[Peace-discuss] Ron Paul etc.

[Morton K. Brussel]

I plead guilty to misreading Carl's remarks about those who were  
FORMERLY contemptuous of Kucinich, but who now presumably see the  
light, led somewhat out of their darkness by association with Ron  
Paul.  Thanks to Carl for explaining…. --mkb


On Aug 23, 2007, at 5:12 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:

> Despite my doubts about Kucinich arising mainly from his past  
> timidity/cave-in at the last Democratic convention, I am glad for  
> his considerable courage in maintaining principled anti-war and  
> anti administration positions in a Washington antagonistic and deaf  
> to those positions, and that he does not carry the baggage  
> associated with Ron Paul's domestic agenda. I believe it is a  
> distortion to imply that Kucinich simply acts as a foil for Dems to  
> show that "extreme views" are present in the party. Would it be  
> better if his voice were absent? The "repressive tolerance" that  
> Carl cites is no fault of Kucinich.
>
> I'm not sure what the significance is of the statement that Ron  
> Paul's supporters are contemptuous of Kucinich, except that the  
> writer of these words is contemptuous of him.
>
> Finally, Kucinich is not running on the "religiosity and guns"  
> bandwagon, as Carl seems to imply. His major thrust, one which we  
> should encourage, is anti-war and anti-occupation. Chomsky, cited  
> by Carl to buttress a false argument, I doubt would agree in  
> associating Kucinich with distracting issues (religiosity-abortion).
>
> These are gratuitous attacks on one of the few in Congress and in  
> the public sphere who are expressing what members of AWARE believe in.
>
> It is of course another issue whether Kucinich can win enough  
> support to make a dent in present U.S. policies, and thus should be  
> the one to lead the antiwar movement. That he is trying is worth at  
> least our respect.
>
> My 2¢.  --mkb
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2007, at 3:15 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>> I see Dennis Kucinich's campaigns, in years past and this, as  
>> examples of what's been called repressive tolerance.  He's  
>> grudgingly given a place at the end of the debate line-up, and the  
>> media talk about how short he is, but the Democrats can always  
>> point to him to show that "extreme" views really are presented in  
>> the party.  His campaigns are like the fenced "free-speech zones"  
>> set up outside the 2004 political conventions.  They're safely  
>> contained, exist as an answer to an objection, but can't become  
>> effective.
>>
>> Perhaps just the same can be said of Ron Paul's campaign, but I  
>> have the impression that it is supported by people who fairly  
>> recently would have rejected "protesters" (like Kucinich) with  
>> contempt.  Someone is voting for him in straw-polls and telling  
>> pollsters that he has their support, and I think it's not so much  
>> people suddenly converted to Libertarian economics as those who  
>> saw their anti-war vote traduced by the Democrats thru the last  
>> nine months (also a principal reason that Congress' approval  
>> rating is lower than Bush's).
>>
>> But it's certainly a prudential judgment, which campaign will be  
>> more effective in bringing anti-war pressure on the eventual  
>> candidates. Chomsky points out that one of the signs of the low  
>> state of American democratic forms is that in presidential  
>> elections the real issues are set aside by the candidates'  
>> insistence that the campaign is about "religiosity and  
>> guns" (domestic ones, that is).  It would be a shame to aid in  
>> that distraction by supporting Kucinich because of his position on  
>> abortion if it really is the case that a Paul candidacy would do  
>> more to make effective the anti-war sentiment of the majority.
>>
>> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>> you would think, on a list like this, that the debate would be  
>>> whether
>>> we should be supporting Kucinich, the peace candidate, or making a
>>> more pragmatic choice like Edwards, as the best progressive shot at
>>> defeating Hillary, and that the Kucinich forces would have the upper
>>> hand.
>>> But Dennis is now 100% pro-choice, and I suppose some people hold  
>>> that
>>> against him.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070823/094b9375/attachment.html