Originally Posted by moosenose

Well, the problem is that the far left seems to be running the Democrats into the ground with their anti-war stance. Just take a look over at D.U. for an example of what I'm talking about. Doing nothing is no longer an option, and hasn't been since 9/11. Attacking Bush because we went into Iraq isn't helping, ESPECIALLY when so many Democrats in Congress voted FOR the IWR, and are now attacking him. When was the first time the term "quagmire" was used to refer to either Afghanistan or Iraq? I'll give you a hint: It was used by Democrats in office BEFORE a single US troop set foot in either country.

Frankly, I'd like to see us go to a WWII model. In WWII, once Pearl Harbor happened, almost everybody gave up their differences and worked TOGETHER. How was this possible? It was possible because there was a leftist in office, and the Right gave up their personal political axes for the good of the nation. (read up on the Isolationist movement and the German-American Bund for two examples) If there were a Democratic President in office after Clinton, and he had done EXACTLY what Bush has done, we'd be united behind him. But I don't honestly think (and this is not a reflection on people here, but rather a reflection on the far left as a whole) that the far left has it in them to cooperate for the greater good. They have an agenda to push, and will push it no matter what the cost is. In fact, I believe that the higher the cost is to the nation, the more they like it, because the ultimate goal of the Far Left is to destroy America to make the world safe for "progressive experiments" like the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cambodia/Kampuchea. Now I don't believe that ALL Democrats are that way, but given Zell Miller's defection and the obviously famous "Joe-Mentum" of the 2004 primary season, I think the Cynthia McKinneys are much more in control of the Democratic party than the Joe Liebermans are.