(Bumped — Holy crap! Great first post by nequals1. This about sums it up. Glad you’re inspired, nequals1, we need all hands on deck if we want to turn the Titanic around! - btp)

Yeah, I’m angry. I’m part of the angry left. I resent it that this administration took all of the worldwide love and good will for this country after 9/11, and turned it into fear, anger and even hatred towards us. I’m upset that we went from a surplus to record deficits (see also this). And I’ve read that the debt is almost entirely due to the Iraq war and the tax cuts for the rich. And these tax cuts for the rich will not even help the economy much, even under the most generous of assumptions. The war in Iraq has put us a greater risk for future terrorist attacks, according to most experts, and has cost us trillions of dollars and many lives. It’s too bad we didn’t elect a President that would only go to war in the following circumstances:

Well, if it’s in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are — our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. … I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.

That seems like a somewhat sensible strategy. Too bad we didn’t elect that guy. Oh wait, we did. Yeah, people were duped in 2000. They should have known better, but they were tricked. I forgive them for that. But to vote for him in 2004, after what this administration did to the country? That’s hard to forgive. They’ve put all our future at risk. They’ve made the world a more dangerous place, both in terms of the nuclear and environmental threats.

Okay, you all can tell that I’m bitter. But this great site and the people who contribute to it have inspired me. Right here, in the Rochester area, we have a congressman that has been a rubber stamp for Bush. I’m ready to pack his bags for him.

The challenge is incumbents almost always win. Kevin Drum had a good post about that here. He gives some reasons why incumbents usually win (e.g., gerrymandering, self-segregation). But it could largely just be a lack of effort. Let’s not let that happen here. This area has plenty of liberals to support Massa.

What should be the strategy? To me, a good idea is to target traditional Republican voters. This administration has been anything but conservative. They have spent like an 8 year old with an infinite gift certificate to Toys R Us. They have expanded executive power. They seem to love huge, invasive gov’t. And Kuhl has been right there, rubber stamping it all. That’s not what the Republican party has traditionally claimed to stand for. That’s the selling point. Massa is a sensible man who wants a sensible gov’t. He’s a former Naval Officer.

What do you guys think?