I don't know what would could in your mind as argument. You know what the Bushies have done. You aree that it has not been remotely acceptable, none of it. Bad as Clinton was, bad as Kerry will be, that was not true of C and is not likely to be true of K.
If
> the DP wins, and
> continues the occupation of Iraq, the stage will be
> set for a return of
> a GOP alternative at least as bad as Bush. So I
> think you are mistaken
> if you believe you can make this election an
> exception.
Even Bush has figured that he has to get out of Iraq. Kerry, who asked "How would it feel to be the last man to die for a mistake," is likely to get us out ina few years. No less important, he will not adopt the neocon policy of invading everywhere unilaterally.
>
> And, at a practical level this position implies that
> the election is
> going to be close (one way or the other),
Yeah, I think it will be razor thin.
for
> otherwise it is pointless
> for the few people involved in this argument to
> bother: they won't make
> any difference one way or the other.. . . . Can you
seriously argue that the
> three of us could tip
> Illinois to Bush.
The difference in Florida was 500 some votes. Similar margins, may of a few thousand. would have made the difference in several other states.
>
>
> > This is not an argument that one
> > should always support the slightly better
> slimebags.
> > In normal times,
>
> You expect that a DP victory will return us to
> normalcy? :-)
Not happiness, just what what Doug calls the normal capitalist horror.
>
> What will work out best, even in the short run, I
> believe, is that for
> all those in the U.S. who see the need at all for an
> organized
> resistance _outside_ electoral politics, devote
> themselves to that
> effort, and that it may even be especially important
> to do so when so
> many of the best and the brightest on the left are
> opting for a
> temporary 'alliance' with the DP. (Scare quotes
> because an alliance that
> the allies recognize each other. The DP does not
> recognize us.)
I know what. I also don't knwo what a big organized extra-electoral resistance would like like. Right now the main action is being run by people ANSWER,w hom I respect for doping something, but whose are guilty of what Doug and Liza call Activismism and who are not really effective. What's your proposal?
>
> > I
> > would support Weimar against Hitler.
>
> That is a diversion. No one (except for various
> conspiracists) has given
> any reason whatever to believe such a situtation
> exists in the U.S.
> today.
My piint is taht lesser-evilism is depends on the evil. The Bushies, maybe Ashcroft apart, are not Nazis. But they are on a course to destroy the Reupblic and the planet.
>
> > I voted for
> > Modale against Regan because I thought the Gipper
> was
> > going to blow up the world.
>
> And here we still are.
It was the right choice at the time. We can thank Gorby and the antinuclear movement for the fact that we are still breathing non-irradiated air in standing cities.
>
> >>
> WE have to be the leaven. I think we (those who
> agree with Yoshie and
> me, or can be brought to agree with us) have an
> obligation to maintain
> at least and if possible to increase the organized
> weight of that
> leaven.
How? What do I do?
> > So call me a sell out.
>
> That's a diversion too. The question is not selling
> out versus "staying
> true." It's a difference in judgment of what the
> situation calls for.
What, precisely, does it call for?
>
> > When I get back to
> > Chi, I'm volunteering for the Kerry campaign. jks
>
> O.K. That gives coherence to your argument. Those
> who are merely arguing
> about how leftists should vote are merely engaged in
> chat over a beer.
Agreed.
jks
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html