replies to R, yoshie, hari, ...
R wrote:
>
> to imagine that in a nation like the USA, the people should be grateful for
> the crumbs the dems throw us, such as a judge who's not a scalia clone --
> when those crumbs are less than the barest of minimums of any reasonable
> standard of govt -- is fatuous and ridiculous.
>
R(?), aren't you making a bad assumption, here? what you call "crumbs" are "crumbs" only to you and me, and our idea what "any reasonable standard of govt" is. for "the people" it may be pretty close to what they want, within what is possible w.r.t intersecting sets of desires/goals (for instance, the vast bulk of americans, irrespective of party affiliation, are probably in favour of various forms of curtailment of civil rights, especially that of immigrants).
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Ravi wrote:
> It should be easier for a Green Party candidate (or a candidate of
> another political party on the left) to be elected for US
> Representative, US Senator, or Governor than for President. As I
> mentioned, this year, 57 Green Party candidates are running for seats
> in the US House of Representatives, and 7, the US Senate. Combined
> impacts -- in terms of fundraising, new party activists, new
> registered Green voters, new state parties, new party ballots, media
> coverage, etc. -- of all of them, however, are smaller than
> Nader/LaDuke 2000 or a Green Party presidential ticket in the future
> headed by an intellectual in Nader's league of name recognition,
> political connections, and fundraising capacity (and few US leftists
> are -- perhaps no US leftist today is -- in Nader's league in these
> three respects). That's the truth based upon empirical facts.
>
perhaps but (a) nader's name recognition can still be used to promote the greens and (b) name recognition for the party and its candidates may still be the better goal to work towards, than in pushing for an impossible nader presidency.
> I doubt that John Kerry will be better for the environment than
> George W. Bush. Each president since Richard Nixon was on the whole
> worse for the environment than the one before. Bill Clinton was
> worse than Ron Reagan and George H. W. Bush: e.g.,
ok, so as you suggest, bush term 2 should be worse than bush term 1, yes? then, the question is, would kerry term 1 be worse than a bush term 2? i still believe not (btw, thanks for the excerpts of the clinton record).
hari.kumar at sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> Hello Ravi, hope you are well.
>
most excellent ;-). i hope you are well too!
> Let me be clear, I will take such a victory with a whoop if not a
> glass of champagne. [I vividly recall having a glass of champers for
> Mrs T's political departure from the stage.. That was a long awaited
> glass as I recall, as an economic refugee from the UK]. And I do
> think that victory would be is worth while, largely as Bush
> & his crew are so utterly & arrogantly despicable.
what you write above is pretty close to the assumptions/question i started this thread with.
> But I remain fearful in the extreme; (i) as to Mr Kerry's specific
> positions ["Believe me, if we need to get tough with Iran I HAVE A
> PLAN & I WILL BE TOUGH WITH IRAN"; second debate); & (ii) In a much
> more generla manner - further perpetuating the myth that the
> Democrats are a true alternative.
>
> If these problems of (i) & (ii) Above are legitimate, how is the
> pattern of continuing attacks on the peoples of the world - of which
> Iraq is by no means the first..... to be broken?
that's the tough question, isn't it? the treatment of the rest of the world may be the issue with least traction among the american public. it is this indifference that kerry caters to, when he acts tough about other parts of the world i.e., imho, he needs to at least pay lip service to those issues/concerns. i do not of course believe that the democrats are a true alternative.
>
> Elsewhere I heard Justin say a variation of what Doug recently said:
> "That Nader is not the man".
> Yes but - ... Kerry is not the man - surely?
>
surely not.
> Then - who is the wo(man)? & how does such a paragon come into being?
> If the Nader movement is not a potential third force, what does it
> take to make one? & why abstain from that task now?
which was the second part of the two points i raised in the post that initiated this thread: is a national presidential run, with zero chances
of success, and high chances of alienating left-leaning democrats, the best way to grow such an alternative?
when i posted my initial questions, i had no convictions, but i am yet to hear a convincing response outlining what is wrong with the reasoning i presented.
> If the idea of organising outside the Demcoratic Party is such
> anathema, how will a movement be created within the democratic party
> that eats' its rebels? & Why should it not do so - it knows what
> happens if worms enter the apple?
sure we can and should organize outside the democratic party. the scope of my questions was much smaller and related to the positives and negatives of this particular nader run.
> Another time I will try to take up your point re Kashmir (with which i
> think i agree - if W's remarks are the oppostie of yours!)
i look forward to your thoughts,
--ravi