> Perhaps, because they have to compete with Mexican, Chinese and Indian
> workers?
No, it's because they've allowed the labor movement to disintegrate to a state of near collapse (aided by the ruling class, of course).
> It hardly then matters whether you are for x or y in the electoral
> politics.
> What is surprising is that there isn't much "green" content in all
> these
> debates about the Greens.
Whether it matters or not depends on how you look at it. Doug is right; there's no point in arguing this question any more. There are just fundamental differences in political values, which can't be settled by argument. Some people think Bush is a terrible ogre; others think he is tolerable. That's about all there is to the debate. People should just vote the way they want -- or not vote, if they're anarchist.
However things turn out, we still have to work like crazy to get a decent progressive movement going. Things have just about reached rock bottom.
We're just about back where we were in 1955, except Bush Republicans are a lot more vicious than the Eisenhower bunch ever was, and (referring to your comment about "green" content) the earth is getting warmer all the time.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A gentleman haranguing on the perfection of our law, and that it was equally open to the poor and the rich, was answered by another, 'So is the London Tavern.' -- "Tom Paine's Jests..." (1794); also attr. to John Horne Tooke (1736-1812) by Hazlitt