|
Mercnbeth -> RE: The Democrats and the Anti-war movement (7/18/2007 2:07:26 PM)
|
quote:
since the Democratic Party does not have the sort of divide (conservatives and the religious right) you see in the GOP. They don't? Just because their religion is outside the traditionalist definition, the anti-war 'cult' is no less extreme. Should you need an example I'd refer to the election of Senator Joe Lieberman after the lost Democratic primary.
Many others would disagree and have gone so far as to say so in no uncertain terms: quote:
Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.
Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war. They voted for it or they supported it. That single, stupid decision has cost us 2,592 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Lieberman and Company made a colossal mistake -- and we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night.
I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me -- while I'm glad they've seen the light -- their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.
Now at first I wasn't quick to assign this as a party specific representation from a person, although given a place of high honor at the last convention, does not speak or represent a party. However, according to his own quote later in the article he is employing the use of the royal 'us' in his warning to the Democratic party members who don't line up behind the anti-war banner.
He goes on to end the statement quoted by saying.
quote:
P.S. Republicans -- sorry to leave you out of this letter. It's just that our side has a little housecleaning to do.
"Our side" combined with the other references in the article make it clear within the party there an polarizing issue. Every time Speaker Pelosi appears before the cameras and the crowd noise is picked up by the microphones its obvious.
This has no bearing on my position. I stand behind the belief that, for the foreseeable future, the only good incumbent is one who loses.
I also stand behind my initial assessment of last November's election results. Prior to the resulting change in the majority of both houses of Congress there was no way for the Democratic party to lose the 2008 Presidential election while obtain significant majorities in both houses. Now - there is a way for both not to occur. AMAZING.
The best way to showcase a person's or a political party's lack of leadership and integrity is to put them in power.
A simply majority vote in Congress is all that is required to stop funding. The Democrats have a simple majority. It could be voted on tomorrow or during the next pajama party and the war is over. Each day, and with each facade of action, more voters who put them in as the majority are begin disenfranchised. It matters not to me or anything I hold important that you believe that to be the truth or not. It doesn't even matter that you agree with it. Enough do, enough are, and enough of the slim majority that effected last November's change are now realizing that once again in November they should vote NO to anyone representing the status quo regardless of party.
Edited to add quote source: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=197
|
|
|
|
