au contraire-the same may be said of those who subscribe to the other political persuasion, just look at the name calling that you have used as well as others and that does not prove the point.
The dems are way ahead? Republicans have had the Presidency for 20 of the last 28 years. Your dude has been there for all 4 months and you are beating your chest claiming how great the dems are. Simple amazing.
Straight from Wikipedia Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was a moderate, and even before his expected retirement on June 27, 1987, Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward; Democrats warned Reagan there would be a fight.[9] Reagan nominated Bork for the seat on July 1, 1987. Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Edward Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."[10] A brief was prepared for Joe Biden, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the Biden Report. Bork later said in his best-selling[11] book The Tempting of America that the report "so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility."[12] TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist. Kennedy's speech successfully fueled widespread public skepticism of Bork's nomination. The rapid response towards Kennedy's "Robert Bork's America" speech stunned the Reagan White House; though conservatives considered Kennedy's accusations slanderous,[9] the attacks went unanswered for two and a half months.[13] William Safire of The New York Times attributes "possibly" the first use of 'Borked' as a verb to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of August 20, 1987. Safire defines "to bork" by reference "to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan's nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork, the year before." [16] This definition stems from the history of the fight over Bork's nomination.[9] Bork was widely lauded for his competence, but reviled for his political philosophy. In March 2002, the word was added to the Oxford English Dictionary under "Bork"; its definition extends beyond judicial nominees, stating that people who bork others "usually [do so] with the aim of preventing [a person's] appointment to public office." Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. She said, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?"[17] Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the most divisive confirmation fights in Supreme Court history. This is a prime example. We have Biden and Ted Kennedy involved.
That the Reps. have had the POTUS as you say does not reflect on the party's values rather it reflects on the campaign tactics and the candidate both of which until O. have worked in the GOPS favor but now as the saying goes, the chickens are coming home to roost. The "southern strategy" and Reagan's speech for state rights at Neshoba are both clearly racist. Check out the map of the 2004 election and see how remarkable it is that the Red States cover the Confederacy and territories that allowed slavery. Seneca
next map: I guess if you believe the ends justify the means meaning the GOPs' use of the "southern strategy/state's rights" wedge then it worked-for a while. 2008 changed all that and it remains to be seen how permanent that change will be for as you mentioned 20/28 years vs. a few months is a large hurdle. Seneca
You go back to the old bs. It's racist. That is a tired argument. Where was the outrage in the racist Republican party when Bush nominated Powell? Where was it when he nominated Rice? Where was it when he nominated Rice agai? Gonzales? Where was the outrage over Clarence Thomas? Michael Steele? What kind of screwed up logic do you have? If you win a state that used to be a slave state it makes you a racist? Get a clue. How come Bush had the most diverse cabinet of any President? http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/bushs_diverse_cabinet/?akst_action=share-this How come the things you say are not in line with reality?
I was talking of the success of the racist "southern strategy" and the map reflects its success. BTW-if as I think you are trying to do and that is deny the GOP used a racist strategy then why did they apologize for it? "Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation's largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South." Another example used by the Bush the ignorant was his famous "push Poll" used in SC to discredit McCain during the 2000 primaries when this "push poll" was asked: "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" Of course McCain never fathered a black child but the poll by asking implied he did with malicious intent by the Bush campaign. Seneca Seneca
I have never heard anybody complaining about that. And yes it struck my nerve to be criticized for spelling by somebody who is no better. Who is on this board? It's just too stupid. From what I understand he has got some stupid degree yet he has no enough common sense to understand that calling somebody names for spelling can be turned against him in a hurry. It's an honor to be put on "ignore" so fast anyway.