[Peace-discuss] AWARE table

[C. G. Estabrook]

The Nader (and to some extent the Cobb) argument is that a Kerry
administration would be no improvement over a Bush administration on the
matters we care about, so the proper thing to do is follow Debs' advice,
that "it is better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote
for what you don't want and get it."  There are surely members of AWARE
who hold this view.  --CGE


On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, jencart wrote:

> "Vote Out Bush-Chaney" signs are opposing the Bush Doctrine by
> opposing the Bush-Chaney ticket.  By extension, it means "Vote In
> Kerry-Edwards," as there's no way a third party ticket can do this.
> 
> I'm personally VERY glad --tho' surprised -- that AWARE is supplying
> these signs, even tho' it's an unspoken endorsement of the Demo
> ticket.
> 
> Jenifer
> 
> Jenifer --------------------------------------------------------------
> Of course you're right, Jenifer -- AWARE takes lots of positions.  I
> think what Al meant was that as an organization it hadn't taken a
> position on endorsing a presidential candidate. Kerry, Nader and Cobb
> all have their supporters within AWARE, I suppose.  (That's what the
> debate before the meeting on Sept. 12 is to be about, apparently.) But
> AWARE has surely taken a position in opposition to the "Bush Doctrine"
> -- the question is, What methods are most effective in opposing it?  
> --CGE
> 
> 
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, jencart wrote:
> 
> > Hmmm..... Letters to the editor using AWARE's name and admiring the
> > bright yellow signs which say REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT HOME, VOTE OUT
> > BUSH - CHANEY.  Displaying, selling, taking orders for the same signs
> > @ the AWARE table.... I'd call that a position, wouldn't you?  It's
> > certaining different from PEACE IS PATRIOTIC, UNITED FOR PEACE, NO
> > IRAQ WAR, etc
> > 
> > Jenifer C.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > Jenifer,
> > 
> > The point is that AWARE doesn't have "a position."
> > 
> > 
> > >No argument  re Nader votes losing IL to Bush, Carl.   Many voters 
> > >are concerned about the Nader effect in the non-safe states, afraid 
> > >that Nader votes could throw the election to Bush (again?!?!)  I've 
> > >heard that the Greens rejected Nader this time around (obviously) 
> > >and, unlike Nader, are encouraging voters in non-safe states to vote 
> > >Democratic, which seems in keeping w/ AWARE's position...
> > >
> > >Jenifer C.
> > >--------------------------------------------------------------
> > >But Illinois will vote Democratic in the presidential election.  And 
> > >many people are troubled about Kerry's not being an anti-war 
> > >candidate.  As residents of a "safe" Democratic state, we're free to 
> > >vote for a candidate opposed to the war on terrorism and pre-emptive 
> > >war.  Illinois' electoral votes will end up in Kerry's column 
> > >anyway.  I'm sure many in AWARE (like me) will vote for Nader or 
> > >Cobb.  --CGE
> > >
> > >
> > >On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, jencart wrote:
> > >
> > >>  ...If we're displaying and selling yard signs (hot item, lotsa orders)
> > >>  that say VOTE OUT BUSH - CHANEY it seems appropriate to discuss how to
> > >>  actually accomplish this, there being only one way to do this, which
> > >>  is not really an endorsement of a particular candidate either...
> > >
> 
>