The Right Moves

Weekly Standard: Social Conservatism Is A Must For GOP Hopefuls

(Weekly Standard)  This column was written by Fred Barnes.

---

The sudden embrace of social conservatism by top Republican presidential candidates has been widely misunderstood. It's been portrayed, particularly in the media, as political pandering of the first order — and nothing more. True, there's a large element of pandering when a candidate switches positions on abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues with an eye to gaining votes. But for a Republican seeking his party's nomination, shifting to the right on social issues is hardly shocking. Rather, it's quite normal, it's absolutely necessary — and it's likely to work.

There's a bonus in all this for social conservatives. Switchers on social issues usually stay switched. Ronald Reagan and the elder George Bush did so after becoming pro-lifers. All those Democratic presidential candidates in the 1980s and 1990s who switched sides on abortion from pro-life to pro-choice have stayed put. Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, says you only get to flip once on social issues. If you switch back, "you're in no man's land," a politician without a political base.

The newly minted social conservative who's made the most drastic move is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. He's flipped on abortion, gay rights, and embryonic stem cell research, as Jennifer Rubin detailed a few weeks back. Senator John McCain of Arizona has changed his view on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, from supporting it to favoring its reversal. And Rudy Giuliani, the ex-mayor of New York, has sought to take the edge off his social liberalism, even suggesting he'd nominate Supreme Court justices who might overturn Roe v. Wade.

It was Democrats with presidential ambitions who transformed the switch on social issues-especially on abortion-into a normal political event. Over the two decades after the Roe v. Wade ruling, the two parties sorted themselves out on abortion, Republicans emerging as the pro-life party, Democrats the pro-choice party.

More recently, one party has become reliably conservative on the broad range of social issues (Republicans), the other mostly liberal on those issues (Democrats). This, in turn, has forced presidential candidates of both parties to align themselves accordingly. So a stampede of Democrats who sought their party's presidential nomination after 1980 abandoned their opposition to abortion. The list included Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Tom Harkin, and Jesse Jackson.

For all those Democrats, switching was necessary, since a pro-lifer has little or no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. It's the same for Republicans, only in their case it's a pro-choice candidate who has the extreme disadvantage. Were Democrats somehow to anoint a pro-lifer as their presidential candidate, that would surely prompt a pro-choice challenger to run as an independent or third party nominee. With Republicans, a pro-choice nominee would spark a pro-life candidacy.

For Democrats, switching is painless. They not only put themselves on the side of party activists and liberal interest groups, they get right with elite opinion and the media. For Republicans, it's anything but easy. When they switch and endorse social conservatism, elite opinion is appalled and the press plays up their supposed insincerity.

Both Newsweek and liberal columnists have taken umbrage at Romney's move to the right. McCain and Giuliani too have been taken to task in the press. Nothing like this happened when Democrats changed sides. Their switch on abortion was greeted by quiet media acceptance.

"I don't remember any attacks [on Democratic switchers] from the side that benefited from their conversion," says Republican strategist Jeff Bell, coauthor with Princeton professor Robert P. George of the forthcoming book "Social Conservatism." This is largely true for Republican switchers now. With some exceptions, social conservatives accept their changes as genuine or at least steps in a positive direction.

"I want to give them the benefit of the doubt," says Perkins. Liberals and the press, however, can't see a lurch toward social conservatism as anything but a crass political maneuver. "Conservatives don't see it that way," Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention told Newsweek. "They see it as someone who has seen the light." Perkins applies that to Romney, saying he "may have seen the light."

[bluestardad]

The Bush Administration is covertly supporting a minimum of three Sunni al Qaeda organizations in Lebanon to act as a buffer against the Shiite Hezbollah. Yes and the money is coming from the billions of dollars unaccounted for from Iraq! This support is not regulated by Congress, is in direct contravention to the WAR on TERROR the NEOCONS expound, and is under the same pretext as the Iran Contra Scandal of the late 1980s! This was reported yesterday on CNN!

Email your senators and representatives and tell them your views! LET THEM KNOW YOU KNOW OF THIS DIRTY LITTLE SECRET!

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_in
formation/senators_cfm.cfm OR http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

[scott4261]

The GOP is dead in the water in 2008.

[nativewoman]

Bush turns his back on America's children, our veterans, the homeless, and our citizens recovering from Katrina.

Bush spends trillions on an ill-advised, monstrously mis-managed war.

Bush's policies manage to boost membership in terrorist organizations while simultaneously turning most of the world against us.

And all the Conservatives care about is abortion and same-*** marriage.

What's wrong with this picture?

[bluestardad]

Bush is playing all of us against each other! In one hand he is touting the Red White and Blue war on Terror against everyone who attacked us on 911 and on the other hand he is funding Al Qaeda to destabilize an counter other governments in the Middle East! The recently resigned terrorist Czar ask for a demotion to deputy Secretary of State Because he did not want to be tangled up with another Iran Contra style Funding Fiasco that is going on in Lebanon. Here is the stream read it yourself!

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh

Just copy up to the Hersh on the news stream this web site is adding a n on the end of the paste!

Iran Contra, al Qaeda Lebanon same oh same oh! The Bush Administration is covertly supporting a minimum of three Sunni al Qaeda organizations in Lebanon to act as a buffer against the Shiite Hezbollah. Yes and the money is coming from the billions of dollars unaccounted for from Iraq! This support is not regulated by Congress, is in direct contravention to the WAR on TERROR the NEOCONS expound, and is under the same pretext as the Iran Contra Scandal of the late 1980s! This was reported by Wolf Blitzer yesterday on CNN and again tonight!

Email Congress LET THEM KNOW YOU KNOW OF THIS DIRTY LITTLE SECRET!

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

[triassic-2009]

NO MORE NEOCONS!!

[katg21]

"Bush turns his back on America's children, our veterans, the homeless, and our citizens recovering from Katrina.

Bush spends trillions on an ill-advised, monstrously mis-managed war.

Bush's policies manage to boost membership in terrorist organizations while simultaneously turning most of the world against us.

And all the Conservatives care about is abortion and same-*** marriage.

What's wrong with this picture? "
Posted by NativeWoman at 04:57 PM : Feb 26, 2007

What's wrong with this picture is that you are totally disillusioned and it's laughable. Explain to me please how Bush is turning his back on our children? The way I see it he's securing a future for them that is free from those who would do them harm. Remember 9/11, sometimes I think you people forget what those horrible people did to our country. It is the responsibility of the president to make sure that doesn't happen again; you don't understand that I guess. War is horrible, true, but this war has to be won wouldn't you agree? Now are you only going to blame Bush for the homeless, Katrina victims, and war? Come on there has to be more... what about global warming, contaminated food, the cold weather, the bird flu, the starving people in ethiopia, your dirty laundry?

Now I've forgotten what the article, that we are suppose to be commenting on, is all about. Thanks alot.

[johnshaft4]

Barnes, you can go to hell.

[roger3815]

Pander should be the Neocon's middle name.

[afmca]

2006 showed that Americans are finally seeing through the lies of the religious right and Rove's manipulation of bigotry. Hopefully 2008 will make these people a permanent undercurrent in American politics and Democrats will attain massive majorities. Hopefully a super majority will allow for the "outing" of these pseudo-Christian leaders whose only real motive is to become extremely rich and powerful using the bigotry and fear of the scared and misinformed. Romney .. McCain .. both toast!

[afmca]

To JohnShaft4 - your comment shows your true Christian spirit .. maybe you would like to return to the days of the Inquisition when the church tried to hide the truth and keep people dumb and impoverished. They would even burn you at the stake to save your soul. To most Republicans and their wacko-right supporters, the real inconvenient truth is our Constitution.

[zoroastor]

Katg21,
how do you live with all that anger and hatred - and how do you reconcile it with your puported Christian values when Christ himself said to "love thy neighbor as thyself", the church says to "love the sinner and hate the sin." ? I never see much love in your comments.
Even if you are right in your opinions, which I highly doubt, it doesn't absolve you of the hate.

And NO, I don't think this "war has to be won". What is your definition of victory? what does winning look like? How do we know when we win? All we are accomplishing is angering more and more muslims and arabs, putting our bravest and best in harms way, and spending a boatload to do it. I think the longer we "stay the course" the more we lose.

[johnshaft4]

afmca-
I do not subscribe to any brand of Jewish mythology/fairy tales. Christian, Islam and Judaism are all equally bogus deluions/insanity and the source of many of world's woes.

[katg21]

And NO, I don't think this "war has to be won". What is your definition of victory? what does winning look like? How do we know when we win? All we are accomplishing is angering more and more muslims and arabs, putting our bravest and best in harms way, and spending a boatload to do it. I think the longer we "stay the course" the more we lose.
Posted by Zoroastor at 09:37 AM : Feb 27, 2007

The hatred and anger that these fundamentalist wackos feel towards the US goes back many years, since before the Carter administration. This war was started by them! Do you just want to sit back and let the violence escalate? Do you honestly feel that if we leave it all alone it will go away? We were attacked on our soil, unprevoked, and lost thousands; it's just going to happen again if we walk away now. Victory means peace in the middle east, victory means ensuring that these people don't attack us again. I want victory.


Zoroastor, you are a hypocrite. I am filled with anger and hatred? Please. Why don't you read some of the other posts. The division of our country really scares me. We are on the verge of civil war and it's evident here in these posts. Politics and the media are to blame. I just wish people would wake-up and STOP the hatred and anger towards each other.

[nativewoman]

Posted by katg21 at 08:10 PM : Feb 26, 2007

Bush Avoids Child Healthcare Issue
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/26/politics/main2514405.shtml

Budget plan cuts veterans%u2019 benefits
http://www.thenewstribune.com/front/topstories/story/4629906p-4297561c.html

Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172_pf.html

Report: U.S. Military Readiness Worsens
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/27/national/main2519581.shtml

That's just a few links. I'm not going to do all of your research for you.

And this article was about the Conservatives being so concerned about abortion and "same-***" marriage.

But apparently they are not too concerned about children living in poverty without health care and all the other real issues of the day.

[germanmom]

Anybody notice the lovely pictures that were chosen for this article?

[taddles-2009]

You're right Fred, it's not pandering, it's just what you said: "True, there's a large element of pandering when a candidate switches positions on abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues with an eye to gaining votes." Oh wait you didn't mean pandering as in "flip flopping" or as in "making promises based on polls" you meant pandering as in "I'm lying through my teeth, and I have no real integrity and I will say anything you want to hear so you'll vote for me".

Good thing you were here to tell us about those steadfast Republican candidates and thier message of integrity...urp...sorry, I just threw up a bit in my mouth.

[bluestardad]

President Bush is holding Hostage all the America Troops in the Iraq War Theater by indicating that if Congress Cuts funding for the His Iraq War Plan he will leave the troops over there anyway without supplies and equipment they need, instead of bringing them home. Is that anything other than kidnapping or hostage taking? Supporting the Troops does not mean Supporting the War in Iraq or the Bush Idea of the War in Iraq! There is a difference! It is bad enough that the Bush Administration sent the troops to Iraq on false pretences, ill equipped and ill prepared with no end game plan. The Rovian spin of a Congressional Vote against the Bush Iraq war scenario is a vote against the Troops just validates the Bush Administration resolve to Hold the Military Troops Hostage to his Iraq war plan regardless of the will of America and its elected representatives.

Bush is playing all of us against each other! In one hand he is touting the Red White and Blue war on Terror against everyone who attacked us on 911 and on the other hand he is funding Al Qaeda to destabilize other governments in the Middle East! Here is the stream read it yourself!

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh

Just copy up to the Hersh on the news stream this web site is adding a n on the end of the paste!

Write Congress Now! Let them know you are aware of their dirty little Secret funding of our enemies! http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

[dvsden]

In other words, you can flip-flop all you want, as long as you flop to the conservative side of the issues.

[getcentered]

Please, someone tell where the CENTRIST Republicans are?

Many Americans today have been enlightened by the two wars we find ourselves involved. One war, the "war on terrorism", finds its main battleground in Afghanistan, and it is a war that costs lives and money but the majority of Americans support. Liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, most don't have a problem with us kicking down the doors of members of the Taliban.

When talking about the war in Iraq the parties have much difference. Democrats say that the public and congress was mislead to justify the war in Iraq and that the Bush Administration no longer deserves autonomy in situations where US service men and women's lives are on the line. Based on the results of the last Congressional elections, most Americans see a problem with GOP/Republicans; at least in the way they make decisions about the use of our military.

So why is it that in the GOP/Republican party there are no dissenters, no independent thinkers, no moderates? Where are the real conservatives who would laugh at how conservatively the current Republican party has been spending taxes, and creating big government? Has the Republican Party lost its identity? Can the ideology of the GOP be so easily summed up in Karl Rove talking points like %u201Csupport this and support that%u201D, and angry rhetoric like %u201Cliberals are traitors%u201D?

Hello centrist Republicans! Anybody out there?

[dallison7]

"But for a Republican seeking his party's nomination, shifting to the right on social issues is hardly shocking. Rather, it's quite normal,"


Yes it is quite normal for a republican,
IT'S CALLED LYING!!!

[zoroastor]

I love reading these boards. It is so amusing to see people with no facts but plenty of opinion duking it out, getting all worked up and name calling.

In the summer, two activities increase. Eating ice cream and swimming.

Katg21. You especially crack me up. I'm no hypocrite. I was in Iraq for a year. I agree with you that we need peace in the middle east. And how is it that what we are doing there is going to achieve that? Remember the old saying "fighting for peace is like Fu(k!ng for chastity." I'm no pacifist. If we are attacked, we should defend ourselves. However, Iraq did not attack us. Prior to our arriving there, there were very few, if any, Al Qaida there. Remember I was there at the begining. My fellow soldiers and I practically watched them come over the borders. I understand you feel the need to punch someone in the nose over 9/11 and other terrorist acts, but you have to punch the right person. Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? It had a lot more ties to 9/11 than Iraq did.
Read something other than right-wing agenda. Get all the facts, not just some of them. Otherwise you might think eating ice cream leads to drowning.

[katg21]

Thanks NativeWoman, but I'm sure it was pretty easy to find negative articles about Bush's policies in those left-wing media outlets. Do they ever say anything positive?

[scott4261]

I don't think Mitt Romney's superficial changes in his positions on the social issues will be enough to overcome the queasiness many Republican voters already feel over his Mormonism.

The Republicans are dead in the water for 2008.

[scott4261]

The influence of Jerry Falwell in the early days of the Ronald Reagan's first term set the tone for the religious right-wing takeover of that is now rotting the Republican Party from the inside. To say nothing of the neo-con wing which is doing its own damage.

The moderates have largely defected to the Democratic party now, and the GOP my have to suffer the same fate as the Whigs did in the 1800s. Then a more moderate party will be able to emerge from its ashes.

The Republicans are falling on their swords for George W. Bush as we speak!

[katg21]

I'm glad to be of some humor to you Zoroastor.

Everyone knew Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and everyone believed he would give them to the terrorists. He had attacked the Kurds with them and he had killed thousands of Iranians with them. He also refused to follow the United Nations resolutions. He was a destabilizing factor to a very important region. If we are going to be the strongest power, we need to use that power to prevent the type of genocide that the Taliban and Saddam had attempted. Saudi Arabia is a problem but at least we seem to be able to negotiate with them. There was no talking to or negotiating with Saddam. We can%u2019t leave Iraq until the Iraqi%u2019s can handle their affairs. They have been under a tyrant%u2019s rule so long that they don%u2019t know how to do that yet.



We are the greatest nation in the world and we have done more to promote peace and tranquility than any other nation. Why don%u2019t you take the side of the good guys rather than the side of the bad? Do you really see us as the bad guys? The 3 major networks want us to lose because they hate George Bush %u2013 that is a fact! You need to sort out the chaff!

[adian1-2009]

***The*** ***opening*** ***paragraph*** ***says*** ***it*** ***all*** ***about*** ***the*** ***Weekly*** ***Standard***. ***It*** ***contends*** ***that*** ***it*** ***is*** ***ok*** ***to*** ***lie*** ***for*** ***the*** ***sake*** ***of*** ***obtaining*** ***the*** ***nomination***. ***It*** ***contends*** ***that*** ***it*** ***is*** ***ok*** ***that*** ***pre***-***candidates*** ***voice*** ***positions*** ***they*** ***do*** ***not*** ***believe*** ***in***. ***It*** ***contends*** ***that*** ***the*** ***ends*** ***justify*** ***the*** ***means***, ***no*** ***matter*** ***how*** ***much*** ***immorality*** ***involved***. ***May*** ***our*** ***freedom*** ***of*** ***expression*** ***be*** ***saved*** ***forever***! ***May*** ***the*** ***immorality*** ***praised*** ***in*** ***the*** ***article*** ***be*** ***ignored*** ***by*** ***our*** ***growing*** ***young*** ***generations***! ***What*** ***a*** ***piece*** ***of*** ***moral*** ***garbage***!!!

[dallison7]

***What***'***s*** ***going*** ***on*** ***eith*** ***the*** ***board*** ***this*** ***morning*** ***and*** ***all*** ***these*** ***asteriks***?

[golfkt]

***Centrist*** ***Rep*** ***here***....***and*** ***there*** ***are*** ***many*** ***of*** ***us***...
***probably*** ***slightly*** ***more*** ***centrist*** ***R***'***s*** ***then*** ***centrist*** ***D***'***s***...
***The*** ***D***'***s*** ***castigate*** ***our*** ***party*** ***because*** ***of*** ***the*** ***conservative*** ***base*** ***of*** ***the*** ***R***'***s***....***you*** ***are*** ***beginnning*** ***to*** ***experience*** ***the*** ***same*** ***thing*** ***due*** ***to*** ***the*** ***outspokenness*** ***of*** ***the*** ***Left*** ***wing*** ***of*** ***your*** ***party***....***your*** ***party*** ***will*** ***splinter*** (***it***'***s*** ***showing*** ***signs*** ***already***) ***due*** ***to*** ***the*** ***positions*** ***taken*** ***by*** ***the*** ***left*** ***wing***....***that*** ***turns*** ***off*** ***a*** ***lot*** ***of*** ***American*** ***voters***...

***Concerning*** ***the*** ***conservative*** ***wing*** ***of*** ***the*** ***R*** ***party***...
***They*** ***are*** ***value*** ***based*** ***issues***; (***abortion***...***will*** ***not*** ***debate*** ***that*** ***issue*** ***now***, ***family*** ***values***...***etc***...), ***where*** ***your*** ***left*** ***wing*** ***bashes*** ***our*** ***parties*** ***conservatives***...***it*** ***has*** ***a*** ***tendency*** ***to*** ***swing*** ***voters*** ***to*** ***the*** ***Republican*** ***side***...***Iraq*** ***qill*** ***eventually*** ***be*** ***settled***...***the*** ***vicious*** ***attacks*** ***by*** ***the*** ***left*** ***wing*** ***will***, ***in*** ***all*** ***likelihood***, ***swing*** ***th*** ***centrist*** ***voters*** ***to*** ***the*** ***R*** ***side***...

[bm6005]

******What******'******s****** ******going****** ******on****** ******eith****** ******the****** ******board****** ******this****** ******morning****** ******and****** ******all****** ******these****** ******asteriks******?
***Posted*** ***by*** ***dallison7***

***Glfkt*** ***had*** ***a*** ***seizure*** ***at*** ***his*** ***keyboard***!

[taddles-2009]

"We were attacked on our soil, unprevoked, and lost thousands; it's just going to happen again if we walk away now.
Posted by katg21 at 10:45 AM : Feb 27, 2007"

Correct, and your president pulled troops out of Afghanistan when they had a chance to get the person who attacked us and diverted those troops to attack a country that was no threat to us.

[katg21]

Correct, and your president pulled troops out of Afghanistan when they had a chance to get the person who attacked us and diverted those troops to attack a country that was no threat to us.


Posted by taddles at 04:36 PM : Feb 28, 2007

He's your president too my friend, embrace it.

[zoroastor]

Katg,
Your response is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't state that the three major networks want us to fail in Iraq and "that is a fact". That isn't a fact, it's your suspicion.
I get my facts from all sorts of sources, not just the big three. I was a public affairs officer. I know many reporters from all sorts of news agencies all over the world, including FOX news. I suspect ALL your news comes from agencies with a right-wing agenda, not an agenda of simply reporting facts objectively.
Kurds - yes Saddam attacked them. Having been there, I can tell you, however, that the sectarian violence there is not restricted to Saddam. Further, WE assured the Kurds that if they rose up against Saddam while we were kicking him out of Kuwait in 90/91 that we would back them up. They did. We didn't. They got their a$$es kicked for it.
I don't see "us" as the bad guys. I see a commander-in-chief with a personal agenda, faulty intelligence, and a very short-sighted, self centered goal. I was just a soldier. I did what I was ordered. Now I'm a civilian. I speak my mind, with a vast amount of personal experience and inside knowledge to back it up.
I AM one of the good guys. I fought over there. Did you? Just because I think being there is a mistake and a misdirection of funds, resources and time that would be better spent elsewhere, doesn't mean I'm a "bad" guy.
You never took logic or debate in school did you?

[zoroastor]

And by the way, while I was in Iraq (at the begining of the war) it was common knowledge among the brass that there was little to no danger from weapons of mass destruction.
So no, not "everyone" knew he "had weapons of mass destruction." In fact, many people tried to tell you that he didn't.

[katg21]

Zoroastor,

I have a brother "over there", thank you very much. I am proud of him and he is proud to be fighting for the country he loves so very much. I guess that is why I find myself getting so defensive on these posts. It is a fact that CBS is owned by the left and a fact that over 90% of the people posting responses here are democrat. I know this because everytime I post I get attacked. Having said that, I am not trying to disrespect you or anyone else with my responses, I'm just trying to defend what I hold to be true. Judge me if you will. I guess that's what makes our country so great, huh?

[katg21]

And by the way, while I was in Iraq (at the begining of the war) it was common knowledge among the brass that there was little to no danger from weapons of mass destruction.
So no, not "everyone" knew he "had weapons of mass destruction." In fact, many people tried to tell you that he didn't.
Posted by Zoroastor at 08:24 AM : Mar 01, 2007

He had a big, 3 week or so, heads-up from the UN; more than enough time to get those weapons out of Iraq. Yet nobody talks about that. Democrats and Republicans both voted for military force based on intel that was provided, intel that even Clinton had during his administration. Yet nobody on the 3 major networks talks about that. So why do democrats say that Bush lied about WMD's? I just don't get it. I've followed all of this from it's inception, I am aware of what many Democratic Senators have said then verses what they are saying now. It is an attempt on their part to tarnish the presidency of George W. Bush for their own political gain. The Democratic talking points are out and everyone of them is on board. If they continuously say the same things over and over again they know it will lock into the brains of the people. They get to say whatever they want on the three major networks so in essence they are brainwashing you. I do watch all of networks and FOX, CNN and MSNBC. If you did too it would be hard for you to argue my point.

[zoroastor]

Hey, you have a computer. Do some research on this: Despite the millions of taxpayer dollars spent to get Clinton, find his approval rating vs. Bush Sr. and Jr. Find also the number of Felony convictions in his administration vs. Bush Sr. and Jr. I think you might be surprised.
Further, don't get me wrong. I want to win the war on terrorism, on poverty and crime, etc... I just think the conservative battle plan is wrong. And I'm tired of anyone who disagrees being labled unpatriotic or sympathetic to the terrorists. I (F'ing exchanged gunfire with 'em!) I'm also tired of any news organization which reports facts counter to conservative point of view being labled left. Trust me, as a liberal, there are plenty of news stories, editorials, reporters, organizations and shows that tick us off. It doesn't represent a right wing conspiricy.

[zoroastor]

katg21 (part 1),

In fact it would not be hard for me to argue your point, as, by and large, it is mostly your opinion and paraniod suspicions. You provide very little facts, you get angrier than many posters here do - you get angrier than 'I' do, and I had to leave my wife and kids here to go get shot at in 128 degree heat for a year. I believe you get on these boards because, on some level, you enjoy being angered by the postings and you want to rant. Yes, many of the posters are democrats. I think you should consider that the majority of voters in 06 were too. Why? We didn't manufacture more. People - smart people, people like me who have lived it, people like you who had NEVER before voted democrat - are fed up.

[zoroastor]

And why do Dems think bush lied about WMDs? Do some research into the facts that led up to the current Scooter Libby trial.