On being a Democrat and being anti-Blair. . .

[Stargleamer]

I have always thought that the goals and ideals of the Labour Party in Britain and the Democratic Party in the U.S., although not entirely the same, are similar enough that Democrats and Labourites would feel a natural kinship and affinity with one another. When Tony Blair willingly and even eagerly decided to join the Rove administration in waging war on Iraq, I felt really angry and irritated, but also somewhat stifled in expressing such feelings given the perceived likelihood that most Tory leaders would have done the same if they had been P.M.

Now I feel that Tony Blair is the LBJ of the Labour Party, with Iraq effectively functioning as its Vietnam. I feel a sense of betrayal as I thought Tony Blair would have learned the lessons of the Vietnam War, like most Democrats here have.

All this leads to a question: if Blair runs for re-election, would you rather have him lose to an anti-war Tory, if there is such a thing as an anti-war Tory ? For me, right now I'd go with the anti-war Tory. It seems to this U.S. Democrat, Blair has torn the Labour Party asunder.

[Patsy Stone]

1. Been thinking about this myself...

Not British, but, big fan of the UK. Anglophile, Democrat, Blair supporter; faithful viewer of Prime Minister's Question Time.

No, a Tory PM would be bad. Especially Michael Howard.

I was very PO'd at Tony when he supported *. I understood that Blair had more to lose by not supporting, especially with the timing of the whole thing (9/11, Afghanistan, then this). Everything was OK by me (with regards to Blair) until things started sucking really bad -- waaaaaay past the "Shock and Awe," when the "hearts and minds" apparently were to have been won. The "bad intelligence" softened my feelings towards Tony a bit, but then Blair continued to support * and the cabal.

So, do you commit world leader politcal suicide by breaking from your biggest world ally, or do you stick it out? That's tough. The fact that the Tories are also divided on the issue means it's above party at this point. Since that's the case, I'm goin' with Labour.

My .02

[autorank]

2. Blair is scum, a war criminal. Labour is a disgrace.

The notion that we have some tie to Labour is curious. Even the Torries have a much more liberal social-economic policy than the American Democrats. I suppose there might be merit to a global social justice movement but Blair is not where we start.

Just look and listen...he is the "hallow man." All flurry and candy ass cuteness without any substance. He's the school boy who always raises his hands first, says just what the teacher wants, and takes his long con and inflicts his inner torments on the public. The American infatuation with Blair is both significant and ironic. If Blair had opposed the war or simply not joined the "coalition," there may not have been a war. The irony is that the right wing here tolerates Blair even though he is such a non-stop drama queen.

He has betrayed his people and his political cause.

He should have been removed as PM a long time ago.

Labour is decadent and deserves to fall and crumble.

I am a big fan of Great Britain. I like it so much, I hope to see a free Scotland and Wales soon, along with an England... three times the fun.

[manhattanite]

3. Liberal Democrats

The Democratic Party (USA) needs to start forming alliances with the Liberal Democrats (UK). They are the third-largest party in Britain and their ideals are more in line with the Democratic Party than Blairite New Labour which has become nothing more than the UK chapter of the Republican Party.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/