[lbo-talk] DSA Youth

[C. G. Estabrook]

Probably. I voted against the incumbency (Clinton-Gore) by voting for
Nader in 1996 and 2000.  The most effective way of voting against the
incumbency this year will probably be voting for a Democrat, even though
I'm in "safe" (i.e., probably Democratic) state.  But when the presumptive
Democratic nominee is being celebrated for killing people, I'm glad
Nader's in the race.  Kerry could have resisted that war, like the real
heroes among his contemporaries, not just swarm aboard the growing and
popular anti-war movement at the end.

Chomsky, assuming the nominees to be Kerry and Bush, recently said,

"...there is some difference between them -- I don't think a very great
difference, just as there is very little range within the corporate-run
political spectrum altogether.  But there is some difference, and in a
system of tremendous power, small difference can translate into large
effects.  So those small differences do matter.  But the real problem is
to dismantle and undermine the entire system of completely illegitimate
nomination [sic].

"The people around Bush happen to be an unusually fanatical, extreme,
arrogant and incompetent group, and they're very dangerous.  But it's a
small group, and they barely hold political power.  And they're
frightening people, including the traditional conservatives, because
they're such extreme, radical, nationalist fanatics.  And Kerry doesn't
come from that background, he leans more towards the normal center.  But
they're very dangerous.  I think that with another four-year mandate, they
might do not only severe, but maybe irremediable damage to the world."

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Doug Henwood wrote:


> C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
> >I think it vital that the present administration be turned out this fall
> 
> Does that mean you're voting for a Dem?
> 
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>