We've heard that before--it gave us Bush instead of Gore, and the
deaths of close to a million people, thanks to third party voters in
Florida who thought they were the same. Change at the systemic level
is incredibly difficult, given that disparities in population mean
that most states are effectively rotten boroughs with two senators.
The Republican majority in the Senate two years ago represented 42%
of the electorate, and as a then-Californian my Senate representation
was 1/74th of that of a citizen of Wyoming. But the most liberal
member of the Supreme Court is now 88 and will certainly be replaced
by the next president, and the president has enormous discretionary
powers, including guns but also environmental regulations.Yeah, it
makes a difference. But if you don't think so, don't vote.
Mark
At 06:03 PM 1/8/2008, you wrote:
>Difficult problems when Democrats and Republicans are alike; when
>there is no representation of organised labour. Female, Black, White
>- if they're all singing from the same hymn sheet of neoliberal
>economis and world policy, why vote? Hilary Clinton is awful because
>she supported Imperial US war on Iraq. Now she's finding that out.
>
>Trouble is, can you honestly get a cig paper between any one of them?
>
>Love All The People - Bill Hicks
>
>R
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Weiss" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:39 PM
>Subject: Re: "Poetry" versus "Prose" in New Hampshire
>
>
>>An excellent op ed piece by Gloria Steinem in today's Times.
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html
>>
>>I remember presidential campaigns going back to 1952. That year
>>Eisenhower ran as an agent for change. Kennedy did in 1960, Nixon
>>in 1968, Reagan in 1980 ("it's morning in America"), Clinton in
>>1992, Bush in 1998. A mixed record, even for the sorry lot that US
>>presidents have been for the most part. Hillary's point is that
>>rhetoric is fine, but caveat emptor. It's the nuts and bolts, what
>>she calls prose, that gets the work done. She could also have said
>>what no politician is likely to say, that change will be limited
>>and incremental no matter who is president, because the
>>constitution is a very sad old horse, and there's no practical ways
>>to change ponies.
>>
>>Mark
>>
>>At 04:28 PM 1/8/2008, you wrote:
>>>grim reading:
>>>
>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2237363,00.html
>>>
>>>
>>>On Jan 7, 2008 11:17 AM, Barry Alpert <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> > Just encountered this formulation:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > At a raucous rally in a high school gymnasium in Nashua,
>>> Clinton > skewered
>>> > Obama for several votes he has cast in the Senate, such as his vote in
>>> > favor of the Patriot Act and for energy legislation she
>>> described as > "Dick
>>> > Cheney's energy bill." She never mentioned Obama's name but
>>> left no > doubt
>>> > about whom she was discussing.
>>> >
>>> > "You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose," Clinton said.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Barry Alpert
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>My Stuff: http://www.badstep.net/
>>>"She went out with her paint box, paints the chapel blue
>>>She went out with her matches, torched the car-wash too"
>>>The Go-Betweens
|