Mike,

you keep attacking Bush administration policies that I've never mentioned, much less even tried to defend. Why are you doing this? It's like we're having lunch together, and you keep shouting at some third person who's not even in the room.

"If my taxes were raised by $100, but I, and every other American, got $500 benefit, I'd say 'Raise my taxes.'"

Yep, and I'd buy a perpetual motion machine - if I thought it would really work. The government can't hand out more money than it takes in. Sure, any useful investment has a positive payback ratio, but most government programs are redistributions rather than true investments - and do you really think the marginal payback of new government spending is five to one?

"I'd also ask how can you support an administration that has increased the size of government faster and to an unprecedented level than any other administration? More employees, and spending at a greater per cent of the GNP, than any previous administration (excepting only Lincoln and FDR for legitimate war-time economies)?"

As a matter of fact, I don't - I'm appalled by the recent increases in government spending. Are you? If so, I'd be perfectly comfortable discussing with you how best to pare it back.

What I'm not comfortable with is saying that we need to raise taxes and make it even bigger.

The North Carolina Governor has no veto or aproval power over congressional redistricting. If the Dems win the NY State Senate, as seems likely before 2010, a GOP loss in NY.

Dear Mike:

If we look at the raw facts about the economy right now, we can tell that the economy is doing very well. To what is this due: well, there are a variety of things occurring right now which might seem to be weakening our economy--the Iraq War, the War on Terror in general, the increasing debt of the federal government, the higher energy prices, and of course the 9/11 terrorist attacks which could have virtually decimated our way of life and our perpetually fantastic, super-powered economy. So why, after all these factors which would seem to undermine the health of our economy, is the economy still doing quite well?

Well, here's one thing that happened:

-Bush and the Republican Congress passed sweeping tax cuts for all people (taking many poorer individuals and families off the tax rolls, and even giving NEGATIVE tax rates to some of the poorer people in our country, in addition to lowering tax rates on the middle class, and yes, those rich people we are all so envious of)

-There is a reason besides just political maneuvering that cutting tax rates is called a pro-growth policy, and that is because it works

-Yes, the deficit is still very high, because of the irresponsible spending of Bush and the Republican congress, but last year it was cut in half. Why? Increased federal tax revenue.

-Why do tax cuts work? Because they allow people to keep more of the money that they have earned, allowing them to spend more and invest more.

Also, something you may be interested in hearing: Red states have an average unemployment rate of approximately 4.34%, whereas blue states have an average unemployment rate of approximately 4.74%.

A small but significant difference of .4%. Why? Pro-growth economic policies, including lower tax rates.

Republican: I, in no way referred to any party in the post you referred. The thing I am trying to point out is that, and I said in the post, a member of a party that oppose the legislation when introduced will blindly, in many cases, continue to oppose it while benefitting from it personally. This is done by dems as well as repubs and you can find it almost on a daily basis. I am simply stating fact.

Republican,

I'm sorry that I attributed the post by Anonymous @ 04:29 PM to you, but you know the old saying about fellow travelers? Sure you do, as you seem to have the same thought process as that anonymous poster.

Example:
"They are more concerned about how much they'll have to pay in taxes at the end of the year than they are about political correctness. And yes - they are concerned that Democrats will go overboard and damage the economy."
Republican | January 2, 2007 04:15 PM

To your direct questions:

"I do not believe that every public need is best met through government. I also don't believe that our current government is vastly too small, or that we are significantly under-taxed. Do you?"

Depends on what the tax goes for. If my taxes were raised by $100, but I, and every other American, got $500 benefit, I'd say "Raise my taxes." If my taxes were lowered by $100, but I and all future generations of Americans got stuck with (at least) $1,000 dollars of debt (after interest is figured in, lost opportunities to spend on infrastructure, research, education, ...), then I'd say "Don't lower my taxes." I'd also ask how can you support an administration that has increased the size of government faster and to an unprecedented level than any other administration? More employees, and spending at a greater per cent of the GNP, than any previous administration (excepting only Lincoln and FDR for legitimate war-time economies)?

"I also don't take it as a matter of faith that if we increased taxes the money would be well spent, that there would necessarily be a significant benefit to the public, or that we would necessarily be worse off as a country if the money was left in the hands of the taxpayer."

Are we better off, government-debt wise, with the tax cuts of Shrub? And are we better off that the increase in debt is being bought by the Chinese and Saudi's? What will the cost be when they say "Dance to our tune, or we dump that debt on the (Republican-worshiped) 'free market'"?

We need to change glib politics to serious non-profit public interest politics and force the truth that true democracy means EVERY VOTE DOES COUNT.

My son recently left the Boston area and went out to Arizona, got a job and an apartment and likely plans to stay. Democrat, heavily due to his father's influence--he subscribes to the two parties as ruling and therefore the only practical thing to do. Ideals in politics would net a sneer. However, I asked my ex what he thought of Nader, and he answered, "actually I don't know that much about Nader." My ex is Vietnam era, 60 in April, Harvard graduate and should know. I think I knew more of the image of Nader. It seems it must be so. Likewise, John Gardner's Common Cause a limelight trend believed was going to and supposed to take hold. Put the lid of money in politics and make it fair competition. My son's introduction to politics is the glib let the media portrait be the truth...and accept reality...I do not...reality is examine and critique and get into it, and learn what it is and what to expect....told a safe state for either party-- he may not "bother" to vote-disillusionment...as if the media thinks SAFE STATE is safe. It is not the truth and not safe. Truth voting is safe voting.

Causes for disillusionment in society are many and varied, but ideals belong in politics and so do voters, as many as possible...and GET THE VOTE OUT...is the point of this specific mention...my son likely will ignore me and say "it doesn't matter."

IF the MEDIA says it doesn't...people believe it when indeed they KNOW BETTER. People everywhere sneer at political junkies and laugh as if it is taboo conversation. They think we are fools and they "know better." What they actually know is they are destroying democracy because EVERYONE has to uphold a good political system and talking politics is necessary.

I grew up in an atmosphere that said there are two subjects you do not talk about in polite society, religion and politics. The reason of course is that there is argument.

Well, the argument is healthy, and although this blog encourages, it makes me literally sick to my stomach that a ton of people think they owe nothing to the system and they don't have to understand, they accept what the media tells them...too many.

Regarding the census data, that the new people will be Republican...my son just settled in Arizona...will he accept media labels as a GIVEN and allow STATUS QUO from YESTERYEAR as if it relates to the present and future?

I hope not. I want truth voting, affirmative for the present and future.

Arizona is or is not Republican? Maybe a poll asking how many want the Troops Home Now, and separate question to poll, How many in Arizona think Bush should be impeached.

The theme everywhere, quite bad in my view, is, "two more years"...to get rid of Bush.

And, similar mentality, "anybody but Bush" and that meant the Democratic nominee however arrived at, (media railroaded? Ask Dan Rather if he tried to do that knowingly) and whoever (flip flop apparently is valid, and now the question is Edwards more honest than Kerry or a diluted stronger flip flop ...interviewing Edwards on why he allowed Bush the permission to declare war when it is Congress's duty...could show his truth about war itself and the proper separation of powers provided in the Constitution. Edwards is an attorney and certainly is aware of the import in terms of reprsenting public opinion with the Duty to Declare belonging to Congress...not one person, many. Edwards has said, and I agree, and many agree, both parties, I suspect...Iraq Self Rule means get out of there and allow the proper opportunity for them to have self rule.

Of course the new arrivals should...get the vote out...oh yes. The voting should reflect the Present and Future, not the past. Elections are for the future. the media needs to pay attention.

I did not, myself, vote the year Clinton ran against papa Bush. Neither was affirmative for me.

People have said to me "no vote" is honest and if it were on the ballot, it might net a lot of votes. The first time someone said that to me, I was horrified. It would say how many people are disillusioned and cannot find an affirmative candidate for President.

I blame the media for railroading two parties when it is not what the public wanted...When paddling upstream in the media's face, even though the system allows challenge as an Independent....the upstream offering of unseating both parties was what the media could not permit, of course they could, but they chose not to. Where did they get that "right?" the highlight coverage handily offered Gore and then successively Kerry was not paid advertising. It was presumed public interest when indeed it was NOT.

I believe the public TV and RADIO would do a good job if given the funding. Congress owes taxes to that very important watchdog effect of non-partisan fair and competitive media presentation of elections so that candidates are given competitive view so the people end up choosing the best, not the lesser of two evils.

"Facts are hard for some to understand, much less accept, unless it comes from the political party they are aligned with. The "bashing" they use is but one way they use to deny the very things they themselves are in favor of and enjoy."

lylepink: before you go totally ad hominem against all republicans, I'd ask you to take a look at my last post and tell me exactly what you think constitutes "bashing."

I'd suggest that today's blog has been filled with a good bit of vigorous "bashing" done by liberals. Or is it only "bashing" when the other side does it? In any event, your liberal friends seem well able to sling personal insults along with the best of them.

Mike in Baltimore: That is the best post I have seen in a long long time. Facts are hard for some to understand, much less accept, unless it comes from the political party they are aligned with. The "bashing" they use is but one way they use to deny the very things they themselves are in favor of and enjoy.

Mike,

Cute fable.

Unfortunately, the quote didn't come from me (even though it's a pretty good one).

Beyond that, not all government programs were established by solely by liberals in the face of unthinking and unyielding opposition by evil conservatives.

I believe that there is a role for government, that some things can only be done through government, and that others are best done through government.

I do not believe that every public need is best met through government. I also don't believe that our current government is vastly too small, or that we are significantly under-taxed. Do you?

I also don't take it as a matter of faith that if we increased taxes the money would be well spent, that there would necessarily be a significant benefit to the public, or that we would necessarily be worse off as a country if the money was left in the hands of the taxpayer. Do you?

Am I self-made? No - I never claimed that. I have benefited from the support of a loving family, a strong (conservative) local community, and a lot of lucky breaks. Does that mean that I should say "heck yeah, give me some more of that" every time someone suggests addressing a social need through another government program? Don't think so.

Republican's comment "When the government takes it in taxes you know that it's gone for good" reminds me of something I read some time ago. It describes a day in the life of Joe Republican:

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance -- now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.

Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

So I have to ask Republican, are you just like that self-made man, Joe Republican? And are you willing to give up and forever forswear all benefits the left side of the political spectrum have created in the past 100 years?

"as a health insurance, " = "as a health insurance actuary, "

"If you want to cut taxes, I suggest you get behind universal health coverage and, then, a universal retirement program. We spent around 9% of GNP for healthcare right now and around 70 millon American's have no health coverage at all with this scheme. The elderly poor have hit and miss coverage under Medicare. With a simple national HMO, we could cover every man, woman, and child in this country with full medical and dental care and have complete prescription drug coverage. If this program were regionally managed by private or semi-private corporations (like the Post Office, which is *very* efficient and offers exceptional service) that could negoiate with drug companies and other providers for the lowest possible costs, we would end up spending right at 4% of GNP on healthcare."

What have you been smoking? I have over 25 years experience as a health insurance, and I can assure you - this simple isn't possible. We can certainly pass universal universal health care - and there are reasonable arguments for it - but we simply cannot cover more people through an HMO and cut our national health care spending by two thirds at the same time. I've priced too many HMOs to believe that sort of foolishness. Not even Bill and Hillary ever claimed that.

annon poster @ 05:34 - I may have misunderstood you and, if so, I would offer my apologies. However, and especially now that our idiot President has spent us into bankruptcy, we will need to raise taxes to pay the bills. Those tax breaks he gave to the wealthy were counterproductive (they simply led to more outsourcing) anyways and it's time to roll them back. Also, since the wealthy tended to support this maniac and raked in the monye from his insane programs, they deserve to get stuck with the bulk of the debt he ran up.

Beyond all of this, his crazy "No Child Left Behind" scheme came with no money, just another big bill, that has done harm to schools. So, if people want this, they need to pay for it. Raise taxes.

If you want to cut taxes, I suggest you get behind universal health coverage and, then, a universal retirement program. We spent around 9% of GNP for healthcare right now and around 70 millon American's have no health coverage at all with this scheme. The elderly poor have hit and miss coverage under Medicare. With a simple national HMO, we could cover every man, woman, and child in this country with full medical and dental care and have complete prescription drug coverage. If this program were regionally managed by private or semi-private corporations (like the Post Office, which is *very* efficient and offers exceptional service) that could negoiate with drug companies and other providers for the lowest possible costs, we would end up spending right at 4% of GNP on healthcare. That would save YOU and companies millons of dollars and make us more competitive as a country. Only a government program-initiative could do this. This isn't rocket science and the exact sort of program we are discussing is being run right now in Scandinavia and works exceptionally well - the healthcare service in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway is the best in the Western world. The savings? Somewhere in the neighborhood of $800 billion dollars today!

MikeB: This outsourcing that started with Bubba is one of the few things, policy wise, that I disagreed with him on. I do not think he had in mind what is/has been taking place for these past years. Chrysler is a good example, now Damlier/Crysler are reported to have one of their top models made in China as are so many things, primarily the textile industry, even most of our flags someone mentioned that was being burned by a few idiots as a means of protest. We as a country must protect our workers from the corp. greed or soon we will not have a country of the people but in many respects the USA will be another "third world country". We see this every day and so many folk are focusing on matters that does not effect them and listening to and yes following those that want to destroy this country. Remember my quote "Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing and in that way you will know what you are doing."

"The fact is, that along with several other examples you cite, I simply don't think this is true. Maybe -- maybe -- it was true 20 or 30 years ago. Maybe a few behaved this way -- but this sort of meme is not about what actually happens, but the way this kind of incident is magnified and repeated ad naeseum on conservative venues like talk radio and Fox so that many people think it is. You might try talking to some of us and find out firsthand."

What's critical here is the public face of liberal Democrats as they come across to the average American watching the news. I'm sure (and based on our conversation, I actually am sure) that you're a very reasonable person. There are simply too many cases where well intentioned (even if, perhaps, misguided) efforts to protect kids from porn, or avoid public funding of obnoxious art, or keep patently offensive performances off of university campuses are seemingly reflexively opposed by liberals, when groups like the Boy Scouts or other more traditional organizations are challenged for one thing or another.

Why do liberals talk about global warming? Because Air America trumps it up? No,they talk about it because they're genuinely disturbed by it. Why do conservatives talk about these issues? Because Fox trumps them up? No, they talk about it because they're genuinely disturbed when a museum or public university use public funds to sponsor art or performances they believe are obscene, blasphemous or unpatriotic, or when a public official defends what they see as indefensible without any apparent moral discomfort.

"And I don't think you'd find many Democrats disagreeing with you that Fox is pure trash that no one should bother to watch [sorry, snark]."

Yep, that's a snark. Conservatives are uncomfortable with Fox for entirely different reasons.

"It's only when the government starts performing large-scale, unsupervised data mining and massive surveillance without cause, and keeping gigantic databases of citizen's private information that I get uncomfortable. And that's not an exageration. It's happening."

Agreed. It is cause for discomfort. I suspect it may prove necessary to do large-scale data mining in the future to deal with terrorism, if it does in fact grow and spread. We need to carefully think through what's necessary, what's not, and how to do what needs to be done in a responsible way that preserves our basic freedoms.

MikeB,

Get off it. If you want to argue with me, fine - but don't misrepresent what I said(which you're doing to the point of outright lying, which is despicable).

I never argued for outsourcing more government services through private contractors - which is the ludicrous straw man that the first half of your post is dedicated to pummeling.

I also never said that I wanted to "dismantle all" of the "infrastructure, schools, roads, police and fire, a social safety neat, basic services, parks" etc. That's the fantasy bogeyman you constructed to pummel in the second half of your post.

What I did say is that it is not clear that, given the size of government and level of services we now have, marginal increases in taxes will always produce any meaningful benefit to the public.

So - if you want to have a meaningful discussion, please suck it up and address what I really said. If you just want to bloviate, then you're gonna have to count me out.

scootmandubious - I just followed your link to your blog. Nicely done! One quick point, however, there a many of us "out here" who are self identified Christian's (who DO NOT think that the Fundimentalists are Christians at all - they are a pseudo-christian cult) who are liberals and Democrats.

I just knew that those anti-choice states that were forcing little Abigail to carry Uncle Henry's unwanted love child to term were only looking out for the greater good; GOP domination.

"Breeding: The New GOP Strategy?"
http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2007/01/breeding-new-gop-strategy.html

Of those 10 states, Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Colorado and Florida are all becoming more and more hispanic. This increase in population will mean a minor change electoral votes, but if the demographics shift enough, the red electoral votes will become blue electoral votes.

And drindl and annon poster, don't forget about things like the "no fly" list. You have no idea at all if you are on it or not and you have no way of getting off it if you are on it. You buy a ticket, arrive at the airport to fly out and are simply stopped. Why? Was it a mistake? Is it punishment/harrasement for writing letters to the editor about Bush and his idiot polcies? It's all rather Nazi-KGB secret police nonsense and it's time to do away with it. I think the new Democratic COngress would be well served to randomly select registered Republicans and corporate officers, and and add them to the no fly list. Perhaps that might drive the point home about the randomness and fundimental unfairness of this very bad idea and how easy it is to abuse it.

'Shouldn't cheating on your wife, or selling pornography, or simply exploiting young women in skimpy clothing to make money be at least as socially unacceptable as public drunkeness? At a minimum, I would argue that the most publicly visible liberals defend all of this behavior, without seeming to have any qualms about its morality, desirability, appropriateness or social acceptability.'

The fact is, that along with several other examples you cite, I simply don't think this is true. Maybe -- maybe -- it was true 20 or 30 years ago. Maybe a few behaved this way -- but this sort of meme is not about what actually happens, but the way this kind of incident is magnified and repeated ad naeseum on conservative venues like talk radio and Fox so that many people think it is. You might try talking to some of us and find out firsthand.

And I don't think you'd find many Democrats disagreeing with you that Fox is pure trash that no one should bother to watch [sorry, snark].

The thing is, I totally agree with you about airline searches. Don't mind them at all. I'll wait in line. There are plenty of lunatics out there of all kinds of varieties, and I'd like to know they don't have a bomb.

It's only when the government starts performing large-scale, unsupervised data mining and massive surveillance without cause, and keeping gigantic databases of citizen's private information that I get uncomfortable. And that's not an exageration. It's happening.

I was thinking as I read this article that, perhaps, couples in Democratic-leaning states are too depressed by current events to reproduce. Not so with ranchers and farmers, who are far divorced from vicious and stupid policies and policy-makers and, hence, they reproduce like rabbits.

annon poster @ 05:34 - Those locusts you call "private contractors" in Iraq outnumber the U.S. troops there. Most work for Halliburton or one of their subsidiaries and cost the government billions of dollars. In fact, well over 2/3 of the money spent in Iraq to date has been consumed by these people. And, just where do you think they got all of that money? From the U.S. taxpayer. Ditto for those "guest workers" you right wing "free enterprise" cheerleaders squawk about. The *average* cost to the U.S. taxpayer PER GUEST WORKER is $40,000 a year. That is taxpayer subsidized cheap labor for private industry. Want to go on? Health care in the U.S. averages 9% of GNP, while it is closer to 4% of GNO in the rest of the industrialized world. For all of that, our health care is awful. It ranks 20th amoungst Western countries for qualify of service delivered and dead last for cost. The reason, all of those private companies line up and fleese the government, the tax payers, out of billions of dollars. When it comes time to attempt some sort of regulation or competitive bidding process you "private enterprise" cheerleaders squawk like wounded puppies.

Taxes pay for infrastructure, schools, roads, police and fire, a social safety neat, basic services, parks for all of us to enjoy, all of those things that mkae a country a country. I know you *think* you want to dismantle all of this so you can hang onto your money, but you live in a countryr that defends and potects ALL of it's citizens, not just the wealthy few. Also, past experience shows that the first and loudest to squawk for public support are those wealthy individuals and corporations that are in trouble. So, get used to taxes, much much higher taxes. The wealthy OWE this country and the citizens that soldier for it and work for it and sacrifice so much for it. If you don't like it, I think India has a system of government that is much like what you tout as ideal. I suggest you move there.

"Really? So you think that the massive waste on private contractors that Iraq has produced is beneficial? You really think the privatizing the military itself has been beneficial? Especially since a US soldier costs about a tenth of a private contractor, and actually cares what happens? All that privatizing does is create profit for somebody, and that means it generally costs more.How hard is that to figure out? And please don't tell me global corporations are cost-efficient. I've got an Enron I could sell you."

This is a crock - and a bad crock to boot. We're discussing the combination of:

a) lower taxes; and

b) reduced government activity.

That's far, far different from a larger government that collects more taxes and spends them on government programs implemented through contracts with private firms.

"Private corporations today squander huge amounts on the salaries incompetent crooked Ceos, absurdly lavish perks, and ridiculous profit margins. I have worked for several of them, I know. Maybe YOU want your tax dollars spent on that -- I don't."

Actually, I don't. That's the point. I don't want more taxes to be taken from me and spent on a bloated government beaurocracy either. The government is quite big enough as it is, thank you.

"that was a snark."

Fair enough - we all enjoy a good snark every now and then.

"Assuming a viable fetus, one without terminal medical problems, I think both are immoral."

Then we may not be that far apart. I'm convinced that Democrats would get much further with many moderates and independents if they wouldn't defend the "right to choose" in any and all circumstances - including those that are truly morally indefensible.

Who should choose? Many moral decisions should be left to individuals. Others, such as whether or not to commit infanticide, our society outlaws. I would place late term abortion of a viable fetus in the later category. You may disagree with me, but I'm not a neanderthal to be disturbed by it, and to want to see our nation renounce it as morally unacceptable. (If nothing else, I'd suggest that it's much more morally repugnant than smoking in a public building.)

"So you want to prosecute adultery, prostitution and 'immorality'?"

Well, prostition is already illegal. Would you suggest that we legalize it? That's really beside the point, though. What I'm trying to illustrate is that conservatives view pornography, prostition, adultery and the cheapening of our culture as very real social evils. (I'm convinced that many moderates - especially parents - do too.)

That doesn't necessarily mean that they should all be made illegal and actively prosecuted. But frankly, sometimes it seems that some in the Democratic party make a habit of seeking out and publicly defending the most outrageous and offensive behavior. And no, I don't want to bring back Prohibition. But we no longer celebrate drunks in our country. Shouldn't cheating on your wife, or selling pornography, or simply exploiting young women in skimpy clothing to make money be at least as socially unacceptable as public drunkeness? At a minimum, I would argue that the most publicly visible liberals defend all of this behavior, without seeming to have any qualms about its morality, desirability, appropriateness or social acceptability.

And no - I don't give Fox a free ride on this. Far too many of their shows are simply trashy. I don't watch them. What I'm arguing for here is not a law against them, but a social consensus that says "that is pure trash that no one should bother to watch" rather than "this is edgy popular entertainment, and after all, they have a right to show anything they want."

"I'm not willing to give up the Constitution for anyone or anything. I wouuld fight to the death for it."

I didn't ask you to "give up the Constitution." It gives us a vital framework for balancing individual rights and the public good - but that is in fact a balance we strike. I am willing to submit to search when I travel by air - because it is now necessary. I'm more concerned about keeping air travel safe than I am about why I was searched rather than the grandmother in front of me in line. Honestly, sometimes I think we lose all sense of proportion.

"And as far as flag-burning, how often does that really happen. Once or twice a year maybe. And as you suggest, it's a 'stunt'. A stupid stunt."

I agree. It is a stupid - and an offensive - stunt. If more Democrats would say so, rather than immediately leaping to the defense of the stunt, I'd be much more likely to consider voting for Democratic candidates. The problem I have is that too many Democrats do not appear to be offended by it.

"But if you republicans want to keep spending all your legislative efforts on flag-burning while Dems work on jobs, why, you just go right ahead."

I sincerely hope the Republican party does not spend all its legislative efforts on this one, relatively minor symbolic issue. Symbolism can be important, however, in defining who we are and what we value. I really don't think Democrats have, by and large, handled this one particularly well.

"You might also want to think a little about the fact that most american flags are now made in China by prison laborers, which to me is the more relevant fact to most americans."

I'd like to see the source on this one, but either way, I think it's a bit off point. If asked if they want to buy a flag that's made in America, or an imported one, most of us will say "American, please." (Would you like to see a requirement that flags offered for sale indicate their country of origin? Fine by me.) But either way, I don't think most of us want to see it desecrated.

thanks proud grunt.

'On balance, I think that swinging a bit further back to the private side would be more beneficial.'

Really? So you think that the massive waste on private contractors that Iraq has produced is beneficial? You really think the privatizing the military itself has been beneficial? Especially since a US soldier costs about a tenth of a private contractor, and actually cares what happens?

All that privatizing does is create profit for somebody, and that means it generally costs more.How hard is that to figure out? And please don't tell me global corporations are cost-efficient. I've got an Enron I could sell you.

Private corporations today squander huge amounts on the salaries incompetent crooked Ceos, absurdly lavish perks, and ridiculous profit margins. I have worked for several of them, I know. Maybe YOU want your tax dollars spent on that -- I don't.

And one more thing -- this recent epidemic of food poisoning is just a taste of what happens when government oversight fails. A lot of people died. there are some things that ARE priceless.

Joey b - There's a very big differnce between "Hispanic" and "illegal". The one is an American. The other is a desparate family or provider for a family, here illegally, trying to feed their children. The illegal is being used by corporations and employers to beat down wages and benefits for American workers. We owe those American's jobs, health care, schools, and a decent society. To the desparately poor illegal, we unfortunately owe only what we can afford, which is very very little right now. It may be tragic and seem hard, but I think we need to deport the illegals.

lylepink - Nice to hear from you! I take it you're a Democrat, too. Hillary has always bothered me because I associate her with her husband who started this outsourcing mess...and the H1B and L1 visa's, I believe, began under him. I know Bush has carried these to unheard of and insane extreme's but oft time very bad things get started with small beginnings. But, maybe I am wrong. Let her speak up about this and what she intends to do about it. I really want to know.

Can anyone say "Hispanic"? Much of the growth in these states isn't just from migration or immigration, but also higher birthrates - Arizona, Nevada, texas, Florida - nope, no hispanics there. Georgis and North carolina? None! Almost all the states listed are seeing a huge increase in hispanic - and soon enough, mostly democratic - voters.

Deny this one Amy - You're living in La La Land. That's not Los Angeles, either.

Re: flag burning

Doesn't bother me in the least. I thought that protecting the Constitution was one of the reasons I served.

In reasonably normal times only idiots burn flags. I haven't seen anybody doing it in this country in years. In a true crisis some may feel driven to express their opinions harshly. So be it. It doesn't infringe on my rights in the least, even though it may irritate me.

No, I do not mind incovenience in the name of security.

Yes, I do greatly mind intrusiveness in the name of security. I've worked at relatively high levels of your government for years and have seen far too many senior management officials blithely ignore statutes and regulations which they find inconvenient. It's not the process which you should not trust, it's the people who operate the process. The Founding Fathers understood that when they created the Checks and Balances.

When are the Sunshine Patriots and Chicken Hawks ever going to learn what is actually in the Constitution? And the logical reasons supporting it?

They'll never learn by listening to "Speedy" Gonzales as he rationalizes justifications for anything the Boss wants.

I forgot to mention MikeB that you and I are of the same opinion on most issues with Hillary being the exception. I read so much over the weekend and found a good many articles that made no sense what-so-ever, and that is why I rarely cite a book, magazine or newspaper and use them for information.

"For one thing, we get benefits from taxes."

That's the assumption I'm simply not willing to make. Granted, we need a certainly level of government to ensure civil order, provide essential services such as courts, and provide for the common defense. That does not mean that every marginal increase in the size of the government is beneficial. Our government is already almost unimaginably huge, involving itself in every aspect of life.

Of course, we are somewhere in the middle of the continuum between anarchy and a centrally planned, communist system. I think it's clear that the centralized system is inefficient and oppressive. I also think that we're far enough along that continuum that we can't simply assume that each new marginal increase in taxes and government activity will produce a net benefit to society. On balance, I think that swinging a bit further back to the private side would be more beneficial.

Mr. Cillizza,

I disagree with your assessment of the new census. Evidence could prove quite the opposite. As a Democrat, I moved from a Democratic state to a Republican Southern State several decades ago. To this date, I still vote democratic and so does my family. As the Republican Party continues to strongly associate itself with the conservative religious right, it will continue to weaken as a whole. Just because someone moves to a Southern state, that by no means indicates that person will become and vote Republican. I believe the migration to Republican states will weaken the Republican Party in these "Red" states by increasing the number of democrats. And if the African American Democrats became energized to vote at the same level as the religious right in the strongest "Red" states in the South (Mississippi [40% African American], Georgia, and Alabama), then there could be a significant shift in parties, but not the way you indicate.

anon guy writes "When the government takes it in taxes you know that it's gone for good. So - if people would "rather manage they [sic] money themselves" than give it to a stock broker, don't you reckon they'd rather keep it themselves than give it to the government in higher taxes?"

There are a few presumptions in that post. For one thing, we get benefits from taxes. When taxes go up, my cost/benefit ratio might change, but that doesn't mean the money is just 'gone.' If the gov't disappeared & we all stopped paying taxes, the whole system would come tumbling down. There may be problems with government, and inefficiency is sometimes one of the problems, but we do still get something back from our taxes - though a certain set of believers never seem willing to admit as much.

Oh, Republican, one other comment. You wanted to know about service. Yes I'm a veteran. I have two sons in the military now. One is an Iraq veteran (wounded). The other is a front line combat medic in Iraq right this minute and has been there for over a year. His photo was on CNN a few months back, rescuing some wounded soldier, and most reguar readers of this forum are well aware of this.

All this Naderite stuff is silly. Today's Fix is about the Census and its likely effect on elections.

OK, I said I was giving up blogging for the New Year but I guess I slipped. Starting immediately after this post...

So, to answer Golgi, the smear (if you want to call it that) is obviously because MikeB's favorite candidate is Edwards. I voted Kerry despite disliking Edwards and now prefer a different candidate (Obama).

Here is a list of incorrect guesses made about me on this blog so far.

Paid campaigner -- Not true.

Right wing whack job -- Not true.

Extreme leftist -- Not true.

Washington Post writer -- Not true.

Had a romantic relationship, whether unhappy or happy, with anyone affiliated with the Edwards campaign -- Definitely not true! :)

Naderite -- Not true. Like many, many other Americans, I cast the 2000 Nader vote as a statement that I saw Gore as a a very weak candidate who did not deserve my vote. If the state where I live were not heavily blue, I would have voted for Gore as an anti-Bush vote. My state's electoral votes went to Gore, as predicted.

I am flattered that anyone referenced my posts at all, but why not quit making silly guesses about faceless bloggers and discuss the issues of the day. Bye.

Oh, Republican, one other comment. You wanted to know about service. Yes I'm a veteran. I have two sons in the military now. One is an Iraq veteran (wounded). The other is a front linbe combat troop in Iraq right this minute and has been there for over a year. His photo was on CNN a few months back, rescuing some wounded soldier, and most reguar readers of this forum are well aware of this.

. . sure are a lot of cons with gay kids, for instance."

that was a snark.

'Assuming a viable late-term fetus, please explain the moral difference between aborting it within, say, a month of the due date, and euthenizing it immediately after birth.'

Assuming a viable fetus, one without terminal medical problems, I think both are immoral. But how often does anyone actually abort a healthy late-term fetus? Does anyone? I doubt it. And who should make decisions about medical issues? A family, or the government?

'Hollywood film makers and other pornographers to spew their filth without any public criticism'

That's really out in left field. 'Hollywood'? The Fox Network [I'm sure you're familiar with it] has the filthiest stuff on TV. I assume you object to that too? If you find something objectionable, turn it off or don't go s ee it.

'I believe that our society should not celebrate immorality (even when it is legal), such as pornography, adultery, prostitution, substance abuse, etc.?'

So you want to prosecute adultery, prostitution and 'immorality'? Shall we stone them, then? Perhaps you'd like to bring back Prohbition too. I don't think anyone should celebrate these things... see 'Fox Network' above].

'are willing to accept measures necessary to protect the nation, even when they are personally inconvenient or intrusive?'

I'm not willing to give up the Constitution for anyone or anything. I wouuld fight to the death for it.

And as far as flag-burning, how often does that really happen. Once or twice a year maybe. And as you suggest, it's a 'stunt'. A stupid stunt. If you ignore them, like children, they will stop. You might also want to think a little about the fact that most american flags are now made in China by prison laborers, which to me is the more relevant fact to most americans.

But if you republicans want to keep spending all your legislative efforts on flag-burning while Dems work on jobs, why, you just go right ahead.

drindl: Your mention of the dems about Gay and Abortion rights does not effect me personally since I am neither Gay or Female but I do think it will be used as a wedge issue by the hypocrits, as has been done in the past. The major issues in 08 will be first the war in Iraq and how it is going, and the other issues, IMO, will be the economy [jobs and wages] and health care. The dems have the advantage on these and who better on the economy than Bubba, who will be advising Hillary. Then Hillary herself has learned so much from her prior attempt on the health care problem back in her early days as First Lady. I do think we will know more by the end of the month just who is going to make the run in 08 and a pretty good idea of what they will stress.

Republican - Of course I'm disturbed when someone trashes my country. And I don't like flag buring either. But that doesn't mean I think passing a law against it is a good idea. Pass a law against flag buring and you will have all of these Naderite windbags burning flags like Fall leaves and the ACLU will waste a lot of time and money defending them. So, sad though it may be, if someone wants to burn the flag, ignore them.

And it also means being free to criticise a total cretan like our President and criticise his incompetent and dangerous policies. Right now, the right conveniently claims that "criticizing our leads in wartime" is somehow unpatriotic. What a crock and the gasbags at the Whitehouse and right wing funded "talk radio" who came up with that one ought to be horse whipped for that campaign.

As for pornography, I think it's degrading to both those to rent it and those who make it and to society as a whole. But...and pay attention here...in past forums we have shown repeatedly that the largest distributors and manufacturers of pornography are huge contributors to the RNC and to the Bush campaign. Go read about Nicholas Boyias and Marina Pacific. These were, by the way, the people who fuded and ran that indepoendent campaign against Harold Ford in Tennessee. The largest distribution network of hardcore porn to television is a personal friend of Dick Cheney's and was the single largest contibutor to the Bush campaign...also the unlamented Senator Rick Santorum. So, yes, pornography bothers me at lot, I don't like it, and I am bothered by the hipocracy of the GOP that takes the bulk of their money. As for somehow "banning" it, treat it like Naderites and ignore it. Neither are fit for polite or dignified society.

"Ask he average household, those that may have some paltry part of thir 401K left after the Bush goons have gone through it, and they'll tell you they would MUCH rather manage they money themselves. Giving it to some greasy Wall Street swine is worse than buring it (simply because the Wall Street crook will use a large portion of what they steal to fund a Republican candidate that will continue the mess)."

Interesting point. Of course, the "Wall Street swine" at least promise to give it back unless the market tanks. When the government takes it in taxes you know that it's gone for good. So - if people would "rather manage they [sic] money themselves" than give it to a stock broker, don't you reckon they'd rather keep it themselves than give it to the government in higher taxes?

I appreciate your column, as I am a political junkie myself. I have only positive words for you, unlike so many of these malcontents who have posted a comment. Your insight is very accurate, as even if the sunbelt states are being filled more with democrats, those states will most likely still remain majority republican, which will probably shift the balance in favor of a republican president, at the very least--but probably in favor of republican state governments as well.

"Darn few households own stock. As for your traditional nonsens e that it is on their retirement account . . . "

27% of households own stock or mutual fund shares

27% have 401(k) or thrift savings plan assets

21% have IRA or Keogh accounts

64% have interest bearing accounts in financial institutions

So - what exactly is your definition of "darn few?"

OK, succinct summary: anyone with a sizeable proven track record in the public interest and able to fight corporate priorities against the majority public interest ought to be able to win a landslide.

A vote for THAT is not for Bush. It is a vote for change for a nation of people for national public success in all the important areas - peace, prosperity, environmental protection, balanced budget, international respect upheld when we hold up our Constitutional freedoms.

Candidates should stand on their track record. That is what should earn the votes. Not how much corporate coziness they can command. ALCHEMY does not happen due to office.

It's rather instructive to see see two annonomous posts, one from the far right and another from the left, both addressed to me. Look, "Wall Street Annon.", you are obviously utterly out of contract with mainstreet America. Darn few households own stock. As for your traditional nonsens e that it is on their retirement account, most of them woke up a few years back and found that some Wall Street investors and their corporate boss wiped out their 401K's. Those few who still have a few bucks in them, do so because the investor slanted legislation forces them to participate in this gigantic ponzie scheme. Anyone with brains can see that, after the investor charges and administrative fees, they loose money, even if the stock market was going up. Ask he average household, those that may have some paltry part of thir 401K left after the Bush goons have gone through it, and they'll tell you they would MUCH rather manage they money themselves. Giving it to some greasy Wall Street swine is worse than buring it (simply because the Wall Street crook will use a large portion of what they steal to fund a Republican candidate that will continue the mess).

And, oh, least I forget the Naderite, why on earth ought I tolerate such a bunch of simpletons and whack jobs. When you parasites attached yourselves to my Party, you frighten they devil out of voters. Your silly proposals about gun control, special privileges for various minorities, closing down city centers from car traffic and forcing everyone to ride bicycles as an "energy policy", and your other lunacy ideas, have been used for years by the right to frighten voters. I feel very comfortable having you OUTSIDE the tent that is the Democratic Party.

". . . sure are a lot of cons with gay kids, for instance."

Hey, didn't you go waaaay off the liberal reservation here? I thought sexual orientation was inborn? Or did you really mean to say that it was due to bad (i.e., in your vocabulary "conservative") parenting?

"So tell me, if a 13year old mentally ill girl is raped by her father, should she be forced to bear the child? That's a lot more common than the situation you describe."

First, the SOB who raped her should be executed. And I would have no problem with an exception for rape or incest.

So yes, I've got the guts to answer your question - now please answer mine. Assuming a viable late-term fetus, please explain the moral difference between aborting it within, say, a month of the due date, and euthenizing it immediately after birth.

"I don't think talking about jobs and healthcare is going to scare anyone into the republican fold."

Perhaps not - but overheated rhetoric sure will. Please go back and read the posts written by MikeB - my comment was made in response to him, after all - and see if they don't make you cringe. If his approach becomes the public face of the Democratic party, it will help Republicans make the case that the Democrats are the party of the strident left wing.

". . . most people in this country aren't billionaires."

That's exactly right. Most of them are moms and dads, trying to get ahead and build meaningful lives for their families. They are more concerned about the safety of their children than the right of advertisers, Hollywood film makers and other pornographers to spew their filth without any public criticism. They are more concerned about how much they'll have to pay in taxes at the end of the year than they are about political correctness. And yes - they are concerned that Democrats will go overboard and damage the economy.

There is a real, and very important, political debate we need to hold over some vital economic issues. But you're kidding yourself if you think that Republicans' stumbling on some pocketbook issues means that the country as a whole is making a permanent turning towards the broader liberal agenda.

For MikeB:

"Being a liberal and a Democrat means being a genuine patriot, someone who actually cares about right and wrong, loves this country and is willing to defend it, and honors those who do."

So I take it being a liberal and a Democrat means that you:

- are disturbed when the symbols of our contry are desecrated as a political stunt?

- denounce as inappropriate and offensive, even though it is legal, the desecration of the flag?

- are offended by gratuitously anti-American statements?

- believe that our society should not celebrate immorality (even when it is legal), such as pornography, adultery, prostitution, substance abuse, etc.?

- are willing to serve in the military?

- are willing to accept measures necessary to protect the nation, even when they are personally inconvenient or intrusive?

- honor those respect our country, rather than celebrate those who mock it?

Thank YOU drindl! When I read your last post, I wanted to stand up and cheer! Tell 'em what a genuine, honest to God Democrat and liberal really stands for. The nuts from the right and the left don't have an answer for common sense and integrity. Well written.

Here Chris, I'll do your job for you...

'WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will take his first official step towards a White House run Wednesday when he creates an exploratory committee, which will allow him to raise money under federal campaign finance rules.

"The governor is expected to file papers to form an exploratory committee with the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday," a Romney aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told CNN. "A formal announcement officially declaring his candidacy is expected to come later."

Romney is stepping down after serving one term as governor and is considered one of the leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination.'

Hmm... leading. I don't think so. I think his flipflopping has cost him plenty.

'How does smearing a Kerry voter by calling her a Naderite differ from putting up Barack Obama's picture on a split screen with Saddam Hussein?'

Did I miss something? Like did Nader slaughter a buncha people? Wha?

this person said she voted for Nader. I don't get your equivalence at all. doesn't make sense.

". . . investor scum . . ."

MikeB,

just what percentage of households do you think own stock these days? Do you really think it helps the Democratic cause to demonize investors? Casting your politics in terms of a struggle between workers and investors just doesn't work in an age when most workers ARE investors.

I think most of the people moving to the South and West are probably not the highly educated skilled workers that can afford to live in the NE. It is more expensive here but some of us like density, culture, and not having ridiculous urban sprawl. Give me $1500 a month in Boston over living for half that in a Texas suburb any day.

'Do you really think the weather in the red states has gotten all that much better in the last few decades?'

No, but I do think the price of energy has blown through the roof. Only a couple of years ago, oil was $9 a barrel.

'Then I presume that if a woman gives birth prematurely and finds that the child is disabled, that you would not object if she then decided to have it euthanized (i.e., killed)?

If you would object, how would you feel if she did not give birth prematurely, but upon learning about the disability through medical testing two weeks to her due date decided to have a late-term abortion?

How are the two cases different?'

Uhh-- one is born and presumably viable, the other is a fetus. I've never seen a statistic that suggested that viable fetuses are aborted. You're setting up a silly, baseless strawman, the way you zealots always do. So tell me, if a 13year old mentally ill girl is raped by her father, should she be forced to bear the child? That's a lot more common than the situation you describe.

'thanks - you're spouting exactly the right drivel to scare the average American back into the Republican fold.'

Actually Republican, I don't think talking about jobs and healthcare is going to scare anyone into the republican fold. You guys don't have a clue what you stand for anymore. You're not conservative, you're not patriotic, you're not competent, you're corrupt, you don't give a damn about the future of this country. You are simply tools of transnational corporations. Just tell me one bloody thing republicans have done for the middle class? Sorry to remind you, but most people in this country aren't billionaires.

'So while Republicans would attribute this to their being more family and child oriented - yes, they're having more babies, and that is having a discernable political impact over time.'

If republicans were family oriented, they wouldn't have run the national debt up to astronomic proportions so that our children will be forced to pay for our profligate borrowing and spending.

But you have no way of knowing how many republican kids rebel. Maybe their parents are more repressive and a higher percentage rebel... sure are a lot of cons with gay kids, for instance.

AMy did, indeed, say she voted for Kerry in 2005. But, then, she turned around and excused the nonsense spouted by a pair of Naderite's claiming that our soldier's are war criminals. If you cannot tell the difference between that sort of utter garbage and liberalism, then there is no hope for you whatsoever. Being a liberal and a Democrat means being a genuine patriot, someone who actually cares about right and wrong, loves this country and is willing to defend it, and honors those who do. A Naderite numbskull can vote for Kerry or another Democrat, but that doesn't make them a Democrat, it doesn't amke them a luberal, and it certainly doesn't make me want to like them any better.

lots of elevator gas poofins today

Sorry for the accidental double post.

MikeB, you never answered my questions...

1. Didn't Amy say she voted for Kerry in 2004?

2. Is there a reason why you are smearing Kerry voters by calling them Naderites?

3. How does smearing Kerry voters by calling them Naderites differ from smearing Obama by putting up his picture in a split screen with Saddam?

MikeB, you never answered my questions...

1. Didn't Amy say she voted for Kerry in 2004?

2. Is there a reason why you are smearing Kerry voters by calling them Naderites?

3. How does smearing Kerry voters by calling them Naderites differ from smearing Obama by putting up his picture in a split screen with Saddam?

Republican - Oh, please do! And make sure to state that I want to end outsourcing jobs, end guest worker programs, provide better (and cheaper!) healthcare for America's children, deport illegals, and enforce existing laws and re-enact the old ones that make corporations and boarda act like good citizens! Republican, the number one issue right now is economic insurity. The investor scum that supports Republican candidates is busily investing in the hot Asian and European stock markets while ours is taking due to the insane pracices of Amercian corporations. Once the price of oil is pegged to the Euro and all of that foreign money propping up your stupid deficit spending is called, bankrupting this country, then please please please quote me! The voters will see to it that the Republican Party ceases to exist.

Elizabeth,

please take the time to proof-read your posts. They are poorly enough written that they do more harm than good to your views.

"population growth in the Red states is a testament to the effectiveness of the Administration's abstinence initiatives....."

Bob,

I suspect this was a joke, but it raises an interesting issue. Research suggests that conservative adults are, on average, having more kids than are their more liberal counterparts. While we all know of kids that completely rebel against their upbringing, research also suggests that there is a correlation between the political views of an adult and those of their parents when they were growing up.

This suggests that the Republican party may very well have a "birth-rate advantage" over the Democratic party. Given a time span of several decades, it doesn't take much of a differential to result in a significant change over time.

So while Republicans would attribute this to their being more family and child oriented - yes, they're having more babies, and that is having a discernable political impact over time.

MikeB:

thanks - you're spouting exactly the right drivel to scare the average American back into the Republican fold.

We couldn't ask for a more helpful opponent. (Would you permit us to quote you in campaign ads?)

Golgi - Oh, Democrats will appeal to the 2.3% of the Naderite vote, but not at the risk of alienating the 30% or so of swing voters, many of whom have been "had" into voting for the Republican's. We need to appeal to the voters of this country across the board and elect representatives that will do the will of the working men and women of this country...what is best for this country. Let the Republican's have the corporations and the rich and the greedy and similar traitors. Elect people who will make them PAY for the damage they have done to ordinary working men and women.

As for Obama. I simply do not know about him. As yet, he appears to be another Clinton with regards to outsourcing and uncontrolled immigration and guest workers. If he comes out for labor, for jobs, for working men and women, for universal healthcare coverage, then I will give him a closer look. Right now, of the announced candidates, only Edwards is doing that and he gets my support becasue of it. The next president must address *ALL* of these issues. They must propose ending all H1B and L and J series visa's for which a qualified American worker exists (not BETTER qualified or as qualified, either. If an Amercian can do that job and wants to do that job, then the H1B visa is denied). And, we need to tax the snot out of companies that outsource jobs. It's pretty easy to add duties and fees to goods and services produced by American based or multinational corporations,,especially those that used the Bush created loopholes in those laws to loot retirement savings from millions of Amercian workers. We also need to add taxes and fees, punative ones, that make them pay for the loss of jobs in the U.S. and for the use of our infrastructure. Bleed 'em dry enough and they will very quickly see the error of their ways. And, the next President needs to enact a practical universal health care system - not some public-private joke, but a genuine national HMO, a public-private partnership that every Amercian citizen participates in, one that cuts the costs of healthcare from the present 9% of GNP to the 4% that Scandinavian countries spend, one that guarrantees care for eery citizen. After that, I want a manditory national retirement system, but it may take a few years before people wake up to the fact that such a system would be cheaper and fairer than the investor driven gigantic ponzie scheme nightmares we have now.

I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood-You know those folks whose gullible bishops got coopted in 2004 to support the current non-catholic occupant of the white house over a catholic opponent.

The joke was always "what do you call people who practice 'the rhythm method' the previosu name for the abstinence theory)?

Parents.....

population growth in the Red states is a testament to the effectiveness of the Administration's abstinence initiatives.....

I think the census numbers will mean little, so long as the Quagmire in Iraq continues, and the massive debt by the red Bushies scares most Americans away from their insane plans.

Any comment on why the people in Iran cheered when we handed over Iraq to them and offed Saddam? They didn't even have to pay a cent for that ...

Regarding the states cited by Chris: I checked which ones of the 26 showing party at registration were in his new stats states: Arizona, Florida, and Nevada.

My "old" voter registration post on my blog (Oct. 24, 2006), had data which shows party registration "favoring" Republicans, but not at a majority level for those three states -- oops, prejudice shows, I copied the Florida stats, and just glanced, and saw they DO NOT "favor" the Republicans...but it is close, not a surprise...

FLORIDA
10-10-2006
Republicans: 3,935,675
Democrats: 4,219,531
Total Registered voters: 10,433,849
http://www.election.dos.state.fl.us/voterreg/pdf/2006/2006GenParty.pdf

ARIZONA
9-12-2006
Republican:
39.63%
Democrat:
33.45%
Other:
26.26%
Libertarian:
.65%
Total Active Voters: 2,533,308
http://www.azsos.gov/election/voterreg/Action-Voter_Count.pdf

NEVADA
http://sos.state.nv.us/nvelection/voter_reg/2006/0906main.htm
Republican:
400,577 active
Democrat:
392,546 active
non-partisan:
142,567
Libertarian:
5,966
Green:
2,758
Independent American:
33,709
Natural Law:
854
Reform:
260
Other:
2,847
Total: 982,084

Some states do show radical Republican party affiliation, these do not, according to these numbers, which were found Oct. 24-Nov.1, with the goal of correcting media railroading, and trying to show actual public inclinations that are not railroaded...but, any analyst would know if these voters were questioned, the interest in voting outside the two parties would be subject to the possibility of WINNING, and people have not showed the COURAGE REQUIRED to register outside the two parties....

Some, obviously are indeed bona fide Democrat true believers and/or Republican true believers, as are those signing up for the various independent parties outside the two parties.

I have met a few people who I found disappointing when they simply WANTED A THIRD PARTY to be viable as the SIMPLE NEED FOR CHOICE.

To me, Nader was NOT that. He was a "definite" known alternative that was neither party, no allegiance to old or new, but simply putting public interest and proper priorities on track.

The Washington Post didn't allow the "comprehension" of Nader's informing the public that Bush was nothing but a Corporation. The Post editorial about Nader's challenge against Bush was that such a statement made no sense.

The sense was that Bush made no sense. He represented Corporate Interests and not principle and not people. That I was sure, was Nader's message. Extreme military buildup and wasteful expense of what was reported as 50% of the discretionary federal budget was allocated to the military.

And, for Bush, it is not enough, in the present.

There is a progressive Democratic movement right now to cut the funding, and strong objection to the Iraq War and the obvious heavyweight emphasis on the Bring the Troops Home to allow self-rule to Iraq.

I contend this should be a principled public non-partisan supported effort. If the majority wants the war to end, we need to handle it on the merits.

I wrote to my Congressional District Representative (Capuano, Democrat) that I presumed his reason for allowing continued (new) funding to support the troops in Iraq was likely due to the reality that we HAVE TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, and that until/unless we remove Bush, the leadership required to bring the troops home is not there and LIKELY that is why he allowed the funding.

I wrote, in spite of that presumed understanding, I myself would NOT have voted for the funding. I would say no, and seek the proper public movement required to restore the proper view of foreign policy as respecting international law, and bring the troops home from a public mandate, and the need to get proper leadership in the office of President.

I voted to re-elect Capuano in spite of that vote, although I would have liked his having a stronger view to promote peace. But, I believed some votes are not "pure" they are based on current conditions, needing change. A new president wanting peace would net peace. No president can do that alone. A democracy must refocus all its behaviors and efforts toward proper priorities. The expertise is there, the media is ignoring it. It belongs in the limelight. Where is it? Grassroots. OUT THERE. Belongs in the Government, of course.

The media should interview the leaders of what is obviously International Policy and Diplomacy. Yes, the public wants expertise and solid knowledge put to proper use.

It is horrific to consider it a party affiliated issue, and the truth is it has been exactly that. The fact of the matter is the country has a minority of Republicans and the military agenda put forward by Republicans is not a MAJORITY VIEW.

Safety and sanity is wanted at a majority level, IF the MEDIA wants to know.

If they don't -- they need to be replaced -- to insure MAJORITY VIEW for this NATION.

We are NOT honestly represented by the Republicans when the military thrust is not the majority view, but a Republican view that is not the truth.

"Republican, is David Brooks a Naderite?"

Is he in the 2.3% who voted for Nader in 2000 but not in 2004, and that you described as "pick and choose" voters? In any event, who cares about Brooks. I just want the Democratic party to focus on appealing to people who take Nader seriously enough to vote for him. If, by doing that, you pick up Brooks - fine! Overall its gonna make you way more appealing to the lunatic fringe than to the classic middle-American voter.

"I still cannot understand how anyone has the unmitigated gaul to tell a woman that she must have a child, even if it means her life or her health or because she was the victim of a rape or incest."

Then I presume that if a woman gives birth prematurely and finds that the child is disabled, that you would not object if she then decided to have it euthanized (i.e., killed)?

If you would object, how would you feel if she did not give birth prematurely, but upon learning about the disability through medical testing two weeks to her due date decided to have a late-term abortion?

How are the two cases different?

Republican, is David Brooks a Naderite?

"Nader took 2.7% of the popular vote in 2000, but only 0.4% in 2004. The true Naderites are only the 0.4% and they will probably vote Kucinich this time. The remaining 2.3% adds up to an awful lot of "pick and choose" voters... conceivably enough to swing an entire election.

Why not try to appeal to these swing voters instead of antagonizing them and pushing them away from the Democratic party? "Pick and choose" voters will always exist, so it is a waste of time to complain about them. The great goal is to attract them."

Dear Democrats,

Please, oh please go for the Naderites in the 2008 elections! Do everything thing you can to appeal to them and attract them to the Democratic party.

If you'll do that, it will make it childishly easy for us to make our case to voters in the political center.

Looking at partisan control of the state government as a key to future change is also somewhat silly.

Yes, Arizona has divided government--but a nonpartisan commission draws their maps. Idaho can grow as quickly as it wants but it ain't getting a third seat in 2010, and Utah's new seat would have to be Republican even if Rocky Anderson were drawing the maps.

And when you look at Texas and Florida, you see maps where Republicans have already maxed out their gains so they can hardly send Democrats any lower. Those states have already been gerrymandered once and any change would be, at worst, a net neutral for the Democrats. Georgia also redraw their maps to favor Republicans this year and it hasn't yet paid off, although it might sometime soon.

Similarly, Democratic gains in Colorado don't mean much when they already hold 4 out of 7 seats and two of the three other seats are rock-solid Republican.

We all know the Sunbelt is gaining population, and that Democrats have to adjust to make some inroads. That's not news. The news in the 2006 election is that Latinos came home and we picked up seats in the fast-growing Mountain states and southwest. So what does this census tell us we didn't already know.

P.S. Most of that growth in Texas is from Mexican immigrants. Let's see how fondly they think of the Republicans.

Nader took 2.7% of the popular vote in 2000, but only 0.4% in 2004. The true Naderites are only the 0.4% and they will probably vote Kucinich this time. The remaining 2.3% adds up to an awful lot of "pick and choose" voters... conceivably enough to swing an entire election.

Why not try to appeal to these swing voters instead of antagonizing them and pushing them away from the Democratic party? "Pick and choose" voters will always exist, so it is a waste of time to complain about them. The great goal is to attract them.

I think Obama is the crossover candidate this time. This should be good news for you, MikeB, since you are an enthusiastic Democrat. Before, the crossover candidate Nader dragged votes away from the Democrats. But this time, the crossover candidate Obama is a Democrat.

Even David Brooks likes Obama. David Brooks is not exactly a leftist Naderite. Most party-line Democrats call him things like right wing loony. Let's get our insults accurate here. This is a quality blog.

Capeman, You are forgetting something very basic. Legalize all of those illegals and they still wont be legal voters. They will be resident alien workers with work permits taking jobs from poor and middle class Amercian's, bidding down salaries and wages and benefits. What you can expect is an avalanch of anger and bitterness directed at any politician and party dumb enough to touch this issue. Hispanic voters are a tiny minoritiy and Bush and corporations and thie stupid leftist allies are about to discover just how small a minority they are. Legalizing those illegals, proposing anything remotely like work permits, will be political suicide. I sure wont vote for them and will work day and night to make sure that no one else will either.

Ever since AC was invented, people have been moving south from NY to FL. However, I think that if the ethnic breakdown was taken into consideration, you would find that the major increase in those states is in the Hispanic population, and Hispanics, as a rule, break heavily Democratic.
If you look at the detailed numbers, the International migration to internal migration is 2.4 million/2.6 million in the south and 2.5 million/330,000 in the west!!! Does this look like a big republican shift? Especially if the President's immigration program goes through?
This explains why the President is trying to ingratiate himself with that population.
One of the biggest myths is how much cheaper it is to live in the south. While this may have once been unquestionably true, the gap has narrowed over the last couple of decades as housing prices have spiked and that the manufacturers have been moving out of the country. Add to that the fact that most of these states are "right to work" states (or, as my late brother called "right to starve" states), the difference in lifestyle and savings rate are small, and, I would argue, might favor the north, especially when you consider the greater educational and cultural opportunities there.
That there is a second migration of Floridians moving to the Carolinas might signal an issue there.
Using the 2004 Presidential election as a basis for hope for the Republican party is useless as the nation was at war, back when it was still viewed somewhat positively by the electorate.
The 2006 governor's race showed Crist with 52% against a flawed Democratic candidate and weak Democratic Party infrastructure. Even a small recession in the next two years, an almost given in a state like Florida that relies on home building as a huge component of the economy and interest rates rising, could switch the state to the Dems in the next 4 years.

Golgi, I donated money to the Kerry campaign. I spent weeks kocking on doors for him, handing out campaign literature, made telephone calls, and did a lot more. So, please don't lecture me about "Naderite" dimwits. All it took for me was to have a pair of Naderite's tell me face-to-face that my son, serving as a medic in Iraq, was a war criminal that they hoped would die and have another Naderite dimwit on this very board jstify that as a mere act of politcial exuberance. Naderites are not Democrats. They are fools and scouderals.

The problem with these "Naderite and whatever else" independents is that they are NOT Democrats. They are there when they can pick and choose some leftist issue and, then, gone. I do not partiocularly like them and I certainly don't agree with them and most/many issues. As for Gay and Abortion "Rights". They ain't! At least in the politically active sense of being an issue they aren't. It's simple common sense. They are simply common sense issues that any Democrat - moderate, liberal, or conservative - rather automatically understands as something that is basic to human dignity and none of their business anyways. I still cannot understand how anyone has the unmitigated gaul to tell a woman that she must have a child, even if it means her life or her health or because she was the victim of a rape or incest. Ditto for a dedicated couple who happens to be the same gender. It isn't anyone's business. Get over it. That said, I sure don't want to make those central issues. Unless we have jobs, corporations and businesses and investors that are controlled and serve the interests of this country and it's people, and all of that in spades for the government, then we have nothing.

In North Carolina, the Governor does not have the power to veto the Congressional map drawn by the legislature.

The Nader2000-Kerry2004 bloc are known by most as "independents" not naderites.

I think this particular type of independents (me included) is either pro-Edwards now or will end up being drawn toward Edwards by the time the primaries arrive. Edwards is the only candidate who has something to offer them that goes beyond empty platitudes.

Got to apologize for that 2000 vote, folks. At least I didn't live in a swing state.

At the risk of sounding lame for discussing a random person instead of a substantive issue: Didn't Amy say she voted for Kerry in 2004?

Is there a reason why MikeB is smearing Kerry voters by calling them Naderites?

How does smearing a Kerry voter by calling her a Naderite differ from putting up Barack Obama's picture on a split screen with Saddam Hussein?

"But I don't think gay right and abortion rights are really all that central to elected Dems."

This is actually a critical question. I don't think we know yet. If the Dems use their control to push hard on gay rights and abortion rights, then they're going to find it very difficult to cement their gains. If, on the other hand, they do focus on economic issues and moderate their more radical instincts on social issues, then they have a real chance of making permanent gains in the red states.

Yes, mike, you're absolutely right about amy. I have real problems with naderites myself. I don't consider them 'leftists' more like 'whack jobs' in a lot of cases. malcontents.

But I don't think gay right and abortion rights are really all that central to elected Dems. Yes, they are important-equal rights and access to contraception are basic. But JOBS and healthcare are what is critical and I think their focus will be on that.

"Clearly, you're not interested in having an actual conversation."

I'm just like everyone else in the blogging world - I can't resist the occasional zinger. I do recognize that they're a guilty pleasure, though - sort of like deep fried Snickers bars, a lot of fun every now and then, but bad for you if you indulge too much.

But back to the point. I agree that it would be a bit drastic for even a right wing, evangelical Christian Republican to pack up and move across the country to escape liberal neighbors (the "[m]aybe they just don't like smug liberals" was a snarky joke, for pete's sake). So why are people moving? It's gotta be because they think things will be better for them in the traditionally Republican states. How can that be, if the traditionally Democratic states are better run, with superior public policies, fairer and more equitable economic policies and more enlightened leadership?

Do you really think the weather in the red states has gotten all that much better in the last few decades?