If only politics were about the big issues. Most politics is personal and people go for candidates that speak to them on some personal level.

Without personally-motivated issues, getting the Dems to take back Congress is just one more move in a gigantic game of chess. But in reality Congress's decisions actually affects us, so I would hope that we are each doing what best serves our own interests (selfish & selfless ones), and that the Dems' supporters are moved by pragmatism, not blind allegiance.

Josh -- You're not accusing them of being ... simplistic ... are you?

Yes, the race is about the issues Mr. Shue cares about, and which speak to him on a personal level. And there is only one solution: take Congress back from the Republicans, so that George Bush can be dissected, pilloried, investigated, humiliated, and revealed for the un-American swine that he is.

Maria Cantwell is not the problem. George Bush is the problem. Stop thinking small.

What makes you think that, if the Dems win back Congress in November, Cantwell will do anything to bring the troops home and end the war? She's already stated she "has no regrets" about taking us into Iraq.

RE Shoephone:

A hell of alot more then Mike! or Bush would do.

Giffy - I'm just cynical enough to believe that Bush would bring some troops home in the fall (October Surprise) in order to try and prop up his pathetic poll numbers and sway the election. Not that it would work.

But honestly, when it comes to the war, Maria is not a leader.

I think that "stopping the war" and "helping the Democrats win back Congress" should not be pitted against each other as mutually exclusive election issues. According to editorandpublisher.com the latest Gallup poll shows two thirds of Americans want the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq, with one third wanting this to begin immediately. If the Dems could just adopt some positive and hopeful sounding version of these positions they would be right in the mainstream of voters.

JOSH FEIT Wrote:
"...the race is about helping the Democrats win back Congress. That’s bigger than just your issues, Mr. Shue..."

What a silly statement. Let's continue to jepordize the lives of Iraqi citizens and U.S. combat forces in order to ensure a Democratic Congress?

Ever been to Walter Reed Hospital, Josh? Next time you are in the neighborhood, go for a visit. It is a decidedly unpleasant place, and I would think your opinion about Democrats and Republicans would change after you have strolled its halls for twenty or so minutes.

Josh, I would have expected by now you would have realized there really isn't much difference between Republican and Democratic politicians except for a few well timed and chosen adjectives....Oh, and money!

--Jensen

Diana -- Yes! If only the Demomcrats could agree on something like the Levin-Reed Amendment!

Oh, wait ...

What bugs me about the anti-war left is how absolutist they are (troops out now!) And even more irksome, how self-righteous they are. It’s a complicated situation, and a personal revulsion to bloodshed just isn’t a compelling, stand-alone argument.

I agree completely. Though this war was started under false pretenses and many people have died, pulling out simply ensures the deaths of tens of thousands more that would result from the inevitable anarchy, civil war and warlord mongering that'd come if the US were to pull out cold turkey. Yet people who ironically believe in peace and no war insist on the US pulling out at once.

Another irony comes from people who say they love this country but don't believe in war. They forget that the reason this country even exists in the first place is because the colonies DECLARED WAR on the British. This is not to say the Iraq War is correct, but to say that all war is wrong is folly, when your country exists because of it.

Josh,

Yes, knee-jerk anti-war sentiment is silly. There are good reasons to go to war, and there are good reasons to stay at war.

Contrary to what your post implies, however, there are also very good reasons to end the Iraq war.

One might argue, for example, that the U.S. simply isn't in a position to resolve this conflict (anymore than it's in a position to resolve the conflicts between Israel-Palestine or Britian-Northern Ireland). Our presence there is simply prolonging an untenable political situation that ultimately needs to work itself out. One might also argue that there is nothing at stake in Iraq that would justify putting our soldiers lives at risk. One might further argue that this misadventure is completely tanking our economy, and it's time for this country to start making money again. And one would be right on all counts.

My point, Josh, is this: Why waste your rhetorical energy attacking someone's motives for holding the *correct* opinion when there are so many people out there who are just plain wrong? Why not use your position to articulate a thoughtful, intelligent argument for putting Bush's colossal blunder behind us?

That's what I'd do if I had your job.

-Sean

P.S. I hate left-wing dunces as much as the next guy, but the parts of Schue's post you clipped seemed reasonable to me. Maybe you have some context on this guy that the rest of us don't?

I think this war was a farce - something that only a bunch of backward yokels/greedy bastards like the GOP could love.

But then I thought we've did it, we have to stay and make it all right. But I don't think that will happen.

If we leave, people will surely die. But if we stay, more people will die.

We fucked up. The best thing we can do for all parties is leave.

I think many people are missing Josh's point. Or one of them anyway. Which is to say Yes, it was wrong to instigate this war, but now that we are there, is just getting up right now and leaving the best solution?

That isn't a simple question. Many peace activists argue that it was wrong for us to invade, so we should leave. War is wrong. We've killed many thousands (some claim over 100,000) innocent civilians. War is wrong.

I say that is too simplistic. I agree that it was wrong in the first place, but now that we have (wrongly) invaded another country and toppled their government, don't we have some obligation to make it right? We broke it, aren't we ethically obligated to try to fix it? If we just leave, the country will likely descend into chaos and/or civil war. Don't we have an obligation to prevent that? Even if we can agree that invading was wrong in the first place, is just leaving really the right thing to do?

Sadly, even that is not a simple question. I was strongly opposed to invading. But after we did, like Gomez, for a long time I thought we had to stay and make it right. Not necessarily in the fashion that Bush wants (which is completely unrealistic), but to somehow leave them with a functioning government and infrastructure before we walk out.

In recent months, however, I've become convinced that really, we should leave as soon as possible. Not because the invasion was wrong in the first place (which I agree it was), but because our being there no longer serves any useful purpose. I see two valid arguments. One is the Murtha argument, which is basically that having a large number of US troops there is currently making it worse. That our very presence is drawing hatred, divisiveness, and is a rabid al-Qaida recruitment tool. That the vast majority of Iraqis don't want us there, and if we simply pull our troops back to, say Turkey and Kuwait, that will diffuse much of the problem.

The other argument is the Odom argument, which is basically that civil war is the inevitable result of our invasion, that we can not stop it, and that the end result will be an anit-American government, whether we stay 10 weeks, 10 months, or 10 years. The longer we stay, the worse it will be. William Odom is a former NSA Director under Reagan (!), and I find his arguments very persuasive. See:
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129 and
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-odom4may04,0,2656287.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

"If we just leave, the country will likely descend into chaos and/or civil war."

The British told themselves the same thing during their decade long presence in Iraq during the 1920s. What a waste. This is nothing more than colonial hubris.

Josh, you're missing the other undercurrent running through remarks of former Wilson supporters - "Mark Wilson - Sellout".

Josh,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I must say that I find your take on "representative democracy" a bit odd. But then, it never occurred to re-define our system of government by the position of the words. In so doing I can understand why you believe this race (or elections in general I suppose) should not be about my (or, I assume, any other citizen's) issues or values. That clears things up rather nicely then doesn't it? Do you know anyone in Conneticut because I'm sure they could learn much from you. Go Joe!

To the point of my Blog entry. It is, after all, my Blog; the place where I discuss the things that interest, antagonize, or motivate me (kinda the reason it's called The Left SHUE). In this particular case, I had been asked (as "one of Mark's biggest supporters") what I felt about Mark dropping out of the race and if it meant that I would fall into line now. I answered those questions the best way I could - honestly.

I appreciate Sean (above) pointing out that you indeed cut out what some of my other issues are. I can assume that is because, just as the rest of the media, it is so convenient for you to lump all of the Progressives into one label and didn't want to confuse your readers with something other than 'simply antiwar'. I hope he realizes now that you are only trying to maintain the focus on Ds and Rs.

Well Josh, if you finished reading my post you realize that I have said that I too recognize the D and the R and that I will vote D in November.. But now that I realize this is so much more about the "representative" than the "democracy" I will try to keep those silly "issues" out of my voting envelop.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

"Another irony comes from people who say they love this country but don't believe in war. They forget that the reason this country even exists in the first place is because the colonies DECLARED WAR on the British. This is not to say the Iraq War is correct, but to say that all war is wrong is folly, when your country exists because of it."

I've heard this argument a lot, and I have to say, I think it's complete crap. By this logic, I can say, I love our country and I don't believe in gay rights, because this country has a Judeo-Christian cultural background where homosexuality is a sin and an aberration. Or insert your own example here...

Yes, we fought the Revolutionary War in order to become an independent country, which most of us would agree was a good thing. That doesn't mean that we should blindly think that all other wars we've fought or will fight were just or worthwhile or whatever.

However, yes, I generally want to smack most of the wildly anti-war people who just want to leave Iraq. We didn't go in thinking of the consequences and we sure as hell better not leave by doing the same thing.

RE: Shoephone,

Lets see what the other options are shall we.

First we have Wilson, oh wait he supports Maria.

Second there is Dixon. Not sure how the inability to pay child support or parking tickets helps. But a criminal record and no voting record are certainly going to make him a senate powerhouse.

Third we Tran. Her background is actually quite compelling. I could easily see voting for her, for say city council or the leg. I just have a problem with jumping straight to the Senate. Being a senator takes experience, she has none.

Finally we have Guthrie. Aside from being a libertarian, he too has no experience. Well he did lose a house race, twice, but aside from that has no experience. Not to mention that he would eviscerate social services and support weird libertarian economics.

That leaves Cantwell. While she is not perfect she is quite good. There is no such thing as a perfect representative, but if we have a solid dem majority, chances are that 50+ of them will be on the right side. The idea that somehow not voting for Maria and helping Mike! get in will somehow help end the war is silly.

The country is in chaos and civil war NOW. Leaving it now might make the country chaotic in a different way, but it's a dangerous, bloody mess today, with no end in sight.

Iraq is a bloody mess in the middle of a civil war, with no end in sight. Just like Vietnam was. And then we left, and what do you know? The Vietnamese sorted it out themselves.

The only argument left in favor of keeping troops in Iraq is that we must bear Kipling's White Man's Burden.

Yes, we fought the Revolutionary War in order to become an independent country, which most of us would agree was a good thing. That doesn't mean that we should blindly think that all other wars we've fought or will fight were just or worthwhile or whatever.

That's not what I'm saying. My point is that there are people who just hate war, period, and think that war is inherently evil and should never happen... and don't realize that this country exists BECAUSE of war. There are people throughout Seattle and the nation who are against the Iraq War not so much because the war itself is wrong (which by nearly all accounts it is), but because they believe war in general is wrong. I'm not a big fan of faulty logic, even when the ends are eventually correct.

Many of these people believe we need to pull out right away. They don't realize how much more of a disaster this whole thing becomes if we rashly did so. Pulling out cold turkey would lead to a complete collapse of what brittle political infrastructure there is, and possibly creating a much bigger political nightmare in the process, than had we stayed and continued the attrition. I'm for setting solid goals for regional stability, then developing and executing a sequential, organized pullout. I'll also add that Dubstack's done nothing to develop political or military stability in the region, and probably doesn't care.

"Yes! If only the Demomcrats could agree on something like the Levin-Reed Amendment!

Oh, wait ..."

At least Cantwell voted for that. But if you go to the roll call vote on that, seven democrats did not vote for it. So, in order for there to be a hope of a change in the US position in Iraq the democrats would need 51 senators plus those seven who joined the republicans to have a majority to pass something like that? 58? Or, we can just elect democrats who pledge to draw down troops in Iraq.

And I agree that it's simply not enough to withdraw troops from Iraq. I think the US should also apologize for a pre-emptive war based upon "bad information", and then begin reparations.

It’s a complicated situation, and a personal revulsion to bloodshed just isn’t a compelling, stand-alone argument.

Actually, it seems to me that asking ourselves how we can minimize the number of dead on all sides of the conflict is a pretty good starting point for setting strategy, no?

I agree that not wanting any more US soldiers to die is not a sufficient reason for just pulling up stakes in Iraq, but only because US lives aren't worth more than Iraqis.

The flip side of a knee-jerk aversion to war is the "oh well, war is hell; what can you do" attitude sometimes displayed by the right.

The ultimate measure of the success or failure of this conflict is the sum of human misery and suffering it has either caused or prevented. Let's not lose sight of that.

just because Iraq is a Quagmire, and leaving it is probably the best thing we could do for democracy in Iraq, doesn't mean we shouldn't bankrupt the country for an insane idea by people who never fought in combat themselves ...

or does it?

that said, I'll be voting for Maria.

sorry, but you can't get more self-righteous and condescending than the average elected official telling you he or she shares your beliefs but won't act on them. their contempt for their consitutents is vast, and journalists posing to be insiders mimic this tone to try to affect the same sense of superiority over their readers. there's nothing more obnoxious than insiders' self-important lectures about compromise. they refuse to discuss openly what is possible before they've ever tried. ideas aren't debated, but reduced to personality contests in which insurgents are ridiculed as ideologues and hypocrites, while electeds are always moderate and even-keeled as if they're always open-minded.

shue was writing on a BLOG, which is like public journaling. give her, and dems who support hong tran and mark wilson, a little more credit, instead of just ridiculing them and reducing dissent over iraq to an issue of style.

So Josh, are you suggesting I use my "personal" vote to elect candidates who oppose my "personal" values? Just want to clarify.