Alan Rudy wrote:
>
> Just to be clear, Carrol: You are saying that the National and State Dems
> lost the Massachusetts Senate seat on purpose and on principal. [clip]
Not exactly. 'They' want to win, but they want to win without unleashing dangerous mass currents. I would assume that the leadership knows as well as you and I do that their current policies are very apt to lose elections. This would almost certainly be true of the national leadership and probably of most state leadership. It is very dangerous to regard people as fools.
I am NOT assuming some elaborate conspiracy here. I'm just assuming that it pays to take people at their word without strong evidence to the contrary. Specifically, I assume that Obama and the varius circles he relates to, are convinced that current conditons demand bipartisnship. It is clear to you, to me, to almost everyone on ths list that (for example) the Democrats _could_ in fact push something like single-payer through the Senate by a combination of strong-arm tactics and utlizing the "bully pulpit" power of the President. They have chosen not to. The obvious reason for that choice is that they too oppose single-pafyer. They too choose not to empower union organizing. Instead of devoting ourselves to ranting at the DP' stupidigy, etc. I think we should seriousoly inquire WHAT it is that would drive intelligent men and women to feel so strongly the need for bipartisanship (i.e., the need to avoid conflict within the ruling elites themselves _OR_ encourage dangerous mass currents among the public.
They _do_ remember the '60s and the '30s and even the days of the Haymarket riots and the Pullman stike. They do not, at all costs, wish to awaken sleeping dogs.
Carrol