Sheeple like you ensure that this remains the situation by refusing to grant that people have a choice, insisting that they rally behind the Democrats rather than build a serious electoral alternative.
>Unlike, say, the x-USSR where nobody asked for popular
>opinion, in the US the reactionary trogs that run this country have been
>freely elected and enjoy genuine support of the majority of the voters -
>who
>also consistently reject progressive candidates of any shape and flavor
>from
>Kerry to Nader, to Dean and to Kucinich. Why do you think progressive
>candidates do not even make it to the primaries, let alone winning any
>elected offices?
The rejection of Kerry has nothing to do with a rejection of 'progressive' principles since he didn't represent any. Neither did Dean. Both are straight down the middle, fiscally conservative pro-war Democrats. In the same fashion, the victory of the reactionaries beginning in 1994 had nothing to do with support for reactionary policies, since few people actually understood what Republican policy was - a quite conscious decision by the Republicans. Obedient commentariat guzzlers are of invaluable service to these miscreants, by submissively retailing the ruling myths while reproaching the people for their blindness. If anyone cared to examine the polls on policy, there is a clear basis for a left-wing populist political movement and party in the United States. If half the people who had whined about Nader taking Democrat votes had voted for him instead, you would have seen the beginnings of such a movement. Yet who will even risk such a gesture when the whipped 'left' apparatchiks insist that the gesture is futile, that the people are too foolish and reactionary and that therefore the Left had better cling like limpets to the Titanic (starboard side of course)?
_________________________________________________________________ Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger 7.5 today! http://messenger.msn.co.uk