Well, it's official, and thankfully sanity has prevailed, as Cindy Shehan has decided not to run for the Senate seat from California in oppossition to Dianne Feinstein, whom she compares to an enabler to a drug addict, refusing to cut off the funding for the Iraqi War, even though she knows it is wrong.
I'll give her this much, she has a point when she complains about how sheepishly the Democrats voted for the Presidents plan to invade Iraq. We were all a little too eager in those days, and even those Democrats who should have known better were afraid of the political consequences if they did not support the President. It was a shameful period in our history, and I am as much ashamed of myself as anything for allowing myself to be swept up into the rhetoric.
She further states that she will stand against all Pro-War Democrats,which is what she refers to thsoe who do not call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Here, again, I see her point, but she does not herself get the bigger picture. And that' s where her argument loses validity.
I stand firm in my belief that the invasion of Afghanistan and removal of the Taliban was the right and proper thing to do, yet she does not see it that way, and in fact comes across as a person who never saw a war she could support for any reason. Add to this the list of other bizzarre positions held in general by the members of her far left clique, and it becomes obvious that she is fighting a loosing battle, and just why it is such a loosing proposition.
And that is the ultimate absurdity of her position. Her and her supporters various and sundry looney positions are so out of touch with the majority of Americans, no one who is seen as being too close to her and them can possibly hope to win. The end result of this, of course, is that the winners may well ultimately be those who oppose all their positions. The looney ones, and the ones that might have some validity. They will both meet the same fate, shot out of the sky, and doomed to go down in a blaze of nuttiness.
