<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040621/013720.html>
=========
All valid points Jon but, to provide the right context, let me be a bit of a phillistine and quote myself:
"[Chomsky and Zinn's notions form] A logical division of labor, even if one disagrees with the underlying assessment informing the idea."
Which, as it happens, I do, at least to some extent. Or, to put it in other words, I can see what appears to me to be the gentlemen's reasoning (as presented by Greg Bates) even while I hold a different view.
What view is that? Well, for starters, there probably are no "safe states" and, as you say, a vote for Nader is not necessarily the way to build a third party alternative.
So what I'll call, for lack of a better term, the Chomsky/Zinn framework is surely logical (one expects nothing less from these luminaries) but not the right approach for the current situation.
.d.