Mr.Bad on 30 Oct 2000 00:52:48 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Nader is important: get rid of him!

>>>>> "jg" == joy garnett <> writes:

    jg> Keep the Republicans OUT.  Just do it.  This is a crucial
    jg> election.  Don't throw it away. Don't vote Nader.

So, when is there going to be a NON-crucial election? Do you
anticipate, say, that the Republican Party is going to disappear
sometime in the next century? Or maybe that the GOP is going to
nominate a pro-environment, pro-choice candidate, so there'll be no

I guess it's possible that there could be an Ebola breakout in the
Supreme Court in the next 4 years that wipes out all the justices. A
Democratic president could then appoint 9 fresh-faced hale and hearty
25-year-old prochoicers. Assuming they could get through a Republican
Senate, we wouldn't have to worry about Roe v. Wade for another 50
years or so.

Or maybe you're just trying to point out that the Democratic
candidates have become more and more conservative. So that, say, if
the trend continues, by 2008 or 2012 even the minor differences
between candidates that we see today will be eliminated. By then, it
won't be particularly life-threatening to have the slightly-more-evil
of the two evils get into office.

I dunno what it is, exactly, that makes you think the 2000 election is
some kind of watershed. But it seems to me that a CRUCIAL election is
one where progressives have a chance to shake some things up. There is
more momentum in the American left right now than there's been in 15
years. Wasting that by going back under the yoke of the DLC-controlled
Democratic Party would be FOOLISH in the extreme.

~Mr. Bad

 /\____/\   Mr. Bad <>
 \      /   Pigdog Journal | | *Stay*Real*Bad*
 |  (X \x)   
 (    ((**) "If it's not bad, don't do it.
  \  <vvv>   If it's not crazy, don't say it." - Ben Franklin

Nettime-bold mailing list