[Peace-discuss] AWARE table

[jencart]

Linda,

The signs say "Vote Out Bush-Cheney"  There's (unfortunately) only one way to do this..... 

Jenifer

--------------------------------------------------------------
The signs do not endorse the Dem ticket...they endorse
not voting for Bush...one point where all of AWARE can
probably agree, but you can take it anyway you want
to.

Linda

--- jencart <jencart at mycidco.com> wrote:
> I know what Nader "thinks" only too well.  I'm
> sticking w/ Chomsky and Zinn on this one.  This does
> not seem relevant to what I was saying about AWARE's
> latest yard signs, however.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> 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