: : : I understand where you're coming from, and don't totally disagree, but there is a definite difference between the Democrats and Republicans, : : SDF: Not really. Shrub has dropped the Christian Coalition. I wouldn't expect anything different from him than from Gore.
: Now who's the dupe? Shrub has embraced every CC concern, he's just not as obvious about it as Keyes or Bauer. Gore won't seek to outlaw abortion; Bush will.
SDF: This is guesswork -- assuming Bush really cares enough about the CC any more than Gore does, that any Supreme Court majority can be assembled that can find any grounds for outlawing abortion on a national level, or that they really care enough about the CC that they would do anything more than allow the states to decide about abortion laws. And if a state ever was allowed to ban abortion in any form, this would create a reason for an abortion-rights movement like no other.
: : : and my main concern is the makeup of the Supreme Court under the next President. Rehnquist, O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Stevens all stand a good chance of leaving the Court, and there is a hell of a difference between the moderates like Souter, and lunatics like Scalia, and I guarantee you that Bush (or McCain or Forbes) will appoint Scalias, while Bush or Bradley would appoint Souters. For that reason alone, even if they're all globalizing capitalists, I'm voting for Gore or Bradley;
SDF: Bush's daddy was sure good at screwing liberals with Clarence Thomas. Maybe it's because their rank-and-file routinely votes for careerist politicians who put their image as White "non-racists" ahead of the quality of the Supreme Court.
: : SDF: Go! Go! WTO!
: Go, go, states rights and more executions!
SDF: Uh, executions are already a state matter. And the Democrats are not going to oppose states rights or end the death penalty, like duh.
Was it a Republican President who signed the "Welfare Bill" into law?
: That's what you'll get from the Supreme Court if all you're concerned about is the WTO.
SDF: Liberals will never create a serious movement to promote their lifestyle issues unless they dump the Democratic Party. All the Republicrats are accepting big money and selling votes to the highest bidders, and voting New Coke or Old Coke will not change the flavor of this process.
(I'm sure the Green Party will appreciate Stoller's poetry and Krasny's prose)
: : The Democrats are capable of doing all of the things the Republicans want to do, only the Democrats are cleverer at it, because they put all the phony liberals to sleep first. The environmental movement has been asleep since Clinton b
: If Dole was President, the Artic Wildlife Refuge would be filled with oil drillers right now.
SDF: Dole had no chance against Clinton because he could not establish any difference between himself and Clinton that the voters could take seriously. It isn't my fault; I voted for Nader.
: As for principles, SDF, thank god I'm not as rigid as you.
SDF: "Being good" = "lesser of two evils" = evil? Is that your slippery slope?
Are you really that thouroughly against the idea of Ralph Nader getting 5% of the vote (= matching Federal funds) this year? Or are you indefinitely for the cause of maintaining the One-Party System with your politics?
You buy corporate, corporations make your world, and you vote corporate. What was it you opposed?
: Small progressives changes can do a hell of a lot more for the poor than screaming for massive change or nothing, and getting nothing. That might make you feel better, but it does shit for the poor.
SDF: Frankly I think it's the liberals who got nothing with the Welfare Bill. I do plenty for those in my neighborhood, though the changes I make are not "massive". Hopefully, I'll be able to do something for the children of Los Angeles this summer, too.
This is not my only form of activism.
