Yes, we'll hafta disagree, Ray. First off, I'm not a Green Party ideologue (I'm a registered Independent). I voted for Nader primarily. Secondarily, in pursuit of any viable 3rd party of reasonable merit, I wanted the Greens to reach the vote percent threshold necessary for matching funds and a better chance for debate inclusion.
I don't even know who Norquist is.
Finally, knowing that the GOP is capable of such mischief, I'm not surprised if they fund or infiltrate any 3rd party on the left to siphon votes from the Dems.
But my bottom line remains that Dems have to wise up and respond to a sufficient base on the left to rebuild its strength. It can't be achieved by complaining about those who abandon the Dems because they feel the Dems abandoned them.
Being a pragmatic, I'm fully aware of the national electoral difficulty of that, which was spawned by racially progressive civil rights laws that cost the Dems much of the South. And the only Dems in the White House since have been centrist Southern governors. But how long does the party intend to hold us hostage to the South?
Viewing electoral college votes, both Dukakis and Clinton made solid inroads into other states that useta be GOP strongholds.... that's right, even a Massachusetts liberal did that. As well, parts of the South have evolved. So the Dems don't have to straddle the fence so much to achieve success.
In fact, I'm of the 'give-em-enough-rope-to-hang-themselves' camp. The economic woes of this century's first decade could grant the Dems a marvelous opportunity. Can they take advantage of it or will they squander it? If they continue to squander it, then the party deserves to decline and be replaced by a better qualified party.
Not that I see one yet. But some things take time.
A revitalized Dem party would take less time, and that's my first hope, for obvious reasons. But if they prefer to devolve into irrelevance, que sera, sera... |
