Yeah every GOP President has won your state but the electoral college will never ever be gotten rid of, it can't be...its one of the foremost parts of our constitution and the founding of our democracy.

I don't mind the fact my state is gerrmandered, i'd always vote GOP and the state will always remain Red, this way it means i don't have to vote as i know which way my state is going.

When Republicans try to appear hip, the results are a grisly failure. It's like when Democrats try to appear strong on defense; the words might be correct, but they don't really understand the way of thinking or the tone and attitude. It goes against the grain.

Does anyone in their right mind really believe Hillary or Obama would be an effective commander-in-chief? Does anyone in their right mind really think Mitt Romney would appear convincing doing the "I'm so young and free even though I am in my 50s" routine that Bill Clinton perfected?

There is a "perpetual youth" obsession in the US, and the left understand that. To me, it is sickening. But millions of people share it.

Republicans do very well with younger voters through policies. Right now Bush is exceptionally unpopular with younger voters. That is definitely a problem. But the idea that we are living in some sort of left-wing resurgence is fantasy-world thinking. The divisions in this country are still about the same - and if the Dems don't wake up to that fact, they will pay a price.,

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

You wouldn't be the first to accuse me of such, though your impetus towards incivility when challenged does seem worthy of comment.

No. Because you actually used the rightwing/partisan definition of liberalism and implicitly assumed others shared it (even acting surprised when another poster questioned it).

That's called spin. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand - it is an attempt to divert the topic away.

Nothing personal. I'm just working with your posted words here.

No, I addressed my statement to you based upon your post, quoted above where you made the typical rightwing partisan liberal attack. See post #71.

I already answered this querry. See post #71.

If you'd like to truly know how "right wing" I am, go find some of my posts regarding abortion, gay marriage, and prayer in schools. I think you'll find they're nowhere near the opinions of anyone who's "right wing"...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I'm really not trying to make you look silly.

You made this statement (which is the one I responded to) in post #60: And I've never seen you post anything that wasn't extremely partisan.

Basically, you accused me of being partisan before I said anything which was partisan. I expressed equal disgust with both parties. Somehow, I guess, you feel that doing so is showing deference to one party over the other.

That doesn't make a bit of fucking sense, but so be it.

And you still dodge my question which asked you which part what partisan.

Typical...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Perhaps the more important point I was trying to make is that the YouTube Audience is younger. The Repubs could reach out to them however they saw fit not necessarily including appearing to be hip. But opting out means they miss the opportunity to introduce themselves to the younger demographic.

I think there's a lot of people that believe Obama would... I think there's a lot of people that believe Hillary would. I'm not a party to the latter, but I'm pretty sure there's a healthy portion of those people who are sane and intelligent.

That's a pretty stupid question really.... I mean Were you in your right mind when you voted for George Bush?...

You act as if this is either a new phenomenon or one that's localized to the U.S. The quest for the fountain of youth has been around for thousands of years and it's currently a media obsession in just about every country of the world.

The left has a lot of leverage these days, but rather than being earned, it was handed to them by the incompetence of the Republican leadership. The Bush administration has given the far left so much ammo that they've nearly wet themselves with excitement.

It's not some kind of resurgence, but there's a good chance we'll see a Democratic president this time around.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

I think Hillary can handle the c-in-c role. Her dedicated work on the Senate Armed Services Committee has been quite remarkable. Her competence on military issues is quite impressive.

I'd say Hillary would be able to match or beat any challenger on the table on actual knowledge of military issues. I'm talking about someone that doesn't need to be prepped by a flunky to answer a question.

And after G.W. Bush's handling of that function, it certainly would be hard to actually be a worse c-in-c than G.W. Bush. The US military has been dangerously weakened by short rotations under Bush's command.

A very good observation.

I agree completely which is why I'm afraid that the Democratic Party just miight actually nominate a real lefty (like Edwards) or a total neophyte that they want to believe is a real lefty (like Obama).

If one polls Daily Kos members (for example) where the place is overrun with Democratic party activists and card-carrying members of the Democratic party, you'd find that Edwards is favored by about 65% of them with Obama at 25% and Hillary at 5% and the rest less than that. That is totally un-representative of the Democratic Party membership at large.

The Democratic Party has spent many years tacking back to the center and now are poised to profit from that. A hard tack to the left would be the worst possible outcome.

As far as I see the Democratic Party, Hillary is a strong centerist in the Clinton tradition (which means the rightwing of the Democratic party) and the rest of the party is all far to the left of that point.

Again, I agree. The election belongs to the Democratic candidate to lose. If they don't screw it up, they will very likely win it. This is not due to any upsurge in the vitality, popularity or energy of the Democratic party, but to the toxic government style and general incompetence of the Bush administration. Of that, I have no doubt. Many of the same kind of idiots who nominated Dukakis some 20 years ago still mostly run the party.

That point was derived from your posts in other threads.

My feelings have nothing to do with it.

The part you just declared to be nonsense was your own inferrence, not mine.

I pointed out the post in this thread that was the relevant answer to your question (twice). That you may perhaps disagree does not negate this fact.

An underwhelming point. Indeed, likely as not, it is another one that requires one agreement with your definitions to make sense.

So many words, yet you say so little.

I've got plenty of posts here which express opinions which would never be confused as "conservative" or "left wing". Perhaps, then, you'd be kind enough to explain exactly how I'm "partisan" when I criticize libs and conservatives...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Sorry, the subject doesn't interest me nearly as much as it does you.

You also possess the absolute inability to back up something you say...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"