Which part are denying? That Bush has a go-it-alone foreign policy, that we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars, or that Bush changed the premise of the war after we invaded?

Since you didn't say anything substantial in any of your rebuttals, I'll just comment on this one simple point.

"...said he thought we should in fact be bringing democracy to the people of Baghdad but what about the people of D.C.? Huh?"

What do you mean, "Huh?" There's another high-minded rebuttal. Have you not followed politics at all? The DC license plate says "Taxation Without Representation." The DC delegates at the convention mentioned the fact that they do not have full representation. Almost certainly the SINGLE-LARGEST ISSUE in DC politics is the fact that they do not have "full representation in Washington," meaning there is no such thing as "Senator ____" from Washington, DC. There is a Senator Michael Enzi (Republican) from Wyoming. There's a Senator Michael Craig (Republican) from Wyoming. There's no Senator *anything* from DC, even though there are more people in DC (mostly black and Democrat) than Wyoming (mostly white and Republican). The balance of power in the Senate is 51-49 in favor of the Republicans.

The whole point, then, for those who STILL don't understand the concept, is that it's hypocritical for America to throw it's military around to force democracy on others when the people in our OWN NATION'S CAPITAL do not fully participate in our own democracy. In fact, as I recall, the person who's running the country right now participated in an election in 2000 in which another candidate won the popular vote.

Look up "democracy" in the dictionary. I'm sure after you read the definition you'll come up with a snappy response, like "Astounding," or "Huh?" Then you can post your thoughts in full on your unbelievably informative blog.

I listened to the same speech you did and winced at some rhetorical solecisms, but the point Sharpton made about the course of American history and African American loyalty to the Democratic party is a sad commentary on the decline of the Party of Lincoln tp the Party of Thurmond and Helms and our contemporaries who are more concerned with looking pious than in doing justise, loving mercy and walking humbly with God. We need our own Sharptons in the GOP to speak truth to power and keep us honest.

John

DC isn't "disenfranchised." They aren't a state and thus don't get U.S. Senators or U.S. Representatives. Nor, for that matter, do U.S. citizens who live in Puerto Rico or Guam. I've discussed possible solutions to the problem elsewhere.

The problem with Sharpton's speech, though, is that he simulataneously argues we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq but that it was correct to go over and fight for their democracy.

The problem with straw man arguments is that they're so easy to refute. I don't know if you're feigning ignorance to make Sharpton look stupid, or if you genuinely don't know, but the population of Washington DC has long been disenfranchised from the right to vote. The technical legal status has changed over the years, but only recently were they even allowed to vote for president (with as many electors as Wyoming, even though the population is about 2/3 bigger), and as of now, the District is not represented in Congress.

See this site for more:
http://www.dcvote.org
They're obviously "biased" in the sense that they're in favor of full enfranchisement for DC, but it's kind of asinine to take the opposite position, isn't it?

When you consider that the history of Black America is one of perseverence under often terrible conditions - a heroic feat of stamina, really - the concerted effort to turn the entire community into one large client population has to rank as the Democratic Party's most appalling characteristic.

Rob has