[mburbank]

"My "theory" is pretty well supported by history. Show me a Democratic president in the 20th (I'll even grant you the 19th) who won national election based off of retreating and surrendering from a war."

Thank god you found the upside to war! I'd missed it. Weren't you burbling about about concience for poor ol' joe a few posts back. What if, what if it turns out that the majority of Democrats, and good lord, maybe even the majority of americans thinks this war is wrong? And you don't have to win an election to end a war. McGovern lost in a land slide, but we go out of vietnam. Even if someone cpuld prove in advance that being against the war would mean loosing the election, I'd vbote for the anti war candidate. And I think a fair number of other voters might feel the same way. But I'll tell you what, I think getting out of Iraq may well turn out to be a winning idea, when combined with the gross incometence and corruption of the party in power.

I don't have an ostrich policy. Show me a decent moral human being who'd agree with your rabid wolverine policy. don't mean anything much by that except to point out that when you define an oponents terms, you aren't arguing anymore. It's just a way of saying, okay, what person who's right woud be wrong like you are? In adittion, it ain't my policy on the 'war on terror' it's my ploicy on the war ion Iraq. I'm fine disagreeing with you, but hows about you let me decide what I disagree with you on, Johnny Sophist? Mcgovern lost an election. Nixon campaigned on 'staying the course' and ended up 'cutting and tunning' in Vietnam. Oh, and resigning in disgrace for petty crimes, which seems almost gentlemanly in light of current events.

""The way the country is going" is always a funny argument. i know you have this end of days thing going on, like today is the worst day America has ever seen, and look out for tomorrow! I know that plays well in partisan party politics, but it isn't in line with reality. "

Worst gap between rich and poor since the robber barrons. Millions more people below the poverty line. A president who believes he stands above the law and that seperation of powers should be on hold for the duration of a war on terror which by deffinition can't end. Global energy supply in serious trouble. A VP who lobies for torture. A president who signns a statement on an anto torture bill reserving the right to torture.
Medal of freedom for a guy who said WMD was a 'slam dunk'. An American city lost to a disatser. A head a Fema who's previous experience was as a horse judge. A presidential advisor on womens health issues who's previous medical experince was as a veteranarian. A strong probability that the President violated the law by spying on perople without a warrant, and no special prosecutor. Justice department lawyers who call the geneva covention 'quaint'. A president who when asked about the rapidly deteriorating situation in the middle east says he's only intereted in questions about the pig barbecue going on that night. A secretary of state who describes what's happening in Lebanon as 'birth pangs'. Pre-emptive war as foreign policy doctrine. I left my party, so it's hard for my viepoint to be 'partisan politics'. If you don't see all that as being the 'wrong direction', okay. I'm not enough of a history student to tell you how this comapres to other periods in American history. I do feel however it's in line with 'reality' to be concerned. I was unaware you held some sort of rights to defining reality.

"I don't like a lot of things about the Republican dominated government. I don't believe we'll need to worry much more about that come November, which is why these primary purges are important to me."

Why, Kev? Do you think the D's will win a house? Would you then be in favor of investigations, or would that not be 'in line with reality'? What IS your hope for November? That through calm disciplined bipartisan negotiation the Republican party will start playing nice with domestic stuff and the Democrats will realize that birth pangs can be great?

"The only Democrats I honestly see offering domestic plans, as well as alternatives to fighting the war on terror, are the DLC/PPI types. They will be purged from the party though, so don't count on Daily Kos saving them."

Okay, so, wait. The good dems are going to get purged. Which means either the blinded by Bush hatred lefty blogosphere dems get a house, which would be bad, or the Republicans would maintain control and while 'don't like a lot of things about the Republican dominated government', you also 'don't believe we'll need to worry much more about that come November'. I don't get it.

Please clarify.

And if I said I said the Liberman loss wasn't about Bush, I apologize. My contention is that it wasn't solely about the war in Iraq. It's all about W. But while I'll cop to personally hating W, I think you can be so against him for actual things he's actually done that you wouldn't want to vote for anyone who wasn't vigorously shouting that W is very, very, very, very bad for the country and the world. I strongly disagree with the President on every single issue I can think of. I want my representatives to represent that. If, as almost always, I'm forced to vote for the lesser evil, I will. But if and when I'm offered an alternative, I'll vote for it. All of which is moot in this case, as I'm not from Connecticut.