[Peace-discuss] "Support"

[E.Wayne Johnson]

That's a reasonable explanation. McCain was awful and still is awful.

I think Joan Rivers put it pretty well in the the case of Clinton vs Dole --
"Which one of the Menendez brothers do you like the best?"

I like Cynthia McKinney too, but voted for Chuck Baldwin but not just 
because he goes to church and is against abortion.  Nader was a likewise 
reasonable pick.  I dont care much for Bob Barr, but would have considered 
Mary Ruwart if she had gotten the Libertarian Party nomination.  It came 
down to several close votes in the LP and she came in close.  Actually Barr 
seems a unlikely libertarian to me as does W.A. "WAR" Root.

The taxi cab drivers in Beijing (pundits they are) tell me that Obama is 
just the same as Bush when it comes to war.  Taxi  cab drivers in Beijing 
are pretty much anti-war and they listen to the radio a lot.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brussel Morton K." <mkbrussel at comcast.net>
To: "E.Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag>
Cc: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:53 PM
Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Support"


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

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