>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.
One reason I respond frequently to Nathan is that he's the best left apologist for the Dems I know, and it helps keep on one's rhetorical toes to spar with the best. Another is that there are several hundred people who lurk here, and who may be uncertain of what attitude to take towards the Dems, so I like to get my two cents in wherever possible. And a third is that I just like to argue.
Doug