> Quite the contrary, people like Yoshie and myself not only understand
> precisely this (with the minor qualification that the most ardent Kerry
> supporters are the 'antiwar movement', but not all Kerry supporters are
> particularly antiwar - see how crude, unnuanced and 'rigid' I am?) ,
> but
> unlike you, further understands this to be a PROBLEM. Why? Because
> Kerry
> fucking SUPPORTS everything his antiwar supporters oppose! Kerry has
> quite
> publically endorsed many tenets of Bushism: preemptive war, Israel,
> get
> Chavez, etc. Must we reiterate the list ad nauseam?
And must I reiterate ad nauseam that people like Yoshie and you are playing sandbox politics at a time when the first necessity is to remove Bush and his crew? Here we have two fundamentally opposed views of the present political movement -- one that says the election is simply an opportunity for Nader to have a soap-box (which in fact he is not getting to use because no one is paying attention to what he is saying, just whether he will get on the ballot in various states), and the other that says that the Bush administration has been an incredibly destructive disaster and the country and the world can't stand being devastated by it for another four years.
My point is that the holders of these views will never convince each other. I will never convince you that I am right, and vice versa. So why keep bashing each other, unless you like the sport?
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax