Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn Plan to Vote for Ralph Nader

[seemslikeadream]

Contrary to What You've Heard...
Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn Plan to Vote for Ralph Nader
By GREG BATES

Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have stated many times that they favor ousting Bush this election, even if John Kerry is “Bush-lite.” And that stand has been repeatedly used by progressives opposed to Ralph Nader’s campaign.


This may come as a surprise to those who have trotted out Chomsky in an effort to blunt Nader. One example is Jeff Cohen, the founder of the media watch group FAIR (and by way of disclosure, is an author along with both Chomsky and Zinn at Common Courage Press at which this reporter is Publisher). As Cohen stated on Commondreams.org May 7, “Progressives need to be a bridge forward, not an obstruction. Noam Chomsky has described the choice we face: ‘Help elect Bush, or do something to try to prevent it.’”


But in response to an email query from this reporter, Chomsky wrote, “Voting for Nader in a safe state is fine. That's what I'll do. I don't see how anyone could read what I wrote and think otherwise, just from the elementary logic of it. Voting for Nader in a safe state is not a vote for Bush. The point I made had to do with (effectively) voting for Bush.”

Chomsky also made clear how he views the election in the context of other efforts for change: "Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion -- which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they exist."

In another email exchange, Howard Zinn stated, “I will vote for Nader because Mass. is a safe state. And voters in ‘safe states’ should not vote for Kerry.” He also notes, “I don't have faith in Kerry changing, but with Kerry there is a possibility that a powerful social movement might change him. With Bush, no chance.”


more
http://www.counterpunch.com

[nickinSTL]

1. "...And voters in ‘safe states’ should not vote for Kerry.”

Hmm, and how safe are the states if the voters take this advice?

[checks-n-balances]

8. My question exactly!

I don't think those who want W out can take *ANY* Kerry votes for granted, even in the so-called "Safe" states.

Purists on the right AND the left can be so unrealistic!

[ElectroPrincess]

53. I love these guys but

somebody please confiscate their hash. Damn, that's so disappointing. No, I don't want to kill thousands of USA troops and millions of Iraqis before we shag our a**es out of the ME.

They (Chomsky, Zinn) are out there mahn ... way out there ... we need to redirect them back on the team OR leave them in the dust. We must pull together for Kerry (even if he's not our first choice) like there's no tomorrow. Or else ... can you say "totalitarian?"

[eablair3]

183. Good for Chomsky & Zinn! Dems need to reverse and support IRV

The Dems (the DLC/DNC types) need to start suppporting some type of voting reform like Instant Runoff Voting IRV to make a real democracy where the winner actually gets a majority of the votes.

The Dems not only fail to support IRV, but ACTIVELY OPPOSE it at every turn.

IRV could solve these issues very nicely. But, the Dems don't want it because people would then be truly able to vote for the candidate that they most want - and guess what, many would not vote for the DLC/DNC candidate. And, the Dems don't want that to happen. They'd rather scare the crap out of people and put people in a panic so that they can keep power. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

[lancdem]

2. I don't have a problem if it's not s swing or battleground state

[aquart]

9. And you know how everyone plans to vote? You're certain?

Conventional wisdom is always correct?

Isn't that simplistic and possibly fatal?

ISN'T THIS THE SAME STUPIDITY THAT COST US 2000?

Well, yes. Some people don't learn from their mistakes. Unfortunately, all the rest of us will pay.

Nader voters are dripping in blood.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. But BusinessWeek magazine say's it's ok to vote for Bush!

As BusinessWeek June 14 2004 points out, 75% of voters live in safe states. Voters casting a ballot for Kerry in those states, regardless of the message they intend to send, will be perceived by the Democratic National Committee as endorsing the Kerry platform of war and moving the Democrats to the right. Meanwhile, voters in safe states have the opportunity to send a message that Kerry’s platform is unacceptable, without risking throwing the election to Bush.
http://www.counterpunch.com

Surely BusinessWeek magazine is honestly trying to inform me and has MY best interests at heart!



BTW, this statement is a baldfaced lie:
Voters casting a ballot for Kerry in those states, regardless of the message they intend to send, will be perceived by the Democratic National Committee as endorsing the Kerry platform of war and moving the Democrats to the right.

[Zhade]

50. No, it's not.

What cost us 2000:

1. Illegal voter purges in Florida and other states (see Greg Palast)

2. Shut down of the recount in Florida by Republican mobs

3. Katherine Harris, Clay Roberts, and their widespread efforts to suppress Democratic votes and encourage Republican ones, even to the point of vote fraud favoring the Republicans

4. b*sh's cousin at FAUX News calling the election for b*sh before any network, which gave the impression he "won"

5. An illegal, partisan, one-time-only SCOTUS decision by SC "justices" hand-picked by b*sh's Republican predecessors

I could go on, but I've made the point - Republican theft cost us 2000, not Nader or his voters. Their votes just made the election close enough to steal. Notice that b*sh STILL didn't win even with all the cheating - it took the SCOTUS installing him to get him into office.

The Nader Factor is just the convenient excuse the Republicans love to front to cover up their criminal actions. Falling for that particular Big Lie seems to be all the rage with supposedly informed Democrats, though.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

54. You left out:

1. People voting for Nader instead of Gore because they believed the propaganda that their votes didn't really count.

I understand why Nader apologists want to pretend this didn't happen, but in reality, we all know it did.

[bahrbearian]

107. I voted Gore 2000 , I won't vote Kerry unless

he makes up for IWR and names a VP that was against it. BUSH-LITE

[Zhade]

116. Not being a Nader apologist, I wouldn't know their motivations.

All that motivated my post was the fact that Nader never cost us the election, only made it closer.

After all, Gore still won. That fact is indisputable, and thus it's a flawed argument that "Nader cost us the election". He didn't. Theft is the only reason Gore had his victory taken away. Hell, this very website you and I are posting on was founded on this truth - Gore won.

I couldn't care less about Nader. He can fuck himself for all I care. I wish he weren't running. But, that said, he doesn't deserve the blame for the 2000 Coup. Those who stole Gore's victory, however, do.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

126. Do you know what 'apologist' means?

I don't think so.


Besides, all you've done is seize on this word and ignore the substance of my post:

You left out: People voting for Nader instead of Gore because they believed the propaganda that their votes didn't really count.

Are you actually claiming that no one voted for Nader in 2000 because they believed that since they were in a 'safe' state, their votes didn't count?

[Zhade]

129. See, this is what's known as a straw man.

You should read more. It helps with comprehension.

Are you actually claiming that no one voted for Nader in 2000 because they believed that since they were in a 'safe' state, their votes didn't count?

That's a straw man, as you are making an argument I never made. I made no such claim, but you've chosen to invent that argument on my behalf.

I'm done with you. You're not interesting to talk to. Why waste my time with a person whose prime methods of debate are ad hominem attacks and other assorted fallacies they don't even understand?

Please feel free to think you've "won" our little debate, if it comforts you. :)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

135. This is frustrating

the supposed strawman you speak of is additional commentary after you failed to respond to the original pont which for the third time is,


You left out: People voting for Nader instead of Gore because they believed the propaganda that their votes didn't really count.

That's the point I'm making. That in your apology for Nader you ignore this fact.

[al bupp]

127. Proud Nader voter in 2000

As such, nobody on this forum's likely to be surprised when I say that I completely agree Zhade's assessment.

I've been hesitant to admit my vote for Mr. Nader around here for fear of the flames, but will now stand up and do so. In case anyone doubts my motives and/or strategy let me hasten to explain that I happen to think a viable 3rd partry would be a very good thing for our country.

As a resident of Vermont, it was clear that Gore would easily carry the state, so I participated in a virtual "vote exchange" scheme, hosted by some website I can't recall, where I hooked up w/ a Nader sympathizer in FL who didn't want to risk their vote from that close state, but still wanted to voice support for a Green platform.

The Democratic party has been sliding ever rightward since the Reagan era. Nader said many things which needed saying in 2000. For all you Moore fans out there, remember he actively supported Nader in 2000.

[Dogmudgeon]

137. A belated Welcome to DU, Al

I think that most of the ire is over Nader's contempt for us as Democrats. It's Ralph's problem and Ralph's alone.

I have no problem with people who voted for Nader in 2000, nor do I dislike the progressives. It's the nastier of the leftist puritans that are the problem, the ones who pour more rage into their screeds against liberals and democrats than Team Bush. Strictly a matter of personal conduct, IMO. That number is very small, but it includes Ralph Nader.

Nader wanted to hurt the Democratic Party. He apparently still does. That's on Nader, not on his partisans in 2000; or this year, for that matter.

(And, yes, I was pretty pissed off at Democrats in 2000 who were taking the strongarm approach with the Greens, and said so.)

My own "strategy" is: First, get rid of Team Bush, then try them, then convict them. Second, move the public debate from the current moderate-vs-right to a progressive-"vs"-liberal position. At that point, differences in opinion between different leftist factions will engage real political debate and generate change.

The Democratic Party "moving right" in the 1990s was an by-product of trying to hold on to what it had. There was almost zero popular support for the party, and the DLC at least took the heat off. But in the past three years, the party -- the whole nation -- has become energized. We had a tough primary season with ten of the best Democratic politicians we've seen in decades, including at least four out-and-out Progressives. And the effect of F911 will even draw independent voters and fed-up Republicans.

I'm optimistic, but this is going to be another white-knuckle election, whether Nader is involved or not -- the Press will see to that. But the wind has changed, and unless Team Bush "pulls a fast one" (like declaring martial law in the face of another terrorist attack or oil boycott), the Democrats -- and lefties of all stripes -- will start winning elections again.

--bkl
Still living in the Best of All Possible Hells

[Carolab]

131. Sorry but

"Their votes just made the election close enough to steal. Notice that b*sh STILL didn't win even with all the cheating - it took the SCOTUS installing him to get him into office."

This WAS the problem, and could STILL be the problem if this election remains close. If Ralph hadn't taken his share of Dem votes (and he DID take more from Dems than Repubs), they may not have been able to pull off their heist.

[bahrbearian]

106. Exactly ! Bush-Lite anyone ?

[David Dunham]

3. Stupid: Fox poll has Bush up 47-40. Kerry needs all votes possible to win

[Teaser]

5. That poll is an outlier...

n/t

[THUNDER HANDS]

4. Chomsky is a fool

Who thinks he's smarter than he is.

[Fenris]

17. Hate to agree

Actually, I don't mind agreeing at all. I cannot stand either of them. And I can stand their devotees even less.

[fishnfla]

95. With you on this one, cant stand these 2 twits,

and their sycophantic supporters

[NWHarkness]

6. Self righteous prigs

They regard maintaining their own smug sense of superiority as more important than effecting any actual change.

[kysrsoze]

99. Two wasted votes IMO

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. Chomsky is a moron

But in response to an email query from this reporter, Chomsky wrote, “Voting for Nader in a safe state is fine. That's what I'll do. I don't see how anyone could read what I wrote and think otherwise, just from the elementary logic of it. Voting for Nader in a safe state is not a vote for Bush. The point I made had to do with (effectively) voting for Bush.”
http://www.counterpunch.com

Just how do you tell what a 'safe' state is ?


By believing the data that the coporate media spoon feeds you?


Isn't a a self-defeating idea? Isn't Chomsky basically telling people: "if the media has told you Bush will win your state, your vote doesn't count"



Of course, the writer gives absolutely no context for the Chomsky quote other than "in response to an email query" so it's certainly possible that Mr. Bates is deceptively portraying Chomsky's response as something other than its intended meaning. I'd be interested in seeing the complete text of Bates' query and Chomsky's answer.

[treepig]

13. well, if massachusetts isn't in the bag for kerry

he might as well toss in the towel right now and end the charade

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. Why don't you try responding to what I said?

If you think I'm wrong, why don't you try showing that I am wrong?


Do you believe everything the media says? Do you believe that voters in Massachusetts shouldn't vote for Kerry? Why? Because their votes don't count?


Your corporate masters want you to believe that your vote doesn't count, that they know the results of the elections in advance. They don't and what is even more foolish than being a willing corporate puppet is being an active propagandist for them.

[treepig]

why don't you try using common sense

instead of invoking media-mind control, willing-corporate-puppet mumbo jumbo.

collectively, the EC votes from massachusetts are a foregone conclusion - i think any sane person can look at the spread from last time around and not see a chance in hell of of the order of the top three finishers changing:

Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 1,616,487 59.80%
George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 878,502 32.50%
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 173,564 6.42%
Harry Browne Art Olivier Libertarian 16,366 0.61%
Patrick Buchanan Higgins Reform 11,149 0.41%
Other (+) - - 6,916 0.26%

so yeah, basically, the individual voter's votes in massachusetts don't count for much - but that's the consequence of a century's old political system - not corporate media mind control.

on the flip side - it's equally "safe" for someone in texas or utah to vote for nader - once again that's just common sense!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. You know the future?

No, you don't.

You seem to think that past performance is a guaranteed indicator of future results.

It's not.

Using the results of a past election to predict a future election is simply stupid. An indication of poor reasoning -- or a basic misunderstanding of democracy.


Why even have elections in MA? Why not just carry forward the previous results? Couldn't we save money by just letting you tell us who will win?

[treepig]

31. do you know why there are bitter fights over re-districting?

simply because past election performance is a superb indicator of future voting trends (if not, who'd give a damn about gerrymandering?).

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. Why even have elections in MA?

Why not just carry forward the previous results? Couldn't we save money by just letting you tell us who will win?

[treepig]

58. i'm not sure if you're aware of it

but the presidential election is not the only issue on the ballot in massachusetts.

some of the other races/issues are no doubt more competitive.

in any event, the charade of democracy keeps everyone comfortably numb - canceling the vote, even for the purpose of letting someone as wise as myself specify the outcome is likely to muss a few feathers and cause unnecessary unpleasantries all the way round

[Feanorcurufinwe]

59. Your post is not responsive.

Why even have a presidential election in MA? You said in your post that the reason was to preserve 'the charade of democracy'.


Is that really what you believe, or were you being dishonest?

[treepig]

65. you're changing the subject

you first asked "why even hold elections in MA?"

which i answered, but if you want to specify presidential elections, fine - it's all part of the continuum of preserving the charade of democracy, like i stated.

12/05/2003 Entry: "Computer aided gerrymandering so precise, voting is now obsolete."

Computer aided gerrymandering so precise, voting is now obsolete.
Perhaps we can just do away with universal suffrage and have a random statistical sample of voters. Heck, it would probably be more accurate and have more accountability than what we're doing now.

Story here.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031208fa_fact

[Feanorcurufinwe]

68. So does that mean you were being honest or not?

When you said the reason to have a presidential election in MA was to preserve 'the charade of democracy' were you honestly stating what you believe or not?

[treepig]

74. who am i? do i have any credibility?

that's doubtful - so who cares if i'm being honest or not.

read the article and come to your own conclusions. if you conclude that the vast majority of voting is anything but a charade, fine. i'm just presenting information suggesting that that may not be the case.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

77. That's what I am trying to determine.

I want to know whether I am engaged in a discussion with someone who is honestly debating ideas or whether I am wasting my time talking to someone who is ready to lie about their own beliefs in order to score cheap debate points.

So, when you said the reason to have a presidential election in MA was to preserve 'the charade of democracy' were you honestly stating what you believe or not?

[He loved Big Brother]

89. I agree treepig

Voting is a charade, for the simple fact that the electoral college only recognizes two parties. As long as a candidate only gains my vote By default, I will think voting is a charade, albeit one I am forced to participate in.

[treepig]

92. well, there are the battleground/swing states

where your vote is somewhat more meaningful

and the identity of these states does shift over time.

massachusetts at this time is not in that category - i'm not sure how anyone can reasonably suggest otherwise.

[Zhade]

118. You must have attended...

...the sangha/sangh0 School of Debate.

Straw men, left and right.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

120. You claim

that I've raised a strawman.

Are you capable of pointing it out?

That is to say, can you actually follow through and discuss something?

Can you refute something I've said?


Or are you limited to a feeble and pitiful attempt to insult me?

[Zhade]

121. Sure I can.

Here you go:

I understand why Nader apologists want to pretend this didn't happen, but in reality, we all know it did.

Fact: I am not a Nader apologist. Nothing in my post indicated I was. However, you felt it important to refute the non-apologia.

For further examples, see more of your own posts in this thread.

And, having proved my point, I'm done with this conversation. Peace.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

125. You haven't proven anything

and you are clearly confused because the post you are quoting is not the post you responded to when you accused me of 'strawmen'


Do you know what that phrase means? 'a strawman'? Because your post makes it seem that you don't - that you just threw this accusation out without understanding it.


Finally, I'm truly sick of people getting my hopes up by saying:
I'm done with this conversation.

is that a promise? You really won't follow this post with an infantile re-assertion of your earlier post?

[mzmolly]

10. They favor a *safe State* approach. Which is fine by this Nader critic.

"Chomsky wrote, “Voting for Nader in a safe state is fine. That's what I'll do. I don't see how anyone could read what I wrote and think otherwise, just from the elementary logic of it. Voting for Nader in a safe state is not a vote for Bush. The point I made had to do with (effectively) voting for Bush."

Zinn:

"Howard Zinn stated, “I will vote for Nader because Mass. is a safe state. And voters in ‘safe states’ should not vote for Kerry.” He also notes, “I don't have faith in Kerry changing, but with Kerry there is a possibility that a powerful social movement might change him. With Bush, no chance."

I haven't a problem with third parties, I do have an issue with progressives who don't consider the price of their actions.

Chomsky and Zinn have a reasonable approach. Makes ya wonder why they don't support Cobb ;). Though I guess Nader is speaking more in terms of "safe states" this time round anyhow.

[Bryan]

64. Of course, but the question mark with that approach

... is Nader's prior demonstration that his concept of a "safe state" is any state his campaign has the funds to send him to. It remains to be seen if his dialed-back rhetoric results in him confining his efforts to the Northeast, Cali, and the South.

[Barkley]

82. I'm from CA & I'm voting Kerry because I want a LANDSLIDE against Bush!

Yeah, I'm sure Gore thought Tenn. was a 'safe state' too.

This type of strategic voting is really meaningless because people really don't know what a 'safe-state' is.

Many people will hear from the Nader campaign that 'Chomsky and Zinn' back Nader. But they won't hear about the conditions of their endorsements.

So what happens if Bush walks away with MASS. in Nov.?

I'm vote Kerry and it ain't because of his position on Iraq; its to punish Bush and his neoCons.

I want to see as many voters possible in America reject Bush in Nov.!

A Kerry landslide 49-state romp would send a resounding message abroad and to the neoCons. The Bush dynasty migh never recover.

[Gregorian]

12. I have a problem with not voting honestly

I liked what Nader said in 2000. But out of FEAR, I voted for Gore. I'm not a smartypants when it comes to politics, or history, or just about anything for that matter. So I can't argue why I liked what Nader said. Except he mentioned corporations. And that is something Kerry isn't going to do. This country needs a big change. A change that almost noone wants. For example, we want cheap gas. Well then, we will pay the price in other ways. I will vote out of fear, again. But I believe that until we address the problem, it's going to continue haunting us. I'd rather be a third rate country than one dictated by corporations. I think these men realize that nothing will change, until we are honest with our votes. I want BIG change, and Kerry isn't going to make big changes. I also know that Ralph would be alone in Washington. But maybe it would be a start. I suppose I'm unrealistic. I probably shouldn't be posting my ideas, when I am not fully educated. I just want big changes.

[Kenneth ken]

101. agreed

one of the other ways we pay for cheap gas is by maintaining a vast military. We spend a fortune on planes, ships, tanks, but underpay the humans who pilot and repair those machines. Why? Because the corporations profit handsomely from buildig the machines, the people to operate them are just an expense.

We keep people in poverty using the scare-word "socialism" so theat we can have an endless supply of cannon fodder to put at the helm of planes, or ships or tanks.

Like you, I want big changes. I want corporations stringently and tightly controlled; they should be subordinate to people, and corporate wants should count less than human needs.

[bahrbearian]

108. Here Yee Here Yee , I feel the same!

[DinahMoeHum]

15. Well, well, Nothing-But-The-Best-For-The-Oppressed strikes again.

assholes stuck up their ivory towers.

Methinks they should read Tony Kushner's interview in Mother Jones Magazine, where he indicates that politics and purity don't mix - and most especially not this time:

Link:
http://www.motherjones.com/arts/qa/2003/11/ma_586_01.html

(snip)
TK: I have said this before, and I'll say it again: Anyone that the Democrats run against Bush, even the appalling Joe Lieberman, should be a candidate around whom every progressive person in the United States who cares about the country's future and the future of the world rallies. Money should be thrown at that candidate. And if Ralph Nader runs -- if the Green Party makes the terrible mistake of running a presidential candidate -- don't give him your vote. Listen, here's the thing about politics: It's not an expression of your moral purity and your ethics and your probity and your fond dreams of some utopian future. Progressive people constantly fail to get this.

The GOP has developed a genius for falling into lockstep. They didn't have it with Nixon, but they have it now. They line up behind their candidate, grit their teeth, and help him win, no matter who he is.

MJ: You're saying progressives are undone by their own idealism?

TK: The system isn't about ideals. The country doesn't elect great leaders. It elects fucked-up people who for reasons of ego want to run the world. Then the citizenry makes them become great. FDR was a plutocrat. In a certain sense he wasn't so different from George W. Bush, and he could have easily been Herbert Hoover, Part II. But he was a smart man, and the working class of America told him that he had to be the person who saved this country. It happened with Lyndon Johnson, too, and it could have happened with Bill Clinton, but we were so relieved after 12 years of Reagan and Bush that we sat back and carped.

In a certain sense, Bush was right when he called the anti-war demonstrations a "focus group." We went out on the street and told him that we didn't like the war. But that was all we did: We expressed an opinion. There was no one in Congress to listen to us because we were clear about why they couldn't listen. Hillary Clinton was too compromised, or Chuck Schumer -- and God knows they are. But if people don't pressure them to do better, we're lost.
(snip)

Hint, hint, Howard. Hint, hint, Noam.


:kick:

[hightime]

16. l

l

[hightime]

18. Chomsky: How to take a safe state and make it dangerous!

Is he afraid he would lose his relevance without Bush in the White House? If I wanted to vote for Bush I would vote for Nader.

[leesa]

19. I seem to remember a short while ago an article stating Chomsky

was supporting Kerry because Bush is such a danger he needs to be removed.

I think this may be RW propaganda to try to make "liberals" think their "heroes" are voting Nadar in hopes of splitting the Dem vote. I would regard this as just another RW ploy.

[hightime]

22. Are you saying the reporter made the quote up?

I think it would tough to get away with that.

[tigereye]

23. cripe

How could anyone think that they are the same!!! Think about all of the stuff that Bush did and has done (Judges, environment, geopolitics, war, crazy amendments, Patriot Act, etc) that Gore would not have done or would have done very differently. It's just inf...ingcredible to think that there would not have been a difference! Chomsky is not stupid, but how can people believe this crap?

[alarcojon]

43. I believe you're referring to this article from march 20

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1174017,00.html

Noam Chomsky, the political theorist and leftwing guru, yesterday gave his reluctant endorsement to the Democratic party's presidential contender, John Kerry, calling him "Bush-lite", but a "fraction" better than his rival.

Professor Chomsky - a linguist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as well as a renowned chronicler of American foreign policy - said there were "small differences" between Senator Kerry and the Republican president. But, in an interview on the Guardian's politics website, he added that those small differences "can translate into large outcomes".

He describes the choice facing US voters in November as "the choice between two factions of the business party". But the Bush administration was so "cruel and savage", it was important to replace it.

He said: "Kerry is sometimes described as 'Bush-lite', which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."

[Journeyman]

20. The vote MUST DISCREDIT the Reich Wing. . .

so even votes in so-called "safe" states cannot be squandered making some peripheral statement about the direction of the Democratic (important as that statement may be). Let's shove Smirk and Company into the "dustbin of history" and start the long process of rebuilding our country before we turn to the task of redefining our party.

[struggle4progress]

21. Why is Greg Bates pushing Nader?

Greg Bates
Common Courage Press
121 Red Barn Road, Monroe, ME 04951

November 19, 2003

Dear Ralph,

I am writing to tell you the obvious: you have to
run for president ...
<snip>
http://www.thomasleavitt.org/personal/blog/index.php?p=639

[mzmolly]

27. Very interesting. I guess he's clinging to what's left of the original

*movement*? :P

[nightperson]

24. Whatevvvvvvvvvvvver.

I always thought those two were highly overrated. Everyone from Eric Alterman to Pat Buchanan to Charles A. Reich to William Pitt to myself :evilgrin: is a better "stylist", and they certainly have no monopoly on interesting information. Out-of-touch aging celebs. Yawn.
Something to ask Chomsky and Zinn about.

[Kimber Scott]

25. There's no such thing as a safe state.

You can use something as simple as "American Idol" as an example. How many good singers got voted off because people "assumed" those good singers would get enough votes from other people that they were safe in voting for somebody whose personality they liked.

I don't mean to compare the presidential election to American Idol, but assuming everybody else is going to vote for the person you really think should win is pure folly.

[struggle4progress]

26. Has Chomsky changed his mind?

Noam Chomsky
MIT professor, writer and activist
Tuesday March 16, 2004

<snip>
My feeling is pretty much the way it was in the year 2000. I admire Ralph Nader and Denis Kucinich very much, and insofar as they bring up issues and carry out an educational and organisational function - that's important, and fine, and I support it.

However, when it comes to the choice between the two factions of the business party, it does sometimes, in this case as in 2000, make a difference ....

That's not only true for international affairs, it's maybe even more dramatically true domestically. The people around Bush are very deeply committed to dismantling the achievements of popular struggle through the past century. The prospect of a government which serves popular interests is being dismantled here. It's an administration that works, that is devoted, to a narrow sector of wealth and power, no matter what the cost to the general population. And that could be extremely dangerous in the not very long run.
<snip>

Again there isn't a great difference, so for maybe 90% of the population over the past 20 years, real income has either stagnated or declined, while for the top few percent, it's just exploded astronomically. But there are differences and the present group in power is particularly cruel and savage in this respect.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/voices/story/0,12820,1168160,00.html


I'm really curious about the use of the Chomsky and Zinn email communications to push Nader's candidacy.

[The Magistrate]

46. It Was Only To Be Feared, Sir

The acute attack of good sense displayed in that article would prove only temporary: the human animal is a very resilient thing....

"You can't cut the throat of every cocksucker who's character it would improve."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[struggle4progress]

66. I had usually found Chomsky's analyses full of good sense.

[The Magistrate]

97. That Has Not Been My Experience, Sir

In analysis of political communication and culture in this country, he has a very basic blind spot; namely, a complete lack of appreciation for the fact that radical politics is a niche market, populated by a few people who share that similar taste, which is, and will remain, a rare one. That is just as well, because when a taste for radical politics does become widespread, it is usually easy to trip over corpses during a short venture out of doors. Generally, where world events are concerned, it is sufficient to know only enough about a situation to be able to identify what side is backed by a U.S. interest, and what side is not, to predict with fair certainty what the fellow's writing will convey. His commentaries early in the reign of the Khymer Rouge were profoundly dishonest and ignorant, and rather removed him from my own list of respectables. He does a pretty basic boiler-plate, when all is said and done, though it is well crafted....

[struggle4progress]

102. I carefully read Chomsky on the Khmer Rouge some years ago ...

and I must disagree with your assessment of the material as "profoundly dishonest and ignorant." IMO, Chomsky was rather scholarly about the matter; although the rightwing has claimed (repeatedly) that Chomsky was arguing atrocities had never occurred, that is, in fact, simply not true.

While I may agree that "radical politics is a niche market," so that (say) Chomsky may never have the ear of America's masses, I think your slogan that "when a taste for radical politics does become widespread, it is usually easy to trip over corpses during a short venture out of doors" is simply an insult to many radicals who have a real preference for nonviolence.

In fact, what Chomsky has done (very well) is to compare exactly this sort of mainstream sloganeering with the trail of corpses left (usually without comment) in the wake of American foreign policy and to analyze carefully the idealistic rhetoric which has accompanied the production of such corpse trails; and his objective (in pointing out such hypocrisy) has been, in my reading, the entirely honorable premise that we should not fail to denounce any evils which we might prevent, including (very importantly) those committed by our own government, whose behavior we at least say we believe we can change.

Chomsky, incidently, was almost alone among Americans, for many years, in attempting to call attention to the horrors associated with the Indonesian take-over of East Timor. Nothing about that campaign was "basic boiler-plate."

[The Magistrate]

103. There Is Little Point In Wrangling With A Believer, Sir

Prof. Chomsky's writings at the time systematically denigrated eyewitness refugee testimonies while crediting what were essentially Khymer Rouge propagandas. It was clear enough at the time, to those with some awareness of the human animal, which were likely more correct, and time has made it painfully clear.

You completely miss the point concerning prevelance of corpses. People generally are disinterested in politics because it has little impact they can perceive on their daily lives; when circumstances reach such a pitch that it has enough impact on their lives to press radical views onto many people, the situation is almost always a lethal one, due to breakdown of economic life, social order, invasion, or some combination of these sorts of things. Nothing else is sufficient to break through the general disinterest.

Prof. Chomsky does indeed deserve some credit for calling attention to the outrages in East Timor. The Indonesian government, since the first days of Suhkarno's succession to the Japanese occupation of the Dutch Indies, has been a rather horrid and squalid organization. There has not been much substantial change for the better even recently. A good deal of the problem stems from the artificial nature of the thing as a centrally ruled organization: it is not really a nation, but a forced congerey of peoples.

[struggle4progress]

104. There's certainly little point in calling me a "Wrangling .. Believer."

This line about "systematically denigrat(ing) eyewitness refugee testimonies while crediting what were essentially Khymer Rouge propagandas" must be on a website somewhere, because several people have recently used almost exactly the same language. If my memory serves correctly, these attacks on Chomsky's writings about the Cambodian atrocities all began when American conservatives desperately needed to divert attention from the fact that Reagan had stopped denouncing Pol Pot and had begun to support him.

Exactly what did Chomsky say that you regard as "Khymer Rouge propagandas", exactly where did he say it, and what is your evidence that it originated from the "Khymer Rouge"? It is perhaps worth remembering, at this point, that during the atrocity period the Khmer Rouge were eager to destroy all Western influences in Cambodia and all Cambodian ties to the Western world, hence had very little interest in propagandizing the West.

[struggle4progress]

109. As you seem unable to respond, please allow me help.

Here is one of Chomsky's earlier writings on the Cambodian tragedy, often cited by right-wingers as proving his dishonesty and intent to serve as a propagandist:

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/chombookrev.htm

It involves the review of three books. Chomsky has returned to the Cambodian matter several times since, and by the mid-80s had produced several thoughtful pieces.

The accusations you make against Chomsky seem to originate from misrepresentation of writings such as this.

Do permit me to call attention to the penultimate paragraph:

"We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered."

[The Magistrate]

110. You Are Not Very Good At This, Sir

Wrangling is what it does not seem to me worth doing with you, because you display all the pug-marks of the acolyte, and hence no good can come of the effort, beyond the small amusement it provides, which can be easily exceeded in other pursuits available this evening. Some command of the language is required, if you are going to engage in this sort of thing, and it is not clear to me you are in possession of it, from the replies you have made thus far in our exchange.

People have accused me of many things in my time on this forum, from rightist allegiance, to extreme ruthlessness in pursuit of leftist goals, and even of never failing to use three syllables where two might do, but no one has ever thought yet to accuse me of borrowing my words from some common site lodged off somewhere to the right of this electronic attic. That one, Sir, will be treasured, along with the several times puppies have called me naive. One possibility you seem to leave out of consideration is that someone might well have read comments at the time they were first published, drawn their own conclusions, and remembered them: people do that, you know, and live on despite the effort, and the passage of years.

If you consider that that bit of weaseling you have cited provides a sufficient fig-leaf for appearing in decent company in a matter of genocidal atrocity, you are free to do so: no one can stop you. To my view, it is far from sufficient. The evidence coming available at the time was not seriously distorted, nor was there a scintilla of direct contribution from the U.S. to the actions of the Khymer Rouge then in power in Cambodia. That political and military blunderings by the Nixon administration contributed to their victory no serious commentator denies. Chomsky disgraced and discredited himself in the episode; that that might be even possible is another possibility you do not seem able to entertain....

"It is a wrong to divide people into good and bad. people are either charming or tedious."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[struggle4progress]

111. You, of course, misrepresent the Chomsky piece I provided ...

by portraying Chomsky as arguing in some way for a "direct contribution from the U.S. to the actions of the Khymer Rouge then in power in Cambodia," when, in fact, he does not such thing: rather, he set out to discuss how the Western press covered the suffering of Cambodia, and the causes of that suffering, during the period in question, and (in this context) Chomsky places some emphasis on Nixon's bombing strikes and invasion, noting that the Western press downplayed that contribution.

In my view, if you choose to misrepresent sources to discredit them, you lose considerable moral right to accuse those same sources of dishonesty.

Rather than claiming that I am unable to entertain the possibility that Chomsky disgraced and discredited himself, I once again offer you the option of supporting, with evidence, your accusations.

I should think that a fair indication of whether one might appear "in decent company" in matters of "genocidal atrocity," is whether one has made continuing basic good faith efforts to prevent genocide. It seems to me that, over the years, Chomsky has repeatedly passed that test, though (again) I would welcome any evidence to the contrary.

... And (I am afraid I cannot resist adding) there is, by the way, some bit of evidence that your knowledge of these matters originates on right-wing websites, which (however) I am reluctant to reveal to you.

[The Magistrate]

115. Oh, Do Reveal All, Dear....

"...downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect..."

[struggle4progress]

117. There's a clear reference to Nixon's criminal attacks on the country. eom

[The Magistrate]

128. And The Direct Connection Between This And Khymer Rouge Killing Is?

Enquiring minds want to know....

And you promised proof of rightist association, dear.

All in all, a very disappointing performance....

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

[struggle4progress]

130. Yeah, yeah.

So far you have described Chomsky's work as "profoundly dishonest and ignorant," claiming that he "systematically denigrated eyewitness refugee testimonies while crediting what were essentially Khymer Rouge propagandas" and suggesting that he claimed "a direct contribution from the U.S. to the actions of the Khymer Rouge then in power in Cambodia," as a result of which you assert he "disgraced and discredited himself."

I, asking for particulars, provided a link to one of Chomsky's earliest pieces on the subject "Distortions at Fourth Hand," in hopes you might justify your accusations, in response to which you cleverly remark "it does not seem to me worth doing," citing as grounds my:
(a) lack of sufficient "command of the language"; and
(b) inability to entertain the possibility that Chomsky may have feet of clay.

Meanwhile, said Chomsky piece, a standard target of rightwing vitriole, contains (so far as I can tell, your innuendo notwithstanding) no claims whatsoever that the US contributed to the actions of Pol Pot and his followers.

Let us review carefully: your sole basis for your assertion appears to be your misrepresentation of the meaning of a sentence fragment, lifted from the paragraph I posted. The sentence is: "What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered." I consider it clear from context that Chomsky references the effects on Cambodia of Nixon's illegal war on Cambodia and is not claiming that the US was "directly connected" to any Khmer Rouge killing.

To conclude, then:

Howsoever smoothly crafted sentences be, wordsmithing substitutes not for hard-worked logic. Further and again, I repeat that do you misrepresent to discredit, you must yourself thereby lose credit. And all other matters notwithstanding, it is indeed good, if some evidence, connected by argument, support accusations made against people's morals and good names, insofar as we, failing to honor this principle, lose all right to complain when others accuse us, by which standard I therefore rule your call, of my evidence, forfeit.

[The Magistrate]

143. What You Think You Have Demonstrated, Dear, Is Beyond Me

Anyone who reads through the article "Z-Mag" has reprinted will be struck by its inconguity with the established historical record, a quarter century on, of the events it deals with. It is comprised principally of statements seeking to minimize the numbers of persons killed by the Khymer Rouge, and to cast doubts on contemporaneous estimates that have proved more accurate than otherwise in light of present knowledge; it even contains hints that the forced march out of the capital was a rational and humane attempt to save its population from hunger.

Your difficulty with comprehending the concept of "direct contribution" is something you will have to come to grips with on your own. Nothing Nixon did caused the Khymer Rouge to do what they did. The condition of Cambodia upon the Khymer Rouge victory was indeed dire, as conditions at the conclusion of a hard-fought war often are. Nonetheless, the Khymer Rouge chose wholly on their own how to act in these conditions, and chose to act in a singularly murderous fashion. No one else, anywhere, is in the least responsible for that choice.

[struggle4progress]

149. Basta!

Rather than accuse you of intellectual dishonesty here, I will simply take your assertion ("What You Think You Have Demonstrated .. Is Beyond Me") as true, though I set out to demonstrate nothing, rather seeking instead (fruitlessly, it appears) to discover bases of your accusations against Chomsky.

My reading of the article does not suggest to me that it principally comprises "statements seeking to minimize the numbers of persons killed by the Khymer Rouge" (as you would have it), and the remainder of your first paragraph is essentially assertion without proof, though I will grant that Chomsky may "hint" (with some documentation, as usual!) at humane motives behind the forced march.

Your second paragraph involves an insistent misreading of Chomsky's claim (that Nixon's illegal war caused great suffering in Cambodia and was not covered much by Western media) as a claim instead that (in your words) "Nixon .. caused the Khymer Rouge to do what they did," a misreading nowhere supported in the article and which you would transform into my "difficulty with comprehending the concept of 'direct contribution'," carefully recrafting the referent of two words pried from context; and, more's the pity, you seem somehow inextricably invested in this misreading.

[The Magistrate]

150. An Excellent Illustration, Dear

Of why little is to be gained from wrangling with true believers.

For my part, it seems safe enough to leave it to the judgement of others reading this exchange which of our characterizations of the article above is most sound, and which of us is misreading a plain statement in English.

Some may look forward to any documentation you can provide for the humanitarian motive behind the forced march into the countryside of the populace of the Cambodian capital: a good laugh is always welcome, and such an attempt would be sure to provide a real knee-slapper.

The question, of course, is not what transpired before the Khymer Rouge took power, but what they did while in power. The idea that the bombing and invasion of Cambodia was not covered exhaustively in the public prints at the time is simply nonesense to anyone who was then capable of reading a newspaper.

"If a man will conrinue to insist two and two do not make four, I know of nothing in the power of argument that can stop up his mouth."

[funnymanpants]

154. Yes, and struggle4progess seems more believable to me

struggle4progess actually gave facts. You, on the contrary, provided pretentious, poorly constructed arguments.

Do you think that if you throw together a lot of high-sounding phrases that you are actually constructing English sentences?

Well, you are good for a laugh.

[Darranar]

167. "in the torment that Cambodia has suffered"...

Nixon's brutal strikes in Cambodia certainly directly contributed to the "torment that Cambodia has suffered."

I only skimmed the piece, having more recent and more interesting Chomsky pieces I would like to read before this one, but it seems that Chomsky is claiming that a: The reports at the time were unverified and their importance exxagerated, and b: the US strikes on the country were devestating as well, yet appeared to be ignored in the articles dealing with the situation.

He even claims at the end of the piece: "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments".

I do not by any means always agree with Chomsky, yet his critique of US imperial policy is a valuable one in a media saturated with establishment propaganda and lies. He does not always assume that the US is in the wrong; he backed Clinton's 1994 intervention in Haiti, though reluctantly, prefering a hands-tied Aristide forced to be an imperial servant to a mass-murdering dictator.

[The Magistrate]

169. In Their Gist, My Friend, The Reports At The Time Were Accurate

Put bluntly, at the time, they seemed quite credible to me, and my opinion of those to whom they did not was, and remains, low. It is true there were some attempts at gilding the lily by way of anti-communist propaganda, but these hardly provided sufficient warrant for the sort of doubts expressed by a number of left apologists at the time.

By compare to what the Khymer Rouge did, Sir, Nixon's actions were flesh wounds to that once happy land. By the most conservative estimates, Nixon killed there a tenth what the Khymer Rouge did. Nor did what Nixon did condition in any way the armed utopian ideology of the Khymer Rouge that directed their actions. These people would have made a Hell of Paradise, had it been put into their charge. The one sensible count against Nixon in this matter is that his foolishness in prosecuting the Southeast Asian war handed victory to the Khymer Rouge. In short, the invocation of Nixon in discussing the Khymer Rouge is a mere attempt at distraction, of the sort we are wearily familiar with in the old dungeon. The thing has no bearing on the Khymer Rouge atrocities. Nor was it something people were ignorant of at the time.

Prof. Chomsky's cover statement at the conclusion of the piece is of little worth against the whole weight of the article that preceeds it, in which every device of rhetoric is deployed to suggest that reports of Khymer Rouge atrocities are mere rightist propagandas, seeking to turn eyes from the more substantial crimes of the United States.

What to my eyes de-values his critiques of world events particularly is the cookie-cutter quality of them. It is hardly news to me, or to anyone his words are likely to be read by, after all, that there is a great deal of economic and other exploitation involved in the prosperity of the West, and he does not seem to me a particularly acute observer of that phenomenon. He is a propagandist at heart, albeit a very high brow one, and a very skilled one.

[funnymanpants]

153. Hiding your ignorance with pomposity

You are making no sense at all, but you are making a fool of yourself:

"Wrangling is what it does not seem to me worth doing with you"

That does not even come close to making sense. Nor does this:

"If you consider that that bit of weaseling you have cited provides a sufficient fig-leaf for appearing in decent company in a matter of genocidal atrocity, you are free to do so: no one can stop you."

Again, this sentence has so many gramatical errors that I can't even understand it.

The poster has challenged you factually. You have not responded factually. You have resorted to poorly constructed lingusitic evasions and name calling.

Now where are your facts?

[The Magistrate]

158. Honestly, Mr. Pants

One might take the distinct impression from this you do not like me much....

"That is arrant pedantry, up with which I shall not put."

[bpilgrim]

176. lol

so you removed chomsky from your list of 'respectables' because he lied about the 'Khymer Rouge' yet you offer nothing to back that up with.

maybe i should remove you from my list of DU 'respectables' for spreading 'profoundly dishonest and ignorant' commentaries about the man.

nah, i realize noones perfect, especially the Magistrate ;->

:hi:

peace

[The Magistrate]

177. Thank You, My Friend

We will doubtless continue to have our differences on this and many other subjects, but in my own falling far short of perfection we can maintain a perfect agreement.

"Those amazing linguists! Is there nothing they cannot do?"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Zhade]

119. HA! Deadwood fan?

I never would have guessed. :)

[alarcojon]

28. My two cents

First off, I challenge those who think Chomsky is an idiot to begin refuting the entirety of his worldview.

He is merely expressing a "safe state" strategy to a reporter from counterpunch. How much of an impact do people really think this will have on the election?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. LOL

Typical example of the kind of bullshit argument you hear from Chomsky's idolators.


First off, I challenge those who think Chomsky is an idiot to begin refuting the entirety of his worldview.

So it's not enough for us to point out that his premises are wrong, that his reasoning is faulty, and his conclusion incorrect -- we have to 'refute the entirety of his worldview' whatever the fuck that means.


The whole concept of 'safe states' is based on the false reasoning that the future will always be the same as the past, as well a basic misunderstanding of the democratic system.

[alarcojon]

36. Take it easy

I have no problem with your disagreeing with Chomsky on this issue. We can certainly disagree about the "safe states" strategy. And yes, if enough people listened to Chomsky's advice, Bush would win re-election. As you point out, nobody knows for sure about such a strategy. I feel one way, and you apparently feel another. Such is life.

However, you are also taking the opportunity to call Chomsky a moron and now to paint me as a mindless "Chomsky idolator". What's the point of that?

If you are familiar with Chomsky's work and find fault with it, I would be curious to know why.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

40. I simply pointed out how ridiculous and unthinking your 'argument' was.

And I think it is telling that in your response, you have agreed with every specific point I made, while repeating the idea that I have some kind of obligation to "find fault with Chomsky's work" other than the topic of discussion.


Yes, I think Chomsky is a moron, although highly intelligent. Possessing such intelligence and putting it to such ill-use is moronic. And yes, there are many on the left who idolize him and treat every pronouncement from him as a pearl of wisdom.

[alarcojon]

51. Okay, we're getting somewhere

Which argument of mine was "ridiculous and unthinking" - My argument about a "safe states" strategy or my expression of support for Chomsky's body of work?

For the record, I did not agree with you. I acknowledged that nobody knows for sure how "safe" a "safe states" strategy is. That's just basic intellectual honesty. Then I spelled out quite clearly that we have different opinions about the matter. Massachusetts is about as safe as they come for Kerry, and Chomsky is talking to a reporter who appears in Counterpunch, not the Washington Post.

Lastly, there may be some who treat Chomsky's every word as gospel. I am not in that camp. He would be the first to tell you NOT to treat his thoughts as the last word on anything.

You have no obligation whatsoever to find fault with Chomsky's work. I laid down a challenge because it seemed to me that some here, including you, are denigrating the entirety of Chomsky's work on the basis of his views in this article, and that seems unfair.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. I've tried to extract the portion of your post that was on-topic.

But I can't find it.


The topic is the proposition that people in 'safe' states should vote for Nader to 'send a message'.

I say that conclusion is based on the false premise that voting for Nader would send a message to someone, and that that message would be understood, on the faulty reasoning that polls and past elections are accurate predictors of future election results, and the basic misunderstanding of the role of elections in a democratic system -- elections are not for 'sending a message' they are for electing leaders.


Would you care to comment on the topic at hand?

[alarcojon]

56. I already have

Last sentence, paragraph two, post # 51. I'm suggesting that this "endorsement" will have a negligible effect on the election, for the reasons I've mentioned.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. Look if your point is that Chomsky is irrelevant, I agree with you,

but the topic here is the proposition that people in 'safe' states should vote for Nader to 'send a message'.

I say that conclusion is based on the false premise that voting for Nader would send a message to someone, and that that message would be understood, on the faulty reasoning that polls and past elections are accurate predictors of future election results, and the basic misunderstanding of the role of elections in a democratic system -- elections are not for 'sending a message' they are for electing leaders.


Would you care to comment on the topic at hand?

[alarcojon]

60. I don't get into discussions

with people who feel the need to patronize. See ya!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

63. So to sum up

you objected to my characterization of Chomsky as a moron, but you are unwilling to discuss the topic at hand.

:eyes:

[sangh0]

78. Patronize? It was *YOU* who issued a challenge

and when someone took you up on it, you took to the wind.

[alarcojon]

98. Okay, my last word

The reason I used the word "patronize" is because Feanorcurufinwe cut-and-pasted this in two consecutive replies to me, as if I hadn't read it the first time:

I say that conclusion is based on the false premise that voting for Nader would send a message to someone, and that that message would be understood, on the faulty reasoning that polls and past elections are accurate predictors of future election results, and the basic misunderstanding of the role of elections in a democratic system -- elections are not for 'sending a message' they are for electing leaders.


Would you care to comment on the topic at hand?

It looks to me like Fean was calling Chomsky a moron based solely on this article, and I objected to that. He (and Zinn) has done so much for the left that I view such name calling as patently unfair. Fean has a point to make, and I had a different point. That's allowed, last time I checked, yet my point wasn't even being heard, while Fean was trying to bully me into arguing some point which cannot be proved or disproved. To me, that is a waste of time, as this message probably is.

Now I really have more important discussions to attend to. Peace to all.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

122. We should be so lucky.

You are apparently unwilling or unable to address the subject at hand. You have registered your objection to my characterization of Chomsky but you haven't addressed my reasons for making that characterization. Simply insisting that I bow unthinkingly before Chomsky because he has convinced a lot of leftist sheep that they can leave the thinking to him is not persuasive.

[resident bunnypants]

62. If he's so irrelevant why do you care about his statements.

Also it is you who doesn't seem to understand how this "democracy" works. Exit poll data uses poll info, past election results, demographics, etc. Why do you think redistricting is so important? Exit polling accurately predicted a Gore victory in Florida. Why do you think the networks called it for him initially. The polls had not closed yet. But by all the data used to "predict" outcomes it showed Gore winning. Which in theory he did.

If elections were about "electing" leaders we wouldn't have bush right now. If these two people think that in a state like Mass. they can vote for the guy they agree with and not worry about bush taking it they are correct. A lot of people did the same thing in NY and others without any problems. Now if the elections appeared to be close in any of these states I'm sure many people will think about it twice before voting for Nader.

I think these two gentlemen have contributed a lot with their writings and activism. Not to mention Zinn's service in WWII. So I think to call them morons because of a disagreement is actually moronic. I know I'm voting for Kerry and they decide not to do so I won't hold it against them. Apparently you and some others do, so be it. But I don't think childlike name calling is the appropriate response in this case.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. I don't. I just like to debate ideas on DU.

Like the idea that people in 'safe' states should vote for Nader to 'send a message'.


Of course I'm not saying that polling data, past election results, demographics are meaningless. I'm simply saying that they are not necessarily predictive of future election results. You are welcome to disagree with what I am saying and try to refute it, but using the 2000 Florida fiasco as an example hardly meets that challenge.


Your argument that elections are not about electing leaders is simply without substance.

[resident bunnypants]

69. In theory they are.

The reality as you can witness yourself is not so pretty and ideal. Look around there's plenty of substance to it. It is basically a corporate auction/shallow popularity contest (hence bush, reagan, etc.).

[Feanorcurufinwe]

72. No, in reality

our leaders are chosen by elections. Whether those elections are fair, whether the votes are properly counted, whether the voters are making informed decisions are valid questions, but don't have any impact on the truth of the statement: 'elections are about electing leaders'.

[resident bunnypants]

76. For you maybe. That's just fine.

Unfortunately for too many, elections do not make a difference. People have become too cynical. For the rich fat cats that actually run the country they are about putting a guy up there that will look out for their interests. Elections are also a way to send a message. This may not be the time you say. You might be right.

In the case in India. the opposition party won even though it was headed by a foreigner with no political experience. Because the people wanted to send a message to the ruling fundamentalist party that the had had enough. So maybe both statements have some truth to them accurate. But the reality is that in the case of India the winner will continue some of the privatization schemes that have hurt the people so. Hopefully this will change. Our country may be headed in the same direction. Hopefully when Kerry wins he'll put the people's interest first.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

123. No not for me, for everybody.

Unfortunately for too many, elections do not make a difference.


Did I say anything about elections 'making a difference' ?


NO.

[MoonRiver]

93. Well put.

If I want to make a statement I'll write a letter to the editor, or start a thread on DU :D.

But right now I'm interested in saving our country from the forces of neocon imperialistic fascists. In this dire situation, we can leave NOTHING to chance. That's why Nader is now advising his supporters to attend his functions but vote for whomever they feel they must (i.e. Kerry). Chomsky and Zinn either have their heads up their arses, or feel so privileged and elite that it doesn't really matter to them if we become a theocratic dictatorship. :mad:

[struggle4progress]

30. Zinn seems to have some weaknesses as a tactician

Howard Zinn urges: "Attend the Oregon Nader Convention"

<snip>
"Ralph Nader's campaign is a vital element in keeping alive the public debate about the Iraq War. Senator Kerry's reluctance to engage in this debate, and his support for the broad outlines of President Bush's disastrous war policies threatens to deprive the American people of the deep, thoughtful, and vigorous debate that should be the centerpiece of the presidential campaign."

"I urge voters of all states - regardless of whichever candidate you may decide to vote for on election day - to attend Nader conventions, sign petitions, and do all in your power to assure that Nader achieves ballot access."
- Professor Howard Zinn, Author of "A People's History of the United States"
<snip>

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/291061.shtml

<edit:> I don't see why RN can't tool about the country, chatting about Boosh's disasterous Iraqi adventure, without getting himself on the ballot. On the other hand, if Ralph's struggle to get on the ballot produces press interest and leads to press coverage of some of our other concerns, why should we be upset?

[ElaineinIN]

35. I worked for him

and took a class from him as a student years ago. I think he is a very smart and learned man (even thought I don't always agree with him), but also an academic whose theories don't always translate into practical reality.

[nolabels]

44. Can anyone one imagine?

I view as suspect of people who would have to rationalize dropping bombs on people and telling me about engage a debate (Maybe when Zinn gets a factual reasonable answer from Ralph on why the two major parties were exactly the same) Everybody must form their own opinion on everything. The freedom to question all and everyone is our birthright. I don't look to Kerry, Zinn, Buddha, Nader, Clinton, Goodman, Einstein, Plato, or even my own wife for a way to form any of my views.

It is difficult to even get to some things from even a factual basis. Viewing reality through our own kaleidoscope is bad enough, using the description of another's views could be really asking for it. I may take parts of quite a few others people’s opinions and views but reject anything or one that thinks they can tell me how to think of things in whole. I do this not to be different, but to know I have not been fooled (as best I can) and taken the best path for my resources at hand.


We all have to be our own individual for the good of us all (at least in my opinion)

On edit I never can get that syntax correct(and a few other things when I try to write from the top of a soapbox)

Not that I like to rant on these "Sometimes Heroes" like this, it just comes out when I am observing supposed high minded individuals acting on their own script instead of thinking things through

Please shoot me now

x(



http://irregulartimes.com/exprogressive.html
http://www.linkcrusader.com/

[Tippy]

33. There will not be any safe states

If this little trick works....If they don't want Bush then they should vote for someone who can beat him....Standing on principles when our country is in the shape it is in is not only foolish but also stupid..

[PurityOfEssence]

37. They want Bush to win and make such an unmistakable mess out of it

that there will be no question of the evil of the Republicans. The flaw of this logic is the expectation that we'll ever have free elections again, and that the damage done in the interim won't be unrecoverable.

If this is not the case, and if they think that there is truly no difference between the two parties, then they are colossal fools.

[calimary]

38. Jeez! It does beg the question - WHOSE side are they on, anyway?

That "send a message" crap is just that. Crap. Especially in cases like THIS election. We certainly saw how delightfully helpful and effective their "send a message" campaign was in 2000, didn't we?

[The Magistrate]

39. Why, The Side Of Revolution, Comrade!

You know, the romantic and glorious process that tends to fill cellars with screaming academics who had no idea people with sticks would ever take them seriously....

"Revolution is not a tea party."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Fenris]

75. Eloquently put, Sir.

You are the master wordsmith of this forum.

:toast:

[dumpster_baby]

140. chomsky and Zinn are REFORMISTS

They favor moving the USA to the left through the electoral process, via a grassroots political movement fostered by leftist propaganda. THat is NOT a revolution involving guns,etc. But why do I even bother? Almost all the posters on this thread seem to be, rather, umm.... "neoliberal". And neoliberals have never been able to consider Zinn/Chomsky/Nader with an open mind.

[struggle4progress]

144. Notion such as solidarity never cross the neoliberal mind. eom

[The Magistrate]

145. You Cannot Tell The Players Without A Score-Card, Sir

It is true enough these people nurture a pipe dream of electoral revolution: that is a thing that has never occured, and will never occur....

[dumpster_baby]

148. TINA == There Is No Alternative!

Just keep saying it long enough and loud enough, and people will start believing that there really is no alternative, huh?

You really are sticking to the script! Good for you!

[The Magistrate]

151. You Have The Stick By The Wrong End, Sir

People are aware there is no practical alternative, at least none available without a tremendous degree of disorder and disruption that they are disinclined to court, and so pay little heed to the shrill noise of utopians, that strikes their ears rather like nails on a chalkboard....

[dumpster_baby]

161. What about Scandanavian social democracies as alternative?

They were shattered by war 50 years ago, but already they have transformed their countries into places with a higher standard of living than the "rich" USA. There IS an alternative, even though neoliberals may screech that there is no practical alternative.

[The Magistrate]

162. Alternative To What, Sir?

Those remain capitalist, corporate economic structures. They are simply more highly taxed, and use these funds to provide a great many services to their citizenry, both of which are, in my view, excellent things.

They are also much smaller societies, largely homogenous, and with very different histories and traditions of political life.

[dumpster_baby]

165. was that supposed to be an argument?

....or just a regurgitation of neoliberal talking points?

You wrote:

Those remain capitalist, corporate economic structures.


Yes, but of a somewhat different variant than we have here and quite different from where we are headed on our present course.


They are simply more highly taxed,


Higher taxation is only one facet. Corporate growth and other aspects of corporations are more carefully managed.




and use these funds to provide a great many services to their citizenry, both of which are, in my view, excellent things.


yes.


They are also much smaller societies, largely homogenous, and with very different histories and traditions of political life.


And so therefore TINA! (There Is No Alternative!).

Nonsense!

[The Magistrate]

170. Gird Your Loins Against The Neo-Liberals, Dear!

Check suspicious strangers on your block, be sure your doors and windows are locked, and look carefully in the closets and under the bed each night, for you never know....

"Keep watching the skies!"

[dumpster_baby]

173. aniother sound argument

I am devastated

[struggle4progress]

105. Mostly it raises the question: what is the reporter doing?

Most people (Chomsky and Zinn included, I expect) don't make their intended public pronouncements about political matters in response to email queries from old friends.

[seventhson]

I am voting AGAINST Nader because he is an asshole spook and

schoolmate of Rummy and Carlucci at Princeton.

His performance in 2000 has created sheer hell and the murder of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands.

But for Nader Gore would have won in 2000.

So Nader deserves NADA and Chomsky and Zinn are off their rockers.

A resounding rejection of Bush is what is required here;

THEN we pressure Kerry to FIX what he, too, is partially responsible for due to his sucky voting and politics.

But NOTHING Kerry did is WORSE than Nader's ego-driven drivel saying Bush and Gore are the same or that Kerry and Bush are the same.

I think he is a spooky shadow government tool.

[seventhson]

41. I am voting AGAINST Nader because he is an asshole spook and

schoolmate of Rummy and Carlucci at Princeron.

His performance in 2000 has created sheer hell and the murder of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands.

But for Nader Gore would have won in 2000.

So Nader deserves NADA and Chomsky and Zinn are off their rockers.

A resounding rejection of Bush is what is required here;

THEN we pressure Kerry to FIX what he, too, is partially responsible for due to his sucky voting and politics.

But NOTHING Kerry did is WORSE than Nader's ego-driven drivel saying Bush and Gore are the same or that Kerry and Bush are the same.

I think he is a spooky shadow government tool.

[seventhson]

42. I am voting AGAINST Nader because he is an asshole spook and

schoolmate of Rummy and Carlucci at Princeron.

His performance in 2000 has created sheer hell and the murder of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands.

But for Nader Gore would have won in 2000.

So Nader deserves NADA and Chomsky and Zinn are off their rockers.

A resounding rejection of Bush is what is required here;

THEN we pressure Kerry to FIX what he, too, is partially responsible for due to his sucky voting and politics.

But NOTHING Kerry did is WORSE than Nader's ego-driven drivel saying Bush and Gore are the same or that Kerry and Bush are the same.

I think he is a spooky shadow government tool.

[seventhson]

45. sorry for the dupes (I can't edit/delete them for some reason)

mods help?

[Beacho]

47. I don't think I trust this reporter

Because I heard Howard Zinn say exactly the opposite in a phone interview on Majority Report. He was emphatic that while Kerry was not the lefts choice, it would at least give them a ledge to stand on, as opposed to having none with Bush.

He seemed very sincere and belabored the point throughout the entire interview. He never mentioned the safe state bullshit and said this was the most important election for progressives and the rest of us.

I think this reporter is making assumptions and I want to see confirmation from Howard Zinn

[Feanorcurufinwe]

49. Notice there is no context whatsover provided for the Chomsky quote.

[mzmolly]

71. I was thinking the same thing. I'd like to see the context.

:hi:

[BiggJawn]

48. Well, shit, guess I'll stay home and put my CC away, too....

I live in Indiana. my state ALWAYS votes ReTHUG for President.

So, to take what "The Great Perfesser" says to heart (considering now, that I'm just a stupid blue-collar man with dirty hands, not possessing a finely-honed "Beautiful Mind" like Noam) then I can stay home on Election day, take down my "Kerry for President" signs and bumper stickers, and not send any more $$$ to John Kerry, because Noam Chomsky says it doesn't matter WHO I vote for, Bush will win Indiana, so I can vote for Lyndon-fucking-LaRouche if I want and it won't affect the outcome....

What happens if all Liberals and Progresso-centrists take Noam's advice and vote for Pat Paulsen? "My state went for Bush last time, so it won't make any difference IF I EVEN VOTE, because the Great Perfesser said so...."

OK, so maybe I don't have a PhD, but something seems seriously WRONG here with Dr. Chomsky's thesis.....

[nolabels]

73. That name "Pat Paulsen"

That is funny, that guy lived just down the street. A lot of us kids passed by his house on the way to our elementary school in the neighborhood (total suburbia circa 1960's). It was the first time he was running.

All of us kids pestered him endlessly for bumper stickers. One day on the way home from school we all stopped by his place. After several minutes of ringing his door bell and him not answering we heard noises from around the side of the house. His gate was open so we walked around to the side of the house (his bathroom was located on that side I guess)

One of the taller kids knocked on the shower window while he was in it and so he opened it. He seemed kind of angry, but it didn't matter to us, we still all asked him for some more stickers :D



http://irregulartimes.com/exprogressive.html

[BiggJawn]

84. No wonder he never smiled....

You kids drove it out of him. :7

And yes, (for the literalists out there) I KNOW Paulsen's dead. I use him to illustrate a point, OK?

[nolabels]

86. Really was great fun, not making that much fun of him though

He made it on TeeVee a couple times (Back then, TeeVee was God), the whole freaking Town of Orange,Ca was in awe (Orange county = Proto-freeper land)

Sorry to hear about his passing, but at least he wasn't responsible for letting other people get killed like Tricky Dick :-(

[BiggJawn]

96. I remember when he was the first "Perennial Candidate"...

But that wasn't the only thing he was known for, was it? Wasn't he a sort-of regular on "Laugh-In"?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

55. How to send a message to the DNC

http://www.democrats.org/contact

[Swamp Rat]

61. Logic Prof. Chomsky?

What happened to your logical reasoning Prof. Chomsky?

How do you know what state will be "safe" by next November?

What statistical analysis are you relying on and does it account for "flux?"

If the plebs follow your advice Professor, what will happen to the "safeness" of any given borderline state?


The Ivory Tower is starting to lean... remember Pisa Prof. Chomsky?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

70. A prediction.

None of Chomsky's defenders will address the substance of your post.


And I hope I am wrong.

[funnymanpants]

155. Ah, well maybe by polls?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe by a poll? Maybe becaue in the past when a poll has shown candiate A 20 points in the lead, candidate A has always won, even if not by 20 points?

Of course, you will say something like "Well, polls are not 100 percent accurate!" True, but I suppose a meteor could hit the earth, too. I suppose theoretically Nader could get win too, so we should vote for Nader, since voting for Kerry will steal votes from Nader and throw the election to Bush.

The meaness against Chomsky and Zinn is really repugnant. It sounds we are on the freeper board. Some duers can't stand to have any dissent in opinion.

Chomsky is a moron? Oh please! The man pioneered the field of linguistics. If you disagree be specific rather than resorting to name-calling.

[Swamp Rat]

180. HEY! Are you talking to me funnymanpants?

I said NONE of those things that you accuse me of. You have to do better than this:

"Of course, you will say something like "Well, polls are not 100 percent accurate!" True, but I suppose a meteor could hit the earth, too. I suppose theoretically Nader could get win too, so we should vote for Nader, since voting for Kerry will steal votes from Nader and throw the election to Bush."

You admonish me for things you believe I MIGHT say? Then, you answer your own fictional question? The next sentence makes no "linguistic" sense to me.

"The meaness against Chomsky and Zinn is really repugnant.."

This accusation is groundless. Show me where I have been "mean" to Chomsky. Show me ANY comment I made about Zinn.

"It sounds we are on the freeper board."

Are you insinuating that I am a Freeper? Be honest, and be prepared to defend your accusations.

"Some duers can't stand to have any dissent in opinion."

My questions, in fact, were made from a dissenting viewpoint.

"Chomsky is a moron?"

Where did I call Chomsky a moron?

" Oh please! The man pioneered the field of linguistics."

How do you know that I am not a linguist myself? What sage advice do you have that can help me understand the deeper linguistic structures of your advice to me.

"If you disagree be specific rather than resorting to name-calling."

You might want to apply that advice to yourself.

[The Magistrate]

181. The Problem, Sir

Is that some people are so constituted as to view any expression of disagreement with their own views as an attempt to stifle them. This seems to me to betray the existence in such persons of both a profound lack of confidence in their own views, and a desire to stifle the views of others themselves....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Swamp Rat]

182. I agree, and it reveals the absence of logic.

If I were to argue Nader's case, at this time, I would go to another forum. The reason I come to DU is because I want Bush out of office.

If I really thought Nader could make a difference, I would invent a time machine and return to a time when he might make a positive impact. Unfortunately, the only significant difference he could make, at this time, would be to help elect George W. Bush.

[Dr Fate]

79. Thanks for NOTHING oh, benevolent benefactors.

Us non-millionare, no-healthcare wage earners appreciate it.

[vernon_nackulus]

80. counterpunch is not a very good source

I've found a lot of their 'facts' to be pretty bad in the past.

For example, 'Al Gore: A User's Manual' by Alexander Cockburn, Jeffrey St. Clair, is very freeper like, but from left-wingnut perspective.

[struggle4progress]

113. Agree 100%. eom.

[lojasmo]

81. chomsky is a GENIUS

Those who claim that he is a fool should suffer some self-examination. I applaud Noam for voting his conscience. He obviously wouldn't do the same if he were in a swing state, but if he can safely do so, he should. I'm in Minnesota, which they're now calling a swing state, so I will stumble to the polls and vote for Kerry....hi ho capitulation away!

[nolabels]

83. Yea, but will you help anybody else to vote for Kerry?

I don't question the measurement of GENIUS, I question the use. Everything in moderation is what the Greeks thought is the best route for one's life. We are already way over the edge in many ways. Do you think it is not already broke? Does that part matter, and does it make you wake up any different in the morning, and should we care?

I care because of the fact I am living and not because of some need to stand on top of anybody. Wake up to fact of what things are, instead of what side you are on.

"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, 'yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen!' If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.' -Dan Barker (ex-preacher)"

"There is something feeble about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought! -Bertrand Russell ('Human Society in Ethics and Politics')";

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. -Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955"

http://www.miniluv.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=471

[Swamp Rat]

85. Thanks for this thoughtful post

"Everything in moderation, including moderation." - anon. Greek proverb.

I especially like your Bertrand Russell quote. My grandparents knew Bertrand as they were his colleagues in the peace movement in the early 1930s.

And thanks for the Einstein quote. I am embarking on what will become a heated debate with a couple of Christian fundies over what they have assumed to be Einstein's beliefs. This quote will come in handy.

Thanks

[nolabels]

133. You do sound like a real friend, thanks for being there

:-)

[Swamp Rat]

174. Thank you

My favorite phrase back in the 60s when I was a wee one: "You wanna be friends?"

4 year olds say this without the burden of self-conscious.

[lojasmo]

90. Um, are you talking to me Nolabels?

Perhaps I'm obtuse, but I don't understand why your quotes relate to my post.

Yes, I will help others vote for Kerry. I will canvas my precinct and register democrats to vote. I will take election day off and drive people from within my precinct to the polls. I will speak to the virtues of our local Democratic candidates. And I will attempt to convince my constituants that Kerry is indeed better than Bush.

AFAIK, however, a citizen's responsibility on election day ends at casting his/her vote, so as to why you're questioning my plans: What business is it of yours?

On edit: this is in response to nolabels :blush:

[nolabels]

132. Only in that you sound ambivalent

I don't really know squat about anything really. I really am just concerned we are playing into the "get what other expect you to get syndrome". I mostly only come here for one purpose (sometimes I get spun on a tangent) the purpose of communicating with that have similar purpose. That purpose is nothing more than getting rid of Bush. Mostly nothing more after that(but I will find some after thats over). I think it's a worthy cause, and I more than love your plans (can I borrow part of them?).

I hope we all get along and get more recruits for the cause. I think it is not that bad of deal to have a single purpose you want to accomplish as long as you can keep the other loose ends are tied up as best as possible. It is also possible to share many goals with large groups of people (probably where being a democrat comes in). I really don't think a citizens responsibility ends or begins when one casts a vote, seems to me that is just about in the middle of it. I don't want to be condescending either(We know you will do your thing,that's you and thats good). Sorry if you took offense with it, being it was just a few honest questions. I don't need to convince anybody of anything really. I also KNOW you cannot compare John Kerry with Bush, there is none.

Thank you for your reply, I am tired, can't really think now and have to go back to work at my job in few hours. Its the best reply I could give under the circumstances, I would say Peace now, but there will probably be none of that while * is in office.

[westhollywooddem]

114. So fucking what.

The typical American voter is too dumb to make this an issue. The above-named individuals are so unknown that their opinions are meaningless.

[nolabels]

134. I think you correct to a point, but in that they effect people who......

use some of their logic for reason to strive for change is where they are being underhanded. It is in their attempts to manipulate people that follow them is where they are being disingenuous.

Everybody has an agenda, what's yours?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

88. There is a point in time when you have to set aside idealism...

...in favor of harsh, cold realities. Voting for Nader does NOTHING but HURT Kerry in 2004. The anti-FratBoy coalition needs EVERY DAMN vote they can get to get the NeoCons out of power.

IMHO, Chomsky may be a genius but he's not proving it with this bone-headed decision.

[lojasmo]

91. perhaps extreme partisans believe it's bone headed

Um, Kerry was also in a fraternity, I believe.

Swing state voters who vote for Nader will hurt Kerry.

Nobody here has proven that third party votes in SOLIDLY blue states will hurt Kerry.

As long as it doesn't cost him the election, I feel that Kerry needs a little hurtin' anyway.

Iraq vote
Patriot act
No vote against the "middle class tax cuts" (we all know what they were)

These were a betrayal of Kerry's principals, and a betrayal of the nation.

[lojasmo]

142. too late to edit.

somebody pointed out I am wrong about the tax cut vote. I guess I pulled that one out of my ass, sorry.

I still think he should be slapped (by the left) for his vote on the war and for his vote on the patriot act.

I'm still going to vote for him because I'm not in a safe state. I wouldn't vote for Nader because of the crap he pulled in 2000

[struggle4progress]

168. Politics can be hard work. Nobody can choose how to vote on every issue.

Overall Kerry's record is OK, though not always great.

Remark that not all disappointing behavior necessarily qualifies as "betrayal": among a politician's top duties is the task of remaining electable, which (depending on local conditions) could require some ugly compromises; sometimes, when you want to scream and tear out your hair, it may be worth remembering that our guys don't get to do anything in government, if they're out of office.

[gbwarming]

87. Ralph Nader: Unsafe In Any State

I need a graphic.

[He loved Big Brother]

94. I will wait to hear it from the horse's mouth

http://blog.zmag.org/ttt/

[eridani]

100. So what's wrong with a 'safe state' strategy?

Hell, even Nader has suggested that people in swing states vote for Kerry.

[struggle4progress]

112. It might make sense if you knew surely your state was going for Bush ...

but it's potentially dangerous in a close election because nobody really knows what the margins will be and you can't control how many Nader votes are cast. So even in an allegedly "safe state" voting for Nader instead of Kerry might throw the state.

[eridani]

136. I find it very hard to believe that MA would not go for Kerry

If there is any hint otherwise, I'll bet Chomsky and Zinn would both vote for Kerry.

[struggle4progress]

138. You could be right. But I don't know what the margin will be ...

or how far Nader voters might erode that margin. And, of course, too much erosion would throw the state to Bush. Given the 2000 election, I think these are dangerous games, especially since they would allow the Bushistas to once again divert attention from their own election fraud by pointing the finger at Nader.

[seemslikeadream]

124. Alright everyone must check in here I have something for you all

Take a break and have some popcorn



but it's BYO on the booze or other stuff


Thanks everyone, great reading!

[dumpster_baby]

139. I will be voting for Nader if Texas is still a safe state for Bush in Nov

If you wanna make some changes, ya gotta take some chances.

[Darranar]

141. They are advocating a vote for Nader in a "safe state"...

which seems reasonable; if Kerry goes far enough on the path he is going, I might change my mind and advocate the same thing.

What's there to lose in voting Nader in a safe state?

[John_H]

146. Chomsky: I may be irrelevent outside of English Dept. cocktail parties

but if I insert myself into Nader's self serving ego trip, I bet my next book will have a four digit run!

[funnymanpants]

156. Chomsky not an English professor

He hates all the pretension of literary criticism that passes for knowledge.

You knew that, right?

[The Magistrate]

159. Kind To Puppies, Too, Eh, Mr. Pants?

Sort of an all around genuinely swell fella, that Chomsky.

"Those amazing Linguists! Is there anything they cannot do?"

[rman]

175. kinda desperate to ridicule chomsky are we, dear sir mr the magistrate?

-

[The Magistrate]

179. Is That, Sir, A Denial Prof. Chomsky Is Kind To Puppies?

Is he not a generally all around swell fella?

"We would have had Socialism long since except for the Socialists."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[struggle4progress]

166. Chomsky is actually a linguist.

Some of his early linguistic work was sufficiently general that it has found its way into standard computer science curricula.

[Sterling]

147. Maybe because the have such a depth of understanding

they realize that it's not just as simple as ABB. Seriously, people who chant that mantra look like idiots. They look like people with a 7th grade understanding of history and politics.

There are many, many people who know too much of the crimes of both parties and their collusion in matters of great detriment to our country that will never accept a candidate like Kerry. No sense complaining about it now though. If Kerry wanted the support of these people he would have cunducted himself differently over the past 4 years. Hopefully the NASCAR dads will be more gullible.

I can understand voting for Kerry this year. I myself plan to but have no misconception that men like Kerry are on my side or represent the best interest of our country. There will be no sense of pride in my chosen (for me) candidate attached with my vote this year.

[Dr Fate]

152. OR mabey millionares dont know how it is not having healthcare.

Or a living wage. Or children in failing public schools. etc,etc

[moondust]

157. A crushing landslide would send a message.

In this case--a referendum on George Bunk* and the Neocon nonsense--the margin of victory will be an indicator of the viability/nonviability/acceptance/rejection of right wing extremism.

Send a message--vote for Kerry.

[left is right]

164. You have hit it

My vote is for Kerry. He needs a landslide in all states because it's not just about Bush it is about all the neocons. It is about Delay, it's about Lott, its about Frist, it's about Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice, it's about Norquist and on and on ad nauseum.

By the way, Buzzflash.com has an interesting take on the Nader issue by Mark Crispin Miller. He is afraid of Nader especially in states with touchscreen voting because his presence on the ballot gives the neocons a place to hide legitimates votes that were actually cast for Gore.

[moondust]

171. Interesting.

Diverting every twentieth (or whatever) Kerry vote to Nader electronically would keep the total vote count accurate yet allow stealing the election with seemingly credible numbers in the eyes of the average disinterested or wingnut voter. And with no recount or verification capabilities it's bingo time! Stalin would love it!

[glitch]

184. Just what I was thinking - what makes Chomsky/Zinn think their votes will

be counted? One way or the other?
What are the Diebold numbers in MA anyway?
BTW - belated welcome to DU!

[Pachamama]

160. Howard, say it isn't so!!!!

My hero is voting for Nader....?

No place is "safe" as long as Bu$h is occuping the oval office and there are computers in the mix...

:scared:

[w4rma]

163. pompous fools (nt)

[mountainvue]

172. I hope they've

hatched their escape plan when the Busheviks come for them if they should get reelected. Whatever.

[Zynx]

178. Nader doesn't deserve any votes, safe states or not.

He is a vile and egomanical person who I would not vote for in ANY circumstances.