Is it the case that the Dems have simply followed where the Republicans have led? Is David McReynolds simply dreaming up his assessment?
Do you really think it makes no damn difference whether Bush or Kerry wins -- and that's what's available isn't it?
Put it differently, if Kerry loses, don't you think that the net result will be another major rightward shift in the overall tone of American politics, and world politics? And will that really enhance the likelihood of the rise of a third party, or of any alternative politics? Has Alan Murray in the WSJ put his finger on something?
Or is your underlying position that a Bush win will somehow radicalise American and world politics? Or that imperial advisor Niall Ferguson is right that a Bush win might result in a long period in exile for the republicans -- his comparison with Thatcher and the Tories? Or that Marc Cooper is right, that this is just a routine election?
Finally, cast the way you have, any outcome, whatever, will be a victory for Bush's policies -- the occupation of Iraq is a reality, and has become a framework for policy, any state's policy! Even if there were a truly left candidate for president, and that person won, s/he would still have to take that as the framework. The genie's out of the bottle, and it now has to be dealt with, like it or not -- and whether out of imperial ambitions or plain concern for its consequences on the victims, the Iraqis, it can no longer be a simple cut-and-run, can it?
kj khoo