[WS:] Don't get me wrong - I had no intention of criticizing people who took whatever action was available to them to defend themselves from a conservative assault. I have nothing but words of prize for them. My point was different - that the left has no strategy, only tactic and not a very effective one on the top of it. As Marv aptly pointed out, protest action cannot be sustained for very long without organization - and our opponents understand that very well. The US left has no organization - and there is a systemic reason for that. Our electoral system effectively excludes minority interests from political representation. So it does not matter whether the left has a good "organizing" strategy or a lousy one (or none at all) - whatever it does it cannot win under the current electoral system. And without political representation - it has no power to compel its supposed allies, let alone enemies, to any course of action.
In a way, this is similar to the Soviet system in which I grew up - except that over there people had no illusion that electing different faces would make any change, they knew that the system that guarantees certain political parties prominent places at the table must go before any other change is possible. Changing the electoral system that provides political representation to people who either have none or at best had to rely on proxies of obtain semblances of representation should be the number one strategic goal - certainly not the final goal but a necessary condition for any meaningful changes of the system. That, however, does not seem to be the case, at least for certain people on this list.
A corollary to this argument is that it is necessary to form political alliances to achieve this strategic objective - not just with progressive Democrats but also with conservatives, libertarians and any other group that is excluded under the current system. Rejecting such alliances on some ideological principles is suicidal.
Wojtek