[Peace-discuss] [Peace] Series...

Sat Oct 16 21:58:25 CDT 2010

  Killing people is the most important thing the Obama administration is doing.

On 10/16/10 9:25 PM, Laurie Solomon wrote:
> >But it's hard to understand people who say that they're against the war - and 
> then vote against a Congressman who is one of the few voting against the war 
> (and for a dissembling Democrat). Especially >when those people contend, as 
> you do, that both parties are reactionary.
> It is not so hard to understand if they are neither single issue voters nor 
> voters who view stopping the war as the most important issue over all others 
> as you do.  If they are looking at and balancing the costs and benefits across 
> several issues or have other issues which are of equal or higher priority than 
> the one you see as being paramount, then it is quite possible that they will 
> select to support the candidate who is the lesser of evils on balance across 
> all THEIR high priority issues or decide to not vote at all if they think that 
> the persons running for office cannot be trusted with respect to those issues 
> that THEY deem of priority to them. People tend to act more or less rationally 
> using "good enough for all my practical purposes at hand" logic rather than an 
> abstract zero-sum optimizing logic and they tend to act practically not 
> ideologically with a focus on immediate personal short term interests.
>
>
>
> *From:* C. G. Estabrook <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 16, 2010 8:04 PM
> *To:* Corey Mattson <mailto:coreymattson at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> ; Karen Medina 
> <mailto:kmedina67 at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Series...
>
> The only way the Obama administration will reverse its war policy is if it's 
> forced to by a cut-off of funds.  That eventually happened to the Nixon 
> administration in regard to Vietnam and to the Reagan administration in regard 
> to Central America - admittedly after they'd killed hundreds of thousands.  
> The Obama administration needs to be treated the same way.
>
> In each case the growth of votes against the war in Congress was quite slow.  
> Then as now, the populace was much further left than the Congress. But it's 
> hard to understand people who say that they're against the war - and then vote 
> against a Congressman who is one of the few voting against the war (and for a 
> dissembling Democrat). Especially when those people contend, as you do, that 
> both parties are reactionary.
>
> And, believe me, such votes will be noticed.  Look at, e.g., Michael Barone's/ 
> Almanac of American Politics./
>
>
> On 10/16/10 6:29 PM, Corey Mattson wrote:
>> I really doubt that the very few anti-war people voting for Johnson would be read as a signal by the government. ...And calling for a vote for a reactionary is disorienting to our allies and potential allies in building a peace movement. Johnson is anti-immigrant, from what I can tell by press releases. Should we strengthen ties with the immigrant rights movement and other working people? I believe we should, which would entail not supporting anti-immigrant, anti-worker politicians.
>>
>> ---Corey
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:36 AM, "C. G. Estabrook"<galliher at illinois.edu>  wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with your contempt for both business parties, but Johnson is actually voting against war funding - one of the few in Congress to do so, and Gill has not promised to do the same. ( I doubt that he would - if per impossibile he were elected, he'd be a safe vote for the administration.) Johnson is worth a vote as a signal to the federal government that there is a growing opposition to its killing people for oil in the Mideast. --CGE
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/16/10 9:59 AM, Corey Mattson wrote:
>>>> I think we can all agree that elections won't now end the wars, that it will take a strong anti-war movement. I'm not voting for either Gill or Johnson because they are in business parties that have absolutely no accountability except to their paymasters. In Minnesota, Keith Ellison was an antiwar politician in the actual movement, who promised to vote against war funding, until he got elected and took his orders from Pelosi. It doesn't even matter what they promise.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with those who won't support Johnson. He and his party are not on our side. If Gill were a politician who ran on a working-class ticket, a labor party or something like it on the left, that was accountable to a real party platform, he would get my vote. To his credit, he went against the party establishment supporting single-payer. Here in Blm-Normal, he disagreed publicly with MoveOn supporters in their support for Obama's health insurance reform, saying that it was bad enough to hope that it would not pass. In my view, from his work on single-payer, he counts as a movement activist, explaining his anti-establishment position on this issue. But, again, his running in a party only answering to corporate interests settles it for me.
>>>> --- Corey
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 15, 2010, at 9:48 PM, Karen Medina<kmedina67 at gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Nevertheless TJ is a reliable anti-war vote.
>>>>> Oh, Israel's war does not count in The War.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101016/b1e46e15/attachment-0001.html>