Election Day.

Pretty much, although I voted for a Democrat for State Representative. She's much brighter than the clod of a candidate the GOP came up with. When in doubt I vote for the person with a functional brain. I also voted against Betty Montgomery, because she's a headline grabbing non-entity. The only problem is that her opponent isn't much better.

For Governor, there was no good choiice. Boring Bob or Taxing Tim. Blech.

I'm not nearly as idiological as people think. It's just that the overwhelming majority of the noxious, hypocritical lies are currently coming from the Democrats.

They don't have a program, any ideas or any policies to suggest. About ANYTHING.

Noticed any Democrat political ads this year? Every one consists solely of "I'll stand up for working families against Big Oil, Big Drugs and whatever else you can find that's big"

It's all utter nonsense, and it's the flip side of Clintonism, which, far from saving the Democrat Party, may ironically turn out to be it's undoing.

Clinton ran solely on the basis of "The Republicans are bad men. He didn't have a p[rogram either, no real ideas and accomplished almost nothing except welfare reform and NAFTA which he opposed anyway.

His whole campaign consisted of "Vote for me - I'm not a Republican"

And it worked brilliantly.

But the hacks can't pull it off because they haven't got his charm. They just end up looking mean and nasty.

It's like your signature line. It's a classic, and I just copied it and sent it to some friends. I truly hope that you were being sarcastic.

Because you see, the point is not that black people are black and so Republicans hate them. That's what Clinton told everybody and only idiotsd believe it.

The problem is that black voters are in the back pocket of the Democratic party.

The author of your quote apparently feels that the Republicans are morally deficient because they aren't conducting a massive "Get Out The Vote" campiagn in and among a voting block that year in and year out goes 90% OR MOREW Democrat.

Apparently the idea is to provide transportation and lunch to voters who plan on putting you out of a job.

This makes sense to you?

Here's a tip: the GOP doesn't go out of it's way to get the feminists or the steelworkers to the polls either. It ain't because of their color, it's because those groups hate them.

Duh.

Black voters screw themselves. The Democrats own them, and they get nothing in return. They would have a lot more political power in this country if they made BOTH parties WORK for their vote.

Instead, the Republicans write off the black vote becuase they know damn well that no matter WHAT they do they'll turn around and vote Democrat.

Conversely, the Democrats know they can copmpletely ignore the needs of black citizens because they'll get get their votes anyway.

Bill Clinton gave a lot of lip-biting speeches about the plight of black Americans. Just like all Democrats do, he just does it better.

And what did he do for them? Not a damned thing.

No, my frined, it's the DEMOCRATS who abuse the black voters, not the Republicans.

The Republican party has spent millions trying to reach out to black voters. Contrary to what your sig says, they would LOVE to put that block in play. And it would be by far the smartest and best thing black Americans have done for themselves in a generation.

But they choose to stay down on the plantation with Ol Massah Bill and his house boys like Jesse Jackson.

And you sure can't blame the Republicans for that.

I'll put it even simpler for you: The Republicans don't care what color a vote is. They'll take green ones, purple ones, same as the Democrats. Problem is, the black vote is held hostage and they can't get to it.

To claim that that Republicans are racists who want a return to segregated lunch counters and don't even WANT black votes is just plain idiotic. They're politicians. And the one thing they do well is count.

 

Andrew Sullivan today:

Believe it or not, but Joe Conason nails it on the head. He's wrong about Minnesota (I think Coleman will win) but right about the Democrats in general. Here's what he says:

But there is no Democratic leadership willing to do more than look for weaknesses on the other side. If Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt have an alternative economic program, they have kept it well hidden throughout this campaign. What they have, at the moment, is a program of opposition. They are the opposition, so that's fine. Such a program may sustain them through this election. But it won't get them far over the next two years, when a new leader will emerge in the struggle for the Democratic presidential nomination. The old saying that you can't beat somebody with nobody applies to policy as well. You can't beat something with nothing - although you may be able to hold your own.

Of course, I think Conason understates the Democratic problem. The reason they will likely not win the House today is quite simply because they have provided almost no reason whatever to vote for them.

On the war, they're all over the map, with the center of gravity being an attempt to appear pro-war while privately being against it. On the economy, they have no clear program. They're against the Bush tax cut, but they are not for reversing it. Then there's warmed-over, Mondale soup - comforting but hardly exciting. What remains is simply a defense of certain entrenched interests - mainly the elderly and African-Americans.

I'm not saying the Republicans are a whole lot better. I wish they had more imaginative economic proposals, more courage in their attempt to reform social security, more gonads in resisting the creeping socialization of America's healthcare system. But at least we know they're pro-war, pro-Bush, and anti-tax. That's far clearer than the Democrats.

Which is to say that, whatever happens, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually deserve to win. But the Democrats actively deserve to lose.

 

Bill, how can you not get giddy just thinking about four more years of Taft, which gives us four more years of him wearing starched and pressed flannel shirts when visiting the farming areas of the state?

Have you ever seen a guy so uncomfortable in that environment?

 

score one for the good guys.

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you say this?


FF:

How did Taft ever have kids? Artificial insemination? Between him and that little weasel Mike DeWine, they could put a room full of six year olds to sleep.

 

Come by my place: I've got an unopened bottle of Beefeater, and we'll see if we can find the bottom of it.