(no subject)
Feb. 12th, 2007 11:47 amGlenn Greenwald has a brilliant post up about what the Dems and netroots are and, more importantly, aren't doing to press for an end to the Iraq war. He neatly summarizes the pragmatic points undoubtedly involved in the decisions to so far pull their punches to the extent of complete ineffectiveness. They all make sense to me, but the question he, his commentors, and I am left with is this. How many lives is the party willing to sacrifice in Iraq in order to hold onto power and possibly to win the '08 election?
Ultimately I think that is what it comes down to. To me it seems absurd that the maintaining and gaining of power should be the end result either party should be striving for and yet it does seem to have become a power for power's sake game. I don't think either party should maintain a majority for more than a few voting cycles, we've seen the results of that play out in corruptions and scandals over and over again through the years. It's healthy to have spend some time as the opposition party, it gives you perspective, makes you hungry again and minimizes complacency. Yes I'm a little less afraid of a complacent and corrupt Dem government than I am of its Republican counterpart, but neither outcome seems like a good one to me, frankly.
Ultimately I think that is what it comes down to. To me it seems absurd that the maintaining and gaining of power should be the end result either party should be striving for and yet it does seem to have become a power for power's sake game. I don't think either party should maintain a majority for more than a few voting cycles, we've seen the results of that play out in corruptions and scandals over and over again through the years. It's healthy to have spend some time as the opposition party, it gives you perspective, makes you hungry again and minimizes complacency. Yes I'm a little less afraid of a complacent and corrupt Dem government than I am of its Republican counterpart, but neither outcome seems like a good one to me, frankly.