Why SHOULD the Democrats end the war?

[CTLawGuy]

Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has not done anything meaningful to end the war?

Let's say they do manage to end the war before the election. Then the war is no longer an issue. The war is currently a big issue in Dems' favor. If it were over, then Republicans might benefit in 2008 as the country turns to other issues.

Isn't it easier to just do something meaningless and/or futile and then throw up your hands? and then cash in in 2008?

This same logic was considered in 2002. If we vote for the war, then (they THOUGHT) it can't hurt us as an issue in the 2002 midterm.

If it goes well, we share in the credit;

if it goes badly, we say we were lied to, or that Bush mismanaged the war, or that he abused the resolution, or we weren't REALLY voting for war.

Our asses are covered either way for THE NEXT ELECTION. Oh and thousands of people will die but whatever...

For 6 years we were told all we needed was a Democratic majority and all our problems would be solved. We need a majority - don't go after bad Dems. Primaries are a waste of time and money.

Well, we have the promised majority, and things are NOT better. The war has not ended. Bush's warrantless wiretapping has not ended. Guantanamo is still open. Bush still rules DC by fear and intimidation.

The majority failed to be the panacea it was heralded to be. Why?

Because it ultimately matters WHO is in power, NOT what PARTY. This war was started by people worried about nothing but the next eleection and I believe no serious effort is being made to end it becuase of concern about the next election, not out of a desire to do what is morally right.

I'm gonna say something radical here. The two party system is NOT democracy. If you get a choice between two candidates, and I get to pick both candidates between whom you get to choose, you have an illusory power. I have all the real power because I set the parameters in which YOU work. I can make sure whomever you choose serves my interest.

REAL Democracy is in the primary. The primary is where we look at the PERSON, not the PARTY. It is where we can choose the person who best fits what we believe. It's where we vote FOR someone, not AGAINST someone. In Congress, especially in Dem-held districts, primaries rarely happen. We need the primary in Congressional races to elect people who will GOVERN, and not sit in power figuring out how best to keep it.

We did this in CT in 2006 and boy was the establishment unhappy (esp. in CT). While we ultimately could not get rid of Lieberman, we have severely weakened him becuase he was forced to lie about his true feelings about the war in order to get reelected. Now he has shown his true colors by doing things such as supporting the surge and fundraising for Susan Collins. I doubt he will run again in 2012. What the primary ultimately did was demonstrate the anger of the country about the Iraq war. The politicians took notice. They became frightened of us, the unwashed masses. We beat a "safe politician" for the nom and nearly sunk him in the general, denying him a majority of votes.

The DC establishment hates primaries becuase they represent this real power in the hands of the masses. They'll hate it some more if and when we organize another challenge to another Dem who fails to do what is right. If we want future governments to govern by moral principles and not by politics, we must take primaries seriously, and use them frequently to hold our officeholders accountable.

[Chomskyite]

1. My simple reason you keep trying to end it

Because it's immoral to let it continue when you CAN stop it.

Do justice and let the heaven's fall.

[Demeter]

2. Because It's Killing US

The country as a whole, individual Americans one by one, and not least, the rest of the world.

[SergeyDovlatov]

3. because they share responsibility for death of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians

as well as financial ruin that the war brings to this country.