Reply #91: Sorry if you [View All]

think I was patronizing you. That was not my intent.

However, I think my point stands: Whether or not Bush & the Repukes stole the last 3 elections is irrelevant.

Not in the sense that things wouldn't have been different if Gore or Kerry was in office, no. Of course they would have.

Not in the sense that that stealing elections is immoral, illegal, and who knows, maybe fattening, no. Of course they are wrong and should be punished to the full extent of the law.

But in the sense that they are in office, and are able to legally and in reality exercise the powers of that office.

That's just a fact, one so many people seem to want to ignore. But it can't be ignored; it sits there like a wart on your nose.

"Impeach, impeach, impeach" is the cry. Good enough. I agree. But first elections must be won. Is crying "impeachment" constantly going to influence the swing voters that are desperately needed in a positive or a negative way? IMO, a negative way.

Get the Congress-critters first, then make the attempt. Why did the Romans so consistently beat the "barbarians"? Because they were soldiers rather than warriors. They were more concerned with winning than glory, although they did not despise glory. Carrying this metaphor forward, in the current situation, Repukes are the soldiers; Democrats the warriors. They may be fighting for their freedom, but the Rs are fighting to win. Did the Romans consider it "cheating" if they led the barbarians into an ambush? I don't think so.

OK. The "relevant" thing is that the Rs are in power and the Ds are not. The "relevant' thing is: Can we win in 2006. Everything, EVERYTHING, else is distraction.