[Peace-discuss] re: Langenheim vs Gill

[C. G. Estabrook]

Thank you; I'm charmed (under the assumption that I'm the Carl meant...),
but I also think that Alex Cockburn and Jeff St. Clair have it right when
they write the following:

"From the point of view of democracy, the American political system is a
shambles of corruption, gerrymandered to ensure that *it is almost
impossible to evict any sitting member of the House of Representatives.*
The presidential debates are fixed to exclude unwelcome intruders. Nader
says that in the whole of his 2000 challenge he got about 3 minutes
face-time on the major networks. You can understand why the two major
parties don't want any outsider spoiling the fun. They arranged things
that way, as Nader understands, and explains better than anyone."
[Emphasis added.]

I think we have to assume that the important things we do in pursuit of
AWARE's goals will be outside electoral politics.  (Not that electoral
politics can be ignored -- just not relied on.) --CGE


On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, Lisa Chason wrote:

> will it be possible on Tuesday's ballot to write in Carl?
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
> To: "Randall Cotton" <recotton at earthlink.net>
> Cc: <peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 9:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Langenheim vs Gill
> 
> 
> > I'd be surprised if anyone is doing any serious polling on this contest,
> > given its cost.  But I think your hesitations are appropriate.
> >
> > Gill originally supported a second nuclear reactor at Clinton -- he's from
> > there -- on the basis of "jobs." At the AWARE meeting, he said he now
> > opposes it.
> >
> > Gill's signature issue is national health care, where he says he supports
> > the position of Physicians for National Health Care <www.pnhp.org/>. I'm
> > still not clear that that means, for him, a Canadian-style single-payer
> > system.
> >
> > There's a vagueness about Ralph that I find disconcerting -- witness his
> > discussion of Iraq when he met with AWARE -- but the points you make here
> > are important.  --CGE
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Randall Cotton wrote:
> >
> > > Has anyone seen poll numbers on Langenheim vs. Gill? (15th district
> > > congressional seat, to oppose Tim Johnson)
> > >
> > > BTW, although Langenheim is often described as a "conservative" democrat
> > > (even in this forum), if you check Project Vote Smart (vote-smart.org),
> > > you'll see he's affirmed support for:
> > >
> > > 1. eliminating the death penalty (for federal crimes) (Gill did not)
> > > 2. Decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana (Gill did
> not)
> > > 3. Much more progressive taxation across the board (Gill only supports
> > > increasing taxes on $250,000+, leaving all else as is).
> > > 4. Much stronger gun control than Gill
> > >
> > > So I'm not sure "conservative democrat" is a fair characterization.
> > >
> > > My vote could depend on what poll numbers show, thus my query...
> > > R
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > > Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> > > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
>