<DIV>
<P>Carrol Cox wrote: <BR>
<P><FONT color=#990099><EM class=quotelev1>>Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: </EM><BR></FONT><FONT color=#ff7700><EM class=quotelev2>>> </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev2>>> </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev2>>> Outside of the Democratic Party, there is no solid political party </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev2>>> that can marshal enough motivated organizers to make a difference in </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev2>>> 2004. </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev2>>> </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev2>>> Do you have any candidate for whom you don't mind busting your own </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev2>>> ass doing campaign work for, say, at least 10-15 hours per week? </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev2>>> -- </EM><BR></FONT><FONT color=#990099><EM class=quotelev1>> </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>The question, "Does it make a difference who is in the White House?" is </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>a radically misleading question -- misleading in the sense that it </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>suppresses (as not askable) all the questions that need to be asked. It </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>suppresses, for example, the question: How important politically are the </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>50% of Americans who will not vote in 2004. And by suppressing that </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>question it objectively denies the humanity of that 50%. The election </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>will be decided by what around 1.5% to 2.5% of the voting-age population </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>do during a 30 second span of time in November 2004. </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>> </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>So, the real question is, not "Does it make a difference who is in the </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>WH?" But "Does it make a difference if leftists quit all other </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>activities to concentrate for the next 18 months on having a momentary </EM><BR><EM class=quotelev1>>effect on how that 2% spends 30 seconds of their time?" </EM><BR></FONT>
<P>Who the hell said anything like that? <BR>
<P>Of course it makes a difference who's in the WH. I'll bet about 80% <BR>of the world's population would agree. But you & Yoshie can't admit <BR>that, so you've got to change the subject. I have no illusions about <BR>what a Democratic president would accomplish. But it would almost <BR>certainly make things slightly less bad. It would also encourage the <BR>development of more radical politics - it happened in the 60s, and it <BR>happened in the 90s too. Right now, the U.S. state is in the hands of <BR>the most reactionary, bellicose, and repressive gang in living <BR>memory. It's like Michael Savage's id is occupying 1600. But you're <BR>so lost in your own fantasy of revolution - the revolution that you <BR>have no strategy for promoting that I can see - that you can't be <BR>bothered. Fucked up. <BR>
<P>Doug </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Well, if Al Gore had taken office, the intelligence agencies would likely have stopped 9/11, so there's one important difference.</P>
<P>I am definitely feeling a lot of guilt for having voted for Nader.</P>
<P><BR> </P></DIV><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Free <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/tag/*http://calendar.yahoo.com">online calendar</a> with sync to Outlook(TM).