|
This should also send a quiver of distress up the spines of the most Machiavellian Democrats.
In 2004, they could have their war and their anti-war voters, too. They had that special power to say, "We are all you've got."
But what happens if Republicans begin to oppose the war? That is to say, what happens when the pressure of the American masses, slowly waking to the reality of the war "over there," is such that the war becomes an issue? With two pro-war candidates, there was nothing left to the confused masses but Roe v. Wade on the one hand and the cherished homophobia of the right on the other. What if, these most guileful of Dems must ask themselves, there are more Walter Joneses, and antiwar voters can turn away from their Democrat-dependency to register their opposition to the war?
The polls that are increasing Maalox sales along Constitution Avenue not only showed that the Republican position of maintaining current troop levels in Iraq was unpopular, but that the most unpopular position was the very one articulated by the John-John Democratic Party ticket for 2004 -- that is, send MORE troops. Ain't life funny?
Stopping the war and bringing down the Bush regime may be the best to happen to American democracy since abolishing slavery or giving women the right to vote.
In defense of my vote for Kerry last year, I voted for him not because I agreed with his pronouncements on Iraq, because I didn't agree with them. I voted for Kerry because I perceived him to be a pragmatist who would try increasing troop strength and one or two other things before throwing in the towel and withdrawing. Falling recruiting figures don't even phase Bush the way they would Kerry. Bush will continue, in Mr. Goff's words, "to roll the dice in Iraq with other people's lives and hope for a miraculous breakthrough."
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(891 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
