If you have "no place to go," come here!

Annals of career "progressive" idiocy

Paul Rosenberg:

This is a battle for the long haul, and we need to understand what that means and act accordingly.  As one speaker pointed out, it was 30 years from Goldwater's defeat in 1964 to the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994.  We've gone from the nadir of 2002-2004 to the triumphs of 2006 and 2008 in lightening speed by comparison, which is a big part of why those triumphs have not paid off in terms of fundamental change the way that want them to.  It takes time to change deep-seated assumptions, habits and calculations--not to mention institutions.  It doesn't need to take 30 years.  But historically speaking it's hardly surprising that less than half a decade isn't enough.

Shorter Paul Rosenberg:

Funding for life!

NOTE No, I don't have to offer a "constructive alternative," other than to save yourself, because the career "progressives" won't. But I'm, er, hopeful that green shoots are appearing. I should probably work up a post on that.

No votes yet


vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

The moral of the story is that the Democrats won, but we didn't, and that's how they want it.

It's not clear what might change that, but continuing to support them can't be the answer.

coyotecreek's picture
Submitted by coyotecreek on

I still marvel at the fact that a little over two years ago, the "Democrats" had the world in its hand - (basically) all three branches of government and a mandate to DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY.

And what was the first thing out of their collective mouths? But but but....we don't have 60 senators, so we have to compromise. Not once (in my memory) did any of these fools propose and fight for anything that would bring about change.

I propose more change....VETO (Vote Every Turkey Out) them all in November. And vote for anyone but Obama and the Repug POTUS candidate in 2012.

sisterkenney's picture
Submitted by sisterkenney on

You mean like Green Party candidates that won't sell you out? (hint) :-)