But, back on the Repubs: Romney has to chase further & further right...and, these days, the flips & flops are captured by all our new technology...to try to catch the rightward wind of his party. And, when he doesn't--as in the marriage pledge fiasco--he gets lambasted by those now apparently at the helm of his "party."

Columnist Brooks correctly stated, in his recent famous evaluation: The Republican Party are becoming a small "band of fanatics"...and maybe not a party at all. Others from your party have chimed in that the Repubs seem to be left only with a fealty to no-taxes under any circumstances...even on the wealthiest. It doesn't take a crystal ball to foresee that won't play well with most Americans when we are all called to help.

I disagree that the party which has active, well-known plans to privatize Social Security and voucherize Medicare won't have some success doing both when presented with total control of all three branches the Federal government.

Following the 2004 election, can you tell me which party held control of all three branches of government until January of 2007? Do you know when the last time the Democrats controlled the House was prior to January of 2007?

For the first six years of Bush's term, Republicans controlled the House. From 2002 until 2006, Republicans had the majority in the US Senate as well. How much success did they have privatizing or voucherizing?

There's a lot of anger out here, and justifiably so; after we've all expressed ourselves in the most rational ways and made our cases and presented our arguments to make it more likely the content of them will actually be considered, there comes a point - and we all reach it at different times and for different reasons - when the walls come down, the gloves come off, and we yell and we scream and we swear - and we no longer care too much what anyone thinks about our delivery.

The best thing the overlords could ask for is a nation of Stepford-ized citizens, medicated or etiquetted into compliance, calm and blissfully ignorant of what is being done to us.

The phrase rhetorical destruction is a phrase.  Now you have a problem with the word destruction next to rhetorical?  It's self important.  You make absolutely no sense.  

I realize you have a personal problem with certain words.  So be it.  But you better start calling a lot of brilliant contributors to society childish because they are very profane and nasty and impolite.  They are called artists, and THEY are the ones who really shape societies views and morals, not pols.  And they are very messy, disturbed and twisted people.

For example, the following HOPEFully stirs your soul:

"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice."

BUT -
this is HOW it should be written -
the way it was spoken ---

"I have a dream
that one day
this nation will rise up
and live out the true
meaning of its creed:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident:
that all men
are created equal."

I have a dream

that one day on the red hills of Georgia

the sons of former slaves

and the sons of former slave owners

will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."

On July 5, representatives from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the FAA, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, Customs, the CIA, and the FBI met with Clarke to discuss the current threat. Attendees report that they were told not to disseminate the threat information they received at the meeting.

Tell ya what, Jim - you're now the head of the FBI - there's a terrorist threat (nothing specific), but you're not allowed to tell anyone about it.  What do you do?

1.  You have no idea what the money was spent on, and Clarke himself has been clear that the Bush admin was preoccupied with trying to link Iraq to terrorism and AQ, and

2.  Clarke himself, when questioned by the 9/11 Commission, acknowledged he was spinning on orders of the white House.  yet you take the spin seriously, even when the speaker himself tells you it's just spin, because you like the spin.

"What do you want to bet the smart money says that the GOP presidential nominee wants nothing to do with him?"

The GOP nominee will never mention Bush's name -- and especially not Cheney's! -- but will wax poetic and sentimental all night long about Reagan.

It is called a statement of fact.

And no, the Tea Party, whatever that is, doesn't "love" Bush. He was a better choice than either Gore or Kerry. (Talk about damning with faint praise.)

I do wish you would attend a few meetings before continuing to tell us what the "Tea Party" loves. Of course watching MSNBC and reading KOS is much easier than actually doing something.

A point not lost on the current Repubs in Congress.

In 2006 unemployment ranged from 4.7% (Jan) to 4.4% (Dec) with a high of 4.8% in Feb.

The subprime mortgage bubble burst started to get attention in 2007 but the economy was still going strong. I think the DJIA hit around 12500 in 2/2007 with 14000 as a top in 11/2007.(??)Of course if you don't consider the DJIA as an important indicator of the economy, then we will ignore its current level.

And you lose focus. Unemployment went from 4.5% in 2/2007 to around 9% in 2/2011 went the Demos won/lost control of BOTH houses. That's about a 100% increase.

Two things.

Let me know when unemployment increases 100%

and the Repubs have control of BOTH houses of Congress.

;-)

Go back and read what I wrote.