Re: [sixties-l] Gore v. Bush

From: Carrol Cox (
Date: Thu Jun 22 2000 - 21:16:22 CUT

  • Next message: Michael Garrison: "[sixties-l] Rainbow Gathering"

    Tony Edmonds wrote:

    > the less objectionable mainstram candidate part of the
    > problem as well.

    I'm not going to vote for either Bush or Gore. BUT if I agreed with
    Tony's proposition here, I would vote -- for Bush. Gore will be *more*
    aggressive in foreign affairs (as Democrats have always been for 90 years),
    he will be worse than or no different from Bush on race matters,
    nothing in Washington for the next four years will make a difference
    for labor; and on social welfare issues and social security the vicious
    tendencies of a republican will be more vigorously resisted than will
    the equally vicious tendencies of a democrat. As to the Supreme
    Court -- who appointed White? Who appointed Brennan? Supreme
    Court appointments are a lottery regardless of who is in the White

    This fatuous support for democrats, any democrat, no matter how
    vicious (can anything be more vicious that (a) the welfare bill and
    (b) the continuing attack on Iraq?) is really very apt to lead to a
    situation where we will be voting for the equivalent of a Hitler as
    the lesser evil to a Himmler. When will progrerssives (or pwogs?)
    draw a line somewhere?


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 01:13:40 CUT