[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [stopthewarpolitics] Could the Left Make a Deal with Obama?

[David Green]

Interesting ideas, but in my opinion Obama wouldn't have the guts to be seen as pandering to the left, to risk being framed that way by McCain.

Stan H <mecc at comcast.net> wrote:  From: "Stan H" <mecc at comcast.net>
To: "Stop The War Stop the War" <StoptheWarPolitics at lists.riseup.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 21:44:37 -0400
Subject: [stopthewarpolitics] Could the Left Make a Deal with Obama?

          from Stanley Heller (not for publication)
   
  Following up on an earlier post and thinking out loud. What do anti-war folks do with an electoral system totally stacked against them, and where the majority of working people think the Democrats are a meaningful alternative?    If Obama loses then there will be four more years of people regretting that we didn’t give the Democrats a try.  Worse, because Obama is imitating so many Republican positions (Afghanistan, Georgia, the economy) what should be his landslide lead is no lead at all.  Nader is polling 5% or 6% in some states.  What if Obama loses a state because of the Nader/McKinney vote and that makes the difference in the election?  Does that make third parties a force to be reckoned with or something to be hated and destroyed?
   
  In democratic countries you have run-off voting, whereby people on the Left vote for the party they really want in the first round, then choose the lesser of two evils in the second round.  Here you get one shot leading to the hysteria that if you don’t vote Democratic you are giving the election to the Republicans.
   
  How can any new parties ever make inroads?
   
  What if Nader and McKinney said this to Obama:   We will drop out of the race a week before the election if and only if you meet these conditions: 1) you get us into the national debates by demanding it from the powers that create these forums; 2) if the Republicans refuse to debate Nader and McKinney you refuse to debate McCain or arrange for three debates with Nader and McKinney without McCain 3) You insist the pollsters include Nader and McKinney in all polls so that in the final poll the strength of the Left can be shown to the nation. 4) you call for an end to the electoral college, for election by a majority of voters and for runoff voting when there is no majority.   If all the conditions are met in the last week before the election we will tell our voters to vote for you.
   
  If this is accepted  Nader/McKinney get a real shot to get their message across to the nation, and a campaign to get rid of the antiquated presidential voting system gets off to a big start.  Obama gets in, proves to be a disaster and the Left gets credit rather than blame.   If the Democrats refuse this "Real Democracy Deal" then Nader/McKinney and all the socialist parties go full throttle and any blame for an Obama loss goes squarely to the Democrats.
   
  Does this make any sense at all?
   
  I don’t know myself.  It’s thinking out loud. The idea of voting for a man who supports Israeli apartheid 100% and wants more war in Afghanistan and is ready to use “every” measure against Iran turns my stomach.  But how do we get things moving off the endless cycle of lesser-evilism?   Do we just consider the elections a farce and wait for the inevitable economic/warfare catastrophes to bring on dictatorships and uprisings? 
   
  [I can see some say. "Heller’s working himself up to vote for Mr. Obama".  No way.  Without the Real Democracy Deal no vote for Obama, no how. ]
   
  Your thoughts?   Send to stopthewarpolitics at lists.riseup.net
   
   
   
   



       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080902/f6bcb764/attachment.htm