After three years I finally made it. It has been a long, arduous journey, but polling seems to indicate that I have been finally inducted into the vaunted mainstream.
I am part of the 65 percent that disapprove of the way the president is handling the war, the 60 percent that believe that it was not worth going to war against Iraq, and the 68 percent that believe the country is heading in the wrong direction.
After being in the minority for so long, why don't I have that giddy, "I told you so" feeling? Because nothing has changed, we're heading off the cliff and those who can stop it are apparently without the courage or the will to do so.
Now is not the time to gloat over one's "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry" bumper sticker. Kerry might have conducted some things differently, but his policy on Iraq was merely a variance on the color of war already in place.
The president suggested this week that there could be American troops in Iraq beyond his administration. I doubt the 75 percent that back the war in March 2003 imagined that it would last beyond the life of the present administration.
Is it not a tragic commentary that Republican strategists are delighted by the proposal of Sen. Russ Feingold to censure the president for his domestic spying program?
The thinking being that such an effort will rally the Republican base, scare moderate voters away from the Democrats and shore up the GOP's electoral prospects for the midterm elections this fall.
It all adds up to the type of misdirection that may decide the next election but will do nothing to change the direction that the overwhelming majority of Americans say is needed.
Supporters of the war (the few that are remaining) go on cable talk shows and ask: "What is the Democrats proposal for Iraq?" The problem with this red herring is that there is no available proposal that is favorable.
The president's stay the course rhetoric is not a policy, additional troops mean a longer commitment, gradual troop withdrawal places those remaining in greater harm, and a complete troop withdrawal means the loss of American credibility.
A Joint Chiefs of Staff lead by Dwight Eisenhower, along with Franklin Roosevelt as commander-in-chief could not produce a positive outcome for this truly unnecessary quagmire.
Beyond the myriad false reasons to justify war, ultimately the administration used the venomous potion of fear and revenge to carry out what, according to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, had been on the table within days of the administration taking office.
If a change of direction is to occur it must be the American people who decide the change. Capitol Hill is the bastion of the status quo; it is the electorate that is the architects of transformation.
As the president will attest, the American people are the only ones that permanently posses political capital; it is simply loaned out to elected officials.
As we again assume control of the political capital, we see that it has been invested unwisely. In addition to taking out a 10-year option to buy on the least threatening of the famed axis of evil, we purchased a useless Niger yellow cake story we didn't need and a torture policy we didn't want, not to mention a $300 billion price tag with no end in sight.
Meanwhile with no good options available, we must make the tough choice that the large bipartisan coalition of elected officials in Washington is unwilling to make.
Under such circumstances can we continue to ask our troops to stay the course because the alternative might make us look bad globally? The available choices are difficult but simple: place additional troops in Iraq or support the troop redeployment authored by Rep. John Murtha.
As a fledgling member of the mainstream I was under the impression that if our opinion differed from our elected leadership the burden was on us to help them see the error of their ways.