On Aug 7, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
> But... but... doesn't this rather undercut your insistence on the
> difference between the two parties? You laid a lot of stress on the
> fact that some, or even many, Democratic officeholders express mildly
> liberal sentiments. And of course you're right, there are such. But if
> the "swing" legislators were elected to be Bush-lite -- then the
> liberalism of the Kennedys et al. is just decoration, isn't it? Which
> was sorta my point, except that I think the legislators are responding
> to their donors rather than their constituents.
How is a contradiction a "decoration"? The Dem House delegation ranges from the very liberal to the moderately conservative. The very liberal mainly come from solid urban districts while the conservatives come from sub- and exurban districts. How can you assume that the rightwingers from thinly populated districts are the "real" party?
And how is what you say about the donors different from how I characterized the Dems as a party of capital that has to pretend and even sometimes act as if it isn't? Donors don't vote. Even a secure blowhard like Charlie Rangel wouldn't get re-elected if he voted like Tom Tancredo.
Doug