Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What is preventing a change in policy is the fact that us leaving would be a full on disaster. We're stuck, and though our presence fans flames in certain sectors, on the overall, it is one of the only forces keeping any infrstructure in the region.
|
Our presence not only "fans the flames," it keeps the rival factions from having to reconcile. Conservatives who complained about welfare should be able understand this, but they seem to have a hard time getting it.
Quote:
|
There are a few Dems who truly would pull us out, but that doesn't mean the majority of them have any intention of actually pulling us out and aren't merely playing the issue for votes.
|
I think the opposite is true. Most Democrats want to be more aggressive in using Congress to force a change in policy, but they are being held back by the leadership and the moderates, who (1) fear the consequences of moving too far to the left (notwithstanding that the public is already there), and (2) recognize that they need Republicans to get a veto-proof majority, and that they won't get the Republicans if they make the issue partisan.
The result is that many Democrats are frustrated with their party for not doing more, and for not making more of an issue out of it. And if all they wanted to do was take Senate seats in Minnesota, Maine and Oregon in '08, the Democrats could politicize and polarize things on this issue by hanging the whole fiasco around the necks of the Republican party, and Senators like Norm Coleman, Susan Collins and Gordon Brown. That they aren't doing this shows that they are behaving fairly responsibly, moreso than Republicans would in similar circumstances.
