[Peace-discuss] "Support"

[Brussel Morton K.]

Wayne,

Libertarians of the world unite…  

What does "Even I…" mean? Who else was in your camp at the AWARE meetings where these things were argued?

What does "support" mean to you? Support because of agreement, or support in the sense of the better of two appalling choices? 

My position on Obama was simply that he was a better bet than a rogue McCain, that there was always some hope in uncertainty as to how Obama would act if elected. In uncertainty hope has a chance. I expressly said, more than once, that Obama was likely to be, and was looking dreadful—a weasel like Bill Clinton—, given his positions on Afghanistan, the Patriot Act,  the Wright affair, and those whom he chose as advisors. My position was almost identical to that of Paul Street, whom you can consult; certainly no "supporter" of Obama.  To have been more fearful of a McCain presidency did not in any sense imply that Obama was a candidate in which one could have confidence; he simply seemed the preferable of two egregious choices at a crucial time, hardly a choice at all. 

Which is why I voted for Mckinney, someone with whom I could agree. 

Carl's guru Chomsky said essentially the same thing. 

That Obama has turned out to have been a better bet than McCain is probably still a reasonable, if execrable, bet; both looked like would-be hawks and defenders of the imperium. One however, especially looked better to me on domestic issues (and didn't choose as a vice presidential comrade a Sarah Palin). 

--mkb

On Jul 28, 2010, at 8:14 PM, E.Wayne Johnson wrote:

> Mort,
> Even I felt that you were supportive of the Obot and even quite defensive of
> him at oft times.  But even so, that wouldn't be the end of the world and worse mistakes
> have been made.
> 
> Gill has indeed been evasive in his opinions about the war and it seems that just recently
> he has become more anti-war.  It is yet to see how he would hold up under pressure.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brussel Morton K." <mkbrussel at comcast.net>
> To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
> Cc: <david at gill2010.com>; "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] House Votes Today on Afghan, Pakistan Wars
> 
> 
> Again, an exceedingly narrow mindset is here displayed.
> 
> What words are said by a candidate will not necessarily carry over to when he or she  is in a Congress and feels the kinds of pressures that can be exerted. That is why I used the word "unanswerable", even in the case of Gill who has spoken reasonably and intelligently in my view on most of the crucial issues of the day and yesterday. Is all that not obvious?
> 
> You are grasping at straws.
> 
> And while I'm at it on a detail which hardly deserves a response, I might add that  more than once I informed you of voting for McKinney in the last election, something which you found convenient to deny… in order to make a spurious point.
> 
> --mkb
> 
> On Jul 28, 2010, at 2:34 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> What an astonishing statement. That's what campaigns are supposed to be for - to find a candidate who will vote "the way you prefer" on the most important issues.   Forty years ago, would you have supported a candidate who refused to say how he'd vote on civil rights legislation?
>> 
>> On 7/27/10 10:40 PM, Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>>> ...Whether Gill would vote the way I prefer if in Congress is
>>> unanswerable now...
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss