>Bowles down in North Carolina. You just didn't hear much about most of
>those folks because most of them won their elections easily. As I repeat,
>80% of Dems run on all the strong positions folks demand, yet people insist
>on attributing the position of the most moderate 20% to the whole party.
Let me get the terminology straight. I take it that the extreme right-wing rump of the party (the tail that wags the dog) are commonly known as the "moderates", does this mean that the invisible majority of members, who are follow popular opinion on these issues, are known as the "extremists"?
>So soak the rich politics do work at times, although they can also get
>reversed by strategic politics by the GOP. And of course by nihilistic
>third party runs by Greens who think trillions of dollars in tax cuts for
>the wealthy don't constitute significant differences between the parties.
Or maybe the "nihilists" think what the money is spent on (welfare or warfare) is more important than whether one section of the capitalist class gets a tax cut at the expense of another section? (I presume that "nihilist" in your vocabulary also means the opposite of its dictionary meaning? That is to say, a "nihilist politician" would be someone who actually believed in something, as opposed to one who believed in nothing other than getting elected.)
I think I'm starting to get the hang of this American English now.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas