Jon Johanning wrote:
>
>
> Oddly enough, many people are forgetting that nearly half the people
> who voted in the recent election voted against Bush (including both
> "blue-state" and "red-state" residents). It's doubtful that many of
> them have changed their minds and now support him. In addition, one
> might expect that the continuing disaster in Iraq and the coming
> disaster of Bush's Social Security plan will change the minds of some
> Bush voters.
This is correct. And this is why I was not particularly unhappy about
the election. My interest was in building a mass movement against The
Occupation, and it was obvious on the basis of the election that nearly
half the population was a potential source for that movement. Probably
more than a half, because Kerry by his criminal support of the war and
his argument that he would be a more murderous president than Bush
legitimized the primary attraction of Bush for millions of voters: Don't
change horses in the middle of the stream! If we are in a legitimate
war, then that was a persuasive argument. Only in the most extreme
circustances does it make sense for a nation at war to change leaders.
>
> Of course, from the "true radical"'s point of view, the anti-Bush
> voters don't count because they voted for Kerry (yuch!),
Jon Johanning, you are a bloody liar and scoundrel. Find one example of someone who opposed Kerry and who also attacked Kerry's voters.
I have never said, nor has any other enemy of the DP on this list ever said, one word against the voters for Kerry. Only an ignoramus or lying scoundrel would suggest this.
What slime! Carrol
and are
> therefore brainwashed idiots. In fact, everyone but the "true radical"
> is a brainwashed idiot, by definition. And the percentage of "true
> radicals' in the population is ... I would hesitate to estimate, but
> it's awfully small, for sure. So, by definition, the world is certainly
> something to panic at and be depressed by.
>
> Meanwhile, we "impure radicals" just keep on truckin'. We were not very
> influential before Bush, and we're still not very influential. But if
> we do things right, our influence might increase a bit in the next few
> years.
>
> And I'm off to a talk by Sister Helen Prejean in a couple of hours.
>
> Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org
> __________________________
> Belinda: Ay, but you know we must return good for evil.
> Lady Brute: That may be a mistake in the translation.
> -- Sir John Vanbrugh: The Provok’d Wife (1697), I.i.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk