[Peace-discuss] Ron Paul etc.

[C. G. Estabrook]

I would have thought that the important point is not how people feel 
about Kucinich but how they feel about the war.  Paul seems to be 
expressing the anti-war sentiments of a good number of people who would 
not usually have been in Kucinich's camp.  I don't think that we can say 
that the only authentic opponents of the war are to be found there, and 
not elsewhere.  --CGE


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> 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 <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss