Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperator
if its so popular then why did more dems cross to the no side last week than reps crossed over to vote yes? regards the war, lets be clear, the republicans will be held accountable no matter what win lose or draw....to an extent....but if the dems are seen as obstructionist regards pulling funding pulling troops etc. then that may boomerang on them and they know it....the American people indeed ar sick of th war, but neither do they think we should just up and out tomorrow....
|
As Tip O'Neill said "All politics are local".
America is not a homogenized mass of voters who feel exactly the same about the issues in the exact same proportions in every single district.
You could assemble a group of congressional districts where the majority of people were behind the president and the war, and you will be able to do that next year too, but the number of districts in that group is getting smaller, and the number of districts where the majority is against the war is getting larger.
So while there have been Democrats who favor the war, and some who still do, that's not the "new development". The new development is that Republicans are breaking ranks and moving to the anti war side, because the people they represent are moving that way.
In the end, it's the people who still influence what happens, because in the US the people don't follow the leader, the leader follows the people, or we get a new leader who will.
That's why the founders called the chief executive the "president" and not the "Leader". Because "preside" is not the same as "Lead", preside is a much weaker term, it implies that it's not the will of the leader that is choosing the direction, but a consensus of the people being lead.