Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

There's a reason for that - the party has something of a sense of history. Cast your mind back to 1972. The Vietnam war was far, far less popular than this one, and there was a draft to help make it more unpopular. The media was four square against it (similar to present day, actually), and there were no dissenting voices that got major play (Fox, talk radio, and the internet provide those now).

Even so, what happened to the anti-war candidate - McGovern (who, unlike Kerry, had an umblemished war record in a popular war to fall back on)? He lost to a charisma challenged Nixon by a landslide.

Go ahead, have the party go full bore anti-war. Based on your postings, you'll be utterly astonished at the results.

Hmm. We had a president (charisma-challenged, as you say) who was engaged in "peace negotiations" and was promising to get us out of the war. In that sense, both candidates were peace candidates. (Here's a good summary: http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet4.html. In brief, in 1969 most Americans were against the war but supported Nixon's handling of it. Right before the election, Kissinger announced peace was a hand.) And, yes, McGovern, whose excessive modesty kept him from letting it be known that he was a genuine war hero, came across as wimpy. (I am not rising to your passing crack at Kerry.)

So, is your advice then, James, that the opposition party must never oppose a war? Or is it just the Democrats?

First off, I think you ought to consider the consequences of what you are asking for. Say we pull out of Iraq, post-haste. The end result of that is likely a nasty civil war, with the Sunnis (supported by the Wahhabists in Saudi) battling the Shia (backed by Iran).

Most likely, after massive deaths, the Shia win that on numbers. We then have an Iranian puppet regime in Iraq, giving the whackos there more power.

That's where things will go if your side of the debate wins. In this case, opposing the war is favoring a victory by very, very bad people. Kind of like the Democrats in 1863 who wanted to give up.

I mostly agree with the position of victory, though I myself don't like the fact that the war has happened at all. You (and significant parts of the US citizenry) may not like it, but Bush has dragged your nation into the puddle. The way I see it it is now US responsibility to make sure Iraq becomes a geopolitically stable state before pulling out. No other country can claim responsibility of bringing Iraq into its current chaos.

Yes, the Saddam dictatorship was inhumanely bad, but it was relatively stable. Dubya decided to play good globocop (bringing the rest of the States with him) (whatever his 'true motives'), and pulling out now will make things worse, for Iraq, for the Gulf States, for the world, than if Bush had left well enough alone.

[although it could be argued that Al Qaeda has to be neutralized; whatever the methods...]

Whatever; in the Great Tradition of IANAL, I'm Not a Geopolitical Analyst :p

"The end result... [of a US pullout] is likely a nasty civil war, with the Sunnis (supported by the Wahhabists in Saudi) battling the Shia (backed by Iran).

"Most likely, after massive deaths, the Shia win that on numbers. We then have an Iranian puppet regime in Iraq, giving the whackos there more power."

In other words, a continuation of what is actually happening, but without the US pullout.

And for that matter, who doesn't agree with the position of victory? Most losers would indeed rather be victors.

The Washington Post story was poorly-informed as were all other reports of "dems trailing republican fundraising."

Coupla points:

- this time 2001 , dems trailed by 3-to-1, now it's 2-to-1. That's a MAJOR improvement

- about 85% of funds to Dems come from donations under $250. that's a ridiculous improvement

- meanwhile republicans now DOMINATE lobbyist PAC money by 2-to-1 (used to be 50/50).

The parties are starting to represent their actual interests. We all know a politician's true constituency isn't decided in the voting booth, but in the campaign coffer. This is GREAT news for democrats and helps liberate them to really represent the people.

I think it's worth you updating your front page to reflect this.

Main source here:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/11/16/173244/43