On Nov 4, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Sean Andrews wrote:
> But isn't this a bit like shooting fish in a barrel? I mean this
> prediction is almost as assured as the sun rising. I'm interested to
> know: do you think they are wrong? Do you think this is at all
> evidence that it might have been better to actually be remotely
> leftist in terms of the policies actually written by the
> administration? Or is this just wishful thinking on the part of
> people who wouldn't know a leftist policy (or leftish politician) if
> it landed on their head? I sense you think it is something like the
> latter but I think it could be both, in which case, you are right to
> chide these folks but not because they aren't right. Right?
I always like the Suck.com slogan - a fish, a barrel, a smoking gun.
There are two problems with the libs position, at least. One is that the American public's political instincts are fairly conservative. Going left isn't going to win elections, really. Maybe after Carrol Cox organizes the masses, things could change, but not now. And the other is that the American political system - the whole shebang, meaning the structure of "checks and balances," campaign finance, ideology, built-in deference to the rich, etc. - would never allow such a leftish turn, even if BHO wanted to make it. Which he doesn't, and never did - and wants to even less now than two days ago.
Doug