At 6:12 PM -0500 11/8/02, Nathan Newman wrote:
>A significant majority of Dems voted against Bush's resolution. So the
>issue is not pleading to the Dems who already voted with us, but convincing
>the swing Dems and moderate GOPers who can be pushed to switch their vote
in
>future resolutions.
-I'm subscribed to the EPIC (Education for Peace in Iraq Center) and -Franklin County Dem mailing lists (in addition to many others), so if -there are any halfway decent resolutions concerning the war on Iraq -sponsored by any war-weary Dems, I'll immediately hear of them. None -is in the works, as none would pass.
At the moment yes, since votes usually aren't seriously pushed until they are within striking range of a majority. SO the question is how to build that majority.
>Cuts have come and more cuts will be coming and not just in
>education, war or no war, anti-war protests or no anti-war protests:
>e.g., <http://www.dcfpi.org/4-12-02bud.htm>. Social costs to the
>power elite can be raised even without directly opposing the war on
>Iraq, if masses of Americans rise up and protest the cuts militantly.
Yes? How? My point on DC protests is that most of the time when activists talk about "imposing costs on society", they mostly impose them on poor urban districts.
I happen to like union power because it actually imposes costs on shareholders in seeking their purposes, but as is clear from the ILWU strike, if union strikes get used in a way that impact on the war machine, they will get shut down.
So what are you talking about other than rehtorically that will impose costs of the elite, rather than on other working families?
-- Nathan Newman