Reply #158: We stand on two sides of the same issue,

[LWolf]

and see two different paths to address it. In reality, there is always more than one way to the goal. There is always more than one goal. As my favorite politician would say, they are "interconnected and interdependent."

For some, removal of Bush is the only goal. Regardless of what or who we replace him with, and what direction we take when new leader takes office.

For others, removal of Bush is one piece of the big picture. And you can work for that big picture from more than one direction.
For some of this group, "becoming" more like what you are working to defeat is defeating yourself. Those that have the wisdom to see this are not assisting the enemy. In the big picture, looking past any single election, we do not win anything if we become the status quo we are fighting. Therefore, some feel that the democratic party is willing, and even determined, to become more like republicans to make sure that they "win," then they have already lost, regardless of the outcome of the election.

It's a different perspective. More about winning a war than a battle.

Again, I will most likely vote for the democrat in November, regardless of who it is. George W. Bush has wreaked enough destruction on the nation, the planet, and my personal profession and livelihood, that I would replace him with the rotting carcase of a rat found in a back alley somewhere, if that's what was on the ballot come November. That doesn't mean I like the rat, or will work to invade and take over all the world's grain stores once he's in office. For my strong support at that point, you've got to put someone on the ballot who will bring the change I'm working for. That's the party's choice. Go with the status quo because you think you can't win without it; win now, lose later.