[Peace-discuss] Is Iowa important?

[C. G. Estabrook]

["Don't play it again, Sam," by Mike Flugennock in the blog 
<http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/>. --CGE]

     SAM SMITH wrote:

     http://prorev.com/2007/12/most-important-primary-decision-in-40.html

     >
     > ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
     > THE MOST IMPORTANT PRIMARY DECISION IN FORTY YEARS
     > ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
     >
     > If Edwards wins the Iowa caucuses, it will be the most significant
     > progressive primary win since Eugene McCarthy got 41% of the vote
     > in New Hampshire in 1968.

     Sam, dude. I love ya, bro', but I'm begging you. Knock it off with 
the Senator Goodhair hype. The guy makes a big deal out of being some 
kind of progressive populist, but ... How long was he a nobody in the 
Senate before he got picked to co-pilot the 2004 Swift Boat To Hell? 
Senator Breck Boy was a runner-up in the same Political American Idol 
contest that plucked Senator Magic Negro from out of nowhere.

     ... with all due respect, man, for the love of all that's good and 
decent, why are you so nuts about John Edwards? He was gung-ho for the 
war when he thought that knowingly believing the lies would keep his ass 
in power, and when he got caught out believing the lies, he spewed the 
same old "oh, I was so terribly deceived" line of crap that all the 
other Democrats were spewing when public opinion shifted against the war 
-- and then, went right back to believing the lies being told about 
Iran, for _another_ big Bush war drive.


     > While those who prefer the personal, albeit single digit, purity
     > of supporting a Kucinich may scoff...

     While I think Kucinich is a totally useless energy- and 
resource-sucking vortex designed by the Democrats to waste the US Left's 
time, still -- I think whatever movement you're in is fucked without 
"purity" of thought and vision. No revolution was won without it. We're 
in the trouble we're in now because the US Left insists on shackling 
itself to a dead institution that's made a business out of compromising 
principles for political expediency until it's got no principles left to 
compromise. Don't forget the Pogo quote that you, yourself, proudly 
brandish on the PR blog site.

     > ...even Ralph Nader agrees that an Edwards
     > nomination would be a historic shift in the political landscape...

     And that, friends, is pretty goddamn' sad. Sad that the Democratic 
Party nomination of a rich, white, gated-suburb-dwelling, 
ambulance-chaser whose idea of universal health care is to force 
everybody to become customers of for-profit health-insurance 
corporations -- the "Nixon Plan" for corporate-dominated healthcare -- 
would be considered a "historic shift in the political landscape". I 
knew things were sucking in this country lately, but I never realized 
that they were sucking so deeply and profoundly that the DP running 
Senator Goodhair for El Presidente would be a "historic shift".

     Now, on the other hand, a rock-bottom turnout next year -- a 
turnout so small that no party or pundit could claim a "mandate" or to 
claim that "the People have spoken" or that "non-voters are apathetic" 
-- followed by a widespread general strike, followed by a very large, 
spontaneous, belligerent, possibly a bit violent, mass mobilization to 
Capitol Hill (a la the 1970 post-Kent State convergence on DC) to demand 
the immediate resignation and exile of _all_ incumbent political 
leadership and a brand-new election -- now, _that'd_ be a historic shift 
in the goddamn' political landscape.

     > Edwards' election would signal the end of another era, namely that
     > of Reagan, the Bushes and Clinton - one that has wrecked social 
democracy,
     > returned the economy to robber baron standards and caused us to 
be hated
     > around the world...

     Oh f'cripesake, Sam. The guy's a goddamn' _Democrat_... you know, 
the party which has been aiding and abetting this misery as far back as 
I can remember. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." --the Who.

     > Finally we can begin again. This would not be a reflection of 
Edwards'
     > virtues so much as of the strength of a constituency for change that
     > this country has not seen for a long time. And it would be a 
victory for
     > all of us.

     No, it'd be a victory for the Democratic party and 
corporate-cash-strung-out politics.

     If you ask me, electing a Democratic Administration would just put 
off the inevitable. I'd just as soon see the final collapse of the DP 
and the immediate prospect of four years of "Giuliani Time" shocking 
people off of their couches and into the streets. Look how well 
President Chimp did at unifying the US Left -- until, of course, the 
2004 "election", in which sizeable numbers of them suddenly fell into a 
deep psychosis in which they believed that electing a party that was 
enabling the current Iraq horror would end it. Many of them continue to 
shuffle around in this debilitated state to this day.

     I still remember how hard it was trying to organize the US Left 
against the _last_ Democratic Administration...basically, like trying to 
push a truck uphill with a rope.

     All I can say is that I'm glad I've finally realized what a useless 
freak show this all is, and that I've quit caring. I can't begin to tell 
you how liberating it is to not give a rat's ass who "wins" the 
"election" -- and how especially liberating it is not to care about the 
goddamn' _Democrats_ -- because I know none of that class of people will 
bring us any change, nor will trudging off and validating a corrupt, 
collapsing institution with my "vote".

	###