Tweet
Here's the Link to the Parrish column about Maria Cantwell I was responding to:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0607/geov-parrish.php
Here's my letter:
A little Too Late
Yes, I am afraid we have hit rock bottom in our addiction. Progressives do need to swear off voting Democratic, as Geov Parrish outlined in his column ["Solving a Problem Like Maria," Feb. 15]. No more campaigning or money until these candidates start representing us on our issues.
However, he is a bit late. The Nader/Camejo presidential campaign had everything a progressive could want, but Parrish and other pundits were recommending the lesser evilism of a John Kerry vote. A portion of his column advocating Kerry ["A Naderite for Kerry," Oct. 27, 2004] shows how bankrupt lesser evilism really is: "John Kerry deserves my vote because he can do something that . . . no other candidate can do: He can defeat Bush."
Kerry did not beat Bush because he did not represent us. He was not against the invasion of Iraq. Even when the Democrats were spending thousands (millions?) trying to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot, progressives bought Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers and swelled their campaign coffers, though they were clearly Republican-lite. Nader was high-profile and could have paved the way for people like Aaron Dixon, but progressives turned their back on their best interests and backed the Democratic warmongers.
Parrish is a day late and a dollar short, but he is correct. If progressives had built the Nader/Camejo campaign, we might have somewhere else to go right about now.
Linda Jansen
Seattle
SIRATYST (Stuff I Read and Thought You Should Too) -- “To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.” (Calgacus, as quoted by Tacitus, Agricola 30-31)"
2 comments:
I rely on Geov for news and analysis.
Unfortunately, when it comes to strategy and tactics for the movement he transforms into a smoke machine. I think it stems from a fork in his brain where thought is not allowed to pass. The thought trying to bridge the gap creates a lot of friction which results in all the hot air.
One small example: "Mark Wilson's quixotic antiwar primary campaign, and Aaron Dixon's rumored Green Party bid — are so hopelessly disadvantaged in organization, money, and support as to be politically meaningless."
Then he wraps up his article with this:
"Find a campaign you like. Get experience. Get involved. Bring your friends. Recruit their friends. Stop complaining, and seize power."
Notice how he puts the word, "meaningless" in the first statement but not the second. Things only appear meaningless to him when people step out of the world of his rarified platitudes and actually do something.
De Sententia
love the letter, concise - - i found this too about gp's two face-d-ness "Our lives begin to end the
day we become silent about
things that matter." Dr. Martin
Luther King
April 14, 2006
The Swift Boating of Aaron Dixon
Last week, Seattle Weekly political writer Geov
Parrish wrote about the campaign of the Green Party
candidate for US Senate, Aaron Dixon. No, I will
not link to the article. Parrish, usually a supporter of
third party candidates and critic of 'below the belt'
campaign tactics, became the water carrier for a
democratic party character assassination of Dixon.
Parrish focused on Dixon's prior voting history, unpaid
traffic fines, and delinquent child support. Nothing about
Iraq, social security, or any other meaningful issue, was
addressed in the post. Parrish tired to justify the mud
slinging as ‘inevitable’ in this day and age, attributing
his hatchet job to a faulty vetting of the candidate by
the party, and relevant to Dixon's credibility. I fired off
a missive to the Weekly (The Swift Boating of Aaron
Dixon), noting that just because Karl Rove and republican
operatives will stoop to that level does not mean that
progressives should stoop to their level. Two wrongs
do not make a right. Moreover, George Bush ran on a
campaign of strong character and look what that got us.
So I was pleased to see the following letter to the Editor,
printed in this weeks edition. It offers the same message
far more eloquently than my venomous diatribe, as my
friends at our Politics Night discussion can attest:
Forget Dixon's Tickets
While I usually agree with the insights of Seattle Weekly
columnist Geov Parrish, I was deeply disappointed in his
willingness to join in the smear campaign against Aaron
Dixon's Green Party candidacy for U.S. Senate ["Aaron
Dixon's Voting Record," April 5].
I think Parrish is blowing Dixon's past legal troubles way
out of proportion. If being a former cokehead or going
AWOL from National Guard duty is not enough to prevent
someone from running for (and even "getting elected")
president of the United States, why should unpaid traffic
violations prevent someone from running for U.S. Senate?
Maybe it's true that nobody in Congress has ever driven
without insurance or gotten behind on child-support payments,
but it would surprise me, even though most Congress
members are millionaires. Obviously, candidates coming out
of the grassroots activist community are not going to have the
same benefits and privileges as your average senator. And as
the Jack Abramoff scandal—just the tip of a very large iceberg
—demonstrates, many Congress members are guilty of
transgressions of far greater public import. Not to mention the
way Democrats like Maria Cantwell have enabled an illegal
war killing over 100,000 innocent people and the decimation
of the U.S. Constitution by the Bush administration, which are
the real issues in this campaign.
A multiracial, multigenerational crowd of several hundred people,
including many progressive community leaders, at Dixon's
campaign kickoff last weekend made clear they are much more
concerned about the dismal Senate voting record of pro-war,
pro–Patriot Act, pro-CAFTA, Alito-acquiescing Sen. Maria
Can't-represent-us-well than they are about Dixon's traffic tickets.
(emphasis mine)
Aaron Dixon is a longtime, highly regarded community activist who
represents a challenge to the increasingly narrow spectrum of
political discourse and electoral choices offered to voters in
Washington state and across America. No wonder some people
want to discredit him.
Lansing Scott
Seattle
AMEN! So will it be blind adherence to political party, in the belief
that your party must take or hold the Senate, or will it be stances on
issues that will control your vote?
i second this, that is the latter . . .
however, as for the blind adherence,
i'd vote for the dixon party
merle
Post a Comment