Conservatives Should Read ThisDavid Sirota,
writing in Salon says that Obama should go "progressive" (i.e., socialist). But get this bit of nonsense:
Democrats need to discard other lies, too -- especially those about Bill Clinton. To hear the pundits tell it, Clinton's first-term pitfalls underscore why the next administration should avoid "governing in a way that is, or seems, skewed to the left," as the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus most recently asserted. History, of course, proves the opposite. Recounting Clinton's early years to Politico, a lobbyist correctly noted that the new president didn't move left -- he pushed conservative policies like NAFTA, thereby demoralizing his base and helping Republicans take Congress.
I think we can all recognize that as fantasy, that governing from the left led to Clinton's downfall. NAFTA did not pass during Clinton's first two years. Sirota's wrong here, but of course, he is wrong in a way that works for his argument.
So it is with conservatives who are claiming that the demoralized right wing was the reason we lost this election. Look, if the right wing didn't come out to prevent Obama's winning the presidency, what good are they? Fair-weather friends are not what you want when you're fighting a war.
But I don't believe the right wing sat on their hands this time. They may have been reluctant to support McCain whole-heartedly, but they for damn sure didn't want Obama. So they did the right thing. But it wasn't enough.
We all recognize how foolish the left sounds when they lose an election and claim it was because their candidate wasn't radical enough. So why do some conservatives find the argument compelling when the shoe's on the other foot?
