[Peace-discuss] re: lesser evilism

[Chuck Minne]

Tom, I see where you are coming from and think there is considerable merit in what you espouse

That being said, I think it is not rocket science to say that had Nader not run in 2000, perhaps the Democrats could have stolen the election instead. I mean, its not like they haven’t done it before.

Nor is it, I think, rocket science to say that had Gore won, there would have been no Iraq war. What a blessing that would have been!

I think Phil’s initial post was beautifully thought out and it expresses my sentiments better than I can: It hurts so bad to have to vote for Kerry.

But most telling of all, at least to me, was Lisa’s post: "Who Are These Conservatives?" The last thing I want to be is a Kerry apologist, but that article makes clear just how hard it is to even have a chance of getting elected in this country if you have any liberal/progressive ideas. As I have said ad nauseam, I spent almost a week campaigning for Kucinich in Iowa, and nobody came. Our country either 1) believes we were threatened by Iraq, or 2) does not want to admit we were wrong. Take your pick, but either way a peace candidate can’t win - probably can’t even come close. So Kerry is between a rock and a hard place, and will lose I think.

With all that going against him, he, like Gore, does not need Nader siphoning off votes. Look at it this way, if you were the parent of any of the 20,000+ killed in Iraq (ours or theirs,) are you happy that Nader ran in 2000? 



Tom Mackaman <tmackaman at yahoo.com> wrote:
Jen writes:  
 
"We wouldn't BE @ war if Naderites had voted for "the lesser of two 
evils" in 2000.  Duh.  And if Naderites throw the election to Bush again, 
there goes what's left of our democracy.... think Supreme Court 
appointees....".
 
Jen, I must point out that you quite explicitly are laying the blame for the Iraq war at the feet of the Green Party and Ralph Nader.  Do you really mean to do that?  I can think of many culprits, but the Greens are not among them.  The Democratic Party, for example, would be higher up the list.     
 
Your note makes two false assumptions.  First, that Nader, the Greens, and their supporters are responsible for the loss of Florida, and therefore the whole 2000 election.  
 
This is nonsense that the Democrats have been trying to push off on us for four years.  
 
Let me pose to you a series of questions:
 
Why, Jen, do you attack the left, rather than the Republicans, who stole the election?  Do you *know* that the Rs wouldn't have stolen it had the Greens not run?  And why not blame the Democrats for capitulating to Bush and co. without a real fight?  Why not lament the Ds inability to appeal to the millions who decided not to vote in Florida alone, correctly understanding that neither party spoke to their needs?  Why not lament the system that disenfranchised tens of thousands of black voters, both ex-con and not, in Florida?.... This tendency to attack the left, rather than the right, is growing within the ranks of the Democratic Party and the erstwhile liberal millieu that surrounds it.  The recent Public I article by Edwards is cut from the same cloth.    
 
Second, your letter assumes, counterfactually, that a Gore administration would have stayed out of Iraq.  Let's look at the record: (1)  The Clinton administration (Gore had some position therein) enforced the sanctions and bombing that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis; (2) The Clinton administration adopted, as official US policy, the concept of regime change in Iraq; (3) The Democratic Party never challenged any of the lies upon which the Bush administration's case for war was made; (4) The Democratic Party reps and senators voted overwhelmingly to authorize the unilateral attack on Iraq, with Kerry and Edwards both voting in favor; (5) Kerry has promised to continue the war as long as it takes--"failure is not an option" he says; (6)  Kerry now says, even knowing what he now knows about the false claims of WMD, that **he would have still voted for the war.***  (7) On foreign policy, Kerry criticizes Bush from the right, promising more doting support of Israel, accusing Bush
 of being "soft" on North Korea, ignoring Latin America, etc.  (8) Kerry promises to maintain the Bush doctrine, that the US has a "right" to make unilateral attacks without the endorsement of the UN.    
 
My apologies to those in the "Anybody" crowd, but it is completely incoherent to advocate peace and call on people to vote for a candidate, and a party, of war.  The turn toward militarism is the shared policy of the two parties, and it is a deep historical problem, not the brain child of this or that politician. 
 
 
Yours,
 
Tom
 
    

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss



Now tell me again, just how did Iraq threaten my freedom? Oh,I get it,the same way Granada,Panama,Haiti,Nicaragua,The Sudan,Afghanistan,Lybia,and our other targets did! Right.Right......."The first casualty of war is the truth." Sir Winston Churchill....."Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."--Mark Twain......My Web Site ..... ClickMeToo


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20040916/9c76a690/attachment.htm