John Halle wrote:
>
> I don't think the leadership has any intention of allowing this to
> happen-even if it could be shown to be a winning strategy for the dems.
This was given empirical substance by the 1988 campaign. Dukakis could have won (and probably knew it) had he financed Jackson's campaign workers in registering voters and getting them to the polls. And Jackson's subsequent actions seem to indicate that he did not really object to this dismissal of his followers.
> The leadership after all, is deeply principled-the operative principle
> being that wealth needs to be continually transferred from the population
> to corporations at any cost. They will stand for this principle even if it
> means losing elections.
I think one could insert "(1872-2000 and on)" after "leadership." At times conditions called for giving minimal substance to rhetoric, but rarely. At the time of the sit-down strikes FDR in public proclaimed neutrality, but phoned Gov. Murphy of Michigan urging him to call out the National Guard. Murphy was one of the small handfull of Democrats who at least in part believed their own rhetoric.
If one wishes to establish a record as a prophet, it is easy. Simply predict that if it still exists in 2050 the Democratic Party will still be supporting these principles.
Carrol