Heh.

Who here has been advocating for a unilateral ceasefire without precondition?

for your benefit i'll repeat some of what i've written on earlier threads. 80% of israelis support continued military action. why? because they're informed and paying attention. hamas initiated the conflict, continues to hold over 100 live hostages, and have indicated in no uncertain terms that they intend to repeat the exercise. it's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize when you're not the one being shot, raped, kidnapped, and threatened with more of the same.

Just about everyone in israel knows someone whose life has been affected by terrorist attacks over the past fifty years; to them it's not about the abstract long-term success of a political strategy, it's quite literally about their own survival. thus, while a unilateral ceasefire without precondition might seem like the humane thing to permit aid to civilians, it also prolongs the captivity of the hostages and increases the chances of terrorists to escape, plan, and strike again.

JL

I was just thinking ... if Dems chose to lead and do what you say, wouldn't that give them a big say in who that moderate Republican speaker would be? They could choose to support someone, for instance, whose views on immigration reform would align to some degree with theirs ... is there any Republican in the House like that?

I think Democrats voting for a 'moderate' republican in the House is a good idea. That would show real leadership!

Anyway, I still think Democrats in the House should choose a "moderate" Republican to vote for as speaker, so that the worst-of-the-worst caucus would have less clout, and so that there would be more dissension within Party.

Maybe consider being a little more substantive?