Hello Sam, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fw: Kerry and Bolivia: To the Right of Bush?
> At 05:04 AM 8/22/2004 -0500, Appal Energy wrote: > > > > I think on most actions on the ground, the > > > difference between the GOP and the Democrats is more style than real > > > substance. > > > >You're entitled to think that. But it doesn't change reality. There's a > >world of difference. A world of similarity, but still a vast chasm of > >difference. I most fervently hope so, for all our sakes. > Thank you. > Just look at the appointments - in just about every agency it is the worst > of the worst at the helm - Gale Norton, Spencer Abraham, Harvey Pitt, > Michael Powell, John Ashcroft, etc etc etc. - Then there are the judicial > appointments - culture warriors and free market fundamentalists who are > nostalgic for the 20s before Lochner was overruled! For a progressive to > not vote for Kerry, esp in a swing state, is suicide, and, by the way, > Counterpunch is part of a very small contingent of opportunists on the left > who just dont get it. Alex Cockburn has zero credibility in my book - > entertaining, but pure opportunism. You are a trifle hasty in your judgement here, but, ah well. > And the crowning glory of all this foolishness is Ralph Nader - who whines > about the lack of proportional representation and IRV, and then runs a > slash-and-burn campaign at the national level and in swing states, where > not only are prop rep and IRV unthinkable right now, but the > winner-take-all system guarantees that any significant Nader support at the > polls will ensure another 4 years of Bush. The lack of proportional representation and the principle of the first past the post have been the bane of both the presidential and parliamentary systems. The other Europeans are much more sensible and have some form of proportional representation in place, the best example of a truly functional democracy being Switzerland. In multipolar electorates such as we have in India and Israel, the splintered mandate results in a coalition, which at its best reflects only the consensus of opinions of the electorate but not its census as in a true democracy. Nader deserves much better than what you allow, if for only bringing this issue into the public domain in the US. > Nothing good comes out of this idiocy - NOTHING. Does anybody suffer under > the illusion that Grover Norquist or David Horowitz or Rush Limbaugh looks > favorably upon the '92 campaign of Ross Perot? Norquist says that his > movement is trying to get to Japan, and if Bush will take them to St. > Louis, that's ok, he's not going to stop him. The left could learn alot > from the right about message discipline. > Folks who dont live in the US are allowed, by the way, not to understand > how politics in this country works. But for progressive Americans to buy > into the bash-Kerry train is counterproductive, IMO. Finally, nobody on > this list can seriously entertain the delusion that another 4 years of Bush > will help the cause of biofuels, or that a Kerry presidency would be the > same as Bush in this regard. Yes, the Democrats are beholden to corporate > interests, that is clear to the average 4th grader, but look at Kerry's > record in standing up to international corporate crime: e.g., BCCI. See > http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0820-04.htm I am not suggesting that you should not vote for Long John. Anything is better than Bush. Possibly he might even support biofuels with some token legislation and tax breaks that will appease the party green brigade and lull the gullible and the unsuspecting into seriously believing that at least he tried. But to refresh your memory, do you know when Clinton brought in the PNGV - 1993. And he waited all of two terms for Dubya to bury it. After all, he tried! Give me a break, man. It is all TV imagery and media spin, it is so sad, but you really have no choice. > Relax folks, Kerry is predictably triangulating to get into office. It's > what it takes these days, and his record indicates that he would be much > less beholden to corporate interests than 90% of the other Democrats in the > Senate. Which says a lot of the party he heads. Do you think he can get his way on any matter directly impinging on corporate interests without taking the party rank and file with him ? Or is this the way politics works in the USA ? or doesn't ? Regards. balaji > -Sam J ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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/
