>>First of all, how did the DP "legitimate the Bush regime"? It seems to me that the Bush regime legitimated itself, by clearly winning the Electoral College vote (assuming the challenges and recounts currently underway do not reverse that vote, which seems rather unlikely to me). Which is the way presidential elections are legitimated in this country, or the *regular* way it is done, at any rate.>>
To some of us it SO OBVIOUS that the DP isn't even a loyal opposition; it's just loyal. The Dems and Repugs promised electoral reform and passed legislation after 2000, but neither party did anything at all to make sure the legislation was actually enforced properly (because the two parties don't want any competition, because they both think they can successfully manipulate the current system of voting to their advantage, etc.). Instead, what we got was still yet a further skewing of the entire system to the right. For example, why for f-'s sake would they put the Dept. of Defense in charge of ALL overseas voting? Not even counting the lifer dog military vote, that's an estimated 3-6 million American votes put in the hands of Donald Rumsfeld.
When will the Dems ever give up the 'go right' strategy? On the political front, the Dems officially endorse what is a very corrupt, criminal regime by not opposing, for example, illegal invasions and occupations. As the earlier posted Tom Hayden's piece says:
>> It is time for the Democratic
leadership to end its collaboration with the Bush
administration - with its endorsement of the
offensive on Fallujah, the talk of "victory" and
"killing the terrorists" - and now play the role
of the opposition. The progressive activists of
the party should refuse to contribute any more
resources - volunteers, money, etc. - to
candidates or incumbents who act as collaborators.>>
However, some just think it isn't possible for there to be a progressive wing or progressive front with a voice in the DP. As for crystal-ball gazing, one doesn't have to do that. I suggest steaming, wriggling entrails if you are of that bent. OTOH, the more rational people can just look at what prominent Dems are now saying. There is no discussion amongst them that I can see about moving left and going after a progressive, anti-war agenda (the two can be most explicitly linked--500 billion plus a year for war and militarism, no health care or retirement for you all). Not unless you think Dean and Kucinich are going to take over the Democratic Party (and in the case of Dean, the results won't be very socially progressive anyway). In the words of Sen. Edwards, Barrister Cornpone of the Carolinas: Weee weeeel keeel awww the taaaiiirarorists. In the words of Sen. Clinton: dark hairy terrorist men without visas drain my vital bodily fluids.
BTW, the entire Hayden piece is well worth reading for its analysis of the situation in occupied Iraq:
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20041122/027391.html
Fugazy
-- _______________________________________________ Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10