====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
No, my understanding of it was not that they attracted the support of any Perot-Buchanan vehicle, but rather commandeered or co-opted or hijacked the moribund organizational shell of it in order to obtain the ballot status associated with it so they wouldn't have to go through the laborious petitioning process. a little bare knuckled? So what? Thus it had nothing to do with being politically unclear to attract the political support of those reactionaries-who had largely abandoned it by that point and with whom they had no interest in having any truck-and who were not involved in this process any more than when someone might obtain a newspaper or radio station with a certain previous political orientation in order to obtain its facilities, acquisitions that are sometimes "hostile take-overs" that have little or nothing to do with pandering to the political sensibilities of its previous constituency, Murdoch's take over of the New York Post being a classic example. On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 1:36 PM, S. Artesian <sartes...@earthlink.net>wrote: > > > He took a position that said essentially, Camejo by allowing his political > program to be unclear enough to attract the support of a Perot-Buchanan > vehicle was setting class consciousness back, instead of forward. I think > that's a legitimate point for discussion. > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
