Read other letters about this article

• Saturday, October 4, 2008 06:35 PM

  @ Brightstar

  During the last two years, the democrats have not had a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. This means that if the minority party wants to make sure nothing gets done, nothing will get done, as long as it is politically tenable. I remember numerous times that bills with timetables for the war were put forth, only to be filibustered to death. If the democrats really wanted to stop the war, they could have simply let no funding get through, but I don't think that was a place most wanted to go. As Glenn has pointed out over the last few years (or at least as long as I have read), the democrats certainly have been quite inept in pressing the GOP politically, which is a different matter. I don't think it's from a lack of trying though. I don't buy your premise that the two parties are identical - I don't think that we would be on the same road we are now on (as well as so off-track) had Al Gore been president when 9/11 happened. The conservatism of Bush, which has been embraced by a majority of the current GOP, is radically different than the centrist liberalism of the majority of the current democratic party in many important ways. I do wish as it sounds like you do that that 3rd party candidates were more able to compete than they are now, but for me this election is too important to not vote for Barak Obama, the clear alternative to more of the same.

  —ericurus Read ericurus's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel