Don't blame me, I voted for Kang.
Dave, you're absolutely right about the counter-intuitive nature of my position. We can save the argument about the two-party system being an inherently right, natural, or inevitable status quo for later; for now, the bottom line is that you play your hand. If you throw your chips and run away crying, nothing gets done. I think it was Benjamin Disraeli who said, "'Tis better to rage with the machine, than to rage against thy'n self". But this is a wasteful, unwieldy, exhaust belching, machine pieced together with parts from many different decades. In short, the Democratic party is a beat-up '76 Lincoln Town Car with two different colored doors.
In my opinion, it's time to molt, to shed the flaky, ugly exoskeleton that couldn't win a losing contest with the Chicago Cubs. Think of it as new growth after a forest fire, or like "creative destruction" in the business world. Rapid defections in political parties happen overnight- after twenty years of sub rosa machinations. The DC apparatus is a lost cause. So we are waiting in the shadows, ready to jump out and bludgeon the DNC/DLC to death at the precise moment the GOP finally steals enough rope to hang itself. But fear not my friend, for you will be on the protected list when my people enslave devout Christians to build temples to Dionysius and till the marijuana fields.
Essentially, I believe what I believe, and the Democratic party believes in...something, I guess. You guys, on the other hand, believe what you're told to believe. Which is why so many pro-choice Republicans, and so many whose instincts run counter to our foreign policy toe the line anyway. Your party loyalty requires you to cope with an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance, which inevitably backs you into untenable positions. Hence, long term advantage. I've gotta run, but I promise you a more comprehensive response (read: an actual answer to your question) in the near future.
Jim Jeffords? That is so last term.
While I enjoy both devouring the veal-like flesh of the unborn and critiquing the grammar of others, there are bigger fish to fry here. I can count, and am well aware that the Democrats are not in the majority. But for the record, "we" are only democrats with a lower-case "d". I speak for a movement, not a party, not that party anyway. That's really the rub here; and that's our long-term advantage.
The Democrats in Washington have earned your incessant lampooning. You couldn't fictionalize a more vicious intellectual widow maker. They more or less stand for the right things, but only in opposition to you guys. They most assuredly do not speak for the Bush-hating demographic in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, just for starters. Basically, they suck, the writing's on the wall, and you can't regroup without cutting ties first anyway.
Mark my words, you guys will not sever well from your victory umbilical cord. See, your party's betrayed you too. Probably worse. You can't tell me part of you isn't seriously concerned about that guy, that our doubts aren't just a wee bit justified, no? And let me ask you this: what would've happened if Michael Moore had called for the assassination of Vicente Fox? What if it was 1999 and people in the Clinton Administration slapped him on the wrist with a wink and a nod? Just asking.
But seriously, the Republican Party is a trainwreck waiting to happen. You are trapped in the political parallel of irrational exuberance. The house I grew up in isn't worth $700,000, but it is; the Christian Right isn't right about everything, but it is. My point about the war versus stem cells wasn't about the nature of our particular parliamentary system, although I did appreciate your nod to the inherent messiness of this process. No, I'm talking about justification, not just winning.
It is, on it's face, absurd to declare war (war?!) a less pressing moral problem than stem-cell research. Y'all seemed to think that, if honest internal calculations rendered this war "just", you were entitled to surrender to your bloodlust and enjoy it like a football game. But even with honest internal calculations the only way to justify this war is if the potential long-term benefits outweigh the potential long term risks. Well, if there's a better candidate to pass precisely that moral standard than stem-cell research, I'd like to hear it. Everyone's "supposed" to find war lamentable, while at least 60% of this country thinks stem-cell research is probably a fundamentally good thing. Where do you get off even equalizing our respective outrages, let alone pretending your case has more gravity?
