What now? I'd like to be optimistic. I'd like to believe the Democrat Party will prove me wrong but that seems so unlikely. It wouldn't matter as much if we were not at war but we are and the Copperheads just won and won big.
It's not all doom and gloom. Lieberman, a pro-war candidate, won in a solidly blue state and he won convincingly. Ned Lamont was a one issue candidate and that issue - the war - wasn't nearly enough to put him over the top. Also, the GOP losses, as large as they were, were no larger than the historical average for the party of a president in his sixth year on the job. So the case can be made it could have been, and maybe should have been, a lot worse. The final ray of sunshine comes from the way the Dems got over the top: they had to find blue dogs. I don't know how much of a difference having new conservative voices in the Democratic caucus will be, but it can't hurt.
That said, Iraq looms over everything. And it's hard to see the Dems coming to power as anything but a calamity to the war effort.
2 comments:
How can you bring harm to something that is already a calamity? A majority of all US Citizens favor some sort of disengagment of US troops. At least Rumsfield's retirement shows some signs of the current administration listening to the people.
So it's your opinion that's things couldn't be worse? I'm not looking to put words in your mouth, Dexter. I'd really like to know.
Post a Comment