Re: Nader, et al
On Aug 7, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
But… but… doesn’t this rather undercut your insistence on the difference between the two parties? You laid a lot of stress on the fact that some, or even many, Democratic officeholders express mildly liberal sentiments. And of course you’re right, there are such. But if the “swing” legislators were elected to be Bush-lite — then the liberalism of the Kennedys et al. is just decoration, isn’t it? Which was sorta my point, except that I think the legislators are responding to their donors rather than their constituents.
How is a contradiction a “decoration”? The Dem House delegation
ranges from the very liberal to the moderately conservative. The very
liberal mainly come from solid urban districts while the
conservatives come from sub- and exurban districts. How can you
assume that the rightwingers from thinly populated districts are the
“real” party?
And how is what you say about the donors different from how I
characterized the Dems as a party of capital that has to pretend and
even sometimes act as if it isn’t? Donors don’t vote. Even a secure
blowhard like Charlie Rangel wouldn’t get re-elected if he voted like
Tom Tancredo.
Doug