sed to pay for the new
scheme.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: martin schiller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sunday, November 05, 2000 12:56 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:3996] Re: voting for Nader
Austin, Andrew said on 11/5/00 9:36 A
In what way is abortion
. . .
Actually, I think the people who will get
screwed by the Bush s-s plan will be those
in their 40s. Current oldsters will not have
their bennies cut, and those sufficiently young
will get their private accounts and avoid paying
high s-s taxes.
I agree current and near retirees are
:26 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:3963] Re: voting for Nader
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. said on 11/4/00 1:48 P
In fact, the big one on that probably was
abortion. Maybe they would have appointed
more Souters to the Supreme Court rather than
Ginsburg and Breyer. Neither of those is nearly
as progressive
-Original Message-
From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, November 06, 2000 12:27 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4027] RE: Re: Re: voting for Nader
. . .
Actually, I think the people who will get
screwed by the Bush s-s plan will be those
in their 40s
I agree current and near retirees are not in much
danger under the Bush plan. But I think the fate
of young workers is completely up in the air. If
the long-term projections are right (which I
dispute), the private accounts to not avert extreme
financial distress around 2050 or so. If they
At 05:33 AM 11/5/00 +, you wrote:
they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR,
they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion
on demand.
This is what they have been doing. There isn't much that O'Connor finds to
be an "undue burden."
At 08:48 AM 11/5/00 -0800, martin schiller wrote:
kelley said on 11/5/00 7:43 A
poor wording on my part. i got the impression that someone was laboring
under the notion that overturning roe v wade would mean outlawing abortion.
that's not what it would mean, as you know.
When "someone"
In what way is abortion a "proven issue"?
Andrew Austin
Green Bay WI
-Original Message-
From: martin schiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 7:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:3976] Re: voting for Nader
Austin, Andrew said on 11/4
Max Sawicky wrote:
If I was king of the labor movement, I would devote
all electoral resources to Congress. At least for the
time being, the WH is a lost cause.
And, as every schoolchild knows, the executive branch is the
executive committee of the bourgeoisie. The legislative branch is a
premise in mind: that state's rights
undermines national priorities.
Andrew Austin
Green Bay, WI
-Original Message-
From: martin schiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 11:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:3996] Re: voting for Nader
Austin, Andrew said
Message-
From: Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, November 03, 2000 5:45 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:3931] Re: voting for Nader
Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had
8 years of Bush/Dole?
Eric
yes... Michael
Jim Devine wrote:
also, the Congressional Democrats are much more alert to the problem
of people like Scalia, Renquist, and Thomas. I'm not sure Gore is,
though, since he voted for Scalia.
Everyone did. It was 98-0.
Doug
At 02:24 PM 11/4/00 -0800, martin schiller wrote:
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. said on 11/4/00 1:48 P
In fact, the big one on that probably was
abortion. Maybe they would have appointed
more Souters to the Supreme Court rather than
Ginsburg and Breyer. Neither of those is nearly
as
At 03:48 PM 11/4/00 -0800, martin schiller wrote:
kelley said on 11/4/00 4:40 P
they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR,
they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion
on demand. we don't have that anyway.
The question was "how do you
At 04:34 PM 11/4/00 -0800, martin schiller wrote:
kelley said on 11/4/00 5:08 P
i wasn't answering your question. i was providing you with some numbers in
order for you to rethink your assumption that it would significantly hurt
the GOP if they alienated the ~30% of people (not voters) who
At the risk of consoling the Goreoids, Souter was
an anomaly. He was chosen because Warren
Rudman lied about him to Sununu; told him he
was pro-life, when he knew he wasn't.
The Supreme Court concern is legitimate.
I think there are two overriding considerations.
One is the extent of
they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR,
they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion
on demand.
This is what they have been doing. There isn't much that O'Connor finds to
be an "undue burden." --jks
Brad writes:
So let's elect George W. Bush rather than Al Gore? That does not follow...
In general, I'm saying that both of them are corporate toadies, so
there's no reason to vote for either. But that was not what I was
saying in this specific thread. This specific thread is saying that
Gore
I wonder if people who were organizing big anti-war [in Vietnam]
demonstrations... worried _ahead of time_ that their movements would
"crash and burn."
They should have. Chicago in 1968 elected Richard Nixon president...
Brad DeLong
mbs wrote
Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided
by Clinton since 1992 has facilitated the growth
of progressive movements?
I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater
than Bush elder/Dole would have provided.
That answer begs the question of 'how.'
mbs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater
than Bush elder/Dole would have provided.
Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had
8 years of Bush/Dole?
You glance at Chuck Grimes's argument (the only respectable
By Eric's reasoning, we should just give up and become good little
Democrats, or am I missing something, Eric? --jks
I wrote
But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or Gore--appointing
people to, say, the National Labor Relations Board?
Carrol responded
If enough progressives
yes indeed
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 11:09:06PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael wrote
Eric, Perot was a major factor in making the deficit such an important issue.
Possibly true. But the Reform Party itself has crashed and burned (which was my
point). Might not the same fate
I initially wrote,
But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or
Gore--appointing
people to, say, the National Labor Relations
Board?
Some responses have ranged from
1. my question leads directly to fascism (Carrol,
Gar),
2. progressive politics might have been better off
if Dole had become
On the other hand, the Big Boys, with their millions and millions in
their campaign bucks, can wield their power to achieve all sorts of
stuff. Gore tried being a populist intermittently during the
campaign and saw his polls rise. But he didn't want to go too far,
for that would offend his
. . . Mbs asked about "how" it makes a difference who is
president . . .
Eric
Now now, Eric. My question was much more focused than
that. You said Gore would provide more space for progressive
movements. I asked *how* 8 yrs of Clinton has done so.
You answered not with *how*, but with the
My Dear Max,
RE
Now now, Eric. My question was much
more focused than that. You said Gore would
provide more
space for progressive
movements. I asked *how* 8 yrs of
Clinton has done so.
Gore would provide a better atmosphere than Bush.
Nader would provide a better atmosphere than Gore.
Brad writes:
So let's elect George W. Bush rather than Al Gore? That does not follow...
In general, I'm saying that both of them are corporate toadies, so there's
no reason to vote for either. But that was not what I was saying in this
specific thread. This specific thread is saying that Gore
Eric wrote:
If the hope is that a growing Green Party--and a 5% Nader vote--will help
things down the road, just remember what happened to the (at the time)
very popular movement started by Ross Perot and the Reform Party. Where
does it stand now?
it sure influenced Clinton and Gore, who are
At 11:05 PM 10/30/00 +, you wrote:
I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater
than Bush elder/Dole would have provided.
evidence? it seems to me that Bush or Dole would have been much less
successful at co-opting (and defanging) of various dissident movements of
the
Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 07:53:41 -0800
I initially wrote,
But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or
Gore--appointing
people to, say, the National Labor Relations
Board?
Some responses have ranged from
1. my question leads directly to fascism (Carrol,
Gar),
2. p
Max Sawicky wrote:
A Gore administration would provide a much better space for progressive
movements to grow in than a Bush administration. Just remember the very
sad
years we had when Reagan and his folks were in power.
Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided
by Clinton since
Jim:
Eric wrote:
If the hope is that a growing Green Party--and a 5% Nader vote--will help
things down the road, just remember what happened to the (at the time)
very popular movement started by Ross Perot and the Reform Party. Where
does it stand now?
it sure influenced Clinton and Gore,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater
than Bush elder/Dole would have provided.
Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had
8 years of Bush/Dole?
You may remember that in 1992 the big bourgeoisie seemed seriously
I'm going to add one minor refinement to Carrols argument (for which of
course he is in no way responsible).
The lesser of two evils arguement is one that will be available to the
Democratic party as long as we have a two party system. This is because
the Republicans are guaranteed to always run
A Gore administration would provide a much better space for progressive
movements to grow in than a Bush administration. Just remember the very
sad
years we had when Reagan and his folks were in power.
Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided
by Clinton since 1992 has facilitated
Doug Henwood wrote:
The historical moment is really different now from the 1980s. Then,
Reaganism was a new phenomenon on the world stage, and the right was
ideologically clear and energized. Now it's as fuzzy as Al Gore's
math. I doubt a serious right-wing agenda would be anywhere near
I wrote:
A friend forwarded a message to me that argued that "a vote for Nader is
a vote for Bush, so that if Bush wins, it will be Nader's fault." Here's
my reply, amplified a bit:
If Gore loses, it's his own fault (or his campaign's).
Brad writes:
Take responsibility for the actions of
Clinton/Dole have been very kind to them. The disgusting telecommunications bill
Recall that Dole was the one who denounced it.
Brad DeLong wrote:
It pains me to think their either Bush or Gore will win. The best we can hope
for is gridlock.
I do have one question. Why do you
A great post.
Gene Coyle
Carrol Cox wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or Gore--appointing
people to, say, the National Labor Relations Board?
If enough progressives think like this, by (say) 2012 the bottom line
will be do you want someone
I wrote
But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or Gore--appointing
people to, say, the National Labor Relations Board?
Carrol responded
If enough progressives think like this, by (say) 2012 the bottom line
will be do you want someone like Buchanan or someone like Gerald R. K.
Smith
Eric, Perot was a major factor in making the deficit such an important issue.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 08:42:28PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the hope is that a growing Green Party--and a 5% Nader vote--will help
things down the road, just remember what happened to the (at the
A Gore administration would provide a much better space for progressive
movements to grow in than a Bush administration. Just remember the very
sad
years we had when Reagan and his folks were in power.
Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided
by Clinton since 1992 has facilitated the
I'm going to add one minor refinement to Carrols argument (for which of
course he is in no way responsible).
The lesser of two evils arguement is one that will be available to the
Democratic party as long as we have a two party system. This is because
the Republicans are guaranteed to always
mbs wrote
Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided
by Clinton since 1992 has facilitated the growth
of progressive movements?
I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater
than Bush elder/Dole would have provided.
Would progressive movements have been better off today if
Michael wrote
Eric, Perot was a major factor in making the deficit such an important issue.
Possibly true. But the Reform Party itself has crashed and burned (which was my
point). Might not the same fate befall the Green Party?
Eric
46 matches
Mail list logo
