced we're heading into a Depression, but I'm
just saying...
[1] I have no crystal ball, and do not know if Gore would have won if Nader
wasn't on the ballot. But it's become Conventional Wisdom that he would
have.
[2] U.S. House of Representatives Roll Call of NAFTA Implementation Act,
November 17, 1993: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll575.xml