Re: Re: Stop the name calling
At 06:56 AM 11/13/00 -0500, you wrote: Be it resolved: That since everyone (US and non-US) is told incessantly that US prez is "most powerful elected official in world" and That since above is unfortunately true *and* really fuckin' dangerous Everyone, everywhere on earth has right to vote for chief representative and guardian of capitalism Michael Hoover Of course, that would mean that US-style money-driven politics would become globalized. This in turn would mean that we might see the Sultan of Brunei involved in the politics of other nations! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Brad, hang it up. The thing is, we don't accept your iron cage. We don't accept defeat. We won't go away. Maybe we're mad, whether happy or not, but you won't make nice but unhappy liberals out of us. We don't register our suceess by our influence on the DLC. What matters is a popular movement. Whether that happens only after the election will show. Btw, if we are so deluded, why do you hang out with us, rather than with your sane liberal friends? And stop blaming Nader for your guy's inadequacies. If he loses, _he_ blew a near-sure thing. Don't look to us, we do not share his values and priorities, to pull your chestnuts out of the fire. --jks From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4158] Re: Stop the name calling Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 20:45:46 -0800 Brad, There's no place here for calling people incompetent. I voted for Nader. I would not have changed my vote even if it could've been decisive for electing Gore. I believe in the cold shower. You don't. That's no reason to be nasty toward other people. The person whom I've called "incompetent" most often during the past week has been Al Gore. I presume you have no objection to me calling him "incompetent"? That it all depends on to whom the names are applied? As for Nader... You somehow think that the left in America is stronger today because Nader won 3% of the vote. You are wrong. Nader's 3% isn't the "cold shower" to make the core Democratic politicians rethink their allegiance to the DLC. Instead, it is a weak showing that confirms it. Look: 3% of the electorate is--by the standards of past third-party efforts, whether Perot or Wallace or even John Anderson--extremely unimpressive. And in the process he has thrown the election to the right-wing candidate, with important differences over the next four years for the Supreme Court... the EPA... the EITC... the size of government... the likelihood of Medicare expansion... Medicaid funding... and a host of others. This the left has sacrificed significantly as far as what policies are going to be over the next four years by throwing the election to Bush. And for what? To convince everyone in America that the left is weak. The DLC today is stronger than it was a week ago. What would you suggest I call this refusal to recognize that, for the American left, yesterday was a strong and significant defeat? Brad DeLong _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
. . . What would you suggest I call this refusal to recognize that, for the American left, yesterday was a strong and significant defeat? Brad DeLong Since politics is about what people think, to a great extent at least, the fact that the movement(s) coalescing behind Nader have improved definition -- as a collectivity -- means the left is progressing. The low Nader vote is not a great help in this vein, but it does not detract from the general forward movement. The definition includes a helpful sorting out. For instance, I used to think well of Todd Gitlin. Now I think he's a dork. That's progress. The Nader petition I signed is not a bad start for a new political formation, even if it doesn't include the greens. In the beginning was the Word. mbs
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
The person whom I've called "incompetent" most often during the past week has been Al Gore. I presume you have no objection to me calling him "incompetent"? That it all depends on to whom the names are applied? As for Nader... You somehow think that the left in America is stronger today because Nader won 3% of the vote. You are wrong. Nader's 3% isn't the "cold shower" to make the core Democratic politicians rethink their allegiance to the DLC. Instead, it is a weak showing that confirms it. Look: 3% of the electorate is--by the standards of past third-party efforts, whether Perot or Wallace or even John Anderson--extremely unimpressive. actually, i've been meaning to ask about this 3%. when was the 5% rule enacted? I haven't look terribly hard, but how much bigger than normal was turnout? if it was substantially bigger, then the 3% isn't bad and may actually have been pretty respectable were this a "normal" 50% turnout of the eligible to vote population. Good point...
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Brad, hang it up. The thing is, we don't accept your iron cage. We don't accept defeat. We won't go away. Maybe we're mad, whether happy or not, but you won't make nice but unhappy liberals out of us. So you agree that for you politics is a means of self-expression, rather than an attempt to make the world a better place? Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Stop the name calling
BDLThe political naivete of people who think that the White House is some kind of dictatorial center of power continues to astonish me. BDLAnd in the process he has thrown the election to the right-wing candidate, with important differences over the next four years for the Supreme Court... the EPA... the EITC... the size of government... the likelihood of Medicare expansion... Medicaid funding... and a host of others. BDLThe DLC today is stronger than it was a week ago. ** Substitute more arrogant for stronger in the sentence directly above and I think that about sums it up. Learning aversion; the ultimate white male disease. Ian You think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Since politics is about what people think, to a great extent at least, the fact that the movement(s) coalescing behind Nader have improved definition -- as a collectivity -- means the left is progressing. The low Nader vote is not a great help in this vein, but it does not detract from the general forward movement. The definition includes a helpful sorting out. For instance, I used to think well of Todd Gitlin. Now I think he's a dork. I've thought Todd Gitlin was a dork for a long time. But "all enemies on the right" does not a large movement make when you start with 3%... Brad
Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Doug asks: Canada has an election coming up, no? Maybe you could tell us something about that. Doug Well, perhaps Ken and some of the others on the list should also put their takes on it, but here is mine. The governing Liberals (equivalent to your Democrats) are likely to win a plurality (majority of seats, perhaps 45 + or - % of the vote), with the "Alliance" -- a right-wing coalition of former Conservatives and the right-populist-neo-liberal-racist Reform (sic) Party -- forming the opposition (25 + or - % of the vote). The remaining vote will be split between the separatist Bloc Quebecois, the social democratic NDP and the traditional Tory Conservatives. The NDP which has embraced some of the objectionable "3rd way" nonsense of the British Labour Party, still is relatively the best choice for those on the left/reform side of the spectrum -- more or less along the Nader lines though perhaps less radical. There is no alternative to the left of the NDP. It may rally to get perhaps 10 % of the popular vote, and enough seats to maintain official party status (somewhat equivalent to the 5% barrier in the US). In Manitoba, the NDP should probably retain its present seats, for example. The issues of the election are taxes (which the neo-liberal right are pushing) vs maintenance of current (inadequate) expenditures on medicare and other social programs (the stand-pat program of the Liberals). The Alliance is essentially a carbon copy of the Republican Party in the US, except slightly to the right thereof. Rather scary -- pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, religion in the schools, etc. The leader was formerly the principle of a religious fundamental school that taught creationism and labelled Jews as genetically evil etc. Their appeal is primarily a reaction to the corruption and arrogence of the Liberals who though elected from a moderate liberal/social democratic platform, have consistently governed from a neo-liberal right position. The difference in the party platforms between the Liberals and the Alliance is quite minimal. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
I don't translate Gitlin to 'enemy.' It just means I expect less high-level guidance from him. He's welcome in my movement, just not in a leadership capacity. mbs I've thought Todd Gitlin was a dork for a long time. But "all enemies on the right" does not a large movement make when you start with 3%... Brad
Re: Re: Stop the name calling
The VP doesn't do that much, although people say that he was decisive welfare reform. Gore was a good campaigner when he could set the stage himself with no interaction, otherwise, he was terrible. His strategy stunk. Few anti-clinton people would have supported him even if he had attacked Clinton. On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:15:40PM -0500, J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote: MIchael, Who serving as Clinton's VP could have done much better? Bill Bradley? Jesse Jackson? A lot of people are dumping on Gore, and he certainly was stiff and made crucial misstatements at crucial times. But, he was not as bad a campaigner as many think. No VP was going to be given the credit for the economy the way Clinton was, and how was one to escape the onus of Monica? Barkley Rosser -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Michael Perelman wrote: The VP doesn't do that much, although people say that he was decisive welfare reform. Every member of Clinton's cabinet, including Rubin, advised he veto the welfare bill. Only Gore Dick Morris urged him to sign it. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Au contraire. I think you have given up on making the world a better place. I have not. Speaking for myself, only, I don't think that you can do that to a great degree within the parameters you accept. If you had lived in slavery times, you would have written off the abolitionists as mad dreamers and extremists who would never affect anything because their radical politics excluded them from serious politics. You would have been wrong, too. My reading of our society is that there are social divisions that allow for, demand even, going beyond the limits that you think bind us, that the iron cage is a lot more fragile than you think. Self expression is the least of it: if I thought I could improve the world by sinking into the democrats, embracing the butchers, I would. I am not too good for that. There is vileness I would not commit, but getting out the vote for Democrat isn't where I would draw the line in principle. The thing is, Brad, I tried it, I really did--I spent most of the 80s doing grassroots DP work in the Rainbow Coalition and in the Ann Arbor DP, and what it taught me is that if you have a mass movement or a community orgainizatiuon with you, you don't need the DP, because if you a re strong enough it will try to claim credit for things it refusedto support, and if you don;t, you might as well not bother, because all the DP will do for you is offer you chances to prostitutes your political ideals for the reward of being in the aprty. Besides, Brad, you never addressed the point I made earlier, that people like me will never be admitted to the DP power circles anyway because of our past,unless we make a Great Renunciation and become real right wingers to show that we really have renounced the reasons that brought us into politics in the first place. From a purely selfish point of view, as well as from the point of view of effectiveness, there's nothing there for us, isn't that right? --jks From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4190] Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 07:53:57 -0800 Brad, hang it up. The thing is, we don't accept your iron cage. We don't accept defeat. We won't go away. Maybe we're mad, whether happy or not, but you won't make nice but unhappy liberals out of us. So you agree that for you politics is a means of self-expression, rather than an attempt to make the world a better place? Brad DeLong _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
I don't translate Gitlin to 'enemy.' It just means I expect less high-level guidance from him. He's welcome in my movement, just not in a leadership capacity. mbs I've thought Todd Gitlin was a dork for a long time. But "all enemies on the right" does not a large movement make when you start with 3%... Brad Ah. A clarifying comment on the meaning of "dork"... :-)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Michael Perelman wrote: The VP doesn't do that much, although people say that he was decisive welfare reform. Every member of Clinton's cabinet, including Rubin, advised he veto the welfare bill. Only Gore Dick Morris urged him to sign it. Doug I've heard this a bunch of times. But what's the ultimate source? Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Michael, I agree. But, who would have done better aside from Clinton himself? Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 2:08 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4195] Re: Re: Stop the name calling The VP doesn't do that much, although people say that he was decisive welfare reform. Gore was a good campaigner when he could set the stage himself with no interaction, otherwise, he was terrible. His strategy stunk. Few anti-clinton people would have supported him even if he had attacked Clinton. On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:15:40PM -0500, J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote: MIchael, Who serving as Clinton's VP could have done much better? Bill Bradley? Jesse Jackson? A lot of people are dumping on Gore, and he certainly was stiff and made crucial misstatements at crucial times. But, he was not as bad a campaigner as many think. No VP was going to be given the credit for the economy the way Clinton was, and how was one to escape the onus of Monica? Barkley Rosser -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
BDLYou think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive? ** I don't know; do you think Rosa Parks was impressive or was that too, a one-shot prisoners dilemma type game? We won't go into, why, if N was so ultimately empty a threat, your religious group and that other church worked tirelessly to keep him out of the debates. "Any attempt to develop a critique of the basic structures and principles of a society involves of necessity transgressing and trespassing against the Happy Consciousness. There are not only glass ceilings but glass walls that define the accepted corridors of thought. Young aggressive professors in economics and other social sciences are usually equipped with uncanny radar so they can roar down the corridor of orthodox thought without ever getting close to breaking through the walls--all the while seeing themselves as brash free thinkers exploring the vast unknown." [David Ellerman] Feudalism will never end, Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Every member of Clinton's cabinet, including Rubin, advised he veto the welfare bill. Only Gore Dick Morris urged him to sign it. Doug I've heard this a bunch of times. But what's the ultimate source? Brad DeLong The New York Times, August 1, 1996, Thursday, Late Edition - Final THE WELFARE BILL: THE WHITE HOUSE; Clinton Recalls His Promise, Weighs History, and Decides By TODD S. PURDUM WASHINGTON, July 31 When President Clinton and a dozen of his top advisers sat down in the Cabinet Room to discuss the welfare bill this morning, everyone knew he faced the biggest domestic decision of his Presidency. Though they were prepared to close ranks behind him, the President's advisers knew this was their last chance to be heard on an issue on which there was no middle ground left. By turns they spoke and their leader listened. But as he often does, Mr. Clinton ended the two-and-a-half-hour meeting without tipping his hand. Instead, he repaired to the Oval Office with Vice President AL GORE, who aides said ENCOURAGED THE PRESIDENT TO SIGN THE BILL, and his chief of staff, Leon E. Panetta, who URGED A VETO. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a former board chairman of the Children's Defense Fund, which has bitterly opposed the bill, was at the Olympics in Atlanta, and her chief of staff, Maggie Williams, who usually represents her at such gatherings, did not even attend the final meeting. The debate arrayed advisers like Mr. Panetta, George Stephanopoulos and Harold M. Ickes, who favored branding the bill extreme, against Dick Morris, the President's political adviser, Mr. Reed and Rahm Emmanuel, a political aide who led the charge to sign it as a way of delivering on Mr. Clinton's 1992 promise to "end welfare as we know it." In the meeting, MR. GORE AND MR. PANETTA, AS DE FACTO LEADERS OF THE OPPOSING GROUPS, each refrained from comment, while others sitting around the big oblong table in the Cabinet Room spoke in turn. The group included Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, Housing Secretary Henry G. Cisneros, Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor, Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich and the head of the National Economic Council, Laura D'Andrea Tyson. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Brad DeLong wrote: I've heard this a bunch of times. But what's the ultimate source? The person I first heard it from got it from Dick Morris' book, I think, but someone told me last night that Peter Edelman has been saying the same thing. Doug
Re: RE: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
who is he. Where did this appear? Lisa Ian Murray wrote: BDLYou think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive? ** I don't know; do you think Rosa Parks was impressive or was that too, a one-shot prisoners dilemma type game? We won't go into, why, if N was so ultimately empty a threat, your religious group and that other church worked tirelessly to keep him out of the debates. "Any attempt to develop a critique of the basic structures and principles of a society involves of necessity transgressing and trespassing against the Happy Consciousness. There are not only glass ceilings but glass walls that define the accepted corridors of thought. Young aggressive professors in economics and other social sciences are usually equipped with uncanny radar so they can roar down the corridor of orthodox thought without ever getting close to breaking through the walls--all the while seeing themselves as brash free thinkers exploring the vast unknown." [David Ellerman] Feudalism will never end, Ian -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Wellstone? "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: Michael, I agree. But, who would have done better aside from Clinton himself? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
At 07:53 AM 11/9/00 -0800, you wrote: You think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive? Maybe it was impressive once you think of the fact that Nader voters were showered by a sh*t-storm of abuse and fear-mongering. The more that Nader seemed to be getting, the more the fear level was ratcheted upward. The closeness of the election -- and the domination of the winner-take-all system -- also encouraged fear-mongering. If it had been an LBJ vs. Goldwater type election, 3% would have definitely been unimpressive (since the former had such a big margin). But it wasn't. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
I agree with most of what Paul says. I think that the Alliance leader, Stockwell Day, will jettison some of his goofier fundamentalist ideas for pragmatic reasons. Apparently in his more rambunctious days when he was assistant pastor of a fundamentalist church he led his flock to the local pub where they prayed that the walls should come tumbling down. God apparently suffered the sinners within to remain safe if not sober. Day does favor a national referendum on abortion. I am not sure why the Liberals and others seem so concerned about this. They truly do want to sweep the issue under the table and avoid even talking about it. In good populist fashion Day has been making much of Liberal spending in Liberal constituencies and money spent with no good accounting. The Communist Party is to the left of the NDP. However, it is not about to elect anyone. I notice a similarity between the Liberals and the Democrats. The Liberals woo leftists by pointing out how right wing and reactionary Day is. Yet, Liberals have been faithfully following the neo-liberal agenda and are arguably just as right-wing as the Conservative government they replaced a government decisively rejected by voters.The Liberals have done more to sabotage medicare than any other party and yet they try to frighten voters away from the Alliance by claiming, rightly, that the Alliance favors a two-tier system. But by eroding the existing system the Liberals are gradually making the system two-tier anyway. As Paul says there is not a huge difference between the Liberal platform and the Alliance platform, just as there is not a huge difference between the Democrats and Republicans. The NDP is closer now to the two main parties than it has ever been. It is at 7 per cent in the popular vote along with the Conservative party that not long ago formed the Federal government. I have not been following events closely enough to add anything to Paul's predictions. However, I think that the NDP is probably almost finish federally in BC, but may hold some seats in Manitoba and the Maritimes. The unpopularity of the provincial NDP governments in BC and Saskatchewan may very well doom there federal members. Although Stockwell Day speaks a functional French I doubt that the Alliance Party will take any seats in Quebec. The separatist Bloc Quebecois will probably take most of the seats and Liberals the rest. Our choices are if anything even more depressing on the whole than in the US. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 12:29 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4192] Re: Re: Stop the name calling Doug asks: Canada has an election coming up, no? Maybe you could tell us something about that. Doug Well, perhaps Ken and some of the others on the list should also put their takes on it, but here is mine. The governing Liberals (equivalent to your Democrats) are likely to win a plurality (majority of seats, perhaps 45 + or - % of the vote), with the "Alliance" -- a right-wing coalition of former Conservatives and the right-populist-neo-liberal-racist Reform (sic) Party -- forming the opposition (25 + or - % of the vote). The remaining vote will be split between the separatist Bloc Quebecois, the social democratic NDP and the traditional Tory Conservatives. The NDP which has embraced some of the objectionable "3rd way" nonsense of the British Labour Party, still is relatively the best choice for those on the left/reform side of the spectrum -- more or less along the Nader lines though perhaps less radical. There is no alternative to the left of the NDP. It may rally to get perhaps 10 % of the popular vote, and enough seats to maintain official party status (somewhat equivalent to the 5% barrier in the US). In Manitoba, the NDP should probably retain its present seats, for example. The issues of the election are taxes (which the neo-liberal right are pushing) vs maintenance of current (inadequate) expenditures on medicare and other social programs (the stand-pat program of the Liberals). The Alliance is essentially a carbon copy of the Republican Party in the US, except slightly to the right thereof. Rather scary -- pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, religion in the schools, etc. The leader was formerly the principle of a religious fundamental school that taught creationism and labelled Jews as genetically evil etc. Their appeal is primarily a reaction to the corruption and arrogence of the Liberals who though elected from a moderate liberal/social democratic platform, have consistently governed from a neo-liberal right position. The difference in the party platforms between the Liberals and the Alliance is quite minimal. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Michael, Would be better than a lot. So might Russ Feingold. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 4:23 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4211] Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling Wellstone? "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: Michael, I agree. But, who would have done better aside from Clinton himself? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
MP who is he. Where did this appear? Lisa Ian Murray wrote: David Ellerman is tucked away working on firm governance issues in Eastern Europe for the WB. He also worked closely with Stiglitz when he was there. The quote comes from "Intellectual Trespassing as a Way of Life" [p. 27--still in print and a great read BTW]. He's also the author of a few other books, the most interesting of which is "Property and Contract in Economics" Ian
Re: RE: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
BDLYou think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive? ** I don't know; So in other words, you don't.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Every member of Clinton's cabinet, including Rubin, advised he veto the welfare bill. Only Gore Dick Morris urged him to sign it. Doug I've heard this a bunch of times. But what's the ultimate source? Brad DeLong Thanks... Brad DeLong
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
BDLYou think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive? ** I don't know; So in other words, you don't. ** Thank you God for collapsing the unpredictability of the future with your unsurpassable foreknowledge of 21st century political-economic history. I realize your programming me for undecidability/ignorance/free will was needed to alleviate your insecurity that anyone may have notions that they could experience the world in any way incommensurable with your divine epistemology. Ian
Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Gene Debs ran as a felon. Justin Schwartz wrote: Manson is a convicted felon, so he can't vote. But the constitutional qualifications for the Presidency are quite clear: you have to be 35 and born in this country. I am pretty sure Manson meets these qualifications. His ineligibility for the ballot does not mean he couldn't be a candidate. And he _is_ supposed to be charismatic . . . --jks From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4131] Stop the name calling Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 08:45:57 -0800 Brad, There's no place here for calling people incompetent. I voted for Nader. I would not have changed my vote even if it could've been decisive for electing Gore. I believe in the cold shower. You don't. That's no reason to be nasty toward other people. And I'm not looking forward to four years of Bush. Everybody accepts that practically anybody -- or maybe not Charles Manson, bue he was ineligible -- could have done a better job than Gore did. Here in Chico for Nader visit helped found three of four liberals to win on City Council. How could a decent Democratic candidate not win with the economy going relatively well and no big international problems against such an inept rival? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Brad, I have no objection to calling someone off the list, whether it be Nader or Gore. I do object to you or anybody else is being antagonistic to people on the list. Brad DeLong wrote: Brad, There's no place here for calling people [I should have added "on the list" here] incompetent. I voted for As for Nader... You somehow think that the left in America is stronger today because Nader won 3% of the vote. You are wrong. We can disagree. I would have preferred that he won 51%, but that is another mattr. Nader's 3% isn't the "cold shower" to make the core Democratic politicians rethink their allegiance to the DLC. Instead, it is a weak showing that confirms it. Look: 3% of the electorate is--by the standards of past third-party efforts, whether Perot or Wallace or even John Anderson--extremely unimpressive. Anderson and Perot got to the debates. What would you suggest I call this refusal to recognize that, for the American left, yesterday was a strong and significant defeat? with -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
