[lbo-talk] Re New Economist Poll: Bad News For Bush

[Michael Dawson]

You don't seem to understand:  Kerry is damned lucky just to get my vote.
Nader promises many things I like, and Kerry promises none.  If Kerry were
promising one single thing that matters, I would be working for him.
Instead, like Gore before him, he refuses to promise even a single
substantial progressive item.  I'm voting for Kerry only because Noam
Chomsky, whose instincts I trust, says he may very slightly slow the pace of
savagery from above.

If Kerry promises one thing progressive, I'll stop cracking on him.  Until
then, I'm opposed to him from the left.  Perhaps if you had some sensitivity
for truth and principles in politics, you'd understand why that's not the
treason you think it is.

But then, I think you're the treasoner, by being so gullible and uncritical
of an objectively bad and craven candidate.

Can't wait for your DLC bosses to tell us all the left lost it again.
Lovely folks you are.

-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 6:59 AM
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re New Economist Poll: Bad News For Bush

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Dawson" <mdawson at pdx.edu>

-False.  I'm going to vote for Kerry, but I won't walk across the street to
-campaign for him unless and until he promises something worthwhile.  He
has
-not done so yet.

Which is just the bizarre position for any progressive to take.  Your
individual vote is almost meaningless, but whether you campaign for a
candidate-- even to the extent of praising or dissing him in emails-- has
the potential to have a far greater effect by changing multiple votes.

So if it's worthwhile to vote for a candidate, it's worthwhile to campaign
for him or her (or at least refrain from campaigning against them).  That's
where my comment about individualism among the far left comes from-- folks
talk about their individual actions but seem to have no sense of collective
organizing and the cumulative effects of that individual campaigning.  The
rightwing is very clear about those effects:  they lay out their talking
points, broadcast them, then watch their foot soldiers magnify the message
across every media source, radio show and Internet source possible.

Seriously, I understand the use of holding a post mortem on the Kerry
campaign after November 2nd to evaluate what went right or wrong, but at
this point the rightwing is spending all their time analyzing how they can
help to attack Kerry and elect Bush, not secondguessing the Bush strategy.
I've said in passing that I think Kerry was not aggressive enough in August
but what's done is done-- the question is how to emphasize the weaknesses
of Bush and the strengths of Kerry's positions in the next two months.

Nathan Newman

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk