The impotence of opposition.

[TheBigotBasher]

I read a diary here that jsut loved the idea of President Obama losing to to Perry or even Bachmann, the logic was that the left would again be united and they could rebuild, they could remove the DLC and everything would all be perfect for the next candidate.



The left may be united. Hey even blue dogs may once again stand with the Democratic Party but it would be impotent.

We could march. Marching did not stop this



We could protest. We could count on our remaining blue digs to filibuster.

Whatever we do, we will do in opposition. Not in insufficient support for a policy that does not go far enough. Opposition. An inability to do anything. Perhaps, with the addition of another Supreme Court radical for generations to come.

In the UK, a supposedly moderated Conservative Party, "moderated" even more is now taking the very existence of the Welfare State back to decisions about who the "deserving poor" are. There is no longer a moderating influence for the GOP.

Now go tell those who will have no protection from the ravages of unemployment that there is no difference between Perry and Obama. It is probably easier to do when you run a website given a financial kick by Grover Norquist.

[bluestateguy]

1. That was the Naderities logic in 2000

Surely, they reasoned, a Bush presidency would so alarm and damage the nation that it would most certainly mobilize the American Left and radicalize the populace for a real grass roots movement.

Yep. That worked out real well for Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean, who won one whole primary (Dean's home state) between the two of them.

And that surely propelled John Kerry to the White House.

But don't worry, they have a whole menu of excuses as to why their script didn't play out as planned. Maybe we'll even hear some of them on this thread.

[Speck Tater]

2. If voting could change anything the powers that be would have outlawed it by now. nt

[TBF]

3. That's for sure. nt

[SlimJimmy]

4. +1 for truth.

[hulka38]

5. It comes down to being correct on the big issues

which the left almost always is. It's past time for the DLC to defend Democratic ideals and support new party leadership from the left.

[Number23]

6. That line of "thinking" has been popping up all over this place like ticks on a hound dog

And what's really shameful is that not only did that idiocy get over 300 recs, but the OP is still posting one Obama hit piece after another. Doesn't even have the decency to slither back into whatever piece of old cheese he crawled out of.

How can anyone take anyone seriously that's A) okay with President Perry and b) believes that through more suffering, Dems will become more united? What planet are these people coming from?

And any Dem "unity" that would come about from this disaster would shatter to a million pieces the MILLISECOND a Dem took office and was actually able to implement some of the policies that these people have screamed about. These people, and yes your Hamsher reference is entirely appropriate, would rather have nothing at all than "progress" that takes us where we gotta go, no matter how maddeningly slow it may be.

[Claudia Jones]

7. not true

That idea has not been expressed here that I have seen, and most certainly not frequently, although people have been accused of expressing that idea. It is a smear and it is false every time I have seen that accusation.

Show us where someone "just loved the idea of President Obama losing to to Perry or even Bachmann, the logic was that the left would again be united and they could rebuild, they could remove the DLC and everything would all be perfect for the next candidate."