V O T E L I B E R T A R I A N, quite simply the ONLY intelligent choice.
----- Original Message ---- From: J R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2006 7:30:46 PM Subject: [Libertarian] Re: the war party I endorsed the anti-Bush candidates. Gonna vote for em too. Still can't believe I'm gonna vote Democrat. Vjk --- In Libertarian@ yahoogroups. com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] .. wrote: > > > > > ------------ ----- > Forwarded Message: > Subj: [Politics_CurrentEv ents_Group] Endorse the Antiwar Candidates and > Expose the Democratic Hawks Date: 11/1/2006 3:46:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time > From: _jadamirada@ ..._ (mailto:jadamirada@ ...) Reply-to: > _Politics_CurrentEv ents_Group@ yahoogroups. com_ > (mailto:Politics_CurrentEve nts_Group@ yahoogroups. com) To: _politics_currentev ents_group@ yahoogroups. com_ > (mailto:politics_currenteve nts_group@ yahoogroups. com) , > _thepoliticalspinro [EMAIL PROTECTED] com_ (mailto:thepoliticalspinroo [EMAIL PROTECTED] com) , > _Democratic_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com_ (mailto:Democratic_Witches@ yahoogroups. com) Sent from the > Internet _(Details)_ (aolmsg://05fe48d8/ inethdr/2) > > > > > _http://brickburner. http://brihttp: //brihttp: //brickbhttp: //brihttp: _ > (http://brickburner. blogs.com/ my_weblog/ 2006/10/open_ letter_to_ .html) > Open Letter to The Nation Magazine > > > Endorse the Antiwar Candidates and Expose the Democratic Hawks > To Katrina Vanden Heuvel and The Nationâs editors: > Some time back, well before the 2006 primaries and with great fanfare, The > Nation issued a _pledge_ (http://www.thenatio n.com/doc/ 20051128/ editors) to > endorse only those candidates who made immediate withdrawal from Iraq one of > the leading points in their campaign. It called on others to do likewise. It > sounded like a superb idea, and I waited for those endorsements - but I > waited in vain. It also sounded like The Nation would serve as a guide for the > grassroots who receive incessant appeals to volunteer for various candidates > and contribute to them. We would have a guide for where to direct our > support. But on this score too, for the most part The Nation has been mute. > Meanwhile the other side has not been idle. I am not speaking here of the > Republicans who are for âstaying the course,â a clarion call that George W. > Bush is regretting these days. I am speaking of the Neocon elements and the > Israeli Lobby in the Democratic Party who have gained a stranglehold on the > Partyâs nominees. To be more specific, as I have recently explained at > CounterPunch. To be more specific, as I have recently explained at > CounterPunch. <WBR>org, the chairman of the DCCC, Rahm Emanuel, a militarist, who wants the > U.S. to raise in excess of 100,000 additional troops, and a giant cog in the > machine that is the Israeli Lobby as defined by Mearsheimer and Walt, early on > chose 23 Democratic candidate Of those 23, 22 are indisputable hawks and oneâ > s stance on peace is suspect. Rahmâs candidates won their primaries in > almost every case, because where necessary, he infused great sums of money to > defeat antiwar candidates. > The most notorious of these races was in the 6th CD in Illinois where > Christine Cegelis a grassroots peace candidate and proven vote getter was defeated > by Tammy Duckworth, who calls for staying the course. Duckworth, a double > amputee Iraqi vet who did not live in the district, won with an infusion of a > million dollars and appearances by John Edwards, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton > and Barack Obama. Emanuel is able to call forth these pillars of the Dem > establishment as readily as he conjures up vast sums for his candidates. And at > that, Duckworth barely eked out a victory over her cash-starved antiwar > opponent. In one of these races Emanuelâs candidate did lose - in Californiaâs > 11th CD where the well-financed hawk lost to the grassroots peace candidate. > Otherwise Emanuel was triumphant. > Where was The Nation in all of this? Perhaps I missed it, but there were no > endorsements forthcoming, and no warnings about the hawkish Democrats. > These Dem hawks hid their opinions on the war beneath a barrage of criticisms of > Bush but without backing early withdrawal. In many cases there was mumbo > jumbo about timelines (to be produced by Bush not the candidates) and the > responsibility of the Iraqis â" but no backing of either the Murtha bill for > immediate redeployment or the McGovern bill calling for terminating all funding for > the war on Iraq save for moneys needed to bring the troops home quickly and > safely. And The Nation has not uttered a word of support for Green or > independent antiwar candidates like Kevin Zeese, a colleague of Ralph Nader, who has > won the endorsement of both Greens and Libertarians in his race for Senate > in Maryland against a Dem and Republican candidates, both prowar. The Nationâ > s readers are largely in the dark about all this if they rely on The Nation > for their information. > Why has The Nation been silent? They are pretty secure and solvent these > days and awash in new subs, the magazineâs readership having gone from 100,000 > to 170,000 in the era of Bush. But compared to the attacks on the war by > The American Conservative and Justin Raimondoâs libertarian Antiwar.com, The > Nationâs stance is pathetically weak. I can only conclude that The Nation is > to a large degree in thrall to the Democratic establishment, which in itself > is controlled by the military contractors, the profiteers of war and empire > and the Israeli lobby. Those are not the bedfellows we subscribers wish for > the magazine we support. And this is not new. In 2004 The Nation vigorously > endorsed the prowar (at that time) Kerry while the American Conservative > refused to endorse Bush because of its opposition to the war. Again in January > 2005 when Ted Kennedy defied the Dem establishment and called for immediate > withdrawal, he got virtually no coverage in The Nation. The mainstream media > and the Sunday talk shows gave Kennedy more coverage than The Nation. What > shame! > So what is to be done? There are only a couple weeks left. But even now > The Nation could do a number of things. First, it could endorse, and > vigorously so, those candidates who support immediate and total withdrawal a la Murtha > or McGovern. This would include candidates of any party since that is what > The Nation promised. Second, it should call on its readers to provide time > and money only to these candidates. Third, it should issue a call to the > phony peace candidates fielded by the Lobby in the person of Rahm Emanuel and > Chuck Schumer, his counterpart as chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign > Committee, to change their position. If the readers of The Nation made a > ruckus about this in their districts and states, it might be enough to change > things in some cases. > Will The Nation do any of this? I think not, although I hope so. If not, > it will take a major change at The Nationâs editorial board if it is to play a > constructive role in the 2008 elections. I would hope that The Nation would > take whatever measures are necessary to restore its editorial standing as a > leading antiwar and anti-imperial voice. > Sincerely, > John Walsh > John Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@ John Walsh He has tried to engage > The Nation in public debate on these issues in its letters and columns â" to > no avail. A summary of Rahm Emanuelâs machinations and views can be found > _here._ (http://www.counterp unch.com/ walsh10142006. html) > > > > October 26, 2006 in _Elections_ > (http://brickburner. blogs.com/ my_weblog/ elections/ index.html) , _War_ > (http://brickburner. blogs.com/ my_weblog/ war/index. html) | _Permalink_ > (http://brickburner. blogs.com/ my_weblog/ 2006/10/open_ letter_to_ .html) > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
