In some regards I agree: Dems are spineless, corrupted by money, play too much to the middle and thus fail to energize the populace.

We can be "radical" but must also be practical & constructive: We can work to institute instant runoff voting, which would help us to build an alternative to the Dems and Reeps. We can work to build alternative media outlets to counter the drumbeat of AM Talk Radio that brainwashes the heartland.

This election was vitally important for several reasons.

1) Some believe that Bush's extreme agenda will finally "wake the sleeping giant." Yes, people will be activated, and we must use this to full effect. However, this phenomenon will be counter-balanced by other things, the effect of which will depend on the strength of the consolidated power of the right wing, and the shifted public opinion.

+ Popular opinion in this country has shifted to the right implying that the "sleeping giant" isn't as big as it was before. (Things are so far out of kilter that we face having to shift the public opinion from the extreme to the moderate. Radical messages like, "We're anarchists and we're going to smash the state," might not resonate too well in middle Amerka - I'm exagerating for effect here).

+ The grip of the far right is so deep and wide, as I describe in "response to love kids," that an awakening of the sleeping giant could easily be supressed, made to look like fools (remember the WBAL coverage of the Nov 3 protest), coopted, or bought off. (We need to regain some of the basic institutions of power in order to give the groundswell a fighting chance. Keep in mind only about 60 people "groundswelled" the evening of November 3 when Mt Vernon should have been swarming with people. We need to be careful about wishful thinking).

+ True, we are very likely to see an energized public during Bush's second term. However, the country is poised to fall into a very long, very dark period if we are not careful. If/when we were to emerge from such a dark period (decades?) we might simply find ourselves where we are today, but with many irreparable damages. The chances of a continued and deepening rightwing revolution is far more likely than a deep leftwing revolution given the state of affairs in the US today - I hope I'm wrong on this. Ironically, radical right tax reformer Grover Norquist and the Anarchists both want government small enough that they can drown it in a bathtub.)

2) With Bush in office, we will be busy holding ground, rather than advancing our vision. True, we wouldn't have as many people energized by Bush, but most of the people who will be energized by Bush will simply be working to hold ground:
+ Stopping radical Supreme Court nominations.
+ Trying to stop the next war.
+ Fighting to preserve basic social safety net programs. etc. etc. etc.

With Kerry in office, we wouldn't be fighting some of these whacky battles, and could turn our attention to making progress. The Alaskan Refuge Oil drilling issue was included in Bush's Energy Bill as a distraction. While people worked "against" drilling in Alaske, they were not working as much "for" renewable energy and conservation of energy. We can expect more of this tactic.

With Kerry in office, we could have focused on things like rolling back NAFTA or at least having Chapter 11 of NAFTA removed.

I contend that we are worse off with Bush than with Kerry. Even if my analysis is wrong, I wanted to wipe that arrogant smirk off Bush's face. One has to wonder, if the resources devoted to the RNC protests had instead been focused on winning Ohio, would Bush be President today?

One also has to wonder whether a Bush presidency is leading us closer to our goals or further away. I wish I had faith in the American public to respond to Bush's second term by moveing toward a counter revolution; however, my faith was shaken when the American public failed to dump Bush by the fairly simple process of the vote on November 2.
.