[Peace-discuss] Biden = business as usual...
Morton K. Brussel
mkbrussel at comcast.net
Mon Aug 25 22:49:45 CDT 2008
My conclusion from this debate is that Carl, or Neil, among others,
will be as happy to see McCain win as Obama. Carl seems to think that
you can't be antiwar and anti-imperialist if you prefer Obama to
McCain, that all your antiwar energy will be sucked dry if you make
distinctions between them.
I believe this to be nonsense. Perhaps Carl should ask advice here
from Chomsky. Chomsky, I believe, is more nuanced, without having
illusions. My guess is he might say that we should have no illusions
about either McCain or Obama for getting to the out of reach
(peaceful) revolution we need, but in several, perhaps many respects,
Obama would be better for the world's peoples and environment than
McCain. He would also advocate with Carl, however, a steady devotion
and commitment to anti-imperialism, that we shouldn't be too much
deflected by American electoral politics in this matter.
Carl damns without conviction, describing McCain as "somewhat" of a
"loose cannon". But even with respect to Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Iran, there are differences between the two, bad as both their stated
policies seem.
Either one will be President. Does it make a difference or not? That
is the question.
Some speak of fuzzy headed liberals. I think we can now speak of
fuzzy headed anti-war idealists.
--mkb
On Aug 25, 2008, at 7:15 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> And anyone who thinks that supporting Obama is opposing the war is
> mistaken. Absent serious opposition, foreign and domestic, the US
> government will continue to kill people in the Middle East next
> year, whoever is president.
>
> McCain is something of a loose cannon, and what he would do in
> office is unclear -- but it's also unclear what Obama might do.
> Within the broad (and vicious) parameters of US policy, it would
> have been impossible to predict what either Clinton or Bush
> actually did in office.
>
> From what little we know, it seems that a Democratic administration
> might be less bad for social policy than a Republican one, but
> they're working for the same people, as Biden once again illustrates.
>
> The worst thing is to turn the energy that might go into a serious
> anti-war movement into the presidential election, as if it mattered
> much. That of course is what our rulers would like us to do.
>
> The point was made explicitly by the rather limited WH press
> secretary, Dana Perino, in an exchange with reporters this spring.
> In an interview with Vice President Cheney, ABC News’ Martha
> Raddatz had noted that “two-thirds of Americans say” that the Iraq
> war “is not worth fighting.”
>
> “So?” Cheney replied. "I think we cannot be blown off course by the
> fluctuations of the public opinion polls."
>
> Referring to Cheney’s comment during a White House press briefing,
> a reporter asked Perino, “So is the vice president saying it really
> doesn’t matter what the American public thinks about the war?”
>
> “No, I don’t think that’s what he’s saying,” Perino replied.
> Reporter Helen Thomas took up the matter:
>
> HELEN THOMAS: The American people are being asked to die and
> pay for this. And you’re saying they have no say in this war?
>
> PERINO: No, I didn’t say that Helen. But Helen, this president
> was elected...
>
> THOMAS: But it amounts to it. You’re saying we have no input at
> all.
>
> PERINO: You had input. The American people have input every
> four years, and that’s the way our system is set up.
>
> Some system. Some input. --CGE
>
>
> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>> I'll repeat Mort's words, since they seem to be falling on deaf ears:
>> ...Obama is clearly a better choice than McCain, and WHOMEVER
>> MAKES IT EASIER FOR MCCAIN TO WIN IS PLAYING WITH EVEN GREATER
>> CALAMITY THAN NOW EXISTS. If you see no significant differences
>> between the two, ---on choice, judicial nominations, the
>> environment, separation of church and state---I can only say that
>> you are dismally mistaken. --Jenifer
>> --- On *Mon, 8/25/08, Morton K. Brussel /<mkbrussel at comcast.net>/*
>> wrote:
>> From: Morton K. Brussel <mkbrussel at comcast.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Biden = business as usual...
>> To: "Neil Parthun" <lennybrucefan at gmail.com>
>> Cc: "Peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>, "C.G.Estabrook"
>> <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>> Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 12:21 AM
>> One does not argue for an Obama presidency, one argues against a
>> McCain presidency. We can demand all the changes we want,
>> but we won't get them in this
>> election, or, given our electoral system, any that I can
>> foresee .
>> As for me, Obama is clearly a better choice than McCain, and
>> whomever makes it easier for McCain to win is playing with even
>> greater calamity than now exists. If you see no significant
>> differences between the two, ---on choice, judicial
>> nominations, the
>> environment, separation of church and state---I can only say that
>> you are dismally mistaken. Voting in Illinois will allow
>> you to vote your conscience, a happy
>> circumstance. Voting in Florida or Ohio to assuage a highfalutin
>> conscience by voting for a candidate that can't win, is, with the
>> present choices, inane, and may have tragic consequences.
>> --mkb
>> On Aug 24, 2008, at 8:07 PM, Neil Parthun wrote:
>>> With the talk about Biden, here's my opinion about Obama:
>>>
>>> I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me the
>>> morality
>>> of voting for Obama simply because we will have a 'haunting
>>> by the
>>> specter of McCain'.
>>>
>>> We here in Illinois have the knowledge that we can vote our
>>> conscience for any candidate because it is certain that Illinois
>>> will go to the Democratic Party. Looking nationally, only four
>>> states are in play -- New Mexico, Ohio, Florida and Colorado and
>>> if we want to quibble, then let's add a fifth: Virginia. One
>>> could very realistically state that it will be these states that
>>> will tip the election to either one of the imperialists. So,
>>> our
>>> prattling seems to be much adieu about nothing. But alas...
>>>
>>> How can we as progressives argue for an Obama presidency? Let's
>>> run down the stats:
>>>
>>> -Obama is for continued military presence in Iraq, despite Iraqi
>>> governmental forces asking us to GTFO.
>>> -Obama is for continued and increased military presence in
>>> Afghanistan, despite the masses in Afghanistan demanding us
>>> to GTFO.
>>> -Obama is for expanding our bombing to Pakistan in our trek to
>>> kill killers to prove that killing people is wrong.
>>> -Obama is for the for-profit health care system that has left
>>> 40+
>>> million people without access to adequate health care.
>>> -Obama is not for equal rights and equal opportunities for
>>> LGBTQA
>>> people, denying them equality of marriage. He even is
>>> washing his
>>> hands of pushing for federal protections by saying that it is an
>>> issue for individual states to handle.
>>> -Obama sold out civil liberties and privacy rights with his
>>> FISA vote
>>> -Obama is condoning the 'haterade' towards Russia
>>> -Obama is condoning the first strike missile systems in
>>> Poland and
>>> the Czech Republic
>>> -Obama speaks for the common man yet has a mansion and makes
>>> hundreds of thousands of dollars a year
>>>
>>> ...and I'd just be getting started.
>>>
>>> McCain and Obama are nominally different. Both are ultimately
>>> beholden to corporate interests and beholden to the policies
>>> that
>>> will benefit the elite. How can any self-described progressive
>>> vote for such a thing? We're not voting for the lesser of two
>>> evils. We're voting for the evil of lessers. This seems to
>>> be the
>>> act every four years. Instead of demanding the fundamental
>>> changes that we want, we end up sacrificing that in the name of
>>> pragmatism and fearmongering that a Republican administration
>>> would lead us down the path of destruction. What we get is more
>>> of the same that we've had. Plus, the last time I checked, we
>>> have three branches of government. The Democrats gave the
>>> authorization of force for the war, eviscerated civil liberties,
>>> continued funding both imperial ventures and are continuing the
>>> cadence for impending war with Iran and Russia. But it is much
>>> easier and more intellectually dishonest to put this all at the
>>> doorstep of the Big Bad Evil Republicans.
>>>
>>> McCain and Obama would bring us policies that would benefit the
>>> rich, squash gay rights, eviscerate civil liberties and increase
>>> war. Obama may be "change" but the only thing that will
>>> change is
>>> the name and appearance of the person implementing the policies
>>> for the US Empire.
>>>
>>> Its not the act of seeing with our own eyes alone; its correctly
>>> comprehending what we see,
>>> Neil
>>>
>>> We absolutely have to refuse to attribute any kind of
>>> permanency
>>> to that which is simply because it is.
>>> [angela v. davis, 1944-]
>>>
>>> Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you
>>> could.
>>> Some blunders and absurdities have crept in; forget them as soon
>>> as you can. Tomorrow is a new day. You shall begin it
>>> serenely and
>>> with too high a spirit to be encumbered with your old nonsense.
>>> [ralph waldo emerson, 1803-1882]
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list