Barack O-bush-ma?

[WinCrimson 61]

While I don't subscribe to the "F all the Dems" rabidity (is that a word?), you do have to admit that the democratic party is painfully out of touch with the average American. The values and ideals the party advocates waffle between absurd and insane.

I'm no Democrat, but the above is a false statement. They are out of touch with Pickens County, Alabama, but not the entire nation. Rural, west Alabama is not an accurate crossection of the nation as a whole.

What issue are Republicans in the majority on? Abortion? No. Social Security? No. Guns? No. Terrorism and the Iraq war? Not anymore. Environmental issues? No. Taxes? No. Actually, gay marriage is the only one that comes to mind, and it's rightfully a non-issue with many.

[GalensGhost 0]

While I don't subscribe to the "F all the Dems" rabidity (is that a word?), you do have to admit that the democratic party is painfully out of touch with the average American. The values and ideals the party advocates waffle between absurd and insane.

I'm no Democrat, but the above is a false statement. They are out of touch with Pickens County, Alabama, but not the entire nation. Rural, west Alabama is not an accurate crossection of the nation as a whole.

What issue are Republicans in the majority on? Abortion? No. Social Security? No. Guns? No. Terrorism and the Iraq war? Not anymore. Environmental issues? No. Taxes? No. Actually, gay marriage is the only one that comes to mind, and it's rightfully a non-issue with many.

The democrats are out of step with middle america. Look at the election results, not asinine polls. Liberals get votes on the east and west coasts. Pretty much everything in the middle of the country goes the other way.

The republican party may not agree with YOUR ideology on abortion, SS, guns, the war, the environment, taxes, etc. but the party is still in line with pretty much all but the upper east coast and the far left coast.

[AURaptor 1,125]

F all Dems

Quite a libido you have there.

I'm just sick and tired of Dems politicizing every G-Damn thing under the sun for their pure political purposes. Whether it's Ray ( School Bus ) Nagin , Gov. Blanco in LA, nutcase John Murtha calling our soldiers NAZIS , Dick Durbin comparing Gitmo to a Soviet Gulag, or that ding bat Dem Gov in Kansas, no matter the issue, it's always "blame Bush, blame the GOP, " and never mind the actual crisis or issue at hand. And don't even TRY to say " oh, they're just politicians, and that's what politicians do... the GOP does it to. HORSE $HIT! There's a list of Dems a mile long who ALL said Saddam was evil, bad, had WMD and needed to go. Once W got in office and carried out their wishes, they suddenly turn all Benedict Arnold and claim 'Bush lied'..... Save for a few like Joe Lieberman, most Dems aren't even worth a bucket of warm dog squeeze.

If the Dems can show utter disrespect with those ' F the President ' stickers, then to hell with them.

[AURaptor 1,125]

What issue are Republicans in the majority on? Abortion? No. Social Security? No. Guns? No. Terrorism and the Iraq war? Not anymore. Environmental issues? No. Taxes? No. Actually, gay marriage is the only one that comes to mind, and it's rightfully a non-issue with many.

Abortion ? Yes.

Social Security ? Yes

Guns ? Absolutely

Terrorism? Yes

Iraq ? If the press reported all that really is going on, that might change.

Enviroment ? Remove the phony global warming scare, and it's a moot point.

Taxes ? Absolutely !

Gay marriage ? Every chance the public has a chance to vote on it, it gets voted DOWN. Only in states where the COURTS have stepped in does it get made into law.

You need to brush up on your facts, son.

[WinCrimson 61]

While I don't subscribe to the "F all the Dems" rabidity (is that a word?), you do have to admit that the democratic party is painfully out of touch with the average American. The values and ideals the party advocates waffle between absurd and insane.

I'm no Democrat, but the above is a false statement. They are out of touch with Pickens County, Alabama, but not the entire nation. Rural, west Alabama is not an accurate crossection of the nation as a whole.

What issue are Republicans in the majority on? Abortion? No. Social Security? No. Guns? No. Terrorism and the Iraq war? Not anymore. Environmental issues? No. Taxes? No. Actually, gay marriage is the only one that comes to mind, and it's rightfully a non-issue with many.

The democrats are out of step with middle america. Look at the election results, not asinine polls. Liberals get votes on the east and west coasts. Pretty much everything in the middle of the country goes the other way.

The republican party may agree with YOUR ideology on abortion, SS, guns, the war, the environment, taxes, etc. but the party is still in line with pretty much all but the upper east coast and the far left coast.

We can look at election results, sure. It's not favorable to your argument, but whatever.

Democrats control the governorships in heartland states like Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Montana and win this category nationally by a 6 seat margin.

The US Senate? Both of the Senators from North Dakota and Arkansas are Democrats. Colorado, Montana and Missouri have also switched a Senate seat from red to blue since 2004. Dems on top 51-49 overall.

US House? While the Plains states are an area where Dems don't run strongly, they really don't need them to be in the majority. Look at the image below. You'll see that there is some blue in the middle of the country, but very little red on either coast. This is a pretty misleading map, too. NYC and LA aren't represented to their actual size -- and number of seats. It's 233-202 Democratically controlled.

So, it's hard to say that there "painfully out of touch" with the nation when they control nearly every aspect of the government -- on both a national and state level. If they hadn't run such a bumbling putz in 2004, they'd control the White House, as well. What it is, is that the Republican party has been the one that's been marginalized. Marginalized to a few Dust Bowl states and a majority of the Southeastern states. Although, there is no competitive states like Arkansas or Florida for the GOP in the Northeast.

[TexasTiger 12,958]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

Can anyone here hear the jokes and skewers aimed at W if he had made this whopper of a gaffe.

It would have hardly been noticed. Sure, it would make it into the next volume of Bushisms, IV, but who would have been surprised? Do you think Drudge would have even linked to it, much less make it the headline? Hardly.

[WinCrimson 61]

What issue are Republicans in the majority on? Abortion? No. Social Security? No. Guns? No. Terrorism and the Iraq war? Not anymore. Environmental issues? No. Taxes? No. Actually, gay marriage is the only one that comes to mind, and it's rightfully a non-issue with many.

Abortion ? Yes.

Social Security ? Yes

Guns ? Absolutely

Terrorism? Yes

Iraq ? If the press reported all that really is going on, that might change.

Enviroment ? Remove the phony global warming scare, and it's a moot point.

Taxes ? Absolutely !

Gay marriage ? Every chance the public has a chance to vote on it, it gets voted DOWN. Only in states where the COURTS have stepped in does it get made into law.

You need to brush up on your facts, son.

You need to quit talking down to me when you have zero evidence to support your claims. Each word below is a link. Enjoy.

Abortion rights: Pro-chice

Social security: Against Bush's proposals

Guns: Favor stricter controls

Iraq: Opposes

Environment: Dems beat Bush 53-21%

Taxes: Dems win, but by "slim" 6% margin

Again, let me reiterate. I am a pro-life, pro-SSI privatization, pro-2nd amendment, pro-limited tax person. No, I don't associate with your crumbling party, but I do agree with you on most issues. The fact that you refuse to see the forest due to the Democratic tree in your face shows that you have made your blind commitment to a political party (that's on life support) and you refuse to recognize that it's quickly fading into the abyss of irrelevance.

Enjoy your victories in Mississippi and Utah. Yee har!

[GalensGhost 0]

So, it's hard to say that there "painfully out of touch" with the nation when they control nearly every aspect of the government -- on both a national and state level. If they hadn't run such a bumbling putz in 2004, they'd control the White House, as well. What it is, is that the Republican party has been the one that's been marginalized. Marginalized to a few Dust Bowl states and a majority of the Southeastern states. Although, there is no competitive states like Arkansas or Florida for the GOP in the Northeast.

You do understand that there's a VAST difference between local democrats and national democrats (for the most part). Even for US Senate and House seats the perception is that they are local candidates, not national ones.

You say West Alabama isn't representative, but looking at your map I'd have to contend that may be more so than you realize. West Alabama is blue. About the only blue section in the state. This part of the state traditionally elects democrats for local, state and national office -- except for President. Since Reagan, it's been staunchly Republican.

[WinCrimson 61]

I think Alabama Democrats running for federal office still encounter the "You gone marry up queers and kill my neighbors baby, ain't ya?" crowd on a regular basis. This is obviously true and was proven when we sent that bimbo Jeff Sessions back to the US Senate in 2002.

Kerry and Gore take flak from Alabamians on social issues because they deserve it. Not that there's anything wrong with it. They're openly pro-choice, are perceived as being anti-gun, and tend to be pro-gay. They made their bed, and in Alabama, they're sleeping on a hard mattress.

West Alabama isn't representative, but Artur Davis is. I don't even like Rep. Davis, but he seems pretty centrist and representative of the nation as a whole - moderate to liberal. Is Aliceville even in his district, by the way? I use Aliceville because that's the area, and thus, mentality, of the state I had earlier made a reference to. I know that his district has been gerrymandered to include extremely high levels of minorities -- all black belt counties and downtown Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. I live in north Tuscaloosa and I know I'm in Bachus' district.

By the way, Davis' district was the only Alabama congressional district to vote for either Kerry or Gore. So, it actually does continue to tote the party line in Presidential elections.

[GalensGhost 0]

I think Alabama Democrats running for federal office still encounter the "You gone marry up queers and kill my neighbors baby, ain't ya?" crowd on a regular basis. This is obviously true and was proven when we sent that bimbo Jeff Sessions back to the US Senate in 2002.

Kerry and Gore take flak from Alabamians on social issues because they deserve it. Not that there's anything wrong with it. They're openly pro-choice, are perceived as being anti-gun, and tend to be pro-gay. They made their bed, and in Alabama, they're sleeping on a hard mattress.

West Alabama isn't representative, but Artur Davis is. I don't even like Rep. Davis, but he seems pretty centrist and representative of the nation as a whole - moderate to liberal. Is Aliceville even in his district, by the way? I use Aliceville because that's the area, and thus, mentality, of the state I had earlier made a reference to. I know that his district has been gerrymandered to include extremely high levels of minorities -- all black belt counties and downtown Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. I live in north Tuscaloosa and I know I'm in Bachus' district.

By the way, Davis' district was the only Alabama congressional district to vote for either Kerry or Gore. So, it actually does continue to tote the party line in Presidential elections.

Not sure what counties Davis represents. Part of Pickens I think. But nobody pays attention to how he votes. They voted for him because he was black, articulate and a democrat. I don't think he even had a republican challenger. I do pay occasional attention to how he votes and I've been dismayed to note that he suckles at the democratic teat.

Greene County may have voted for Kerry or Gore, but I'm 99% sure Pickens, Tuscaloosa, Fayette, Marion, Lamar and Sumter were all Bush counties.

Frankly, I'd like for the party system to be abolished. I'd prefer for our representatives to vote as we want them to and not lick the boots of some pissbag like Pelosi or Daschle.

[WinCrimson 61]

I think Alabama Democrats running for federal office still encounter the "You gone marry up queers and kill my neighbors baby, ain't ya?" crowd on a regular basis. This is obviously true and was proven when we sent that bimbo Jeff Sessions back to the US Senate in 2002.

Kerry and Gore take flak from Alabamians on social issues because they deserve it. Not that there's anything wrong with it. They're openly pro-choice, are perceived as being anti-gun, and tend to be pro-gay. They made their bed, and in Alabama, they're sleeping on a hard mattress.

West Alabama isn't representative, but Artur Davis is. I don't even like Rep. Davis, but he seems pretty centrist and representative of the nation as a whole - moderate to liberal. Is Aliceville even in his district, by the way? I use Aliceville because that's the area, and thus, mentality, of the state I had earlier made a reference to. I know that his district has been gerrymandered to include extremely high levels of minorities -- all black belt counties and downtown Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. I live in north Tuscaloosa and I know I'm in Bachus' district.

By the way, Davis' district was the only Alabama congressional district to vote for either Kerry or Gore. So, it actually does continue to tote the party line in Presidential elections.

Not sure what counties Davis represents. Part of Pickens I think. But nobody pays attention to how he votes. They voted for him because he was black, articulate and a democrat. I don't think he even had a republican challenger. I do pay occasional attention to how he votes and I've been dismayed to note that he suckles at the democratic teat.

Greene County may have voted for Kerry or Gore, but I'm 99% sure Pickens, Tuscaloosa, Fayette, Marion, Lamar and Sumter were all Bush counties.

Frankly, I'd like for the party system to be abolished. I'd prefer for our representatives to vote as we want them to and not lick the boots of some pissbag like Pelosi or Daschle.

Why did they vote for Davis? Any person with half of a brain would vote to oust an incompetent crook. That's exactly what they did when they voted out Earl Hilliard.

Sumter? Went to Kerry with 70% of the vote. Perry gave him 68% and Greene gave him a whopping 79%. Dallas County was also in his column out of Davis' district. Inner B'Ham and Tuscaloosa also didn't hurt him. And, Lamar and Fayette aren't in his district. Oh, and just noticed that Choctaw County, a place that helpless Mexicans would turn their nose up at, voted for Bush. Hilarious.

I agree with you on abolishment of parties. There are too many that have blindly wed one of the two major parties for that to happen, though.

[GalensGhost 0]

Why did they vote for Davis? Any person with half of a brain would vote to oust an incompetent crook. That's exactly what they did when they voted out Earl Hilliard.

Sumter? Went to Kerry with 70% of the vote. Perry gave him 68% and Greene gave him a whopping 79%. Dallas County was also in his column out of Davis' district. Inner B'Ham and Tuscaloosa also didn't hurt him. And, Lamar and Fayette aren't in his district. Oh, and just noticed that Choctaw County, a place that helpless Mexicans would turn their nose up at, voted for Bush. Hilarious.

I agree with you on abolishment of parties. There are too many that have blindly wed one of the two major parties for that to happen, though.

Link?

Bluntly? Black people vote democrat. I imagine if you looked at the ethnic breakdown for those counties, you'd see some similarity in numbers. This is not a racist statement, it's merely a statement of fact. It's why in these counties even people who vote republican will be members of the local democratic party and run for office under the donkey flag.

[WinCrimson 61]

Now, you'd know I have a link to that info. Surely you don't think that I know that stuff off the top of my head?

Link

[Tiger in Spain 0]

The Guard's state mission:

At the state level, the governors reserve the ability, under the Constitution of the United States, to call up members of the National Guard in time of domestic emergencies or need.

The Army National Guard's state mission is perhaps the most visible and well known. Nearly everyone has seen or heard of Guard units responding to battle fires or helping communities deal with floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, snowstorms or other emergency situations.

http://www.arng.army.mil/aidingamerica.aspx

Of course, TIS grossly distorts the truth to align with his argument. A town literally gets blown away, he calls it a little rain. I'm better understanding your grasp of conditions in Iraq.

Again, Guardsmen aren't first responders. That was my point, dunderhead. These days, the power can't go out without it somehow being tied to troops or equipment in Iraq. "If only we had the 23rd Electrical Engineering Brigade around instead of in Ramadi, my lights would have only been out for 30 minutes instead of 35." Total bunk. The local police, fire and rescue personnel are there to provide these first responder duties. They are the ones that are there to manage the crisis....not the Guard. This didn't start until the Bush bashing got into full swing.

Can't help but notice the pattern here. We have a Dem female Gov. of a state which gets hit by a NATURAL disaster, gets offered help from the White House, refuses the help, and then turns right around and blames the White House for all their problems, and accuses the Pres of not 'caring' enough.

And her first name is Kathleen to boot.

Leave your bubble!! Rejoin the world!!

Is this the lefts catch phrase du jour? You've been throwing it around a lot over the past 24 hours.

[GalensGhost 0]

Now, you'd know I have a link to that info. Surely you don't think that I know that stuff off the top of my head?

Link

All the way back to '68 and the overwhelming vote for George Corley Wallace, you found pretty much the same little band of counties voting democratic. In some years there were more -- Carter once and Clinton once -- but for the most part it was that same little strip.

[WinCrimson 61]

George Corley Wallace. Funny that you mentioned him.

I have to give a presentation for my final exam tommorrow night on him. The topic - "Populist, Segregationist, or Pure Politician." I've already turned in the 22 page novel of a term paper, but still have the presentation to give.

[GalensGhost 0]

George Corley Wallace. Funny that you mentioned him.

I have to give a presentation for my final exam tommorrow night on him. The topic - "Populist, Segregationist, or Pure Politician." I've already turned in the 22 page novel of a term paper, but still have the presentation to give.

Wish you'd told me ahead of time. I did a significant paper on him when I was in college. It's not like the research changed or anything. Since I didn't go to UA I would have given it to you. It was 40-something pages.

I worked on GCW's campaign in 1982. Rode with him in a limo to a couple of campaign stops. Was still in high school, but because I was one of his youth campaign coordinators I got to spend some time with him. Amazing guy.

[WinCrimson 61]

George Corley Wallace. Funny that you mentioned him.

I have to give a presentation for my final exam tommorrow night on him. The topic - "Populist, Segregationist, or Pure Politician." I've already turned in the 22 page novel of a term paper, but still have the presentation to give.

Wish you'd told me ahead of time. I did a significant paper on him when I was in college. It's not like the research changed or anything. Since I didn't go to UA I would have given it to you. It was 40-something pages.

I worked on GCW's campaign in 1982. Rode with him in a limo to a couple of campaign stops. Was still in high school, but because I was one of his youth campaign coordinators I got to spend some time with him. Amazing guy.

Didn't know to. Wow, I hate that.

Since you knew him personally, what's your take? My grandad, who served in the Legislature when Wallace was Guv'nah, said in his talks with him, Wallace always came off as a fraud -- that he was really no racist at all. Other evidence supported that claim, too.

Anyway, what say you?

[GalensGhost 0]

George Corley Wallace. Funny that you mentioned him.

I have to give a presentation for my final exam tommorrow night on him. The topic - "Populist, Segregationist, or Pure Politician." I've already turned in the 22 page novel of a term paper, but still have the presentation to give.

Wish you'd told me ahead of time. I did a significant paper on him when I was in college. It's not like the research changed or anything. Since I didn't go to UA I would have given it to you. It was 40-something pages.

I worked on GCW's campaign in 1982. Rode with him in a limo to a couple of campaign stops. Was still in high school, but because I was one of his youth campaign coordinators I got to spend some time with him. Amazing guy.

Didn't know to. Wow, I hate that.

Since you knew him personally, what's your take? My grandad, who served in the Legislature when Wallace was Guv'nah, said in his talks with him, Wallace always came off as a fraud -- that he was really no racist at all. Other evidence supported that claim, too.

Anyway, what say you?

Wouldn't say I knew him, more like I met him. I did get a couple of hours to listen to him while we were driving from stop to stop. But because of his weakness due to the shooting and paralysis, he was sort of in and out. He'd drop off in the middle of talking about something and then come two ten or fifteen minutes later and pick it back up. When they took him out of the car, though? And the crowd was cheering? It was like somebody plugged him in.

I was young, brash and really, really dumb. He was campaigning then on the "I've changed" sort of platform, reaching out to blacks. I asked him point blank about the schoolhouse door and what that was all about. And this is what he told me, more or less:

"Son, somebody was going to stop that black girl from entering those doors. If it wasn't me, it would have been some or all of the people who were there that day. By me standing there and representing all of them I was able to keep it from becoming a riot. Me being there as the public face of all the mistrust and displeasure the people of this state had with the federal government interfering in our affairs allowed that day to end peacefully and with nobody hurt. There's no telling what might have happened if I had not taken that stand. I knew there was no way we could prevent people from entering the school eventually, nor should we. My interest that day was to keep the peace. "

He said that as governor his sworn duty was to represent the interests of the voting public, whatever those interests might be. And over the years those interests could change.

I think he was probably one of the greatest politicians in American history. Had he not been shot, I honestly believe he would have ended up with the Vice Presidental nomination along with Humphrey and then the entire political landscape might have changed.

[DKW 86 7,429]

Most optimistic candidate usually wins. The average guy off the streets would do better than Bush.

Tex, PLEASE, lets elect some average guys and stop with the Harvard degreed morons. I have learned one thing in my life. I vote Eureka College over Harvard every time.

[DKW 86 7,429]

So, it's hard to say that there "painfully out of touch" with the nation when they control nearly every aspect of the government -- on both a national and state level. If they hadn't run such a bumbling putz in 2004, they'd control the White House, as well. What it is, is that the Republican party has been the one that's been marginalized. Marginalized to a few Dust Bowl states and a majority of the Southeastern states. Although, there is no competitive states like Arkansas or Florida for the GOP in the Northeast.

UH, sorry to rain on your parade, but only since 11-06 is this true. That is like saying I am the fittest guy on the site right now, because there is no other guy on the site at 3AM.

Bush came in 2000 and beat the hordes that made fun of him then.

Bush then sweeps the 2002 elections, and the 2004 Elections, and only in 2006, after he betrayed the real conservatives and spent money like a drunken sailor did he lose. That was only 7 months ago. Since then, we have seen Pelosi and Reid get outflanked again by this 'dimbulb" with the recent veto.

You hang around here thru 2008 and lets see who wins the Presidency and maybe takes back a House of Congress too. I dont have that much faith in Republican leaders. I have infinte faith that the Dems are WELL on their way to mucking it up all over again.

Dems may have already lost the 2008 election?

Democrats Dooming Themselves to Defeat

By Lawrence Kudlow

The Democratic Party may be convincing itself that it's riding high in the polls toward a White House victory in next year's election. But you know what? On two key themes -- taxes and national security -- the Democrats may be dooming themselves to defeat.

Watching the two presidential debates, one can't help but notice the stark differences between each party's approach to these core issues. And it's hard to see how the general electorate is going to buy what the Democrats are selling.

To a person, each Democratic presidential candidate wants to undermine the global war against jihadist terrorism -- wherever it may be, and especially in Iraq. The Democrats see a civil war in Iraq, where the Republicans view a growing al-Qaida threat. And while Republicans talk about significantly increasing the defense budget and expanding American force levels for all the armed services, the Democrats are hoping for some sort of Iraqi peace dividend upon immediate withdrawal -- one that can be re-channeled into higher domestic social spending.

To a person, each Democratic presidential candidate also wants to raise taxes on the rich and roll back President Bush's tax cuts. The Republicans, however, understand that those tax cuts have propelled economic growth and contributed to a stock market boom. And they recognize that Bush's Goldilocks bull-market economy -- which I call the greatest story never told -- relies on extending the investor tax cuts and perhaps even moving forward with a flat tax or national sales tax.

Finally, to a person, each Democratic presidential candidate also has it in for corporate America. The Democrats discuss various punishments for business -- especially oil companies, but also drug, utility and insurance firms. Not so for the Republicans, who talk about helping businesses and promoting entrepreneurship in our successful free-enterprise economy.

The differences between the two parties couldn't be clearer, and next year the voting public will have a very stark choice. But with this election season only two debates old, that choice already favors the Republican position.

Think of it: The Democrats talk about ending "tax cuts for the rich," all while bashing American corporations. But isn't this the same tired message that sunk Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter? It's never been a winner, and it's going to help cripple whoever grabs the Democratic nomination next year.

And as former Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz has written, as the Democrats pay too much attention to the left wing of their party, their defeatist, weak-on-national-security riff may have already sunk them in 2008.

Consider this: When the appropriate time comes for a gradual troop withdrawal from Iraq, the voting public is far more likely to want a tough-on-defense president to negotiate the event. Go all the way back to the Korean War. Voters selected Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower to negotiate withdrawal, rather than the much more liberal Adlai Stevenson. Or recall that in 1968 voters chose the tough-minded Richard Nixon to manage a pullout from South Vietnam, rather than the fuzzy-thinking Hubert Humphrey.

Here's another example of the ever-widening void that separates each party's stable of candidates, and of the fact-versus-fiction choice that awaits voters in 2008: House and Senate Democrats are in the process of crafting a five-year budget resolution that leaves out investor tax-cut extensions for capital gains and dividends. They say they are trying to balance the budget and increase tax revenues. Yet the latest budget report unequivocally shows that these very same investor tax cuts have paid for themselves.

Non-withheld income taxes -- read cap-gains, dividends and income from small owner-operated businesses -- hit a record high of $49 billion on April 24. So far this year, this tax-collection category has shot up 30 percent, while withheld income-tax collections at lower tax rates have jumped 17.5 percent.

In other words, the Laffer curve is working: Lower tax rates lead to higher tax revenues through a growing economy and a larger income base. By removing pro-growth tax cuts, the Democratic budget will actually slow the economy, diminish revenue growth and increase the out-year budget gap.

Ignoring all this, in addition to the reality of a 4.5 percent unemployment rate and Dow 13,000, is a Democratic triumph of liberal ideology over objective empirical analysis.

It's also a recipe for Democratic disaster about a year and half from now.

[AURaptor 1,125]

You need to quit talking down to me when you have zero evidence to support your claims. Each word below is a link. Enjoy.

Abortion rights: Pro-chice

Social security: Against Bush's proposals

Guns: Favor stricter controls

Iraq: Opposes

Environment: Dems beat Bush 53-21%

Taxes: Dems win, but by "slim" 6% margin

Again, let me reiterate. I am a pro-life, pro-SSI privatization, pro-2nd amendment, pro-limited tax person. No, I don't associate with your crumbling party, but I do agree with you on most issues. The fact that you refuse to see the forest due to the Democratic tree in your face shows that you have made your blind commitment to a political party (that's on life support) and you refuse to recognize that it's quickly fading into the abyss of irrelevance.

Enjoy your victories in Mississippi and Utah. Yee har!

So if one source of polling says so, it must be so ? I still stand by the Constitution, regardless of the GOP's condition on the political landscape. And I still believe that if each issue were fairly and openly explained, the GOP would reflect the majority of the views of Americans.

[TexasTiger 12,958]

The Guard's state mission:

At the state level, the governors reserve the ability, under the Constitution of the United States, to call up members of the National Guard in time of domestic emergencies or need.

The Army National Guard's state mission is perhaps the most visible and well known. Nearly everyone has seen or heard of Guard units responding to battle fires or helping communities deal with floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, snowstorms or other emergency situations.

http://www.arng.army.mil/aidingamerica.aspx

Of course, TIS grossly distorts the truth to align with his argument. A town literally gets blown away, he calls it a little rain. I'm better understanding your grasp of conditions in Iraq.

Again, Guardsmen aren't first responders. That was my point, dunderhead. These days, the power can't go out without it somehow being tied to troops or equipment in Iraq. "If only we had the 23rd Electrical Engineering Brigade around instead of in Ramadi, my lights would have only been out for 30 minutes instead of 35." Total bunk. The local police, fire and rescue personnel are there to provide these first responder duties. They are the ones that are there to manage the crisis....not the Guard. This didn't start until the Bush bashing got into full swing.

Can't help but notice the pattern here. We have a Dem female Gov. of a state which gets hit by a NATURAL disaster, gets offered help from the White House, refuses the help, and then turns right around and blames the White House for all their problems, and accuses the Pres of not 'caring' enough.

And her first name is Kathleen to boot.

Leave your bubble!! Rejoin the world!!

Is this the lefts catch phrase du jour? You've been throwing it around a lot over the past 24 hours.

Hey Genius, if that's your point you don't know how to make a point. Did the same thing here. This was not about someone's electricity being out 35 minutes. You routinely fail to grasp the issue or problem, but have no shortage of strong opinions. I didn't make up this "mission" that you misrepresented. That's the official page I cited.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

The Guard's state mission:

At the state level, the governors reserve the ability, under the Constitution of the United States, to call up members of the National Guard in time of domestic emergencies or need.

The Army National Guard's state mission is perhaps the most visible and well known. Nearly everyone has seen or heard of Guard units responding to battle fires or helping communities deal with floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, snowstorms or other emergency situations.

http://www.arng.army.mil/aidingamerica.aspx

Of course, TIS grossly distorts the truth to align with his argument. A town literally gets blown away, he calls it a little rain. I'm better understanding your grasp of conditions in Iraq.

Again, Guardsmen aren't first responders. That was my point, dunderhead. These days, the power can't go out without it somehow being tied to troops or equipment in Iraq. "If only we had the 23rd Electrical Engineering Brigade around instead of in Ramadi, my lights would have only been out for 30 minutes instead of 35." Total bunk. The local police, fire and rescue personnel are there to provide these first responder duties. They are the ones that are there to manage the crisis....not the Guard. This didn't start until the Bush bashing got into full swing.

Hey Genius, if that's your point you don't know how to make a point. Did the same thing here. This was not about someone's electricity being out 35 minutes. You routinely fail to grasp the issue or problem, but have no shortage of strong opinions. I didn't make up this "mission" that you misrepresented. That's the official page I cited.

I can't make it any simpler for you. Guardsmen aren't first responders. If you need me to, I can type it in Chinese if you think it will help with your comprehension. Let me know.

As far as the rain and power outage comments of mine; you're learning a valuable lesson in the use of rhetorical statements to make a point. Good for you. Your certificate is in the mail.

[WinCrimson 61]

So, it's hard to say that there "painfully out of touch" with the nation when they control nearly every aspect of the government -- on both a national and state level. If they hadn't run such a bumbling putz in 2004, they'd control the White House, as well. What it is, is that the Republican party has been the one that's been marginalized. Marginalized to a few Dust Bowl states and a majority of the Southeastern states. Although, there is no competitive states like Arkansas or Florida for the GOP in the Northeast.

UH, sorry to rain on your parade, but only since 11-06 is this true. That is like saying I am the fittest guy on the site right now, because there is no other guy on the site at 3AM.

Bush came in 2000 and beat the hordes that made fun of him then.

Bush then sweeps the 2002 elections, and the 2004 Elections, and only in 2006, after he betrayed the real conservatives and spent money like a drunken sailor did he lose. That was only 7 months ago. Since then, we have seen Pelosi and Reid get outflanked again by this 'dimbulb" with the recent veto.

You hang around here thru 2008 and lets see who wins the Presidency and maybe takes back a House of Congress too. I dont have that much faith in Republican leaders. I have infinte faith that the Dems are WELL on their way to mucking it up all over again.

Dems may have already lost the 2008 election?

Democrats Dooming Themselves to Defeat

By Lawrence Kudlow

The Democratic Party may be convincing itself that it's riding high in the polls toward a White House victory in next year's election. But you know what? On two key themes -- taxes and national security -- the Democrats may be dooming themselves to defeat.

Watching the two presidential debates, one can't help but notice the stark differences between each party's approach to these core issues. And it's hard to see how the general electorate is going to buy what the Democrats are selling.

To a person, each Democratic presidential candidate wants to undermine the global war against jihadist terrorism -- wherever it may be, and especially in Iraq. The Democrats see a civil war in Iraq, where the Republicans view a growing al-Qaida threat. And while Republicans talk about significantly increasing the defense budget and expanding American force levels for all the armed services, the Democrats are hoping for some sort of Iraqi peace dividend upon immediate withdrawal -- one that can be re-channeled into higher domestic social spending.

To a person, each Democratic presidential candidate also wants to raise taxes on the rich and roll back President Bush's tax cuts. The Republicans, however, understand that those tax cuts have propelled economic growth and contributed to a stock market boom. And they recognize that Bush's Goldilocks bull-market economy -- which I call the greatest story never told -- relies on extending the investor tax cuts and perhaps even moving forward with a flat tax or national sales tax.

Finally, to a person, each Democratic presidential candidate also has it in for corporate America. The Democrats discuss various punishments for business -- especially oil companies, but also drug, utility and insurance firms. Not so for the Republicans, who talk about helping businesses and promoting entrepreneurship in our successful free-enterprise economy.

The differences between the two parties couldn't be clearer, and next year the voting public will have a very stark choice. But with this election season only two debates old, that choice already favors the Republican position.

Think of it: The Democrats talk about ending "tax cuts for the rich," all while bashing American corporations. But isn't this the same tired message that sunk Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter? It's never been a winner, and it's going to help cripple whoever grabs the Democratic nomination next year.

And as former Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz has written, as the Democrats pay too much attention to the left wing of their party, their defeatist, weak-on-national-security riff may have already sunk them in 2008.

Consider this: When the appropriate time comes for a gradual troop withdrawal from Iraq, the voting public is far more likely to want a tough-on-defense president to negotiate the event. Go all the way back to the Korean War. Voters selected Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower to negotiate withdrawal, rather than the much more liberal Adlai Stevenson. Or recall that in 1968 voters chose the tough-minded Richard Nixon to manage a pullout from South Vietnam, rather than the fuzzy-thinking Hubert Humphrey.

Here's another example of the ever-widening void that separates each party's stable of candidates, and of the fact-versus-fiction choice that awaits voters in 2008: House and Senate Democrats are in the process of crafting a five-year budget resolution that leaves out investor tax-cut extensions for capital gains and dividends. They say they are trying to balance the budget and increase tax revenues. Yet the latest budget report unequivocally shows that these very same investor tax cuts have paid for themselves.

Non-withheld income taxes -- read cap-gains, dividends and income from small owner-operated businesses -- hit a record high of $49 billion on April 24. So far this year, this tax-collection category has shot up 30 percent, while withheld income-tax collections at lower tax rates have jumped 17.5 percent.

In other words, the Laffer curve is working: Lower tax rates lead to higher tax revenues through a growing economy and a larger income base. By removing pro-growth tax cuts, the Democratic budget will actually slow the economy, diminish revenue growth and increase the out-year budget gap.

Ignoring all this, in addition to the reality of a 4.5 percent unemployment rate and Dow 13,000, is a Democratic triumph of liberal ideology over objective empirical analysis.

It's also a recipe for Democratic disaster about a year and half from now.

Hey, you ain't raining on my parade. Neither party, as a whole, does anything for me.

Bush in 2000? Got less votes than his opponent? 2002? The whole "I'm strong on terrah" won a lot of voters over. 2004? He duped them into believing that a vote for his opponent was a vote for putting rainbow stripes into Old Glory. I attribute all of his victories to brilliant political pandering and timely attacks. Love him or hate him, you can't deny that Rove is a genius.

It's obvious that the country is swiftly trending Democratic. Evidenced by the record low levels of the population that associates with the GOP. The public always agreed with Dems on the issues -- but now they're actually voting for them. If Democrats can avoid opening themselves up to murders of their character and strength, the Republican party will be like the Whigs. Continuing to support failed military missions is a one way ticket to failures on election night, too.

This is not neccessarily my opinion, but I think the country has started to see the GOP as a bunch of hicks, people on the evangelical fringe, and a few oil tycoons. This isn't completely true, but it's public perception and public perception will always win out over facts. You need a Ronald Reagan. And fast.