Brain Dead Boxer, Drunken Osama Teddy, KKK Byrd, etc got wiped out in a landslide, 32-13 by the Democratic Party.

Maybe they are right, Condi is a liar who started a war based on lies. Then, Hillary, Diane Feinstein, Barak Obama are too stupid to see what the "enlightened" see.

Orson Scott Card had the following to say in an article Slate published before the election:

"I'm a Democrat voting for Bush, even though on economic issues, from taxes to government regulation, I'm not happy with the Republican positions. But we're at war, and electing a president who is committed to losing it seems to be the most foolish thing we could do. Personal honesty is also important to me, and Kerry is obviously not in the running on that point, given that he can't keep track of the facts in his own autobiography."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2107890/

The problem isn't just that the Democrats have been hijacked by the far Left wing of the party, but that the entire leadership of the party, from grassroots to the top, is more interested in being in charge than in doing what's right for the nation. It's more important to them to win than to build. That's far more than disgusting - its destructive of everything this nation stands for. I wish Orson and the rest of the 'reasonable' Democrats good fortunte on regaining their party. It may be easier, however, to pull out and start over than to try to continue with the baggage the Democrats have accumulated in the last 20 years.

Agreed 100% Old Patriot, well put. Their motivated by hate and have sold their damned souls eager to sell out our very security. Old-time Dems would be utterly repulsed.

Ender had a better chance than a "moderate" in today's Democratic party. The reason they have gone from a 1.6:1 registration margin to 1.1:1 in 25 years is that the party has been taken over by the extreme left. Look who speaks for them: Boxer, Pelosi, Reid, JFK and Teddy. Far left "progressives" all. Zell Miller was a moderate who keynoted Bill's first convention and by 1998 he had been frozen out of the party. They could have replaced Tom with a moderate in Nov but they chose the extrremist Reid. He will need both Ender and Bean to take bace the Democratic party from the extremeist who have run it the last 30 years. Best of luck for an ex Dem.
Ex Jarehaed
Cerritos

Comments not pertaining to your post.....GREAT VALENTINES graphics. Mrs. G - I love it.

Oh, Card means it, all right. He's been pretty upfront about his disgust with the current crop of Democrats and the direction they're leading his party. Imagine if Zell Miller wrote really good science fiction (and historical fantasy fiction, for that matter.)

I second Old Patriot, too.

The pending disintegration of the Democratic party is not a good thing. While having two opposing parties encourages nasty partisanship, it also keeps each party "on its toes." Though I'm a conservative on a majority of issues, there's no way I want Republican governing without a viable opposition party.

OSC has been saying things like this for some years now. Yes, he really means it. Personally, I'd be in favor of a centrist party inhabited by the likes of Rudy and Arnold. My private theory is that about 60% of the people are close to the centrist position taken by Rudy and Arnold, with 20% left-wing fringe and 20% right-wing fringe. Take away the fringes and you are left with the middle 60%, whose similarities ought to be able to overcome their differences.

It is the extremism on all sides we must expose and oppose. The Dems are not the only ones with a far side to their party. Look at the impeachment proceedings and the expressions on the faces of Lindsey Graham and Tom Delay as they carried the articles to the Senate. They were smiling and proud and I don't think they had any right to be. I don't think it was a proud moment for our country. We must be able to disagree without rancor and rhetoric and state our positions without trying to destroy our opponents. Good debate builds concensus!

OK, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I keep hearing this sentiment and I honestly don't get it.

Quote:
at a time when our country is at war, and we need to show our enemies a unified and relentless determination to defeat them.
Instead, those thirteen votes had no effect except to encourage our enemies that if they just go on killing Americans long enough, there's a party in America that will vote against continuing the war.

A congressperson voting against the President does all this? How? I just don't get it. Just because we're at war we all have to vote the same way?

If anyone can explain, that'd be great.

Thanks

Here's another way to look at this:

What we have now is the political equivalent of the Cold War -- two superpower parties, full of political professionals intent on advancing their own carrers, more concerned with staying in power than in advancing the best interests of this nation.

As a result, we get multiple, independently-targeted variants of Mutually Assured Dumbness launched at us by our own government -- from pork-barrels to wide-open-borders -- and no one appears to be able to stop it.

Other voices, not beholden to an institutionalized party like the GOP or Democratic Party, could put a stop to this, but they are effectively shut out of the legislative process ... in large part because each party uses the threat of empowering "the only other viable alternative to us" to keep voters in their camp, and away from other, uncorrupted alternatives.

These two institutions --- the GOP and Democratic Party -- are like two trees that have fallen together in the forest. Each is supported only by the other pushing against it ... while both end up blocking the sunlight out below them.

How do we end the Mutually Assured Dumbness? By reducing the institutions that perpetrate it to insignificance. However, history has shown that taking both down simultaneously is virtually impossible. One, then the other, must fall.

The minority of No-rons who have hijacked the apparatus of the Democratic party are presenting us with an opportunity to take just such a course of action.

Let them take that party to self-destruction ... for when that happens, the GOP loses its ability to continue with "politics as usual" because they will no longer have the threat of the loony Left to hold over our heads. We can replace them, not with moonbats, but with people who actually give a rip about our national interest.

Do not worry about one-party rule if this happens -- for the American people will not let that last long. Frankly, my hope is that we end up with "no-party" rule -- that our Executive and Legislative branches will not be populated with Democrats, or Republicans ... or Libertarians, or Greens, or Socialists ...

... but just Americans.

Birds of a feather flock together.
It is natural for people of a like mind to gather with those of the same opinion. Who wants to hang out with people that don't think like you do? I think the problems start when people dig in their heels and close their minds to other ideas. In politics it's all about power so whoever is in power get's to impose their ideas on others. We see the problem with the 2 party system but would a third or fourth party be better or would it just make for more heel marks? Maybe the trick is to get the open minded people in power in the parties but then I wonder with the corrupting influence of power would they stay open minded for long?
What the hell do I know, maybe we're just doomed to being human!

I've had OSC linked on my sidebar almost since I started my blog. Some inteligent writing going on over there.