I strongly disagree with the “cult of power” remark. I do agree they abandoned their principles and acted like democrats

Forget that the dems have the numbers to overide any Rep uprising.

Actually, the Dems did pass the mesaure in the house and it died in the senate, where “the numbers to overide any Rep uprising” is false. It takes 60 for cloture, and the dems do not have it now, nor in the new congress. The Republican Senate Caucus has much sway on how things will eventually shake out.

On what Larry said in comment #19, I agree completely. As a life long conservative I have watched how the Republican Party has broken with core principals of governance and have relied too much on the cult of power around President Bush. Instead of finding cogent arguments about massive national debt, the unaccountable SEC, the last minute begging from the Republican Treasury Secretary for $700 Billion. The nationalizing of AIG and near nationalizing of the larger banks that received $25 Billion Each. If one whats to fix a party, it is best to be your own worse enemy.

If FA is going to continue to grow, good dispassionate stores and focus will be necessary. I come on and off, and have dropped out for months at times when the articles and comments are too personally congratulatory, or take the tact of the echo Larry speaks of.

Check the polls if you’re not sure

So that’s where you get your idiotic notions, Ms. Warp’ed… no surprise. Since you’re incapable of forming an informed opine on your own, you have to go somewhere. The rest of your diatribe? Hormones run amuck.

How’s your basket weaving coming?

Democrats HATED the UN-mandated occupation and reconstruction in Iraq and opposed it with all their might
(GWB was President)”

You might want to check their votes on iraq and come back and restate the above two sentences. had Democrats actually opposed the war, Obama would not be president – Hillary would…

That’s your story, lady. One thing I’ve learned with the right wing – they ramp up the charges of lunacy, ranting, and idiocy as you pierce their lead filled balloons! In so many ways has the right been discredited, that petty and unconvincing attacks is all they have left…

Obama will continue to beat you at your own game (i.e., Rick Warren is giving the inaugural invocation)- and you will continue to hound yourself into an isolated corner. I’m pretty amazed at how much he has the right tangled and snarling – and he ain’t even in the White House! You’re so foul and petty, you’ve even got John McCain and Newt Gingrich berating you – so WHO do YOU think Americans will heed?

Check the polls if you’re not sure…

LOL! Obama has no idea what the world threats are. Remember, he thought Iran was a small country and a small threat? He even think they speak Arab in Iran. He thought the USA had 57 States. This guy is a BIG ZERO in every fields except the corruption field. And he can’t speak without a teleprompter.

Merry Chrismas to you, and you are wrong (Ha). I disagree with you on the substance and I do not see your perspective point. You and Larry have been fooled by the ONE. Charisma is the last thing you need for a President. Charisma is for manipulators, agitators, gourous and crooks. People who votes for a guy because he has charisma are superficial shallow people. I think that since you are a Democrat, you probably think that you are right, they always think that they are right. But you are wrong. Obama is an empty suit and a fraud.

Fitfit, you’re point is really good too, and I agree that generally America is 1/3 D, 1/3 I, 1/3 R. My larger point is that Bush cannot communicate the threats in the world as well as Obama can. When Bush does, he’s mislabeled as a fearmongerer; someone who exaggerates the threats out there. When Obama does it, he’s being “pragmatic.” I don’t care who or how or why a Pres says, “Hey, North Korea is an awful place, extremely dangerous, they’ve got nukes, ICBMs, and we’ve gotta do XYZ now.” I just don’t care if it’s Clinton preparing for war in 94, Bush in 04, or Obama in 09. It’s far more important to me that when a President says, “This country is a threat” that the American people believe him (especially when both parties say it’s a threat, and Congress agrees, and history proves it).

Think of it this way fitfit (and I know I’m stepping into an area many people don’t like to go)…
If all politicians lie or exaggerate or distort or spin, and Republicans have been “fearmongering,” then how have Democrats generally lied, exaggerated, distorted, or spun differently than Republicans? If they haven’t/if they’ve been the same, then one cannot blame the Republicans for things like Iraq. If they HAVE lied, exaggerated, distorted, spun, and they’ve done so contrary to alleged Republican fearmongering, then what have Democrats done? The answer is that they’ve misled people and incorrectly dismissed very real outside threats. That’s being partisan before being patriotic for it’s putting partisan gain over patriotic protection.

And so? No one’s asking their opinion….I don’t recall anyone on the right caring that Gore won the popular vote.

Ms. Warp’ed, one doesn’t even to leave a hole for you to saunter in. You not only fall in easily, but dig the dang hole yourself.

Of course no one cares that Gore won the popular vote because, per our US Constitution … which you demonstrate repeatedly to have so little knowledge of… the POTUS is selected via the Electoral College. This is done to make sure that LA, NY, Chicago, Miami, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, and other large urban areas are not the only votes that count in a national election. … of which the POTUS election also is not.

But I can see that you’re the type when you are in the 40%ers, you demand your minority voice be heard and respected. But if you’re just over the 50% mark, the others be damned and are dirt beneath your toes. Typical self-centered ‘tude that earns points for depicting the lows of humanity.

Nowhere did I apologize for Ahmadinejad’s visit to Iran. Frankly, any workable and pacifist relations between those two countries are not subject my approval…. nor yours. However the two being at odds that may erupt in violence is a concern of the world. You remain hypocritical…. not to mention incapable of parsing sentences adeptly.

So according to your quintessential expert Ed Rollins, 6 out of the last 8 POTUS elections have been “landslides”. Gosh darn… wonder how the media has missed so many notable events? Especially that a nation which has always been historically divided down the middle has so many “landslides” to boast of, merely so you can claim “landslide” for Obama. Pathetic how those goal posts move as to lift up “that one”.

I do not agree with you and the charisma and facility to explain all that. Obama has the contrary of charisma in my eyes and he sure cannot speak without a teleprompter. Bush has charisma and can explain things very well. NO, people just hates the conservative Republicans Party, period.

I gave an explanation on another thread, I will repost it here so you can follow my thoughts on this matter:

“It would be like trying a democrat in Washington, DC. He would get off no matter what the evidence is. A republican would be convicted no matter if their was no real evidence (Scooter Libby).” (Barbara S) from another thread.

Yeap! You are right. And why would that be? I have been thinking about this for a while. I came to the conclusion that the word “Democrat” and “liberal” are misleading. Word matters.

“Democrats” comes from the word “democratic”. So people think that Democrats have to be democratic, which supposes: almost perfect. “Liberals” comes from the word «liberty”. So Liberals thinks they are for freedom. These two words are very confusing and misleading. Hell, everyone wants to be for freedom and democracy, so they think that being a Democrat liberal is COOL. WRONG, because these two words are far away from what they are supposed to mean.

THE SOLUTION? Change these two words. Instead of saying “liberal”, just say LEFTIST. And change the name of the Democratic Party who is everything but democratic. Find another name for it. Like the “Corrupted Party” for instance would be more representative.

As for the word “conservative”, it doesn’t sounds good… it looks like people with old mentalities who are too stubborn to change their views. I would just call them “people with values”. The name of the “Republican Party” is OK, since you are a Republic, that means that this Party is really for your country. Just don’t juxtapose it with the word “conservative” that doesn’t sound good to the idiots.

Democrats HATED Saddam Hussein and cheered when American forces invaded Iraq in 1991
(Bush Sr was President)

Democrats HATED Saddam Hussein and cheered as he was bombed almost daily for 8yrs
(Clinton was President)

Democrats HATED Saddam Hussein and cheered ever six months when there was a threatened invasion or major bombing campaign every 6months for 8yrs
(Clinton was President)

Democrats HATED GWB, and opposed any violent action that would remove or restrict Saddam Hussein
(GWB was President)

Democrats HATED the UN-mandated occupation and reconstruction in Iraq and opposed it with all their might
(GWB was President)

Democrats have no problem w the infinite occupation of Iraq, and no longer oppose it beyond negative comments on random, telephone surveys
(Obama President)

Point here is that for 8yrs, we’ve been told by the left that GWB, neocons, whatever have been playing the politics of fear, taking advantage of the horrors of 911, and being foreign policy cowboys. In reality, GWB and his admin have followed a foreign policy path of inevitability; one that started in 1990 and will continue in the Obama Admin. Dems largely opposed the invasion of Iraq and occupation because they opposed GWB, and used the war as an excuse or catalyst for venting that hate. Now…they cannot escape the foreign policy of inevitability, and Obama knows this (which is why his policies are the same as GWB’s). My interest is foreign policy, and I think GWB’s greatest failure has been to take the problems of the world (Saddam, Osama, whatever) and convey them to Democrats in Demspeak; a language Democrats can understand. Lacking that language….they chose to oppose. Mark my words, Obama will/has made the same arguments for his foreign policy (a continuation of Bush’s) as Bush has.

Ummm – I’d suggest you read this site to see who rants – in fact, see Craig’s post above…

And so? No one’s asking their opinion….I don’t recall anyone on the right caring that Gore won the popular vote.

As to landslide:

“Ed Rollins, who helped engineer Reagan’s 1984 runaway, defines a landslide as “any time you get over 300 or 320 electoral votes.”

BTW – i said a few points SHY of a landslide – but still – face the fact – the skinny black marxist Muslim WHIPPED the great WAR HERO – the Vietnam Vet – the man who lived in a cage… as well as the famous HOCKEY Mom…

As to your apolgy for the Iranian visit to Iraq – BECAUSE THEY’RE neighbors – when do you expect Israel to get the red carpet treatment?