Redstate

In fact it is true that in many parts of America where Republican's enjoy a large majority support base, have cultural ignorances that been studied and documented again and again. However, I cannot believe she was dumb enough to make a conclusion that this cultural ignorance stops at party lines, it doesn't, it's equal through both parties.

That was a dumb statement. I'm ashamed.

""As it stands today [Democrats] can block [a nominee]," said C. Boyden Gray, former legal counsel to President George H.W. Bush. But I also believe that the president and majority leader may well decide to change the rules given the elections ... The president has a very strong political support, potential support, for asking for and getting this change."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137648,00.html

More good news for President Bush with word that the economy generated 337,000 new jobs in October, nearly double the number expected by economists.

I like that, it's a good sign.

is NOT classic feelings of superiority? What about those who ignored the "promise of healthcare and jobs" in order to vote pro-life? Is that greed? I especially appreciate that she's chosen to go beyond "thoughtful ideas" to a much better tactic....name calling. Yeah, that's a more humble approach.

I apologize for my sarcasm.

I just want to thank the American people for wising up. I was this close to losing my tax cut. I love being in the top 1% of the country, and it would have really sucked if your average American had put economics over morals and if it had cost me a good $20k. No I feel alright spending it on some stuff. Not sure what, but I will figure it out.

"Slate asked a number of wise liberals to take up the question of why Americans won't vote for the Democrats."

Self-righteous, narrow-minded, arrogant, haughty, delusional...maybe.  But wise?  I don't think so...

Isn't wise liberals an oxymoron?

that I consider those who voted based on fiscal reasons are greedy. I was not turning the tables. I was only trying to point out that her blanket statement that Republicans are greedy was absured. I was only attacking the comment.

I was thinking (could be dangerous) that I see myself pretty much right down the middle of both party's and have since Reagan's 1st election campaign. Since then, I saw a turn that I hadn't seen before in American politics, at least I saw it, but I suppose I could be delusional. All elections before it seemed to have parts of this new item rolling around in the minds of the electorate, but it was never the dominate issue.

"Personality" seems to play such an important part with the big number of people. Not sure whether or not it afflicts one party more than the other, I don't think so.

i.e. Reagan's two terms

i.e. Clinton's two terms

I can't help but feel that there is something else out there that seems very hard to control or manipulate unless you have the personality for it. Who knows, just something I kinda smelled in the political air for the last 25 years or so.

Ok, blast away I'm ready.

Wow! That should be a winning strategy: "Hey you stupid Republicans, come join us, and watch your IQ's go up 20 points, or your money back (unless we raise your taxes.)

       or

"I'm Hillary Clinton. This message is for stupid Republicans. You'd be stupid not to vote for me."  

No, those who voted on values would be the ones she is calling "ignorant."

you say values... is preventing poverty and homelessness not a value? Is securing jobs for AMERICANS not a value? People who voted for "family values" don't get that states like Massachusetts have LOWER divorce rates... is marriage not a value included there. It's not so much ignorance of what's important or god forbid true. It's an ignorance about what will matter most to them and to their children. I am fine with people voting for values as long as Bush supporters consititute the entire population of people who lose their jobs over the next four years, and have their tax burden increased as it has been over the past four years.

...about "stupidity" or "ignorance" revolves around the fact that most Republicans think that there were WMDs in Iraq and even more frighteningly that they believe they've been found. How does that make them anything but grossly uninformed? Of course most of the readers of this blog probably think we've found WMDs too, but that just goes to the heart of the "ignorance" point that is raised. Most of the people supporting Bush think he ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Most Bush supporters think their tax burden has decreased in the last four years. Ignorance is bliss, and Bush supporters are very blissful.

Steve Martin has a skit where he talks about what Americans have been known to do abroad when someone doesn't speak English.  They TALK REALLY LOUD.  Well, the Dems are convinced that we just didn't hear them.  Good God...we heard you!!  

They're also convinced that those of who DID hear them, were just too STUPID to understand the words and concepts.  

This would be funny except there is a VERY REAL DANGER in all this.  The MSM and the left felt absolutely vindicated in doing whatever they needed to do in order to get Kerry elected because THEY FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT WE ARE INCAPABLE OF SELF-GOVERNMENT!!  They must govern FOR us...until we can become better educated, at which point we will embrace all their ideas and learn to love nuance.  

I do NOT want to be "re-educated".  I go to a lot of European boards and they are calling for exactly that!  "The 59,000,000 Americans who voted for George Bush are dumb...and need to be re-educated on the realities of life in our modern world"  That is a (slightly) paraphrased quote from an editorial yesterday.  They believe it, and a large number of the loony left in this country believe it too!  

I'm not paranoid.  But I kept watching the MSM go further and further in the tank for Kerry, and now I have listened to 3 days of folks from the losing side claiming that they were just too smart for us!!  They are actually claiming that if they had DUMBED their message down...we would have gotten it, and marched hand-in-hand with them into the future.

No, I do not think we are going to have "re-education centers" springing up (much as Michael Moore would LOVE it).  Come to think of it...maybe movie houses ARE re-education centers.  Hmmm...

Last add...three questions:

(1) why didn't the person who crafted the phony National Guard documents go to the trouble of running over to a second-hand store and buying a manual typewriter?

(2) why not then also not do some research on what ACTUAL documents would have looked and read like?  

(3) why, when confronted with these obviously phony docs, in form, format and content, did CBS run them anyway?  

The answer to all three questions is the same: they figured we were TOO STUPID to notice, and thus any extra effort to forge these better was unnecessary!  They may think we're dumb...but count on it, NEXT time they WILL forge them better!

activist judges, over-stepping the authority of their judicial office.

Additionally, your comment about the divorce rate in certain states is misapplied in the gay-marriage context. The best legal/constitutional arguments in support of a ban on gay-marriage do not include a state-by-state divorce rate analysis.

. . .the self-righteous abuse that was directed by the left at Clarence Thomas for using his sister's supposed anger at her welfare check being delayed as an example of the destructive effect the welfare state has on individuals?  This dimwit just trashed most of her family in public as a means of demonstrating her contempt for people who vote Republican--can we count on the left to condemn her for that?

I'm not holding my breath.

This is not surprising. One of the central beliefs of liberal thought is that their ideas are so logically superior, that the only way anyone could oppose them is to be willfully ignorant.

I recognize, and I think most on the Right do, that what the motives of the Left are relatively pure. I think their means are contemptible and would destroy society as we know it, but they do not wish anyone ill.

Unfortunately, the decidedly more ideological bent of the Left(as opposed to the conservative idea of the negation of ideology) means they can not see anything good about their opponents. This reduces them to shrilly denouncing the American people as ignorant, a path that will never lead them to political power.

What funny is, looking at issue from all sides, I infact do see total common ground. In fact it seems overall, everybody wants the same thing. The majority of Republican's are against Gay marriage for instance, so are Democrates.

Like Clinton said, "it's not the what we're arguing about, it the way we address getting it".

U.S. has a far more violent past and very distinct history than you may have been given in public school. When one side or the other goes too far, patriots with agenda's always show up. Whether that is in the form of war, public charater assasination or true assasination, the system has always found it's way. Too many control points (i.e.) provokes actions.

Ruby Ridge = Oklahoma City

Too many Right wing appointments will I am sure be evened out one way or the other through time. Either by the normal social swings or by removal by any means. American's have always exercised both. It's sad that we again find ourselves pushing each other this hard. Blood will spill, I feel. But that's normal in America too in historically.

I definitely believe that fighting poverty and homelessness is important.  I supported the President's faith-based initiative plan so that all charities can get federal assistance not just liberal/secular ones.  I also supported No Child Left Behind so that we can fight poverty by giving children equal education opportunities.  I believe school choice and low levels of taxation and regulation are keys to helping people support themselves.

I don't believe making more people dependent on the government and welfare is the solution to the problem.  I don't want a European unemployment rate of 10+% and taxation above 50%.  I want civil society, including churches and non-profits, to extend a helping hand and work towards lifting people out of poverty.  I want individuals to donate their time and money instead of pushing the burden to the government.

Just becuase we have different ideas about how to fight poverty doesn't mean we have different goals.  The same goes for education and economics in my view.

Most think the poor pay high levels of taxes.  Most think Bush's tax cut made the poor pay more taxes.  Most think F-9/11 was factual.

FWIW, most people on this blog are well informed, even if there are a few who like to be disagreeable and incite reactions.

I suppose most of us conservatives won't be able to understand anything as complex as calculus, but there's a term in integral calculus called the Rieman sum.  When I look at the Red/Blue map, broken down by counties, and note that most of the "Blue States" are really "blue urban areas" around our biggest cities, I can't help but wonder if the 51 million or so who voted for JFK this year don't represent the "Rieman sum of all ignorance"!  I would like to see the evidence that these areas are populated by a bunch of geniuses who make the millions of people in the heartland look ignorant and unintelligent by comparison!  I think the libs are going to have a hard time making their case for this sweeping victory representing ignorance over intelligence!      

I'll ignore the shift of subject. Charity and compassion are values. Legislation to force all to have their tax money go to help those in need is not a value. If you want to give (like I give) that would be very nice of you. Voting for the government to give others' money to the poor is not charity.

Jobs is not a value, except under the communist system. You have the freedom to pursue a job, not a right to have a job. If you want it to be a right or a value that the government protects and supplies, you need to move to another part of the world.

Lastly, my tax burden is quite a bit lower than it was four years ago. I'll kindly ask you to come over here and look at my tax returns.

It's truly it's Theology vs. Theology

Mostly religious.

I'm from the Mid-west, my family was farmers, my husband grew up on a dairy farm.

Here's the deal....

You keep your intelligence, we'll keep our food. Let's meet again in several weeks to see who's better off.

then there aren't any jobs to pursue...

Decreased for 8 years under Bill Clinton and has increased for 4 years under Bush. Yes, if we have the same goals but different ideas about acheiving them, that's fine... except for the fact that clearly yours don't work. other than that I guess we agree.

I paid less in taxes this year than I did in the last year of the Clinton Interregnum, with three times the salary. Boy, was I fooled.

Iraq had WMDs. Just maybe not right before we invaded. Unless you count the UN, which is arguably a pretty effective WMD, for which they paid what appears to be pennies on the dollar.

I know Bush didn't ratify the Kyoto protocols. Then again, that's because as a dumb conservative, I know that Presidents don't ratify treaties. Senates do. Curiously, the Senate didn't, either.

Inferring from your comment, we might take it that idiocy is futile anger, and Bush's opponents are futilely angry.

funy how the truth always seems to haev a liberal bias.

Many Dems believe that Bush is going to disband the Congress and enact a dictatorship. Many Dems vote Dem simply because they have always voted Dem. Many Dems can be baited into voting Dem through scare tactics and brilliant disinformation campaigns designed to manipulate group opinion. Most Dems believe that Bush caused the recession (though it began before his term). Most Dems believe that the 9/11 Commission stated "no connection whatsoever between Saddam and al Qaeda." Many, like yourself, are so deluded that they believe taxes have increased. So don't come here and "inform" us that we believe that we found WMDs in Iraq, when you are so pitifully deluded yourself. Most Dems believe that Bush and Cheney said that Saddam was behind 9/11. Most believe that the missing explosives are being used today to kill our troops. Most believe that the memos are correct.

I don't know anyone who thinks Bush ratified Kyoto. If they are that ignorant, they probably don't know what Kyoto is in the first place, other than maybe a vacation spot somewhere "over there."

until you find out who actually planted them (likely on the Bush side)... hold off on YOUR speculation. I'll keep mine...

we grow food up here too... we'll see who has money down by your farm to pay for it. ANd make sure you don't take any of them gush-durn govment subsidies either...

the private sector does. Again, if you want to live in a system where the government is responsible for giving you a job, there are a number of places you can go to.

And last I checked, unemployment was lower than during the Clinton era. So I'd hardly suggest that there aren't any jobs to pursue. You, on the other hand, are welcome to say so and look like a fool in the process...

Yes, fevered minds at work again. So are you admitting that the left is so completely stupid that Rove played them like a fiddle? Thanks for admitting we are so smart and you are so dumb.

Ooops, that didn't come out like you wanted it to, did it?

I'll now return you to normal program: Art Bell

Neither my family nor my husband's have ever had to use government subsidies. Both stayed very well self-sufficient.

My point was that dems who hold the same view as noted above, NEED those "unintelligible middle-Americans." And, intelligence and arrogance will only get you so far until they realize that they need the very people they are insulting.

I take it you're not a farmer...because there is usually more respect between farmer and farmer, regardless of where they are from.

The issue of morality according to exit polling was answer positively as their #1 issue by mostly Republican based supporters, with a small dose of non-supporters also speaking their religous minds as well.

This could mean several things of course, but here is my take on it. There is indeed a very significant religious devide between the people in this country on both sides because of Theology and the different ways it is interpreted.

There are many specifics, all of which are clouded when arguements arise between the two sides. BUt I will try to be clear.

For instance:

I don't know about you, and I have always tried to be in the middle on this, but I really do not believe in gay's raising children, and I am a hard core Democrate, and the marriage thing could lead to that and that is what I think Republican thinkers also see. I can see merit in this arguement, but not because of religious reasons, but because I have a respect not to give my religious beliefs too much say in my Governmetnal decision making. Why do I do this, because it was what I was taught to do. And, not by my parents, but by myself looking at the Constitution as close as I could about the issue of seperation of church and state directive layout so many years ago.

And yet, when I learned gay's were maknig an attempt to establish marriage rights within a religious institutions ceremonial practices through governmental court means I honestly folks, was offended, and it didn't sit right at all with me, and I have friend that are gay, but I don't spend much time with them. It almost took my breath away when I first started watching the issue to think that gay's may be able to raise children. Made me think about my children and I was not feeling too secure. I am sure this what the Republican's have capitolized on. Now I am not in favor of taking current right away from them, but this is as far as I go, and again I am a fervent Democrate.

There are lines of theological division, the Republican's have found it, and they have Demo's agreeing with them on this one. I must be one of the only Demcrates that is not surprised. Considering our make-up going too far to the left (i.e. too many abortion rights that may in fact  be immoral and too many gay issues that directly affect the minds of people who really believe that family values are the only way to keep intact America, and in many ways they are totally correct.) i.e. Every recorded democratic or republic civilization has soon failed after accepting homosexuality as a social norm. I didn't make that up , history did, and again I am liberal, but I do read books too.

The appeal is genuine, so is the danger. whatever we do folks, try to keep it from coming apart just for the sake of power.

And at some point, your family was probably Democratic, or Republican but part of the Progressive with capital P movement.  You grew food, and the smarty pants Republicans in the towns and cities took you for a ride by keeping your sale prices low and their profit margins high.  So you elected kooky liberals who put in price controls and governmental protection to keep those snooty Republican bankers from foreclosing on the farm or making millions off the sweat of your brow.  Some of your great-uncles and aunts went to the big midwestern cities and worked in manufacturing centers where those corrupt unions kept those plants from turning into sweatshops.  So we got fat and happy.

Then the clever bankers and stockbrokers and money men figured out those kooky, arrogant liberals had a glass jaw.  They weren't particularly devout folks, or at least they believed in the old time Baptist tradition of simply a personal relationship between themselves and Jesus, not an us-vs-them fire and brimstone belief.  Nixon came up with the brilliant Southern strategy.  

And whaddya know, the money folks lined up an unholy alliance, where that midwestern farmer now looked at the smary-pants liberal and said, you take your smarts (read, your immoral, communist, free-market interfering ways) and I'll keep my food.  

And eventually Archers-Daniels-Midland swooped up the farm after the price supports were removed so corporations could be "Free to Farm."  Maybe could have gone to Uncle Joe over in the city, but he's out of work because deregulation and "free" trade shipped his job to Thailand.  But dammit, at least those arrogant, foolish, rat bastard liberals aren't bossing us around any more.  We have our morals, morals they obviously never shared while fighting racism and poverty.  They are now abortionists and destroying the family.

Now, as Thomas has so eloquently stated, it's time for the long knives to come out.  And I wait with bated breath.  It won't be our civil war.  It'll be yours.  Success breeds complacency.  You've broken the New Deal and the Great Society coalitions, hell, you're going to change the rules in the Senate.  We're voices in the wilderness now.  Govern.  Kill off your RINOs.  Expunge the remnant of pro-choice Republicanism.  Death to the unbelievers!  We'll be waiting for you.  

We had a recession before Clinton got to office and just after he left.  I'll bet a large sum of money that poverty declines over the next 4 years and that jobs are created.  We have a 7-10 growth cycle that will run its course before the next recession.  President's can't stop them from happening, but they can mitigate their consequences.  The generally accepted reaction is to run a deficit (spend more, tax less) during a recession to jump start the economy.  Growth is back and the job numbers this month (and year) are looking good.

I'm not saying Clinton did nothing.  But the 8 years of 3-4% growth eroded poverty more than anything Clinton or the Republican Congress did.  Personally, this is why I think pro-growth legislation is the key to most social problems.  It lowers abortions, teen pregnancies, divorces and poverty rates.  

Why does evryone here act like Bush is the conservative messiah?  He spent more money than Clinton (even excluding military expenditures), expanded medicare, rammed the unconstitutional patriot act down our throats, and now wants to amend the constitution so that the govt can now dicatate who can and cannot get married?  I thought conservatives respected the constitution and understood the axiom "that which governs least, governs best."  

Bush is a socialist who hates the idea of small government.  Have fun getting robbed by our Commie govt.  Hold your party accountable

Oh yeah, a lot of people seem to think the administration is planning to bring back the draft.  That isn't because Republicans are brainwashing them.  It's because most of the country pays only scant attention to political detail... on both sides.

is that you're making assumptions based on nothing. I will not defend myself because you don't care to listen. If you did, you would have realized that I am NOT attacking the views of the left (though I don't agree with them) but merely being defiant against the belief that middle America is "dumb." But, I guess posting on this site leaves a person open to any sort of attack...even one unmerited. I realize that my comment was agressive, but I assure you that the heart behind it was only indignant.

when you said "govt can now dictate who can and cannot get married". Last time I checked everyone could get married to someone of the opposite sex. However, even today, you and I cannot simply marry anyone we choose. I can't marry the lady who is married to my neighbor.

I am not guaranteed the right to marry anyone I choose. I am guaranteed the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

However the status quo today is that the oligarchy is deciding many things. The check is to amend the Constitution. Yet both options involve government. It is a matter of which branch do you want deciding these things.

Pro growth is fine and I know those principles are absolutlely sound as I am a very succesful businessman.

But other issues are now arising. Expansive Market Based Economies will soon be non-viable as they're not enough resources to keep the current world population supported and resources are becoming short. You may find yourself in a very much different social view in just a few short years than you do today.

Hell, I thought conservatives were the ones afraid of mob rule.  Since when was logic the primary engine for victory in an election?  If winning elections meant by default the loser's logic was bad, you guys had some pretty bad logic in the 90s.

I call dumb voting against your economic interests.  Other people call dumb voting against your afterlife interests.  Marx called it opiate of the masses.  I'm feeling a little frisky today, so I'm taking some swings.  I hope the redstate proctors don't jerk my ticket, but after two days of contemplation I'm ready to bite something.  Or someone.  Besides, hanging out on Atrios or Kos right now is something akin to sitting in on a really bitchy funeral home visitation.

I am sorry, can you point me to the article of the US Constitution that permits the govt to have a say in marriage?  Is it article I? II? III?  Maybe it's article 77.  You'll need to make many additions to the US Constitution to justify your big brother theories of govt.  

And you call yourself a conservative

Anyone heard from our old buddy Jumpin' Jim Jeffords?  Boy can he pick 'em!

-Mike-

can't wait to watch the payback wars..?

A lot of you hope for a radical new America with national sales tax or privatized SS.

Now all those battles will be fought WITHIN the Republican Party.  A victory prize.  A good one.

The difference... I have nothing to do but chime in and then watch you guys decide, that is, to be entertained... but if you take time to be entertained by Democrats implosion you're -wasting time-!

it's funny "haughty" is in that list of sentences.

Yeah.  Some of the 55 million liberal voters are smart, even wise, even reasonable.

I know... I try to get the cream from all you ideologies, and it's usually there is -some- amount.

and you all wanted the Bush Doctrine.

a mistake, but within your rights to make.

 A message to the world "we want to confirm, we don't care what you think... we know best!"

I don't think there is any chance people were "fooled" this time, other than possibly in the way we are all "fooled" by our own world views.

Iraq was a clear statement of the issues and difference and America wanted a party with no qualms regarding the moral difficulties of war.

I do see this as unenlightened, I don't think it's in my great great great great grandchildrens best interest, but not ignorant, not even stupid, and besides, I think the system will recover and balance out (possibly with similar mistakes toward the left) and heck, maybe I'm even wrong about where enlightenment lies.

But I don't think so.

If you wanted poor people to vote Democratic just because they were poor, you just have to stop pushing the liberal social agenda.  Become pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and anti-activist courts and you will probably win back the working poor that you lost to Reagan.  Many rich people don't "vote for their economic interest" but liberals aren't usually calling them dumb and ignorant (i.e. George Soros, Michael Moore, Hollywood, Senator Kerry).

First, can you point to the part of the US Constitution that says the courts of the land get to define marriage? If so, then they are right in doing so, BUT it is no less a matter of GOVERNMENT. If not, the check on judicial activism is and has always been amending the constitution.

Second, can you show me where it says that the US Constitution cannot be amended to contain things like definitions of marriage? After all, you would have to ignore that the Constitution permitted banning of alcohol. So absolutely not, the Constitution would not need to be changed just to allow an amendment on marriage. Don't mistake my point. Whether it was "right" or "wrong," the US Constitution did permit a ban on alcohol.

Third, we were just fine no less than a few years ago with GOVERNMENT'S simple endorsement of traditional marriage. Now if you want government OUT OF MARRIAGE you should have been talking about this issue 5, 10, 15, 20 or more years ago. You should also be talking about complete removal of any GOVERNMENT benefits bestowed on the institution of marriage, such as inheritance, medical decision rights, etc. I don't see you doing that.

Fourth, the happy status quo was broken when another branch of GOVERNMENT decided to throw its hat in the ring, namely the JUDICIAL BRANCH. If you make the extremely hypocritical claim that we should now leave it as is, then you simply are arguing that one branch vs. another branch should be the branch that decides what marriage looks like. What you are NOT arguing is that GOVERNMENT should STAY OUT of marriage. At least be honest.

Fifth, an amendment, whether state or federal, is a way to return the decision of what marriage looks like TO THE PEOPLE. Amendments require a process of ratification, usually taking the form of referendi of the people.

So which is more conservative? Allowing people to vote on the issue and making the result a part of the governing constitution(s) "for the people, by the people", OR allowing a handful of GOVERNMENT APPOINTEES decide and enact changes into law via the backdoor. Which resembles tyranny more?

Been a while since I've heard someone quote Karl Marx to attempt to make a point.  But since we're on the whole "moral values" thing, I post a bit on the Financial Times Opinion thread:

http://forums.ft.com/2/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=646099322&f=851094803&
m=565106503&p=1

This one is concerning the election. It all makes very intesting reading, but I have here one splendid quote (yes, I did respond to it) that kind of says it all about this particular subject:

"That's why on election day Americans voted for "moral values" [whatever those are]"  

Marx, and his "who needs moral values" credo are relegated to the dust-bin of history, and the splendid Peoples Republic of North Korea.  Personally I'd rather be in the dust-bin.

He's been MIA, just like all of his prior years in the Senate.

. . .working on a twenty-first century manifesto for the American political turncoat, but then the boiler in his "office" exploded and left him buried under a pile of brooms, mops, and other janitorial supplies.  ]:-)

Karma's rough, Jimmy.

Can we argue about the issues and not which side has dumber propaganda?

First I contest the statement that "no" Dems believe that. I wouldn't be saying it if I hadn't heard that propaganda from the left during the election.

Second, I'd be happy to discuss more substantive issues. Tell your friend Jefe as well.

Hey my man, I voted Kennedy, I voted Johnson, I Voted Nixon, I voted Carter, I voted Reagan, Had no choice but to vote Bush Sr. (Other guy was just too cornball), I voted Perot, I voted Clinton, I voted Gore and I voted Kerry.

More Demo's than Rep's over the years. But I didn't really stay party or claim a party until the second term on Clinton's Admin. It was the total (In my mind) waste of money 54 million plus to investigate someone, and hassle them for 8 years only to find nothing except he got a blow-job and lied about someting that happens in the privacy of his own office, home where ever, That is a family issue. Republican's had zero reason to do that nonesense. When they attempted to impeach a lawfully elected President for a blow-job I lost all respect for the party. I saw it as extremely damaging to take advantage of the institution of impeachment just for powers sake and to try to fill the great hatred embodied and manifested by this party toward someone that got a blow-job and lied about it.

That to me was the absolute definition of abuse of government power and vowed not to vote for anothoer Republican for 20 years because of that.

In reflection:

Nixon, criminally attempted to break into private residence and thieve private property. Our Republican President did that

Carter: Dumb, but good guy. Can't see any criminal charges that were filed against him.

Reagan: Admin personel break congressional law and get into trading arms for hostages and drugs for arms and so on. I am sketpical that he actually knew. But I am convinced Bush did. North is convicted and then at the last moment a judge overturns the decision of the "jury" and allows him to go free.

Bush Sr.: Can't say he did anything at all except oversee the largest single financial loss in U.S. history with the collaspe of the S & L that he and Reagan deregualted in the Reagan years. Which, in the end cost 1 trillion dollars. BIggest debt in U.S. history when he leaves office

Clinton: 2 terms. Biggest economic growth in U.S. history. Did more to financially secure the country than any President in. U.S. history. In economic terms, what 200 years of effort and made a certain amount of wealth, he matched and double that 200 year effort in 8 years. Trinkle down was over, all economist now know it didn't work, but hurt a lot. I, on the other hand supported it anyways, even though I and almost eveyone else in finance knew it was going to hurt. Reason I supported it? I believed Reagan was correct he would spend the Soviet Union into debt and collaspe it. He was right. Even the Russian now openly admit that it was Reagan's spending that "Spent them out of the cold war". He did us a favor and I believed in it. At Berkeley, Harvard, Columbia and 67 other major Universities with Business Colleges in the country that is now being taught as fact.

Bush 1st Term: I am very happy with him leading this country after the attack. Would have voted for him again and broke my 20 year promise not to vote for another for that time. He blew it when my not so smart mind could see he lied to me at worse, and mislead me at best about the reasons we went to war. He lost me there.

Bush 2nd term: I am not a powerless person in this country. I have two weeks of time on my hands right now. I better see some improvement with this guy, period becasue he is accountable to his boss, the American people, both Republican and Democrate. I think dear sir to keep your own mind as yours and not follow like a sheep over the hill or into the meadow anyone who would cause more damage overall. I do not follow party becasue of party. I am not stupid. I make them accountable to me, (and everybody) their boss.

First, I have no idea what this has to do with parties having their set of blind idealogues, but whatever. As for your warning, dear sir, I think you need to take your own advice if you are making vows to never vote for a party. I don't think I need to say much more than that.

I only have a few minutes, so at a high level some rather big problems with your recounting of facts are as follows:

1. Bill Clinton was not impeached for a blow job. He was impeached for lying under oath. If you think our laws concerning perjory are wrong and that a court doesn't have a right to expect you to tell the truth, we'll then you are welcom to that opinion. But don't lie here on this board about the nature of the impeachment.
   
2. Nixon, unless I am remembering incorrectly, had nothing to do with the break in, but rather covered it up.
   
3. If you are going to blame the S&L scandal on GHWB, then do you really want me to break out the list of bad things that happened during other Dem tenures, like Kennedy, Carter, et al?
   
4. The recession was already over by the time Clinton took office. I would be interested to find out what percentage of the credit you would offer to the previous administration for getting the ball rolling again.

CLINTON: Never said he was impeached for a blow-job dear sir, Look closely and try not to take out of content this time and you'll see I said he was impeached for lying about getting a blow-job in the setting of "home" and "personal privacy rights". I do not think that anyone in government has a right to ask whether or not any particular Senator or Representative or President got a blow-job to begin with, I think that it outragious.

If some "Task Force" went up to Bush right now, for who knows what the h*ll for, and brought him before a tribunal that wanted to know if he ever had any sex with his wife or anyone else in the white house, I would say to them, go to h*ll, that's my house, my privacy, my domain as guaranteed in the Constitution" get he h*ll out and tell Bush to answer nothing, that's his home, and that's invasion of privacy beyond belief!

NIXON: If you really don't believe he had nothing to do with the break-in , then go listen to the tapes readily available at any online market place for them.

GHWB: S&L. Democratic effort to stop the deregulation of the S&L's in the early 1980's were not supported, (go read the vote history). They past it. That by every single economist in the world over, including all of them here in America lead to the collaspe. Oh by the way, Bushs' other son, made 3 billion dollars off that collaspe in Colorado during that time. The day before he was to go to trial in court to defend himself against charges of stealing from thew S&L's, his father began the War know as Desert Storm. Nice timing. He was forgotten publically after that and found not guilty.

CLINTON: The recession was caused by a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT, which was casued by a one trillion dollar S&L scandal and the loss of that money to the "air". Go read; United States Governmental Expendetures and Losses. A Republican Document from the time found at any law library.

If you think Fahrenheit 9/11 is even on speaking terms with the truth, then you're on the wrong forum.  May I suggest DemocraticUnderground.com?

CLINTON: Whether or not you thought the question appropriate, he lied under oath. Now if you don't think lying under oath is a big deal for a US President, then so be it. No wonder the democratic party is getting spanked on moral issues...

S&L: Your historical analyses are interesting. However, leading to the collapse and bearing full blame are another thing. Are you willing to let your boy Clinton bear the blame for not taking terrorism seriously with the '93 WTC bombing, Cole bombing, Somalia, embassy bombing, etc. Somehow the terrorists got the idea in their head from the way we handled those events that we were wimps and could be bullied around. Also Clinton gutted the Intelligence agencies of our country during his tenure. As for publicly forgotten figures not being found guilty, how about Sandy Berger?

CLINTON part deux: I didn't ask that. Actually tax hikes had a bit to do with the recession, but that is a different story. I asked if you are prepared to sliphon some of the credit for the recovery away from Clinton seeing as he took office and the recession was magically already over. You didn't answer and instead changed the subject. So I guess I have my answer.

Unfortunately I may have to agree. Look at what happened with health care under Clinton when his own party killed it with bickering. I just hope our guys come up with something together rather than destroying it all with competing plans. FWIW get everybody together now and map out what is to be done and how it will get done. One can only hope.

As a small home business owner what would be in my best interest?

1)Keeping my taxes low under the current tax plan so I have the money to do as I please.

2)Putting those in office who think I am one of the evil rich and should be punished just to make those who are less fortunate or ambitious feel better.

Enlighten me please.

Wouldn't the constitution have to be changed in order to remove the possibility of filibuster? Not well versed in this so information sought.