If we have the ability to worry about things like abortion, gay marriage, religion in politics, and contraception, then that means that our wars aren’t so bad, and the economy isn’t so bad, that we can enjoy ourselves bickering about one another’s personal lives. Which, in turn, means that we aren’t at war and our economic fundamentals are at least tolerable, which in turn means that the incumbent party in the White House has all the advantages going in to the election. In other words, if we’re not talking about the weak economy and the troubled war, then we’re looking at an Obama re-election.
Well, it’s a theory, anyway.
Yes. It is revoltingly astounding that the current president can have as much going against him as ought to be working against him and the other side fields the lackluster crop of candidates (or at least purges the actual decent ones) it does and then reverts to script with the culture war. It’s like they have a tourette’s (sp) tic about it. Meanwhile, the big issues to me, like those related to the executive power abuses that got ramped up in the war on terror continue, this time with the seemingly tacit approval (or just grumbly silence) of many democrats.
There’s the counter theory that the economy and the wars are still bad, but one side has lost all sense of proportion.
Still gonna end the same way, in either case.
Well, we are at war in two and more countries, but the boots-on-ground part of them are indeed being wound down, and that is a delivery on a campaign promise to the anti-war left (and center and right) that actually exceeds the terms of the promise that was actually offered. Try telling that to the disappointed and disillusioned, however.
A large part of the point of being anti war is to stop killing brown people and to stop interfering in the internal afairs of other countries. Bombing them from afareven though you wind down the “boots on the ground” kind of defeats the point.