--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > <j_alexander_stanley@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > > > authfriend wrote: > > > > Disagree. I think the combination of Obama in > > > > the White House, Pelosi and Reid in Congress, > > > > and Dean and Brazile running the party machinery > > > > is potentially deadly. > > > > > > > Why and in what way? > > > > I'm also curious to see the answer to that. > > Essentially, because they pose no substantial > opposition to Republicans. They aren't committed > to furthering progressive goals. > > Yesterday Obama backed off another one of his > promises: He isn't going to increase taxes on > the wealthy after all, purportedly because it > would be bad for the economy. > > The question is whether, in the long run, a > stagnant, compliant Democratic Party is more of > a threat to the nation's welfare than the risk > of McCain acting impulsively to get us into > another war. It's not an obvious choice, > especially since there's no guarantee Obama > would have the good judgment to keep us out of > one, given his track record of backing down on > the positions he took during the primaries.
The way I've seen it explained/spun, the spinelessness of the Dems since the 2006 election is due to their not having enough votes to override a veto. It strikes me that it would be better to have the Dem congress working with a President Obama than rolling over and playing dead for a President McCain. In any event, I'm voting on the basis of who is less likely to stack the Supreme Court with fundie religious nutters.
