Re: [sixties-l] Re: sixties-l-Gore v. Bush

Date: Mon Jun 26 2000 - 01:22:52 CUT

  • Next message: jo grant: "Re: [sixties-l] Gore v. Bush"

    In a message dated 6/22/0 3:22:47 AM, writes:

    << In the long run it probably doesn't matter whether its Gush or Bore. We
    and the rest of the living things the planet are in deep trouble.

    re- Gore v. Bush
    Jeff is quite right here. We are in deep trouble. And of course radical
    change comes from the streets not the election booths. Though it can be
    ratified by elections. My sense of the Clinton administration is that if
    "Seattle" happened six years sooner, Clinton would have been somewhat better.
    Again, as to Gore v. Bush, Bush is not Dole, he represents something a lot
    worse. His ties to the Christian Right are programmatic. They come out of his
    "compassionate conservatism" - the right-wing church takes over programs that
    should be administered by the government. Also, he is the most murderous
    governor in the country - and his arrogant and cruel remarks about all his
    "official" killing has put him way over the edge of lesser evil. Gore is
    very bad - and he too endorses executions - but Bush had made them his
    private hobby. Let's build a movement that someday could elect a Nader and
    not just have him run as a spoiler for the right.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 20:48:32 CUT