My worry is that they are wratcheting themselves to tightly to the most extreme positions that they will never be able to pull back.

With any luck they'll get wound so tight that their collective heads will explode. One can hope anyway.

Let us hope the Dems lose. We cannot leave Iraq until we win. All we need is time to allow our GIs a chance. I am so proud they are willing to go tour after tour in Iraq.

There is a saying; "if you are in your twenties and are not a liberal, you have no heart; if you are in your forties and are not a conservative you have no brain." I am a member of that heady generation, albeit, coming to it later as it was starting to wane. I often look back and see the damage that we have done to society. Instead of being parents to our children, we want to be their friends. Instead of disciplining them the way our parents disciplined us, we give them a "time-out" etc. It still amazes me that so many of those in my generation never "got it". Common sense brings one back to conservatism, whether, you were there in the first place or not. I would also disagree with "being a liberal or you have no heart" insofar as I see what the left has been promoting for so many years: Abortion as a form of birth control; reverse discrimination in the form of affirmative action; keeping single black mothers poor through welfare; keeping black children down by not allowing school choice; keeping senior citizens poor through social security; keeping the US dependent on terrorist states by refusing to let us drill for oil in ANWAR and off the coasts, and to develop oil out of the oil shale areas; and I can go on and on, but I won't. The point being that if we stay at home during this election and let Pelosi, Murtha, Conyers, McDermott, Reid, Kennedy, Durbin and Schumer, take a crack at running the government, we are going to be in serious trouble. This is not a scare tactic, but a fact. As bad as the Republicans have been at times, as spineless and chicken-hearted as they have been about Social Security reform and making the taxcuts permanent, they are still infinately better than the alternative in the form of the American Left; think Hugo Chavez only bigger.

Liberalism is basicall an indefensible ideology, it cannot stand up to the rigor of analysis. Just like liberal policies, which cannot stand the test of reasoned argument, Liberals are not able to explain and defend their views in rational fashion. Not at all surprising, how does one justify high taxes, a weak national defense, gay marriage, abortion, the various false promises of multiculturalism and more? All of these are based on false premises and if implemented they all produce disastrous outcomes. Anything more than a superficial examination reveals liberals for the frauds and failures they are proved to be -- This is why liberalism collapses under the probing rigor of talk radio, and why liberal talk radio is a dismal failure.

The only thing the liberals can do is to hope the voters don't find out until they get elected.

All of these are based on false premises and if implemented they all produce disastrous outcomes

But they "cared" and they "tried", and that is what is "truly" important.

arcman and bill, your two posts combined represent about as complete and concise an indictment of liberalism as I have seen in a while. Well done.

The only thing that aggravates me more than liberals themselves is when liberal professors and teachers try to infect the minds of our youth and make them into little drones, as they might have gotten to our friend arcman over here. The amount of liberal bias in our education is just disgusting and it flat out needs to stop.

Bias in teaching aside, which I don't think exists nearly to the degree you think it does... (i.e. it's another thing one hears on talk radio or it's based on anectodal evidence).

I love how conservatives try to ignore the fact that the most educated people in society, the ones who actually devote their lives to studying history or political science or hard science or whatever, tend to lean to the left. The ones who've done the most research tend to vote Democrat. Hmmmmm!! And yet righties, instead of listening to experts, plug their ears and accuse the experts of bias. Why is the Right So Stupid?

This is all well and good gentlemen but from the perspective of one who is not a US citizen who has a bit more of a global viewpoint, if I may. I do not understand what the "analysis" the tenets of liberalism is. Is just saying that liberalism is bunk enough to really hash out the pro and con? I know that liberal ideas here will get the same treatment that conservative ideas will get over at the DailyKos, but consider what conservatism has become in the first decade of the 21st Century.

Even Barry Goldwater could see the direction the GOP was taking when religious groups came into the party in droves in the late 70s and early 80s. Goldwater could not wrap his brain around why a political party would want to ally itself with a religious group when the point of conservatism was to not have government meddling in your personal affairs.

If so many people, and I for one as an observer of American politics understand, feel that the evangelical/Christian Right has such political might maybe it would serve the nation that they should become the viable third party and eventually through the withering of the GOP they would become the dominant second party?

I know most of you are frowning now because you know this is not a tenable position politically for evangelicals because like you have now in Florida it exposes people of "morality" to the decadence of the politcal playing field and the scrutiny that those who place themselves above others, morally, their candidates would have to endure.

I feel equally, that a failed war in Iraq, a failed energy policy that caters to Big Oil, the desire to legislate bigotry in the guise of defending against multiculturalism, the very salad bowl paradigm that makes America still the envy of all who live outside her borders, and the desire to take choice from women and send them back into the unsanitary days of three quarters of a million back alley abortions a year as were seen in the decades preceeding Rove v Wade, does not a successful ideology make.

You said it, arcman. I, too, was a Flower Child. I was a hippie chick, lived in Haight-Ashbury, shacked up with an acid rock drummer, demonstrated against the war, hated the government, and passionately believed that Alger Hiss was innocent.

But looking back, I realize how lucky I was to have been 18, with a solid background behind me, before I dove into this counter-culture swamp of hedonism and anarchy. I did it because it was fun, because my friends did it, because it was what kids did at that time. But I know people who were even just a couple of years younger than I, who bought into it wholeheartedly. My cousin, who is my poster child for Liberal Idiocy, has righteously pronounced "I don't think I have the right to impose my values on anyone"---so her kids were never taught to not interrupt, or to be polite. The era poisoned millions of minds, and we are living with the fallout from that insipid spinelessness and hyper-emotionalism which passed for thought, to this day.

I was lucky. One day in San Francisco I went to the library and checked out "USA" by John Dos Passos---a hard-core lib, by the way, at least at one point in his life. And I read the essays. And when I went back to Boulder and attended the SDS convention, and heard Bernadine Dorhn and her buddies speak, I could see the same exact ballet of carefully choreographed manipulation that Dos Passos had described in his accounts of Socialist management of labor meetings during the Depression. It opened my eyes. It made me realize the the Left is really not a genial, generous, compassionate embrace of the world, but a carefully calculated manipulation of emotion (mostly negative emotion) to benefit those at the top. Between Dos Passos and Orwell, I could never again accept the Left at face value.

It took Bill Clinton and, more to the point, the vicious two-facedness of the supposed feminist movement as they savaged his accusers, to push me to the right and make me take a position.

What ails the democratic party more than anything is the mantra they have adopted without even knowing it:

'For liberals there is no end to their rights and no beginning to their responsibilities.'

If they do get power, they will ruin the economy as they always do, and this time there will be no artificial dot.com bubble to inflate the numbers. They will, of course, blame everything on the 'Bush recession' while the MSM dutifully reports it as gospel.

I still have some K-Tel stock, anyone want to buy it from me, only $400 a share?

Ya know... the liberals on this board are always going on and on about how they think Bush will never reexamine and admit his mistakes and change tactics that aren't working.

Yet, I have never once seen them do that. Social Security is failing... going bankrupt, and the sooner we do something to fix it, the more likely it is that the fix will work. But liberals have stuck their fingers in their ears and are singing "La, la, la, la, la, we can't HEAR you".

Welfare doesn't work. It doesn't help people get out of a bad situation, it just keeps them hovering over the precipice... and it keeps adding more and more on to it because those who grow up with that system are much more likely to "need" it when they are adults. It coddles the kind of behavior that brings and keeps people poor, rather than helping them get to a point where they are successful.

Blocking the building of refineries and drilling has made us completely dependent on not just foreign oil, but because of the locations of major oil sites we are dependent on our enemies that often use the money we pay them in oil to try to destroy us.

Stopping the use of DDT has cost the world millions of lives because of malaria. We may not have known that then, but we do now... yet it doesn't change.

And that's just a small sampling.

As long as liberals refuse to rethink such problems, their complaints of the same in Bush are hollow at best.

LNC, this is a post from an uber-Lib on another thread; "I've been paying attention to "Bush's Plan", BUT the "Plan" keeps changing. . ."

So the complaint here is that Bush changes too much......

In much the same way that kicking Foley out was just another example of conservative intolerance for alternative lifestyles, while not doing it fast enough was just proof of the culture of corruption as evidenced by the Republican Party.

'For liberals there is no end to their rights and no beginning to their responsibilities.'

I like that one.

As a recovering early College Liberal (I attend meetings still), I agree with most of what's been said, although I hold firm to the belief that Liberals in fact have no values unless they first see the conservative stance on the issue, and then automatically take the contradictory perspective. Without conservatives, Liberals would have nothing to campaign on.

The left can't admit it doesn't have all the answers, because its philosophy is that there are no answers, that everyone is right. Terrorists suicide bombers? They must have a good reason. Islamists say, "convert or die?" That's a culture we must respect.

The one thing they do hate is the conservatives for their, "intolerance."

Nevertheless, the right would at times do well to admit it doesn't have all the answers, that some of the ideas, if not the philosophy, of the left might have merit.

We get it here all the time - rude comments about how stupid we are and how if we only knew what was best for us, we'd be leftists. Either that or accusations of intentional evil on our part - we know that leftism is better, but because we're wicked we work to thwart the left so that we can destroy the world in favor of a hefty quarterly profit.

Yup, and you throw the exact same type stuff across the aisle to the other side on a daily basis. Not wringing your hands about that, I see. Because that would require the sort of self-awareness that is antithetical to partisanship.

There is no acknowledgement on the left that they may not have all the right answers - no willingness to engage in intellectual discourse and the give and take of political compromise.

None of this exists on the right, either.

So what, really, is your point in all your caterwauling? That you hate the left and consider it "evil" and "against god" (whatever the hell that means)? Yet again, you're talkin' loud and ain't sayin' nothin'. When you acknowledge that all the ridiculousness that infests rabid left-wing partisanship also infests rabid right-wing partisanship (which you yourself exemplify, much to the amusement of observers), then you'll start to build a bit of credibility.

"Not at all surprising, how does one justify high taxes, a weak national defense, gay marriage, abortion, the various false promises of multiculturalism and more? All of these are based on false premises and if implemented they all produce disastrous outcomes."

One word answer: Sweden.

Disastrous outcomes? Don't think so.

Chris
"I love how conservatives try to ignore the fact that the most educated people in society, the ones who actually devote their lives to studying history or political science or hard science or whatever, tend to lean to the left. The ones who've done the most research tend to vote Democrat. Hmmmmm!! And yet righties, instead of listening to experts, plug their ears and accuse the experts of bias. Why is the Right So Stupid?"

Chris, thanks for the perfect example of liberal snobbery, without justification. In my opinion, those who devote their lives to studying history or political science often don't know when to come in from the rain while drinking coffee at Starbucks with their beard and that academic look BS.

BDS is not a neurosis. Neurotics think they are ill with complaints, the psychotic think there is nothing wrong with their thinking. I agree, the left is psychotic.

Hi Everyone,

I happen to call myself a liberal but when pressed to defend so-called liberal positions, I find myself unable to do so. I think the problem comes when each side charactures the other positions. I have a Republican friend and when I ask him what going on he says "Nothing much. Working hard to kick old people out on the street. Making them eat dog food." I always laughed but he genuinely believed that many liberals and Dems actually thought most conservatives were that mean and cruel.

Anyway, I don't think Bush is evil but I don't think he's very smart or particularly willing to reflect on his choices either. It's strange because those who have supported the the Iraq adventure seem so willing to come up with excuses as to why it has gone poorly. It's ironic that the party of personal responsibility seems so unwilling to apply the same principle to the commander-in-chief.

Almiranta, as always I find you and your post intriguing, fun and most importantly truthful. Others have suggested it before that you should run for office. I’ve no doubt that you’d win in a landslide. Thank you for taking the time to post, your honesty to open yourself up to others and the clarity of thought and ideas that flow from your words.

This also goes to the many other conservative personalities, too numerous to mention here, who take the time to post and provide insight to the truth. Please understand, though you may not always see the good you do and the people you touch, God works through you to spark the fire from which he will triumph over evil. To this end we will all share in his glory. Thank you!

First, what is the false premise behind abortion and gay marriage?

Here's why I am for CHOICE in America. Everyone should have the freedoem to choose who they want to be with and what they do with their bodies. Notice I said to themselves, not to others. Ask yourself: if a gay couple married in california, how does that affect a conservative in Kansas? If I have this right, a conservative view of gay marriage is that it ruins the sancitiy of marriage. How? What do you care what someone does with their own lives?

Then it comes down to the "religion" argument. That marriage is between a man and a woman. No matter how many times you yell it, this counrty was NOT based on Christianity. I won't take the time to list the myraid quotes from Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and frankline to prove that to you. They were Deists, not Christians. Yes, Patrick Henry wanted Christianity put in the Constitution, to distinguish them from "infidels", but it was voted down. Jefferson himself talked about the "separation of church and state."

I said all that to say that we cannot make laws based on a bible that many people do not believe in. we must follow the Constitution and its freedoms, a document that has no mention of Jesus or Christianity in it.

Oh, and "Under God" was added in the 1950s, in case some of you were going to use that as proof that the Founding Fathers wanted Christianity to rule America.

Abortion. Once again, this comes down to a religious issue of when life begins. And I say they are doing it to themselves, not to you. If people can drink themselves to death, beat their kids under the guise of "punishment" and tattoo, pierce, and brand themselves into unrecognizable humans, then it shoud be up to the mother (and father, in some cases) what to do with their child.

Many of you will disagree with me, and that's fine. Some will call me stupid, and that's fine , too. But what you cannot say is that I didn't defend my position, which is something that many of you are saying on here.

High taxes? I don't want them, of course. But when I hear warren Buffett and Bill Gates talk about how the middle class is getting screwed, and they aren't paying enough taxes, it makes me wonder. I am middle class, and I can't think of anyone in my family who benefits from captial gains tax cuts. And before you start the trickle-down talk, know that many of my friennds have been laid-off due to outsourcing, and my medical benfits have been cut to nil in my job, not to mention a hiring freeze and the large increase in hiring "freelancers" thereby eliminating all benefits. So there may be more jobs, but the pay/benefit ratio, not so goos.

One more thing about high taxes. I am willing to say that Clinton didn't have too much to so with the boom of the 90's (he did do a little) I think that it was Bush 1's tax hike that boosted the economy. He got voted out for that, but there it is.

I'm going to quit, because a common refrain on the boards is that "liberals" write too much.

But I had to. To prove that we can defend our positions, regardless of whether or not you like them.

I love listening to partisans of either side of the aisle accuse the other side of never admitting they are wrong.

Meanwhile, they themselves never admit they are wrong and their response to that? "Because we're not wrong."

Go on guys, be like every Dem out there and say it. You're not wrong. Dems always are.

Chris,
Spare me your adolescent sophistry!

“Bias in teaching aside, which I don't think exists (sic) nearly to the degree you think it does...” Yes, it does!

I’m speaking to you from inside the academia asylum; I’ve been a teacher at a public institution and currently work for the University of California, liberal ivory tower theoretical nonsense is alive and well, and it is based on otherworldly phenomena that don’t exist in the real world. Trust me on this one, it’s worse than you ever imagined!

“most educated people in society, the ones who actually devote their lives to studying history or political science or hard science or whatever, tend to lean to the left.” There’s a simple answer for this; the academicians have lived in a world dominated by theory; improvable and not influenced by messy things like peoples’ emotions and desires. Communism and socialism are the perfect political microcosms in this world, not so much in the real world. The intelligencia blame the failures of the ethereal on systems that didn’t follow the procedure as written; instead of admitting that persons are not predictable automatons. Even Plato admitted that it is better to be ruled by a bad dictator than a flawed democracy (communism).

Today’s teachers ignore this lesson and the lessons of personal achievement and self actualization, and teach instead that the world is a Disney movie where all children have “special” talents, and no child is better or worse than another; all ideas are valid, (provided they agree with the teacher), good and bad are indistinguishable, subjective and require being judgmental (a bad thing to a teacher), and only those who strive to achieve are demonized as subjugators and usurers.

The liberal studies of higher education don’t want or preach equal opportunity; they strive for equal outcome, excluding, of course the academicians themselves; who deserve the fruits of others’ labors in exchange for their pontifications from on high.

You are sooooo right! I mean, those liberals are simply destroying our country. They're nothing but a bunch of baby killing, terrorist supporting, immoral godless commies. They have no idea what it is that made this country great! We should jail every liberal politian and college professor for treason! Thank God we have a Christian president in office, or else I just don't know how we could possibly get through these trying times. Let's take back America!!!!!!!!!!! Prince Jeb for President 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is not the Liberals giving Republicans the poll numbers they now have. You can spin it that way, but unless 75% + of the nation is "Liberal" then this blog is just B.Sing the facts.

Dear Republicans you can blame the liberals, the Media, The Clintons, the Martians and the Bad Spirits..... In the end if acted like adults, you would take responsibility for your actions and understand that the American people is simply FED UP WITH YOU ALL BECAUSE OF YOUR MISTAKES AND INCOMPETENCE.

You are out come November.

OH, and by the way it took you only 12 years to end up the same as the Democrats did after 40+ when Newt took over...... Difference is that Newt at least had a plan, the Dems are not even bothering with a plan today, they simply ask the question that Newt himself had for Americans when asked about the Republican's performace in Congress ..... Had enough?

The resounding answer is YES!!

You lost Right Wingers..... Good Bye and don't let the door hit you on your way out....... See ya' in 40 years, and hope you lern your lesson by then.

Someone said liberalism is an indefensible ideology. We can argue that. But as of yet, no conservative ideology has ever been tried. Bush is no conservative. He is anti-choice, pro-tax cuts for the rich and pro-predatory war. But he has yet to get Roe undone, he spends more than any Democrat with no revenue compensation, and he left the real war on Al Qaeda unfinished. He's failed at everything he's done. Of course, I did not vote for him and don't support him. My opposition to the Iraq war was more about my lack of faith in his and Rummy's competence than it was the war itself. Imagine if he had used the Powell doctrine! Iraq might actually be a beacon of hope over there, and one is needed.

My only hope for you people who hate me and other liberals every bit as much as you accuse people of hating Bush, is that when the Dems get power and actually fix the mess, that you give them their props. I have little faith that you will. I gave W every chance after his appointment in 2000. I tried to support him. But he's let a nation down time and again. Maybe an _actual_ conservative would be good for America. And maybe an _actual_ communist government would work. But this is all idealism, because in either case, the lust for power is the death knell to any ideology.

My hope is that our next President, be they Republican or Democrat, is not as hated like the last two. It'd be nice not to have all this hate amongt my fellow Americans, even those with whom I profoundly disagree. I'm mostly sick of being told that I am against America because I am revolted by Bush and Cheney's policies. But I guess that's the way it is now.

Why is the Right So Stupid?

Real simple, Chris -- because it drives you Lefties so nuts. If you couldn't complain about how stupid we are, you'd have nothing left to hang your hat on. You certainly don't have any original ideas or any solutions to the world's problems.

Intelligence Quotient and academic accolade has nothing at all to do with whether or not the holder suffers from a psychosis.

And that is the real problem in academia today.

.

Victor Davis Hanson must be a hell of a historian since it was 'liberal' NewsMax that accused McCain of breaking under torture:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml

"Bias in teaching aside, which I don't think exists..."

Baloney! Ever drive through a teacher parking lot at your kids school or college. Its Kerry/Edwards and Bush Lied... on 80 % of the cars.

A good chuckle at the self-righteous back-patting liberal-whacking going on here. No, the Democratic Party has not held Congress since 1994. That's OK. We apparently needed the time in the wilderness, as you are about to get yours.

Here's the less-than-varnished version of reality.

The truth lies a little away from the self-congratulatory spittum on this board. Americans don't want to be badly governed, or feel cheated. When a party hangs around long enough to get intoxicated with power and start misbehaving (grotesquely as the Republicans have done and the Democratic Party did earlier), then they get booted. The Republicans didn't stay in power because their ideas were better or smarter. Rove hasn't sat around worrying which policies were better for this country. They focused on the levers of power: districting, GOTV, fund-raising. And that is the simple truth. They do it MUCH better than the Democrats, and nation-wide have managed to gerrymander themselves into a lot (but as you will soon find out not enough) safe seats.

Don't fool yourself that it has anything to do with "great ideas". I am not saying the Republicans are bereft of ideas: it's just that if we go down the list of this Administration's high concepts, well, they haven't either been well received (social security reform, immigration reform), particularly well-implemented (no child left behind, Iraq) or popular (Iraq). In terms of policy concepts, the big success is "cut taxes": neither a new policy, nor a particular subtle one. Regardless of economic condition, it seems to be the permanent cure to everything. In the end, it always had the feeling of a gift given to the wealthy and a bone tossed to everyone else. Easy to sell, but the consequences of deficits out forever never really paid for. And lets face it: this president has never behaved fiscally conservatively, so it wasn't like the tax cuts were part of some philosophy, otherwise they wouldn't have spent like drunken sailors.

So, what we have is really not the most brilliant or effective policies offered up by a party that was extremely successful in message control and getting elected. The results of the policies (failure in Iraq, failures with Katrina, perceptions of excessive executive power, etc) finally caught up and seem to be outweighing the power of money. As always, the last two weeks may play out very differently, but right now it looks like you are in for a drubbing. It will be fun to watch.

The Democrats will now have their shot at policy, which they have typically been a bit better at, and message control, which has been terrible. What will be particularly amusing will be listening to you justify that the reason why you lost (and probably lost big) was the Democrats' fault or the mass media's fault or unfortunate series of events. All false. The reason you you are about to lose is the very policies you are so proud of. They caught up to you. They stank, and you will tank as a result.

A good chuckle at the self-righteous back-patting liberal-whacking going on here. No, the Democratic Party has not held Congress since 1994. That's OK. We apparently needed the time in the wilderness, as you are about to get yours.

Here's the less-than-varnished version of reality.

The truth lies a little away from the self-congratulatory spittum on this board. Americans don't want to be badly governed, or feel cheated. When a party hangs around long enough to get intoxicated with power and start misbehaving (grotesquely as the Republicans have done and the Democratic Party did earlier), then they get booted. The Republicans didn't stay in power because their ideas were better or smarter. Rove hasn't sat around worrying which policies were better for this country. They focused on the levers of power: districting, GOTV, fund-raising. And that is the simple truth. They do it MUCH better than the Democrats, and nation-wide have managed to gerrymander themselves into a lot (but as you will soon find out not enough) safe seats.

Don't fool yourself that it has anything to do with "great ideas". I am not saying the Republicans are bereft of ideas: it's just that if we go down the list of this Administration's high concepts, well, they haven't either been well received (social security reform, immigration reform), particularly well-implemented (no child left behind, Iraq) or popular (Iraq). In terms of policy concepts, the big success is "cut taxes": neither a new policy, nor a particular subtle one. Regardless of economic condition, it seems to be the permanent cure to everything. In the end, it always had the feeling of a gift given to the wealthy and a bone tossed to everyone else. Easy to sell, but the consequences of deficits out forever never really paid for. And lets face it: this president has never behaved fiscally conservatively, so it wasn't like the tax cuts were part of some philosophy, otherwise they wouldn't have spent like drunken sailors.

So, what we have is really not the most brilliant or effective policies offered up by a party that was extremely successful in message control and getting elected. The results of the policies (failure in Iraq, failures with Katrina, perceptions of excessive executive power, etc) finally caught up and seem to be outweighing the power of money. As always, the last two weeks may play out very differently, but right now it looks like you are in for a drubbing. It will be fun to watch.

The Democrats will now have their shot at policy, which they have typically been a bit better at, and message control, which has been terrible. What will be particularly amusing will be listening to you justify that the reason why you lost (and probably lost big) was the Democrats' fault or the mass media's fault or unfortunate series of events. All false. The reason you you are about to lose is the very policies you are so proud of. They caught up to you. They stank, and you will tank as a result.

But Peter, you ignored the question at hand... Why are libs insane? It's an important question. Please stay on topic...

"The left's current unruliness seems a way of scapegoating others for a more elemental frustration - that they can't gain a national majority based on their core beliefs."-VDH

Yep. And what wicked beliefs they are.

Sooo... if the Dems win the House how much do you think the House is going to control the Senate or the White House?

You libs bashed Bush for not using the veto pen much. Well, anything you want to try and do; Bush will have to agree to it. And if you think the Dems last six years of DO NOTHING instead of solving problems in an attempt to get the electorate so angry with Congress for doing nothing; then just wait to see how far it can go with a Speaker Pelosi... you know... grammie Pelosi, worth about 14 million dollars who walks in parades with members of NAMBLA who has a 100% Abortion rating; a 0% rating for gun rights; a 100% NEA rating and a 0% from FAIR.

She claims to be in favor of energy independence but has VOTED AGAINST any legitimate method of doing that.

She claims to be in favor of low taxes, yet hasn't voted for a tax cut in 12 years and voted for the LARGEST tax increase in history.

Y'all might just be kicking yourself if she becomes Speaker of the House.

Continued fallout from Clinton's cut-and-run from Mogadishu after the Blackhawk Down incident-

Somali Islamists 'under al-Qaeda'

(AFP): SOMALIA'S interim president appealed today for international help in dealing with a powerful Islamist movement he accused of operating under the "black flag" of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Speaking to a US-backed panel of diplomats trying to salvage foundering peace talks, President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed said the world had a "moral obligation" to help protect his weak government from "foreign terrorists".

He said the Islamists, who seized Mogadishu in June from warlords and now control nearly all of southern and central Somalia, were falsely portraying themselves as moderates and posed a major regional and international threat.

Many thanks, DM.

I keep drawing lines between Liberals and the core Democrats. I noted that in 2004, something like 70% of those who voted for Kerry did so not because they voted FOR Kerry, but just AGAINST Bush. So I have never seen either Bush election as a mandate for the radical Left as much as a reflection of the success of the BDS movement.

If I am right, this leaves the Left in something of a bind, as now they have to convince these good people that there is ANOTHER demon out there in Republican clothing, as bad as Bush or even worse. And I think that decent Democrats are going to get tired of being asked to just vote AGAINST someone, on a hate-based agenda, instead of FOR something.

I have a visual in my mind of millions of rational Democrats being pushed up against a retaining wall of Bush hatred, caught between the belief that surely not ALL of the venom spewed against Bush can be wrong and the scary wild-eyed radicalism of the NDP---New Democratic Party. And in my visual, if the NDP starts to believe their own propaganda and nominates one of their own in '08, all the Republicans have to is nominate a likable candidate for that retaining wall to collapse, and for many of those millions to flow to the right.

Because while the NDP is truly nuts, I still have faith in the mainstream Dems, who are Dems because they believe that it's just right to turn over more of their earnings to support others and lots of social programs, who truly believe that we don't need to worry too much about bad foreigners trying to hurt us, who are afraid of guns, and who want schools to do social engineering along with academics. I may not agree with any of those agendas, but they are legitimate points of view, and real issues, as opposed to the All Hate All The Time demonizing of the right that has kept the radical Left afloat these past few years.

Have you noticed that we don't have rational debates on whether or not we should take on more social spending, but instead stupid comments designed to divide people on emotional grounds, like the beloved "tax cuts for the rich" mantra? There are too many smart Dems who are getting tired of the blatant efforts to manipulate them emotionally, and who want and may soon demand real issues debated by real leaders instead of the demagoguery they are getting now.

And it's the Republicans who treat people with respect, who assume they can figure out the economics, who can see the dangers of terrorism and a weak defense, who realize that tax cuts benefit all of us and not just "the rich" and who don't assume that voters are idiots.

Doug sounds like one of these moderate Dems looking for leadership. He clearly bought into the demagoguery that Bush and Rumsfeld are dummies, but at least he is tired of the divisiveness and nastiness that has prevailed. BTW, Doug, the right did NOT "hate" Clinton, any more than a cop "hates" the guy he arrests for breaking the law. You sound like a decent, if confused, guy, and I hate to see you sucked into the hyper-emotional drivel that tries to pin irrational "hatred" onto the Right, regarding Clinton, to try to justify the viciousness directed toward Bush.

Bane, thanks for the answer. To those who are focusing on my last sentence (the Right is Stupid), take a look at the title of this post (the Left is Insane)...one meaningless stereotype for another...pretty useless, huh? But if Mark thinks he needs some "sizzle" like that for debate...well, it's his blog. I'll play along. But thanks for the steak, Bane.

"I’m speaking to you from inside the academia asylum; I’ve been a teacher at a public institution and currently work for the University of California, liberal ivory tower theoretical nonsense is alive and well, and it is based on otherworldly phenomena that don’t exist in the real world. Trust me on this one, it’s worse than you ever imagined!"

I think you have good points, and I'm definitely glad to hear your experience, but that is sort of what I mean when I say "anecdotal." But that's beside the point; you may very well be right -- I didn't go through the California system.

"There’s a simple answer for this; the academicians have lived in a world dominated by theory; improvable and not influenced by messy things like peoples’ emotions and desires. Communism and socialism are the perfect political microcosms in this world, not so much in the real world. The intelligencia blame the failures of the ethereal on systems that didn’t follow the procedure as written; instead of admitting that persons are not predictable automatons."

Agh, nonono. I have never heard of one professor saying, "Communism really is best. It would work if we just implemented it perfectly." Everyone professor I've ever known (of all political stripes) acknowledges it as a failed system, precisely because of the reasons you cited. I don't think you're giving historians and political scientists enough credit for realizing such a basic principle.

"Today’s teachers ignore this lesson and the lessons of personal achievement and self actualization, and teach instead that the world is a Disney movie where all children have “special” talents, and no child is better or worse than another; all ideas are valid, (provided they agree with the teacher), good and bad are indistinguishable, subjective and require being judgmental (a bad thing to a teacher), and only those who strive to achieve are demonized as subjugators and usurers."

That is such a strawman. Of course there are teachers who act like that, but they are few and far between, and they exist on the other end of the spectrum as well. Anyway, I thought we were talking about professors; sounds more like you're describing a kindergarten teacher. The professors I know grade harshly based on two things: Did you get your facts right and did you make a good argument? The conclusion of that argument is irrelevant. There is a definite right and wrong as far as facts go. As far as analysis, if you can argue logically, then your answer will be "correct." Again, of course there are professors (on both extremes, believe me) who actually grade based on whether or not you agree with them, but I suspect they are the exception not the rule. Of course, they're the ones people remember and talk about, hence the problem of anecdotal evidence!

"The liberal studies of higher education don’t want or preach equal opportunity; they strive for equal outcome..."

That's certainly not what Rawls wrote, and it's light-years away from Nozick. Are you talking about someone specific or making a general stereotype? In my "liberal studies" (by which I assume you mean political philosophy classes or something), I was taught that equal opportunity exists to level the playing field, yet you have to earn your own way and respect property rights. the "liberal" Amartya Sen echoes Rawls: It really is about equality of opportunity, not equality of final position. That's what academic liberals are saying from the 20th century on. That's the position you have to argue against, if you really want to. It's easy to attack the hypothetical nutty liberal professor who indoctrinates his students and forces them to believe as he does! It's much harder to address what the real liberal "elite" in the field are actually saying.

You know, it's kind of fun to see all the bile you people are spewing while you tremble at the thought of losing your grip on power. You call anyone who disagrees with you every foul name you can think of, you dismiss them as whiners and looney lefties, but can't offer a rational defense for your own absmyl failures of the past few years.
Deny, Defame, Discredit. That's the far right ethos we get from you. Most people are now quite aware that Republicans can't even be trusted to balance a budget, much less lead a war. So enjoy that slow twist in the wind. And perhaps you can get Big Pharma to grant you a discount on your anti-depressants.

But don't count on it.

P.S. Yes, you DID hate Clinton.

Peter,

Just be sure to be here on election night - as I've been saying all year and am going to say again today: the GOP will gain seats in both houses. Every indicator is for a GOP victory - all you've got is MSMers talking to each other and a set of bogus polls....with the latest meme being that the GOP is going to stay home...which is rather strange, since if we're all that depressed and angry then how come tens of thousands of us volunteered to make more than a million personal contacts (via phone and door knocking) last month?

You've got nothing on the left...just a story, and reality will come crashing on you November 7th.

Tom,

The question is already answered - that you on the left are a bunch of self-absorbed, spoiled brats who don't understand why we don't all kneel in awe before your liberal worldview....the topic, strictly speaking, is to discuss just how stupid the left is.

I all can do is shake my head at this point.

Err... that should be "all I can do."

And Mark, I don't think there's any doubt now that you're unhealthily obsessed with bashing "liberalism."

If ever answer any question I pose to you, answer this one. A little while ago, you posted an attack on liberals who are obsessed with bashing Bush and the right.

Looking at the thread you are posting in, do you see how hypocritical you are?

Reading the comments, you Wingers have the Hannity and Limbaugh talking points down, which they got from one of their WH visits. But this is why the Republicans are down to about 35% favorable. America is sick of the Right Wing Neocons divisiveness, non-bipartisan hate for anything that is not Republican. Three branches of Government and Republicans have accomplished little or nothing: inheritance tax breaks for the likes of Paris Hilton, bridges to rich folks in Alaska, increases in the number of pregnancies and abortions, $3.00 gas, stagnant wages, floating bodies in New Orleans, nukes in North Korea, $500 billion to build Iraqi roads and schools.

My God the President was out there campaigning for Mistress Choking Sherwood of PA. Has the Republican Party really sunk this low?

*Chuckles*

I always enjoy the bashing threads. They're always so colorful! :D

Honestly folks, we do tend to take ourselves a bit too seriously from time to time. I don't mind fighting tooth and nail over issues or on the campaign trail but against one another it's just plain old silly. I'll tackle any issue you want, and I've proven that I'm not a "Bushbot" or a "Liberalwacko" and I think by and large most of you fine folks aren't one or the other as well.

I know Tom and I have had some nice debates here and even agreed on some fine points.

I know I've disagreed with Mark on a few key points as well and he doesn't kick me off the site. :)

So feel free to poke fun and be made fun of. It's all the same anyway. Just remember at the heart of all of this are some very serious matters. When the time comes I hope we all take a serious look at the issues, choose our side, and be prepared to fight for every inch of it on the merits, not because "it's the opposite of the other guy."

Welfare doesn't work. It doesn't help people get out of a bad situation, it just keeps them hovering over the precipice... and it keeps adding more and more on to it because those who grow up with that system are much more likely to "need" it when they are adults. It coddles the kind of behavior that brings and keeps people poor, rather than helping them get to a point where they are successful.

Yes.....New Orleans was a fine example.

"I love how conservatives try to ignore the fact that the most educated people in society, the ones who actually devote their lives to studying history or political science or hard science or whatever, tend to lean to the left. The ones who've done the most research tend to vote Democrat. Hmmmmm!! And yet righties, instead of listening to experts, plug their ears and accuse the experts of bias." Chris

Chris, most of these "so called experts" have never had to work for a living. University tenure is gained only by bowing to peer pressure and submitting to the gods of liberalism.

In otherwords:

If you can't DO...teach

So this was what those "last throes" Dick Cheney was talking about awhile back look like. You guys need to take a serious look at yourselves.

And Mark, I don't think there's any doubt now that you're unhealthily obsessed with bashing "liberalism."

Its not about bashing "liberalism".

You're out of touch with the War on Terrorism. Heaven forbid the democrats win in November. What happens if we have another terrorist attack? The Democrats strategy is that terrorism is more of a police issue.

Yesterday Charlie Rangel on Fox news referred to the mastermind of 911 as an alleged terrorist. John Kerry refers to the war in Iraq as Lies, Lies, Lies while our soldiers are dying and getting hurt for life. Chris Dodd refering to the Interrogation bill "major blow to who we are".

Bin Laden is sitting in his cave and laughing his ass off at the Democratic party. I am sure he wishes he could stuff a few ballot boxes himself.

How sadly ironic GWB's generation is the hippie, freelovin, peacenik, flowerpower generation. How sad it was when the Kent State student protesters were shot dead. Dead. Protesting a no win war. Protesting the draft of so many handsome young men and sending them to battle for what? And yet we see ourselves right back there again. W acknowledged the Tet offensive and our situation in Iraq was similar. Stand by your man. Your commander in chief. Keep saying "stay the course", changing nothing. Pouring young men and women into a meat grinder. Have your Generals state matter of factly that your Secretary of defense is "inspired by God". The prince of peace.

I find it truley sad all of W's generation has turned into what they are today-bizzaro images of the ideals they once admired. So incredibly frightened, so faux haughty. You sicken me.

You will be remembered as the generation of obesity and greed. Wanton disregard for the rest of the people of the world and the earth.

Look at your children. Idolizing gangsters and bling. Breast agumentation and ipods. Most of your children will not vote only from mere apathy and ignorance.

The world you see today is your world W. A mess.

Your mess. And you have no idea how to fix it now. So stay the course. God is on our side. Our God is better than their God. They call us infidels. We call them islamofacists.

Your generation had a chance. A chance to lead this world in peace and true freedom. Learning from our past mistakes. Striving to improve the quality of life and leave a soft footprint on the earth.

And your generation pisses it away.

I can only shake my head in dismay.

And I thank God for Keith Olbermann.

awww.... Raker found a kindred spirit in someone who couldn't hack it as a reporter for ESPN.

Also Raker... out of curiosity...are you an old man lamenting the fact that the past is just that; the past.

The society you see now is the FAULT of those hippie beatniks you mention. Their free love turned into NO CONSEQUENCES and NO RULES. That's why kids today are shitheads and apathetic.

That particular problem isn't political, because bad parents exist in both parties (even though the Democrats are doing a good job of getting rid of their future members before they're even born).

I hope that whining made you feel good... now besides the tripe "Bush lied... Impeach Bush" bullsh*t, how do you suggest we get rid of the materialism that is rampant in this society.

Perhaps you could start and unplug that computer and just get back in bed and hope for the best.

Funny how all these neocons for 8 years were foaming at the mouth spewing hate and lies during the Clinton administration and now their only defense in the face of overwhelming incontrovertible evidence is "you just hate our Daddy G". I guess they are the hate experts and know all about it.

Some day they, God willing will out grow their adolescent behavior and start paying attention to the world around them.

Speaking of which how do all you Christian Conservatives feel about being laughed at and made fun of by the Bush administration. They used you for their own ends and left the real Christian agenda to wither and die.

There is no question that the Democrats are disorganized, wimpy and sometimes very wrong. But, and a big "but" it is, the current crop of Republicans need to be stopped in their tracks in the way they have run bulldozer-like over our liberties and become more like Liberals with their "spend and spend" and "create Big Government" policies. In case you haven't noticed, the current crop of Republicans have run up the largest debt ever seen in the U.S. and created the biggest government ever. So they have been "Liberals" in terms of spending more than we have and creating more government with its rules, inefficiencies and propensity to grow even more, than we've ever seen.

In addition to these destructive tendencies, the current crop of Republicans have been acting the way amateurs do, not knowing or understanding the impact of what it has been doing. From President Bush, who makes a joke of his ignorance, to stooges such as Rumsfeld and truly unfeeling fixed-idea men such as Cheney, we have suffered from inept and uninformed leadership. Iraq is just one example of such amateurness, with a war that had no plan for any follow-up. Iran is another. The way we’ve handled Afghanistan is still another. North Korea was essential ignored and antagonized. Our ignoring the essential conflict between Israel and the Palestine peoples, just hoping it will go away. Add them up and we can now see how inept this administration has been. The underlying theme has been “our way or the highway; we’re such a strong country we can tell anyone what to do.” Then look at the current economy, changed from a positive one in which our assets were growing to one in which almost everything except oil has been declining. If oil weren't artificially low, the current rate of inflation would be appalling. Asking the military, who weren’t trained to build nations and who did their job heroically in the war, to sort out what needs to be done in Iraq or Afghanistan is truly amateurish; such work was never the military’s job. Not even having a full professional cadre of those who speak the language of our enemies, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Iran to Lebanon – the FBI is now frantically looking for translators - how could this administration even pretend to understand what forces it has unleashed? The author of “Fiasco”, Tom Ricks, has said we’ll probably have troops in Iraq for fifteen years because of how amateurishly things have been handled. I grieve for our sons and daughters and our grandchildren who will be forced to handle the mess that on.

The real conservatives are calling for a separate party. I hope to join it. The “spend and spend” and “create bigger government” party that is known as the Republican Party evidently endorses smarmy Foley and Hastert who protect us from those other guys, including the foreign terrorists and the homegrown gays. In the short run, rather than indulge in wish fulfillment thinking, we may have to vote Democrat to balance off the existing Republic greed machine, but then we need to get it together to truly create a Conservative Party, with true Conservative ideals.

*Chuckles*

I love how you folks are jumping on the fact that Bush agreed that the current fighting is similar to the Tet offensive. You do realize we WON the Tet offensive militarily don't you? How we kicked the VC butt up one side and down the other even though they got us on our back foot for a little while? If it wasn't for the stupid media painting of it folks might realize it.

Sheesh...

Why do we have to deal with extremes? I'm a Republican who considers himself conservative. Yet I have no patience with those who reject ANY tax increase, ANY abortion and sign on to ALL of the themes of the religious fundamentalists. Our party has lost its way, convinced they are the white hat cowboys in the land of evil and have license to do whatever they want, break laws and treaties. Republican leaders are rightly viewed as arrogant from within and outside our country and include the likes of George bush, Dick Cheaney or Tom Delay. It's time to vote them out, not to be replaced by Democrats but by statesmen - those who do what's right, not what's expedient, what's popular or what will get theri party the most votes.

Sure, and the Viet Nam War ended how? I recall many times over the past 4 years the Bush Gov distancing itself from Viet Nam--now they embrace it. Take a look at the end result to see where Iraq is headed, though Bush has said many times that he plans to leave the mess of Iraq for the next president to resolve. (nice of him)

Almiranta-

Your assessment of Democrats is sad, wrong, and shameful.

You think it's only the libs who are condescending?

You write-
"Doug sounds like one of these moderate Dems looking for leadership. He clearly bought into the demagoguery that Bush and Rumsfeld are dummies, but at least he is tired of the divisiveness and nastiness that has prevailed."

It isn't demagoguery to believe that their plan has failed. I was against the war, but far more against the handling of it. I was clear about that. If it had to be done, I would have liked to have seen more troops sent in, as many generals wanted. I would have liked to have seen a pacified Iraq that was stable, along with a stable Afghanistan. That way, you have two stable countries on either side of Iran. But you so narrowly say that us Dems don't take the threats in the world seriously and it's contributing to the hate.

"BTW, Doug, the right did NOT "hate" Clinton, any more than a cop "hates" the guy he arrests for breaking the law."

I think you need to revisit the facts of history. Ever heard of Limbaugh? Remember Lindsay Graham back when he was in the House? The right despised Bill Clinton and challenged his legitimacy from day one. It's true that the left has its fair share of Bush haters. Y'all would have raised high holy hell too if Bush had won the popular vote in 2000 and Gore won the Electoral College. Even if you won't admit it, you know the truth.

"You sound like a decent, if confused, guy, and I hate to see you sucked into the hyper-emotional drivel that tries to pin irrational "hatred" onto the Right, regarding Clinton, to try to justify the viciousness directed toward Bush."

That was really condescending. I am not confused about anything. You assume that I'm wrong because of my beliefs. You assume that I'm confused because I think Rumsfelds military ideology is misguided and not based in reality. You think I'm confused because I think GWB exhibits a lack of curiosity and the ability to consider more than one viewpoint. We could debate these points, and I'd be happy to. But it seems easier to dismiss me as some sort of confused dimwit.

At any rate, all we can do is what we can do. And what I intend to do is spend some time in Tennessee busting my ass for Congressman Ford, vote here in Connecticut for my candidate of choice, and when my party is in power I intend to write my party's leadership all the time and express to them my desire to get things done and not exact revenge on the GOP, even though they probably deserve to be shut out of the legislative process like the Dems have since 1994. I don't want that. I sure as hell don't want impeachment, unless the coming investigations find that he committed a crime worse than lying about sex. I want that man in office on Election Day 2008 to remind the country of what it's like to have a Republican president. I disagree with what your party does when in power. But what would be as bad if not worse is to waste our nation's time getting revenge instead of doing the things I think will be best for all of us.

My one question for you is this:

If we have a Dem Congress and President in the next few years and they balance the budget, will you give them credit for it?

"What sends liberal criticism over the edge into pathological hysteria?

Is it that George Bush is a polarizing figure, not just in terms of his Iraq policy, but also because of his Christian Texan demeanor?"

38% approval for Bush. 16% approval for Congress.

It ain't just the Libs who are unhappy. Face it, folks. The GOP has screwed the pooch. Your days are numbered.

Indeed, Mark.

The left has lost all sense of moral decency!
They have no kindness or dignity, Instead they only show, bigotry, hate and vile words in a fit of rage to seek control of the lives of others!

No doubt, we need a Don Quixote figure to get America out of this moral malaise, with the idea of honor, and the unbought grace of LIFE!!

Why is the left insane? They have rejected God!!! Seeking after the evil, sinful desires of the world!

As for the future? Now is the time to pick up our lances and charge the cultural windmills before American civilization is blown off the pages of history. We must do it in the trusting spirit of John Quincy Adams who avouched, "The duty is mine and the outcome belongs to God."

Jeremiah

See, here it comes from the NY Times front web page. We won't have to worry about prisoners or habeaus corpus:

"Or Mr. Bush can reassess the strategy itself, perhaps listening to those advisers ­ including some members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, the advisory commission charged with coming up with new strategies for Iraq ­ who say that he needs to redefine the “victory” that he again on Thursday declared was his goal."

Jim Baker to the rescue!

No "cut and run", however; no "traitors." Just "reassess the strategy." Hm, I think Murtha was saying that. So, please, we need to get out the long knives and start calling Jim Baker and his committee a "cut and run" group and a "traitor."

Mark said:

as I've been saying all year and am going to say again today: the GOP will gain seats in both houses. Every indicator is for a GOP victory.

You detest "polls" but love "indicators"...not sure how to take that one.

Not all the pollsters are MSM, Mark. Scott Rasmussen is an Evangelical Christian, and if his polls are biased I hardly doubt that they are biased in favor of the Democrats. He correctly identified all 50 states in 2004.

He now claims that Americans think the terrorists are winning, 36% to 31%, 54% say Iraq will get worse over the next year, and "we are safer since 9/11" loses 36% to 45%. He has the senate at 48/48 with 4 tossups (big range I know but no gains for Republicans.)

Are these not "indicators" in your book?

Bush and his Administration now have demonstrated and instituted the worst of all liberal traits. The first is their "spend and spend" policies, with no end in sight as our President even promises aid to Lebanon, with no respect for the conservative philosophy of reducing our debt, not increasing it. I suggest that "spend and spend" is more liberal than tax and spend. And make no mention of the fact that our government, under this Administration, has created the largest deficit ever and the most debt, ever. For holders of assets, such as myself, this "spend and spend" policy (in pursuit of the "Bush doctrine") will mean that our government issued bonds will be worth less and less, and this will drag our economy down and make us vulnerable to holders of these bonds, such as the Chinese. The other area that you haven't mentioned, in which Bush and his Administration is incontestably "liberal" is in his unfettered growth of government; it cannot be contested that our government is now the biggest it has ever been. This is very liberal, I'm afraid "big government" is now a hallmark of a Republican administration; I never thought I'd see a "spend and spend" and "create Big Government" Republican administration.

Ironic, isn't it? A friend of mine who is a very rich staunch capitalist said, "At heart I am a libertarian. I think Bush is Lyndon Johnson Jr. guns & butter.. The only voices I hear in Congress for more financial responsibility are from a minority of the Republicans, nothing from the Democrats. I do agree power corrupts. I don’t like deficit spending either by individuals or by governments. Deficit spending almost always weakens the borrower in the long run."

The real conservatives are calling for a separate party. I hope to join it. The “spend and spend” and “create bigger government” party that is known as the Republican Party evidently endorses smarmy Foley and Hastert who protect us from those other guys, including the foreign terrorists and the homegrown gays. In the short run, rather than indulge in wish fulfillment thinking, we may have to vote Democrat to balance off the existing Republic greed machine, but then we need to get it together to truly create a Conservative Party, with true Conservative ideals.

Chris...PhD = Piled High Deeper

Those that can...do! Those that can't...teach.

I have two graduate degrees, both M.S....I find these same people you fawn over to be some of the more unintelligent folks to walk the planet. These folks often cannot tie their shoes let alone survive on their own in society. They are usually the weakest of the weak and thus gravitate to the left because they need things like tenure to survive. They need their cocoon bubble like protection at a university to function at all.

You may coddle them all you wish and praise them for their intelligence. Me, I live in the real world and these folks do not.

OCPatriot, I am a conservative and not a Republican. I also live in the O.C. I am furious with the Republican spending, but I am not stupid enough to think that voting for a Democrat would be a better alternative. Nor do I know ANY conservative that thinks this way.

I know some that will sit this out, but no way are they voting for a party (Dems) that raise taxes, support handouts, spend money on frivilous projects, steal from those that succeed and overall want a socialst agenda.

To quote Hillary...we're going to take from you so we can give it to others.

Now, if you're truly a conservative as you suggest (I have my doubts), please explain to us all why a vote for a Democrat is a smart move. Please back it up with facts. I could understand a vote for a libertarian. I could understand a vote for no one. A vote for a Democrat...please, explain that rationale to us.

Warriornation,

How's about this for fact: Conservatives have had the last 6 years to prove what they got, and it has amounted to more divided nation, the biggest debt in national history, more enemies with nukes... I mean, how many more chances do we have to give? If the Dems had been running things this whole time, there would have been calls for impeachment years ago. Stop giving the green light just because of party lines and start listening to messages. At least the Dems have a message of hope and don't use scare tactics. As for all ya'll ex-hippies, those of use from a younger generation know that it was all just a fad. We want to see real change that makes sense for a better future and aren't jumping any band wagons, so get out of our way....

Jim,

And Rasmussen will be the first to admit that polling for midterms is notoriously difficult - the really good indicator over at Rasmussen is that President Bush's approval hasn't moved one way or the other in months...meaning that for all the hoo-haw on the left about how everyone hates him, there really hasn't been much change in overall opinion about him.

That aside, the real indicators are things like the booming economy, the surging stock market, the GOP's much superior GOTV program, Howard Dean is a pinhead, Democrats are borrowing money to finish out the campaign, gas prices have dropped like a rock, unemployment is down, Republicans are poised for easy victory in the blue States of California and Hawaii, the very blue State of New Jersey is entirel in play less than three weeks out - as contrasted to the fact that very conservative Santorum in blue Pennsylvania is considered by all and sundry to still have an even money shot at winning...

As I've also been saying all year, all of the evidence is in favor of a GOP victory in 2006 - the only contra-indicators are most of the polls (not all of them - some of them are showing the GOP doing quite well)...but even the best of polling routinely underestimates GOP voting strength, and some of these polls showing a route of the GOP have margins of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Perhaps I'm just whistling past the graveyard - perhaps I'll be sitting here on November 7th eating whole bags of crow...come what may, I will be here and I will accept the loss for what it would be: a determination by the American people that victory in the War on Terrorism isn't, in the minds of a majority, worth the effort. So be it - the will of the people will prevail in our democratic republic. On the other hand, I've been a pretty savvy observer of politics and I've never been more serene less than three weeks out before a vote...I was more nervous three weeks before the vote in 1984. Today, I'm absolutely calm and confident. I've got no worries.

Speaking of "polarizing figures"- V.D.Hanson
is up to his old tricks. That column is typical
of him, setting up Leftist straw-men , then
demonizing them with elaborate name-calling--
"savage" Left-wingers from the "tribal 60's",
a party consisting of "aging" "irresponsible"
Leftists, ad naseum..give me a break. Hanson
should give a try at fantasy,esp with his
descriptive writing, and give those of us who
live in reality a rest from his political
fiction.

"I will be here and I will accept the loss for what it would be: a determination by the American people that victory in the War on Terrorism isn't, in the minds of a majority, worth the effort."

This just smacks of desperation. Our policy in Iraq is floundering... (remember that Baghdad security clampdown you trumpeted Mark? Ain't going so well), we're finally getting a serious look at alternatives to Bush's policy with Baker (one of which it seems Dems have been offering for over a year -- only to be called treasonous for it, while also withstanding claims they have no alternative plans for Iraq)... so you fall back on what you know... FEAR. Hey, worked with IRaq, right? Smoking guns as mushroom clouds and what not...

Well, I for one, have faith in the American people that they'll see through this pandering-- this fear mongering--that if the Dems are elected, we'll withdraw from the war on terrorism and we'll be attacked harder. That ad you posted in just blatant fear-mongering. No shame.

I mean, when McCain says he'd kill himself if Dems take control, I'm betting most Americans see that as a politician trying to hold onto power; they're not thinking "my god, i better not elect a democrat. McCain seems to think it would be really bad!"

Wow, Mark, you sure hit a nerve---or several. I haven't seen this much techno-spittle flying for a long time.

It has, how