Thanks for a very civil reply
I'll rebut briefly before anyone else posts something different
Sticking to the same # format
1. From what I gather from anyalsts after the election, the new democrats that were elected were fairly conservative as opposed to incumbant dems that have been there a while --- the leaders as you mention. It's no secret democrats are more liberal in social programs and dollars but we didn't see too much anti-war, treehugging, gun taking candidates. Remember, we took away a lot of people who have voted republican in the past. You have to be somewhat conservative to do that.
I think Afganistan was a country that needed an overthrow. I dont think there was a lot of dispute against that.
Iraq was the problem. I do think we broke international laws overthrowing the legal and undisputed leader - though dictator. I also think it was a personal revenge on the part of the president for what Sadam did to his father --- mentioned in the campaign of 2000. So I think this "illegal" ousting is the main problem right now. Sadam was far from muslim extremism - Iraq was the most secular, modern country in the region. We seemed to attempt to fix something that was broken but yet contained.
2. we have different opinions on kerry and kennedy. I have the same opposite views of people like Gingritch (sp), Lott, Bush, Sean hannity, etc. Although suprisingly I like Pat Buchanean of all people.
3. Like anything, I think it depends on who you talk to. I know a couple people online from Canada and their insurance is second to none here in the states. Companies here don't have great insurance plans - and this is caused by insurance and hosptials being "for profit". I pay over 150 dollars a month just for myself in insurance premiums. Even if that same dollar amount goes to the government for healthcare, the plan would be so much better. MY healthcare package sucks and the plan is actually above average of what most people have. I stand by the belief that all americans are entitled to affordable healthcare. The healthcare industry has to be driven to it's knees as does a couple other industies like big oil.
Also with war, it depends on who you talk to. My one republican friend came back says as you did - we're doing good things. I have 3 other friends who came back and said this was total disaster.
4. Ok so Kerry lost by quite a few votes. Vote numbers really don't matter as he was only one state away from victory. Vote numbers really don't matter --- just look at 200
Kerry got 48% of the popular vote in 2004. Bush won in 2000 with only 47% The % really doesn't matter. Kerry kept it close at a time when republicans were running pretty good.
5. Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Pulosi, Shummer, Reid, etc are leaders because of their leadership skills. This is part of the party platform but also their character. Clinton and Kerry have strong leadership traits that speak for a lot of different people. I think Pulosi and Shummer have a public speaking talent that is somewhat soft and assertive at the same time. Then you have hardliners like Kennedy which I think is good to have to remind democrats that politics is a war so to speak and that they have enemies. Everyone there has a different purpose and talent. Like them or not, they are very powerfull spokespeople.
As far them trying to take guns away, I still stand by the opinion that they won't make the attempt even if they personally wanted to. BTW, I do think there is a HUGE difference between reasonable and unreasonable gun control.
There's not enough votes to pass truely unreasonable illegal gun laws. There's not enough "liberals" in congress to do that. These liberal leaders aren't even going to bring it up because it will be shot down faster than a dove trying to run the gauntlet of a strip of sunflowers.
A good discussion though