I've already said my bit about this, but it's happening again. What is everyone flapping about the loyalty oaths afraid of? Is Dean going to lead a rebellion, splinter group, 3rd party in September? Is Nader? Is anyone else? No and no. In fact this is shaping up to be the first election in a while where there will
be no spoiler. Just R v. D mano a mano.
It's as if your fear of Bush has made you all completely irrational. If we don't fall in line this week our candidate is doomed to failure.
Please read on...
Um, NYCO has alluded to this already, but since I'm afraid this is going to offend some people, I'm not implicating her in it--this is just where I got the idea.
After 9/11, most of America stood with Bush. I imagine a number of you stood with Bush. (I stood to the side of Bush, but refrained from cursing him out too strongly for a couple of months). If we can stand with Bush against Osama Bin Laden, we can and will stand with Kerry or whoever against Bush. But just as we shouldn't have let 9/11 blind us to Bush's faults, we shouldn't let unreasoning fear of Bush blind us in chosing our candidate either. OBL hasn't succeeded in commiting more 9/11 type attacks in the U.S. (his activities seem to be restricted to pre-9/11 type events). What he did is terrible, but he's not all powerful. Neither is Bush.
10 months is a long time. It's long enough for the supporters of the losing candidates to get over their disappointment and vote for the democrat. It's long enough for something else entirely unexpected to happen.
But if I have to see one more loyalty oath demand--what are you afraid of and how realistic do you think your fear is? And do you think you can appeal to others just by evoking fear of Bush? That was Bush's game for a long time--and it worked for a while, but I don't think it will work forever...
