Frank Scott wrote:
>
> "...But the more important question is what folks on this list doing NOW to prevent us from having to choose Lieberman?"
>
> supporting dennis the k would make the most sense, at least through the primaries...then, we'll see...
>
> fs
Does anyone want to seriously maintain that what "folks on this list do NOW" (or any other time) will make a difference in the 2004 primaries or general election?
Unless a mass movement in opposition grows in the comming years, _no_ white house occupant is going to withdraw u.s. power from any spot where it has established itself. (Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon merely continued in Vietnam a policy established by the Truman Administration. No possible vote during those years would have changed that continuity.
Assume a Democrat is less apt to launch _new_ foreign adventures. Even so, a Democrat is far less apt than a Republican to _withdraw_ from any position already established. If and when the U.S. withdraws from Iraq that withdrawal will be by someone like Bush (either Bush) or Reagan, not someone like Kennedy or Carter.
Temporarily, the possibilities for further growth of the mass movement are dim; all the more reason to give priority to maintaining that mass movement at as high a level as possible. If work in electoral politics can further that aim, well and good. I would like to see the argument for such a position. But to argue for participating in electoral politics in order to change the outcome of the election is sheer woolgathering.
Carrol