[Peace-discuss] Inauguration thoughts

[Brussel Morton K.]

Some are trying to be creative in what can be done to change the  
current policies, not simply ranting about what one doesn't like.

I've been following the comments on the UFPJ on the listserve, and KZ  
is no fawning Democrat.

--mkb

On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:34 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> "We don't pull people to us by protesting at his party."
>
> That's ridiculous.  The anti-war movement continues its abject  
> capitulation to the Democrats -- "sticking close to Nurse / for  
> fear of something Worse," as the poet has it.
>
> Can we please ask that nice Mr. Obama and his SECURITY TEAM to  
> please, maybe, if it would not be too much trouble, and if they  
> won't frighten us with that awful Sarah Palin again, to please,  
> well, maybe just think about stopping killing people...?  (Of  
> course we'll understand if the TEAM has to keep doing it...)
>
> Three out of four eligible voters did NOT vote for Obama, and many  
> who did, did so not because they approved of his policies -- which  
> were not considered in the campaign, being identical in important  
> matters from those of his opponents -- but because his carefully- 
> arranged opposition was worse.
>
> We should do all we can to demonstrate against the murderous and  
> unbroken policies of the US government.  --CGE
>
>
> Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>> These thoughts come from the UFPJ listserve, in which it was  
>> suggested that there be protests at the inauguration ceremonies in  
>> January. Its author is one Kevin Zeese.
>> While I share John's [Walsh] views on the national security team  
>> Obama has appointed and expect that these are the people who will  
>> be running foreign policy for the next two years while Obama  
>> focuses domesticallly, the peace movement needs to figure out what  
>> -- if any -- message at the inagurartion will be effective.
>>  Most Obama supporters, even the apolitical ones, want to see the  
>> Iraq war ended.  They agree with us even though they voted for  
>> Obama.  Indeed, many, many peace activists supported Obama despite  
>> his weak foreign policy positions and proclaimed victory when he  
>> won the election.  So, the crowd that will be at the inaguration  
>> will be with us on the Iraq issue but also be with Obama,  
>> celebrating his presidency.  We need to pull people to our  
>> position and develop a broad protest movement against Obama's  
>> foreign policy positions -- which we know we willl not like.   We  
>> don't pull people to us by protesting at his party.  It just will  
>> not be effective, indeed it will marginalize more than broaden the  
>> peace movement.  Communication needs to serve the purpose of  
>> broadening the peace movement not making us feel good by shouting  
>> our anger.  Effective communication is the goal.
>>  Carl's [Davidson] approach of building on the "Yes we can" slogan  
>> of Obama is closer to what would be effective.  The phrases that  
>> come after "Yes we can" are important.  "End the Iraq War NOW" --  
>> with the emphasis on NOW is one that might work.  Expressing the  
>> urgency of now -- another Obama phrase and one that shows that he  
>> can stop the killing now -- he can stop the drones in Pakistan   
>> --  now, the bombings of wedding parties in Afghanistan -- now,   
>> Israel getting out of Palestine - now.  The same could be true  
>> with other foreign policy issues. After inaguration these killings  
>> in Pakistan etc. willl be Obama's responsibility as he does have  
>> the power to stop them now.
>>  We have to walk a fine line of demonstrating our independence for  
>> Obama, but at this stage of his presidency, especially inaguration  
>> day, showing hope for the new administration -- despite our  
>> expectation that hopes willl be dashed, rather quickly.
>