Hey, you see this? I haven’t been spending a lot of time with the Democratic presidential candidates, because it doesn’t affect my decisionmaking process at all come election day. I range in my opinion of them from near-complete ignorance (John Edwards) to mild annoyance (Lieberman) to complete disbelief that such a totally obvious liar, charlatan, and gangster is even allowed to breathe free air in our society let alone get five percent of the vote of a political party that still wants to be considered a serious alternative in a functional democracy (Sharpton).
Sorry about that… got a little worked up.
Anyway, the bit that got my attention was the word “steadfast”. Kucinich has been “steadfast” in his opposition to the war on Iraq. It feels like saying, “Hitler remains ‘steadfast’ in his assertion that Europe rightfully belongs to him” or “The patient in room 236 is ‘steadfast’ in his assertion that he is Albert Schweitzer”.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, steadfastness isn’t always a good thing, if you’re wrong. But steadfast is a pretty positive word, it seems, so that the implication is he’s to be commended for his consistency. Steadfastness has the feeling of holding to a position out of principle, despite overwhelming obstacles or pressure to change. Being antiwar in the Democratic party right now is virtually a cost-free position, only slightly more risky than being pro-abortion or anti-big oil. The best you could say about Kucinich is that he’s consistent. But steadfast? Come on. Churchill was steadfast. Reagan was steadfast. Even Bush. Kucinich?
Another synonym for steadfast might be ‘boring’.