[Peace-discuss] Is Iowa important?

Sun Dec 30 13:17:47 CST 2007

And the alternative?

--mkb

On Dec 30, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Laurie at advancenet.net wrote:

> This is assessment by Mike Flugennock  is the first realistic  
> assessment
> that I have seen on this list or anywhere else that does not buy  
> into the
> overly optimistic premises that in the long run Democracy is good  
> and things
> will work out for the better in the future because the possibility  
> that
> there can be candidates for public office can be trusted, that  
> there are
> progressive and radical candidates who are not caught up in the
> establishment game supporting basic establishment premises and  
> looking out
> for their own self-interests, and that the electoral process is not  
> merely a
> circulation of establishment elites or their representatives who  
> are only
> willing to make symbolic gestures or minor reforms in unimportant  
> ways to
> the peripheral values and assumptions that govern this society.
>
> The only thing to add is that what was said for the Democrats and  
> Democratic
> Party is equally true of the Republicans and the Republican Party and
> probably most third party candidates who have enough strength and  
> resources
> to become a candidate for any office at any level.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
>> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook
>> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 12:10 AM
>> To: Peace Discuss
>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Is Iowa important?
>>
>> ["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".
>>
>> 	###
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> 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