Interestingly, its opposed by the big news organizations.
Tom
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
> ChuckO,
> Actually the very scariest thing that Clinton and
> the Repugs in Congress have ever done is going
> down right now and nobody on this list saying boo
> about it. That is the new de facto Official Secrets
> Act that has just been stealthily passed by Congress.
> There is now major pressure on Clinton to veto it,
> although he has been supporting it so far. This would
> make it a serious felony for anybody to say anything
> about anything that they know about that might be
> "classifiable" by any agency of the government. This
> is serious repression, big time, and passed with no
> debate in Congress.
> Barkley Rosser
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck0 <chuck at tao.ca>
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> Date: Friday, November 03, 2000 2:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Why I Decided Not To Vote For Nader In A 'Safe' State, And How
> LBO-Talk Helped
>
> >Shit, just when I thought this list couldn't create anymore pompous,
> >sanctimonious Leftists, up pops old school Leo Casey!
> >
> >LeoCasey at aol.com wrote:
> >
> >> I have always believed that a Gore victory was an essential
> >> precondition for
> >> the forward progress of the mass movements of the left in this nation,
> >> from
> >> labor to feminism, from civil rights and anti-racism to gay and
> >> lesbian
> >> rights, from environmentalism to the poor.
> >
> ><snort><pht><dribble>
> >
> >Sorry, that was the beer coming out of my nose after I read that
> >sentence. If you think that Gore is some kind of essential precondition
> >for the "forward progress of the mass movements, blah, blah," I have to
> >ask you which rock you've been hiding under.
> >
> >Hey, Leo, buddy, did your hear about Seattle last year? Or Washington,
> >DC and Prague this year? We've been kicking butt and we've been doing it
> >by working outside of the system. That forward progress train that you
> >cry about was left at the station.
> >
> >Before you crap out another piece of your wonderful apologia for
> >liberalism--and force poor Doug to figure out which mime type you are
> >phoning from--try examining Clinton's record on labor, feminism, civil
> >rights,, anti-racism, *queer* issues, environmentalism, and the poor.
> >Does NAFTA ring a bell? WTO? How about 2 million people in jail? Welfare
> >reform act ring any bells? How about the 1996 Telecommunications Act?
> >Clear-cutting? U'wa?
> >
> >Leo, you aint' no Leftist, you are a LIBERAL!
> >
> > But while the major thrust
> >> of my
> >> political work was designed to accomplish that end, I was also
> >> prepared to
> >> cast my individual ballot for Ralph Nader, since I live in a state
> >> which is
> >> safe for Gore, and since -- much earlier in this campaign -- it was
> >> conceivable that such a vote could have the positive effect of
> >> building a
> >> non-sectarian, anti-corporate force on the left.
> >
> >Whatever you do in the voting booth (masturbation is my suggestion), it
> >ain't going to mean a hill of beans when it comes to building a
> >non-sectarian, anti-capitalist, *anti-statist* force on the Left.
> >
> >In other words, you can vote for the Wizard of Oz, but not for the man
> >behind the curtain.
> >
> >> It was the clarity with which the Nader supporters on LBO spoke of the
> >> defeat
> >> of Gore and the destruction of the Democratic Party as strategic goals
> >> to be
> >> sought, as the way forward for the left, that made it clear to me that
> >> this
> >> was the rebirth of an old sectarian strategy, one which placed the
> >> highest
> >> premium on the defeat of those "vacillating" forces of liberalism and
> >> social
> >> democracy on the near left, as opposed to the defeat of the forces of
> >> conservatism and reaction on the far right. This is a politics in the
> >> grand
> >> tradition of the 'third period' of the Comintern, when social
> >> democrats were
> >> decried as 'social fascists.' It is a politics which, in our own
> >> lifetime,
> >> brought the New Left to a self-destructive crash, and ushered in a
> >> period of
> >> conservative backlash.
> >
> >Whatever. I may disagree with the Nader supporters politically, but I
> >have to hand it to them, they've done a kick ass job with what limited
> >resources they have to draw on. It's a tribute to the power of our ideas
> >that the Gore morons are using dirty tricks to tar and feather the Nader
> >campaign.
> >
> >> The sole "justification" for this ultra-left sectarianism is the
> >> notion that
> >> there is no difference between the policies advocated by a Gore and a
> >> Bush.
> >
> >There is no difference. Clinton/Gore have been one of the best things
> >that ever happened to multinational capitalism. They have been
> >unsurpassed when it came to building up a repressive police state. They
> >allowed the right wing to chip away at abortion rights.
> >
> >They've killed thousands around the world, either indirectly through
> >sanctions or via a few top notch cruise missiles.
> >
> >And the list goes on.
> >
> >For
> >> while
> >> they are undoubtedly discrete issues on which the differences between
> >> the two
> >> are not all that great, much less what they should be (Gore would use
> >> capital
> >> punishment less frequently, and would spend a great deal more time
> >> than the
> >> 15 minutes Bush takes to decide whether or not to put a convicted
> >> person to
> >> death, but that is not exactly the type of clear moral line a
> >> progressive
> >> would want to see on such an issue), the wider panorama shows
> >> substantial
> >> differences on the overwhelming majority of issues.
> >
> >Clinton and Gore both support the death penalty. Enuf said.
> >
> >>That is why
> >> virtually
> >> every organization of the mass left -- from trade unions to feminists
> >> to
> >> civil rights to environmentali! ! sts -- has endorsed Gore: they see
> >> the
> >> differences all too clearly. The insistence by Nader and his
> >> supporters that
> >> there are no differences, or that the differences are insignificant,
> >> betrays
> >> either a willingness to engage in great intellectual dishonesty, or a
> >> most
> >> incredible political naivete; in both cases, it is induced by a
> >> virtually
> >> Nietzschian 'will' to ideological purity.
> >
> >Correction; Every INEFFECTIVE, pro-capitalist organization on the Left
> >have endorsed Gore. This includes so-called "feminists" at NOW to the
> >right-hand of the ruling class: the AFL-CIO.
> >
> >Leo, you are the one suffering from intellectual dishonesty. Please
> >explain how the Clinton administration was any different from the
> >Reagan/Bush administrations?
> >
> >>As
> >> they fought for their political lives, and against a resurgent right
> >> which
> >> could very well control every branch of the national government, the
> >> very
> >> last group they would reach out to would be the one that had made it
> >> all that
> >> defeat possible. The success of the Nader/Green strategy to defeat
> >> Gore in
> >> this election would be their ultimate undoing -- but they would do
> >> great
> >> damage to progressive movements in the process. And that is why I will
> >> not
> >> vote for Nader in a 'safe' state.
> >
> >I got more news for you, Leo. The resurgent right is dying. A Bush
> >victory is not going to revive them. They can't overcome the forces of
> >liberalization in American society. The right wind bugaboo is dead. Just
> >go do your research and you'll find out for yourself.
> >
> >Chuck0
> >