[B5JMS] ATTN JMS: Are you a millionaire ?

[b5jms-admin at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Robert Perkins <rob_perkins at hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 16:49:25 GMT
Lines: 58

On 20 Jul 2002 04:09:06 GMT, jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:

>>But I think it's a baseless, and, I might say, entirely inappropriate
>>and distressing thing to say about "the Republicans," whose collective
>>will is not as clear-cut as that.
>
>Yes and no...but a lot of the party's stands are in total lock-step.  

True, true. And not the point. Matthew's claim was that never casting
a vote for the Republicans entitles one to a clear conscience where
his franchise is concerned. Leaving aside the notion that a foreign
citizen may accuratly judge U.S. politics, it simply begs the same
question about "the Democrats." 

>For instance...I know somebody who ran for office as a Republican last year
>(jms looks around the audience with doe-like eyes of innocence, letting folks
>figure out the rest for themselves)

Who, Jerry Doyle or John McCain?

>...who told me that as part of running, the
>Party gave him a box full of notebooks that contained what was to be his stance
>on any number of issues.  He was not to diverge from them.

Yes, yes, the "platform". Again, it begs the question, "What do the
Democrats (or any other party) do differently, if anything?"

>But most troubling...he was given what was essentially a loyalty oath,
>stipulating that he would support George W. Bush in the forthcoming primaries
>*exclusively*, and not McCain, and if he didn't agree, the Party would withhold
>its financing from his election bid.

Same question, did not the Democratic party exact a similar loyalty
oath for Al Gore from candidates? Largely, I didn't see much more than
lockstep from the other side during the election season last time. 

>So much for the marketplace of free ideas.

Can't argue with that. Well, maybe I can: witness the relatively
strong performance of the Reform Party in '92 and '96, before
infighting took them to pieces (and before they chose less popular
wackos like Buchanan to front for them). And, the Green Party this
last time around, (and the Independent in '80, IIRC) though to a much
smaller degree.

I think the ability to express an idea is still more or less
unfettered. 

I don't claim to agree with the modus operandi of either major party.
I *do* claim to be ignorant of much of the Democratic Party's
interactions with candidates, how they decide to fund congressional
campaigns, etc. Perhaps someone who knows candidates from the Democrat
side can offer perspective on that. Maybe even you, Joe? Do the
Democrats push a platform on their funded candidates the way you saw
the Republicans do it?

Rob


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 22 Jul 2002 05:42:57 GMT
Lines: 25

>Yes, yes, the "platform". Again, it begs the question, "What do the
>Democrats (or any other party) do differently, if anything?"

I don't know.  Does one legitimize the other?  If both are doing something
wrong, does it mean therefore that either are free from criticism?  I've never
understood this logic: "Well, HE does it too."  So?  And in this case we DON"T
know if he/they do it too.

>ame question, did not the Democratic party exact a similar loyalty
>oath for Al Gore from candidates?

Dunno.  Are you saying they did?  If so, if you know that to be the case, I'd
be interested in hearing about it.  If you don't know it to be the case, then
it's just pettifogging.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2002 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)