[lbo-talk] Nader, et al

Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net
Tue Aug 7 11:59:06 PDT 2007


On 08/07/07 02:37:32 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:


> How is a contradiction a "decoration"?

It doesn't seem to be much of a contradiction; the aisle-crossers and the libs seem quite content to remain in the same big poorly-ventilated tent. The liberal side of it is purely decorative in the sense that it's structurally deprived of any effect on events, by virtue of the aisle-crossers' aisle-crossing.


> Donors don't vote. Even a secure
> blowhard like Charlie Rangel wouldn't get re-elected if he voted like
> Tom Tancredo.

Indeed. But he doesn't have to; the aisle-crossers do that for him. So everybody's happy:

-- Wealthy corporate interests -- the sort of people political candidates have to have as donors -- need not fear the empty talk of the Kennedys;

-- Charlie Rangel stays in Congress;

-- Charlie's fuddled constituents (at least those who bother to vote) are secure in the happy conviction that Charlie's in there fighting for them.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list