Scott got a form letter from Tom Daschle and posted a good response. Here's my response to Scott's response:

i think that standing up against antiterrorism in the early days would have been political suicide. anybody who believed in it should have still done it.

the Iraq thing is different. there's room for a political stand there. it's still risky. Bush holds almost all of the intelligence (spy-type) cards. all he has to do is say 'our spies say they have WMD'. public opinion supports the ouster of Hussein. as long as the war is short, this is political gangbusters.

then you've gone a little too far, Scott. we have failed, too. the great thing about being a republic/democracy is that you almost always get the government you deserve.

there's no doubt in my mind that the masses in this country Repub in ethos: God and Country, fewer taxes for me, let the littler guy fend for himself (though union membership skews this a little).

i've said it before, i'll say it again: an out and out liberal is not electable. barring Repub political suicide, it would take a Bill Clinton-type moderate with personality and a marginally different economic plan - like pro health care (but not socialism) to get elected.

what happened: the Dems, too, are beholden to special interest money and they can't take down the greedy insiders because they have profitted from it. we saw that clearly in the Enron hearings. Enron bought a little stock in everyone.

Daschle's South Dakota First program, detailed on his website, as i've mentioned before, supports a lot of pork for SD farmers. as i've said before, some programs to support modest family farms would be great, but payments to people clearing 100k a year is bad policy.

great letter, Scott!

[check the comments]