[Peace-discuss] Inauguration thoughts

[Jenifer Cartwright]

Yes, anything but a supportive presence at the Inauguration would hurt more than help the cause -- it would come off as inappropriate and even nasty to those whom we want on our side (strength in numbers) and thus would lose far more than it would gain -- just like Cindy Sheehan's sit-in in Conyer's office, remember? Conyers was busting his hump trying to get support for his/our position, folks got impatient and pushed Conyers (instead of the Congressional members dragging their feet!), and Conyers was (understandably) furious. 
 
C'mon guys, Barack Obama -- the best, brightest, most decent and classiest thing to lead our country in a very long time -- has been elected president of the United States!! That really is something to celebrate!! There are positive, more effective ways to promote our agenda than venting spleen in his direction.
 --Jenifer  
 
 
--- On Mon, 12/1/08, Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel at comcast.net> wrote:

From: Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel at comcast.net>
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Inauguration thoughts
To: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 10:34 AM


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.
 
KZ

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081201/aca98ef6/attachment.html