Clinton's pre-presidential history indicates that his view of what he
planned to do with his presidency was well-established before he ran for
office and had something like Seattle v. WTO happened six years ago, he
would have manipulated his way around that as he is doing today, using
the movement's unenlightened belief that the higher echelons of
organized labor, with an occasional exception, represent something more
radical than what they are, a key component of the Demoratic Party
machinery.
As for Clinton, his lies pass the border of the pathological to the
opportunistuc. Contrary to what he said and what many of the 60s
generation would like to believe, there is not a shred of evidence that
he ever participated let alone organized a protest against the Vietnam
War while a student in London. If he had been on the scene, one of the
many photographers who were present at the protest he is said to have
organized, would have produced a picture, since the demo wasn't very
large. As it was, all the demonstrations against the war in London were
essentially organized by a group of older US expariates that went under
the name, as I recall, of Group 77.
As for what Bush represents. remember the warnings of what would happen
should first Nixon, then Reagan, be elected. Fascism within a few
months. What do we find, instead, that there have been more moves in
that direction under Slicky Willy than any Republican before him. If we
are to build a movement we have to start being honest with the people
and there is no time wo wait for that.
Jeff Blankfort
>
> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:22:52 EDT
> From: StewA@AOL.COM
> Subject: Re: [sixties-l] Re: sixties-l-Gore v. Bush
>
> In a message dated 6/22/0 3:22:47 AM, jab@tucradio.org 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.
> Stew
> http://hometown.aol.com/stewa/stew.html
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 03:51:10 CUT