It's good that the revolution will be televised, er, made mainstream. Obviously, over the next two elections, those supporting the unpopular, misconceived war will be found to be scoundrels -- patriotism the last refuge of a scoundrel, etc. etc.
It's a peaceful revolution that the democratic process allows. I'm just hoping that the Dems don't get target-shy again; their platform should be security and equality -- security from foreign threats, security from living without health insurance, security from natural disaster -- and equality, or making every vote count, giving the have-nots a chance to be a have. That's the positive, first move. The second is defining the Republican national agenda as "corruption, cronyism, incompetence." Maybe thrown in "endless deficits" and "pork" and you've got a new Democratic-majority Congress and a completely hamstrung Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.
I go to protests for these kinds of chats, not the "feeling of unity" and all that. One can only be disappointed.
"giving the have-nots a chance to be a have"? I think you have your talking points switched, that hasn't been Dem policy since JFK was around.
"security from natural disaster"? Where could someone possibly live on this planet to be free from natural disaster?
"security from living without health insurance"? When did that become a "civil right"? Of course, that one's easy, MSA's.
I think the hypnotic repeating of security, security, ad nauseum, is, of course, a recognition of the Dem's basic weakness, to wit, there aren't 5 of them in the country who could be trusted to be an effective Commander in Chief. Most of the people in the country still understand this, despite their dissatisfaction with Bush.
"Most of the people in this country" would rather have quasi-ex-hippy skirt chaser William Jefferson Clinton as their Commander in Chief rather than George "The Decider" Bush. If anything, Bush's bluster is precisely what wasn't needed after 9/11: his language, as well as his policy, was/is overblown, inaccurate, misleading, and hubristic. That much is obvious; the Fox News poll showing 32% satisfaction with his presidency indicates this.
Security is the Dems' weakness; their strength is their non-insane domestic policy, which differentiates themselves from the drunk-behind-the-wheel Republican Congressional majority. The Dems could simply match the foreign policy/security weakness with their obvious strength of not letting the middle class turn into po' folk, which the Republicans are completely comfortable with, because those very people are their supporters because of divisive cultural issues margins. "What's the Matter with Kansas" talks about this, about many people voting against their economic interest.
I didn't say health care is a "civil right." Others have made the argument, like FDR, but I just think there should be a safety net for people, like a Republican construction worker who gets injured on the job whose surgery costs $25,000, when his worker's compensation is far less than that. The result is simply that his children have unnecessary hardship, when it's obvious to me that our country, with its $12.41 trillion GDP, shouldn't be hanging its citizens out to dry.
The bluster of the Right regarding terrorists, "everything changed after 9/11," the indefinite detention of brown-skinned foreigners, the monitoring of US citizens without a court order, and so on (name your Constitutionally illegal activity) -- all this shows a lack of cojones, not the evidence of it. Just because a Democrat doesn't say "fu** yourself" on the floor of the Senate, and doesn't say "bring 'em on" while US soldiers are in the line of fire, doesn't mean they can't man the Executive Office effectively.