[PEN-L:31598] Re: Re: Re: Could Wellstone still win

[Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wellstone, unlike Clinton, had a background of organizing for progressive
causes.  I never got the impression that he made many compromises to
ingratiate himself with the powerful, except for his vote for the Defense
of Marriage Act.

On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 11:08:52AM -0500, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>
> Michael Perelman wrote:
> >
> >   Mondale would represent a long
> > step backwards, except that at 75 he would not need to compromise to get
> > reelected.
>
> Michael, you are still assuming (or at least this text seems to assume)
> that Democratic support of imperialism or Democratic anti-labor policies
> are the result of "compromise" or "weakness." Clinton may have executed
> a brain-damaged man for the sake of votes in New Hampshire -- but I
> would assume that he also believed that killing a reasonable number of
> criminals (or alleged criminals) every year was in itself a good thing.
> I would assume that any differences between Mondale and Bush (or between
> Wellstone and Bush for that matter) are over the best strategy and
> tactics to maintain world-hegemony and exercise control over Europe's
> and Japan's access to oil, not over whether those goals are a good thing
> or not.
>
> Carrol
>
> P.S. The main rationale for the death penalty (no matter who does or
> doesn't get killed) is to provide the police and prosecutors with an
> effective weapon in plea bargaining -- also to maintain police morale.
> The latter point was very clear in a WSJ editorial on the Mumia case a
> few years ago. And I presume Clinton sincerely believed that police
> morale should be kept up, and that killing a few people was a cheap
> price for that.
>

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx