Seth Ackerman wrote:
> >[CLIP] doesn't that get Dems credit for lower unemployment?
> >
> > -- Nathan Newman
>
> So when Clinton cuts the deficit, he shows a commitment to fight for working
> people to get lower interest rates? But when George Bush raised taxes to cut
> the deficit, he was just deferring to the miserly budget-balancing orthodoxy
> of Republican bankers, right?
My query is, How useful is it to argue with committed Democrats. We would not bother to intercede in a quarrel between two factions in the Republican Party. We would not bother to argue one side or the other in a dispute on the GE Board of Governors. As Doug said the other day (I've lost the exact post) the thing to do with the Democratic Party is to destroy it. So wouldn't it be more useful discussing various routes to that goal than arguing endlessly with Nathan. He is defending the indefensible, and his interlocutors are beating a dead horse.
Carrol