[Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!

[C. G. Estabrook]

What's the fee for Meals on Wheels...?


Robert Naiman wrote:
> If anyone rats us out, we can argue that the stakes are too small to be
> considered real gambling. By the time any of us gets to collect, we won't
> even be able to take each other out to a nice dinner on it.
> 
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 6:31 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
> wrote:
>> Which side of the bet do you want, Ricky?
>> 
>> The same as Bob?  If so, I've got you faded.
>> 
>> We're going to get chambana.net busted for making book...
>> 
>> 
>> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>>> I agree with all this, and I'll also bet anyone the same $100 on the same
>>>  terms.
>>> 
>>> Ricky
>>> 
>>> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>>> 
>>> --- On *Thu, 2/4/10, Robert Naiman /<naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>/* wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss]
>>> Pull a Green Party Ballot Today! To: "Morton K. Brussel"
>>> <brussel at illinois.edu> Cc: "Peace-discuss List"
>>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2010, 3:31
>>> PM
>>> 
>>> I certainly agree with Mort that there is no "pat resolution" to the 
>>> dilemmas that we face.
>>> 
>>> But some of the logic here escapes me.
>>> 
>>> Cheryle Jackson didn't fail because she was "caught in the Democratic 
>>> party web." She failed because she didn't get enough votes in the 
>>> Democratic primary. If more people had voted for her in the Democratic 
>>> primary, she would have won. How people who are anti-war can be 
>>> indifferent to this escapes me. Jackson was competitive in the City of 
>>> Chicago. If there were a real statewide anti-war movement that was 
>>> prepared to intervene in Democratic primaries, the outcome could have 
>>> been different.
>>> 
>>> It seems odd to me to punish anti-war candidates running as Democrats by
>>> not voting for them, for the failure of other Democrats to be anti-war.
>>> Are the Green Party representatives in Congress doing a better job of
>>> opposing the war than the anti-war Democrats? No, because there are no
>>> Green Party representatives in Congress. And it is extremely likely that
>>> there will never be any in our lifetime. Is voting for the Green Party an
>>> effective strategy for ending the wars, when Green Party candidates are
>>> unlikely to ever be in a position of voting on it? I'll bet anyone on
>>> this list $100 that the last U.S. soldier will leave Afghanistan before
>>> any Green Party candidates are elected to Congress.
>>> 
>>> If Green Party activists can figure out a way to undertake their 
>>> long-term - and quite uncertain - project of transformation without 
>>> getting in the way of here-and-now efforts to address the wars and other
>>> social ills, then I have no dispute with them. But if they insist on
>>> trying to obstruct more practical efforts, then they have to expect some
>>> push-back.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.