[lbo-talk] Nader, et al

[Jeffrey Fisher]

On 8/8/07, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 00:50 -0400, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>
> > > But... but... doesn't this rather undercut your insistence on the
> > > difference between the two parties? You laid a lot of stress on the
> > > fact that some, or even many, Democratic officeholders express mildly
> > > liberal sentiments. And of course you're right, there are such. But if
> > > the "swing" legislators were elected to be Bush-lite
> >
> >
> >
> > by this logic, hamas was elected to be fatah lite?
>
> I usually love analogies, the more recherche and strained the better,
> but I gotta admit, I'm baffled by this one.

i thought about expanding, but it didnt' seem worth it. the point was that a
protest vote is not the same as a vote for a "lite" version of the target of
the protest vote. the election of a hamas government was at least as much a
rejection of the corruption of fatah, but that can't be said to mean they
wanted (much less expected) hamas simply to be a less corrupt version of
fatah.

that was in the context of an argument about voting for dems being a
rejection of/ weariness with/ protest against the gop and/or bush.

anyway. maybe it doesn't work.

j