corrente

Though I think the New Yorker has been great after sloughing off Tina, and Philip Gourevitch is usually reliable, I think he's a little off the mark here:

After all, a Democratic strategist said to me over drinks recently, “There are five—five!—Democratic seats in the Senate up for grabs in the South. We could lose four. I think we will. And the Republicans could have a majority for thirty to forty years. Do you understand what’s at stake? George Bush with no concern about reëlection, a filibuster-proof Senate, a G.O.P. able to raise a billion dollars a year, packed courts, government shrunk to whatever level they like, gerrymandered districts.” A colleague of the strategist, who was a bit soberer, agreed. “This has the potential to be one of those periods in the country’s history when a single party dominates for a very long time—unless we nominate the right guy.”

It's the "a bit soberer" bit that me a little ticked. In fact, this is an eminently "sober" assessment of what democrats (yes, I am using the small "d") are up against, fighting the Republicans. And this doesn't even mention fact that the SCLM whores for the Republicans 80% of the time, or the role electronic voting machines could play in stealing the next election.