Reply #3: So we should be the party of rigidity that fears debate? [View All]

The Democrats are divided over Iraq. Would you prefer a strong-arm tactic that totally disregards these differences of opinion and imposes artificial order on people. Would you really prefer that the Democrats ignore the issue of Iraq?

The US public is genuinely divided over this issue. The fact that the Democrats have differences of opinion makes them part of this ongoing dialogue with the public. It is possible to have a debate that invokes the issues in the way that the public feels them, as conflicting, difficult and at times painful. There is nothing wrong with this.

Do you really think the public wants a lock-step regime that has imposed an opinion from above and will not brook any dissent? Isn't that what we are trying to get away from? Isn't the sponsorship of free and open debate one of the things we are 'selling' to the American public this fall as a reason to elect Democrats?