it's heating up

[Chuck0]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> 
> Chuck0 wrote:
> 
> >In this case, Nathan doesn't understand thay many people would like to
> >see the Democratic Party die a slow painful death.
> 
> A quick death wouldn't be so bad either. But this is the point: like
> the IMF, the Dems are essentially unreformable. They're the problem,
> not a potential solution. A Gore defeat would be good news, since it
> would throw the party into confusion and despair.

The Dems are the most in need of a reality check right now. The
Republicans have had to eat their hat several times in the past 5 years,
first when the "Republican revolution" turned into a sham, then when
they couldn't oust Clinton over his White House sex habits.


> Speaking of the party, what does it mean to be a Democrat, anyway?
> Gore should be claiming Clinton's record as his own, but he's keeping
> his distance. Clinton's approval rating is around 60%. I just ran the
> proprietary LBO election model, and it does indeed forecast a Gore
> victory (surprising details in LBO #95, about to go to press). But
> Gore is struggling for a tie in the polls. The party is some hybrid
> of meaningless and evil. It should be blown up.

I'd just like to hear from the pro-Gore liberals on this list on why
they support a political party which keeps trying to institute
government censorship of the Internet. Some of us librarians have been
battling the right wing over filtering for several years now and it gets
pretty disgusting to see the Dems jumping on the censorship bandwagon
with the Republicans.

Blown up? I wish I could remember if ELF in Indiana tried to torch the
local Republican or Democratic HQ.

Whichever party you vote for, you sanction more state-sponsored
violence.

Chuck0
www.infoshop.org