>Why shouldn't he? The Dems are going to let him get away with it, aren't
>they, in the name of bipartisanship? All the more reason to support them,
>eh, Nathan? --jks
"The Dems" aren't going to do anything- some will oppose Bush violently every step of the way while other will embrace bipartisanship. The key is how many of them will do which. Which will depend on mobilization of activists to pressure Dems to stay in line. Jackson and other civil rights leaders have launched a campaign at the grassroots to pressure Democratic Senators on the Ashcroft nomination specifically and more generally on holding the line overall.
But the whole "the Dems will just cave" will be a self-fulfilling prophecy if folks assume it is true. Politics is about elbow grease and organizing, not santimonious reiterations of simplistic cant.
I know folks on LBO love wallowing in the hopelessness of it all, as Carroll describes it, but there are going to be five hundred separate political fights over the next four years. We will lose a lot of them, but we will also win a good chunk as well. Again, how many of each will depend on elbow grease and organizing.
And I am all for electing a larger number of progressive Dems versus conservative Dems. But guess what, the larger the majority of Dems overall, the larger the number of progressive Dems likely to be in office as well. The Great Society was passed when there were 67 Democratic Senators - enough that the inevitable betrayals by the conservative Dems could not block all of the better initiatives. Less Dems in Congress have meant worse legislation. Simple as that. And therefore plenty of reason to keep voting Dem, even as we organize to replace conservative Dems with progressives in primary elections.
-- Nathan Newman