frank scott wrote:
>
>
>
> and rove really aint so smart, when you consider his opponents...
>
Maybe they are not all that dumb, if you consider that their both their sources of finance _and_ the real political values of their central leadership probably puts policy ahead of _mere_ winning of elections. No doubt Kerry (or Dukakis) would have liked being in the White house, and did what they could, consistent with their chosen parameters, to win. But that liking surely did not carry with it a willingness to disturb at all seriously the premises which bind the two parties together.
Were the Democrats in he least serious either about winning _or_ about serving their (alleged) constituencies, there would already be a filibuster under way in the Senate, blocking _all_ business until Bush promised not to fuck with Social Security!
As far as I know, two Democrats (maybe three) during the 20th century put principle before service to social stability: Bryan when he resigned as Wilson's Secretary of State, Governor Murphy of Michigan when he refused FDR's (private) request that the National Guard be called out to smash the Sitdown strikes, and Adam Clayton Powell, who got kicked out of Congress by his honorable peers.
Carrol
Bryan should be remembered for the occasion he stood with Debs, Lenin, Luxemburg, the Irish Socialists, and the IWW in opposition to WW 1, not for his services to religious know-nothingism.