Gar Lipow writes:
I think you are overestimating Friedman and those he repesents. I don't think it is a "warning shot". I think it is a hope of splitting the vote - to finish off the Democratic party once and for all. (I'm sure their reasons differ from those on this list who say the Democratic party must be destroyed.) I doubt though that it is serious. Oh Friedman (and Broder who picked it up) may be serious. But it seems unlikely actual movers and shakers are at this point. Both Friedman and Broder are notorius wishiful thinkers; I suspect that is what this is. They see a chance that the Republicans may lose in 2008 and can't stand it. (Given their record of being wrong, that does not mean much for Democratic chances.)
======================= Sorry, Gar, I don't think two of the leading columnists for the New York Times and the Washington Post - those pillars of the bipartisan US political-media complex - are out to "finish off the Democratic party once and for all" in order to create a one-party state. So far as I'm aware, neither is a card-carrying Republican.
More plausible is they believe the two parties are lagging on energy and social reforms, and are trying to prod them to act. I don't know what Broder column you're referring to, but Friedman is quite clear in the piece I posted about the need for a higher gas tax, not only because of global warming, but also and perhaps mainly because of the oil price and the US vulnerability to supply, and additionally because he thinks the revenue can be allocated to the fiscal deficit. That's not an uncommon view in corporate America these days either. So I do think holding out the spectre of a possible Green threat to its left is Friedman's way of communicating to his very good friends in the DP Beltway establishment that they had better get on with it. Unlike some of us perhaps, Friedman has never struck me as being as goofy as he looks and sounds.
