Reply #227: The sad thing is that if Ralph had kept his peace in 2000

[Leopolds Ghost]

Then the Dems would not have needed to filibuster Alito... but the tragic thing is even if Gore had won (and it was not the same Gore, but more generally it was a Gore with less autonomy and influence within the party whose every move towards genuine populism was countered from within by folks like Donna Brazile) then the same New Democratic handlers would be in power still, looking for ways to royally f*** up, continue the Reagan revolution, and generally be blamed for every misfortune that happened ANYHOW during the Bush administration (for which Bush was not directly responeible for causing.)

Would we be better off? At present, yes... but would we have a better FUTURE ahead of us, if the Clintonites had presided over 9-11 and Katrina (assuming they did not have the perspicacity to prevent it, I am not denying they would not have f**ed up the aftermath as badly)?
I dunno... sometimes major setbacks are necessary to prevent a long, slow decline into social and political regression.

Then again, Nader was not about that, he wasn't seriously trying to solve that, and his third party approach was ultimately every bit as unworkable and counterproductive as trying to cooperate and share power with the New Democrats within the system.

The only two options I see are massive peaceful revolt (like in Ukraine) or a major popular revolt within the Democratic party (which the New Dems will be sure to say "oh no, there goes the 2006 elections because we are not all united, now is the time to be more like the Republicans when so many of them are doubting their party!")