I'm guessing that's what Steve meant (that the guy is being railroaded, and this should be called out by the dems.) But seeing as they can't even confront Bush on the issue of starting a very questionable war, I doubt they'll make a peep on this one.
Do the democrats really think that any pro war democrat can win against a pro war republican? That makes absolutely no sense. If you want the US to use it's military to kick some ass then you are going to want the republicans in charge, not some whimpy democrat. Why won't the dems play to their freakin' base? I mean while they still have one.
2004 is going to be a 2000 repeat. I'll have to vote for Dean (or Sharpton?!?!) because I'd like to see less war instead of more. But this will just split the left vote a la Nader and we'll get 4 more years of Bush. This is insane. It's like the GOP is secretly in control of the DNC.
Just venting. Nothing to see here...
|
Do the democrats really think that any pro war democrat can win against a pro war republican? That makes absolutely no sense. If you want the US to use it's military to kick some ass then you are going to want the republicans in charge, not some whimpy democrat. Why won't the dems play to their freakin' base? I mean while they still have one.
2004 is going to be a 2000 repeat. I'll have to vote for Dean (or Sharpton?!?!) because I'd like to see less war instead of more. But this will just split the left vote a la Nader and we'll get 4 more years of Bush. This is insane. It's like the GOP is secretly in control of the DNC.
Just venting. Nothing to see here...
- jim 2-23-2003 7:56 pm