What is it about "the Democratic Party supports the war" that you don't understand?
Wow, something I would have thought completely self-evident is apparently a bone of contention with some. Brian Leiter, noting the conspicuous absence of the Democratic party leadership from the anti-war protest this weekend, titled this post "American Democracy at Work: You Can Choose Between Two Pro-War Parties," the point being, of course, that there is no anti-war party.
Apparently not, because this numbnuts takes it upon himself to call Leiter out (emphasis added):
A typical silly Leiter effort. I mean, what possible reasons might a Democratic leader have to avoid an anti-war rally organized by Stalinists? Seriously, isn't it possible that having major Democratic leaders at the these rallies might, you know, harm the anti-war movement?You stupid fucking asshole, Leiter wasn't suggesting that the absence of prominent Democrats from the protest was evidence that they are "actually" or "secretly" pro-war. THEY ARE OPENLY PRO-WAR. It's no fucking secret. Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass for five minutes and stopped ranking science fiction shows and started paying attention to what is going on around you, you wouldn't make such stupid and embarrassing mistakes. Talk about Lalaland ... in the universe I inhabit, most of the Democratic leadership has been enabling the war monger Bush since day one. We don't need their lack of attendance at anti-war demonstrations to realize this.
Kerry attends event. ANSWER fucktard carries sign saying, "North Korea uber alles" or some such nonsense. Imagine the press event:
* "Senator Kerry, you were at the same event as those who advocate the violent overthrow of the American government? Do you think this sends the wrong message?"
* "Er...well, we accept a diversity of opinions. It's a big tent, and we shouldn't associate the entire movement with fringe elements."
* "But Senator Kerry, they organized the event."
* "Well, erm, damn."
* Cue image: "Kerry talking while a "Death to Israel' sign waves in the foreground and an American flag is on fire while a guy wears 'Bush is an international terrorist' t-shirt."
Man, I bet that would go over really well with the moderates who are turning against the Bush Administration. I really can't imagine why Democratic leaders might want to avoid that scene. Yup, it must mean they are secretly pro-war. Those bastards.
Leiter reminds me of the snarky movie executive in that West Wing episode who tries to force the President to take a public stance on a homophobic measure, despite the fact that the measure would never come to a vote where Bartlett basically says, "Back off. I am not the president of Lalaland like you. This is a serious business and you are an amateur."
Leiter is a moral purist, and that's nice for him. But we live in the real world. The only way that the disaster in Iraq will end is if the Democrats win substantial victories in 2006 and 2008. Period. End of story. Creating a national dialogue about Iraq is good (cue Cindy Sheehan). Creating yet another process story about how the Democrats are in the sway of extremist special interests is bad.
Now, it is possible that Democratic leaders are making a tactical error, that they are reading the politics wrong. But goddamit, it is fairly obvious that their refusal to attend doesn't mean they really pro-war, and it is stupid to suggest otherwise.
You're calling Leiter "silly"? You're the silliest, stupidest mother fucker I've come across all day (I come across a lot of silly, stupid mother fuckers, too).
And by the way, the people at ANSWER aren't Stalinists; they're Leninists. At least get your facts straight if you're going to make an ass of yourself. I mean, I realize that's what they told you at Daily Kos (which you probably also think of as a bastion of progressive, anti-war sentiment, right?), but try doing some of your own research.