John Halle wrote:
>
> Add to that a core of disgruntled Deaniacs who now know how the
> Democratic party works and (not surprisingly) want no part of it,
> Nader might be in a position to surprise a lot of people. Of course,
> on the off chance he gets in to the debates, all bets are off. (Would
> you oppose his participation?)
My own belief is that a new electoral force can emerge only from a mass movement _at least_ as large as (probably larger than) the black, anti-war, & women's movements of the '60s combined. However, if Nader or the Green Party gets on the ballot in Illinois I will vote for him/it, and perhaps even contribute money or volunteer as a campaign worker. (Otherwise I will merely cast my usual blank ballot.) The reason I gave in 2000 for voting for Nader (had he been on the ballot here) was that it would be a gesture of solidarity with those others who were supporting him (or at least refusing to support the DP). It is far more important to encourage them than to replace Bush with Kerry, since the only significant political issue is whether or not the u.s. will withdraw from Iraq, and Kerry is pledged not to. I will neither support verbally nor vote for anyone not pledged to immediate withdrawal, regardless of the consequences of such withdrawal.
>
> Finally, if he is likely to do so badly, why the hysteria? Norman
> Solomon, for example, can't seem to write a column on any other
> subject, for example. Bizarre, if you ask me.
Indeed! Also bizarre that many of the same people who say that _this_ time we should ally with the Democrats, slimeballs though they be, _also_ argue that we must not ally with any Iraq forces except those of exceptional political purity. I can't understand being willing to support Kerry but turn purist in judging people resisting a foreign conqueror. I believe some of those same purists re Iraq resistance have accused me of purism. :-)
Carrol
>
> John
>