Let's start with where I agree with Art McGee --
Bush + 911 + weak Democrats = fascism.
We agree there. We clearly disagree on strategies for dealing with that. I do not see Kerry as able or willing to deal with "Bush-ism", which will continue under a Kerry regime. Art apparently does. There's a reason why Kerry was selected by those very forces and not Kucinich or Dean or Sharpton.
>Neither I, nor Manning Marable is about to stand at any door, as your ancestors might have, and try to block anyone's right to run in any election or vote. <
I think my ancestors were too busy "visiting" the gas chambers and watching as their boats were turned around by Roosevelt and not allowed to land here, to be standing in any doorway blocking anyone's right to run in any election or vote.
> The point is that Manning, like me, is trying to present a case for why he shouldn't run, and why progressives shouldn't support him. I see nothing wrong or oppressive about that.<
Funny how this is playing out, as I was extremely critical of Ralph Nader's decisions the last go-round (even though I campaigned for him). Yet I see his running this time as far more important to fighting fascism.
Sure, present whatever case you want about why people should not vote for Nader, or Cobb, or Salzman, or the other 4 candidates running for the Green Party nomination, and convince the voters not to vote for the Green candidate if you can. I disagree, but hey, that's fair game. But to try to BLOCK Nader from running -- which the Dems are trying to do all over the place, the death threats Greens have received, the fact that Nader himself is forced to keep his headquarters secret, the onerous ballot access laws being invoked, the blocking of participation in the debates (again) -- this is the element one aligns with in telling the Greens not to run a candidate, particularly Nader. It FOSTERS fascism, it doesn't fight it.
Now, if you were just whispering your opinion in Nader's ear as your political contribution, that's your right. But to publicly attack a leftist candidate for RUNNING (a separate thing than telling people whom to vote for), and depriving people of the choice to vote for whoever THEY want, that's authoritarian behavior.
>Once again, such decisions [fighting for PR and IRV] do not exist in a vacuum and will most likely occur through organizing and agitation outside the context of the major parties.<
Again, I disagree. It is precisely by forcing the Dems to choose between supporting PR and IRV (and, for that matter, non-computerized voting machines) or begin losing elections that will make that change possible, if it's ever going to happen within the existing system. All the factions of the Greens have been fighting very hard for PR for years; Matt Gonzalez in San Francisco made this a theme, and in some areas it is being implemented. And, yes, this fight WILL involve coalitions among many parties across the political spectrum.
Mitchel wrote:
> For that matter, had the Democrats stood up for the
> disenfranchised Black voters in Florida, instead of
> selling them down the river, Gore would have carried that
> state as well by a hefty margin.
Art responded: That's pretty much irrelevant to this discussion. You, in your paternalistic and racist way, assume to tell me and other Black people something we know about better than you. We are the teachers and you are the student. We know all too well the duplicity and disingenuousness of "white" folks and the Capitalist machine, present company fully included.
Mitchel responds: You want to just talk trash and make personal attacks, then here the discussion ends. Too bad, we might have gotten somewhere. Good night.
Mitchel