The Election
fred...@papertig.com
get the election news. They decided to reward me every 20 or so minutes
with....guess who....Megan Kendall - and in a red dress no less. It
almost compensated for the dismal news passing through her lovely lips.
There was one positive note. Apparently all of the anti-abortion
propositions, especially the most visible and the most notorious (the
one in S. Dakota) went down to defeat.
One thing I found curious and hadn't previously been aware of is the
number of Democrats who themselves are "socially conservative", e.g.
anti-abortion. For example, the guy who defeated Rick Santorum
essentially agreed with him on abortion and stem cell research! There
were other such Democrats. One of the Fox commentators noted that the
Democrat candidate for senate in Tennessee referred to God more often
than did his Republican opponent. God apparently wasn't impressed. The
Republican in this instance won.
Does anyone have a link to the results of the "eminent domain"
propositions? I believe it was on the ballet in about 8 states. Some of
them were quite strong I understand in opposing eminent domain.
Btw, if you add up all the votes for one candidate and they are more
than the votes for the other candidate, that means that one of the
candidates won and the other lost. But Bob will still insist that
mathematics has nothing to do with reality. (Since the Democrats won,
who wants to bet that we won't hear anything more about electronic
voting machine tampering?)
Fred Weiss
Ken Gardner
>I watched Fox News last night for the first time in about a year - to
>get the election news.
I never turned on the television. I spend the night watching actual
returns in actual races. There is simply no better way to follow an
election. I was projecting winners and losers long before the
networks did. It involves little more than determining what votes are
coming from what counties and whether those counties are red or blue.
Occasionally, I went to the National Review website to check on the
latest rumors that political operatives were feeding them.
>They decided to reward me every 20 or so minutes
>with....guess who....Megan Kendall - and in a red dress no less. It
>almost compensated for the dismal news passing through her lovely lips.
Okay, I did turn on FNC at some point -- briefly -- and saw the lovely
and talented Meghan Kendall. But when I saw Sarah Palon, the
Governor-Elect of Alaska (GOP, of course), for the first time, I
forgot all about Meghan Kendall. :) In case you missed it, judge for
yourself:
http://www.adn.com/photo/2006/08/11/2206364.jpg
http://www.matsugov.us/press/files/Palin,Stoltze.JPG
http://www.alaskalegislature.com/images/012502/mayors.jpg
>There was one positive note. Apparently all of the anti-abortion
>propositions, especially the most visible and the most notorious (the
>one in S. Dakota) went down to defeat.
There was much more. Most of the GOPers who lost were social
conservative types, RINOs, and Buchananites (anti-immigration or
protectionist). The small government GOPers mostly survived. And the
Democrats who replaced them are not all moonbats, either. Many of
them are the same blue dogs in red districts that the GOP swept out in
1994. They will have to remain that way if they want to remain in
Congress past 2008. Most of them won by razor thin margins in a very
bad GOP year.
>One thing I found curious and hadn't previously been aware of is the
>number of Democrats who themselves are "socially conservative", e.g.
>anti-abortion. For example, the guy who defeated Rick Santorum
>essentially agreed with him on abortion and stem cell research! There
>were other such Democrats. One of the Fox commentators noted that the
>Democrat candidate for senate in Tennessee referred to God more often
>than did his Republican opponent. God apparently wasn't impressed. The
>Republican in this instance won.
One of the above-mentioned blue dogs was Heath Shuler, a former NFL
quarterback who is pro gun and, I think, anti-abortion. He was a high
first round draft pick of the Washington Redskins, but he was a bust
and didn't last very long in the NFL. The GOP joke was "Keep Heath
Shuler out of Washington -- Again."
The guy who (with much more difficulty than expected) won in Tom
DeLay's old district is similar. In fact, the GOP has approached him
about switching parties. If he doesn't, he is a goner in two years
and he knows it. That area may be the reddest part of a very red
state.
>Does anyone have a link to the results of the "eminent domain"
>propositions? I believe it was on the ballet in about 8 states. Some of
>them were quite strong I understand in opposing eminent domain.
I don't know of any particular sight. I was following the election
returns at CNN's website -- about the only thing CNN is good for. You
might check there. You can check the results on a state-by-state
basis.
>Btw, if you add up all the votes for one candidate and they are more
>than the votes for the other candidate, that means that one of the
>candidates won and the other lost. But Bob will still insist that
>mathematics has nothing to do with reality. (Since the Democrats won,
>who wants to bet that we won't hear anything more about electronic
>voting machine tampering?)
I'm hearing nothing but crickets myself.
Ken
Matt Barrow
news:1163048654.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Does anyone have a link to the results of the "eminent domain"
> propositions? I believe it was on the ballet in about 8 states. Some of
> them were quite strong I understand in opposing eminent domain.
Interestingly, a strong eminent domain proposition here has very strong
backing, but extreme smoking props are passing left and right by wide
margins.
IOW: keep your hands off MY property, but fuck you and yours.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)
Scott Amspoker
>Does anyone have a link to the results of the "eminent domain"
>propositions? I believe it was on the ballet in about 8 states. Some of
>them were quite strong I understand in opposing eminent domain.
http://www.ncsl.org/statevote/prop_rights_06.htm
(via The Volokh Conspiracy)
--
sda_mail Scott | Yields over 30 blasts or
@comcast.net Amspoker | 80 gentle honks per charge!
^ my email |
fred...@papertig.com
> fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
>
> >Does anyone have a link to the results of the "eminent domain"
> >propositions? I believe it was on the ballet in about 8 states. Some of
> >them were quite strong I understand in opposing eminent domain.
>
> http://www.ncsl.org/statevote/prop_rights_06.htm
Ah, the inimitable Scott Amspoker. You da Man!
Thanks so much. I've bookmarked that page and plan to soak up the
details as soon as I get the chance.
Fred Weiss
fred...@papertig.com
> Okay, I did turn on FNC at some point -- briefly -- and saw the lovely
> and talented Meghan Kendall. But when I saw Sarah Palon, the
> Governor-Elect of Alaska (GOP, of course), for the first time, I
> forgot all about Meghan Kendall. :) In case you missed it, judge for
> yourself:
>
> http://www.adn.com/photo/2006/08/11/2206364.jpg
>
> http://www.matsugov.us/press/files/Palin,Stoltze.JPG
>
> http://www.alaskalegislature.com/images/012502/mayors.jpg
Not that Sarah Palon is unattractive but I don't see the comparison. Do
you need new glasses - or maybe it's coffee backsplash and you need to
clean them along with your monitor?
> There was much more. Most of the GOPers who lost were social
> conservative types, RINOs, and Buchananites (anti-immigration or
> protectionist). The small government GOPers mostly survived.
That's very interesting. I'd love to see an analysis of that - or if
you ever see a commentary on it, I'd like to see it.
> One of the above-mentioned blue dogs ...
There's been a lot of comments about these "blue dogs". Unfortunately
they will rarely be the official "face" of the Democrats and they
certainly won't be heading up any of the important committees. Those
will be headed up mostly by snarling Dems with fangs like Rangel and
Waxman.
> I don't know of any particular sight. I was following the election
> returns at CNN's website -- about the only thing CNN is good for. You
> might check there. You can check the results on a state-by-state
> basis.
Yes, I have that site bookmarked, too. They had some good info on the
2006 election, too.
Btw, I had heard that CNN had moved a bit to "the right" recently to
compete better with Fox. If they have, it certainly wasn't in evidence
in one electoral coverage report I watched - watched that is for about
15minutes before I couldn't stand any more.
> I'm hearing nothing but crickets myself.
And the typical conciliatory B.S. which you hear for about a week after
every national election.
The Dems hate Bush with an unbounded passion and they've been out of
power for too long to contain their pent up lust for revenge. You
watch. Blood will soon be flowing It will not be a pretty sight.
Fred Weiss
John Alway
> >Does anyone have a link to the results of the "eminent domain"
> >propositions? I believe it was on the ballet in about 8 states. Some of
> >them were quite strong I understand in opposing eminent domain.
> http://www.ncsl.org/statevote/prop_rights_06.htm
> (via The Volokh Conspiracy)
California, Idaho and Washington (state) all rejected measures to
protect property rights? These people can't have both oars in the
water.
The good news is that such measures passed everywhere else, and
usually by wide margins.
...John
John Alway
fred...@papertig.com wrote:
[...]
> There was one positive note. Apparently all of the anti-abortion
> propositions, especially the most visible and the most notorious (the
> one in S. Dakota) went down to defeat.
Does this mean that this election was a vote against conservatism?
I hope so.
...John
Acar
"Agent Cooper" <agentc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163088518.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> We will have
> "Did Bush steal 2004?" commissions and "Did Bush direct 9/11"
> commissions and "Is Bush still smoking crack" commissions, all on TV.
Crazy Democrats. America has gone crazy, and not for lack of guidance.
> Meanwhile, Iran gets nukes, Iraq dissolves into chaos, US soldiers
> continue to die. But at least we'll all have endlessly fascinating
> water-cooler talk at the same time. What did he know and when did he
> know it? Total payback for Monica. And Scarlett Johansson can play
> Valerie Plame in the inevitable film.
Damn Democrats. They should be investigated. It's America's fault. Blame
America first.
.
.
.
Mark_S...@yahoo.com
From what I recall, the existing regulations on abortion in South Dakota are
so restrictive that there is only one abortion clinic in the state. A total
ban on abortions is almost academic.
--
Mark Sieving
Mark_S...@yahoo.com
>
> Scott Amspoker wrote:
> > fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
>
> > >Does anyone have a link to the results of the "eminent domain"
> > >propositions? I believe it was on the ballet in about 8 states. Some of
> > >them were quite strong I understand in opposing eminent domain.
>
> > http://www.ncsl.org/statevote/prop_rights_06.htm
>
>
> > (via The Volokh Conspiracy)
>
> California, Idaho and Washington (state) all rejected measures to
> protect property rights?
They rejected measures to require compensation for so-called "regulatory
takings". Only Arizona approved such a measure. Arizona, California and
Idaho combined the regulatory takings measure with a prohibition on using
eminent domain for economic development. I wonder if Arizona would have
rejected the regulatory takings measure, or if California and Idaho would
have passed the eminent domain prohibition, if these had been presented
separately.
--
Mark Sieving
fred...@papertig.com
fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>They (CNN) had some good info on the 2006 election,...
I meant to say "2004" election.
Fred
fred...@papertig.com
> John Alway <jal...@gmail.com> writes:
> > California, Idaho and Washington (state) all rejected measures to
> > protect property rights?
>
> They rejected measures to require compensation for so-called "regulatory
> takings". Only Arizona approved such a measure. <etc...>
I'm not clear what your point is, Mark. I haven't had a chance yet to
review the results but I'd be interested in your analysis. Could you
flesh it out a bit?
Fred
Mark_S...@yahoo.com
There were two separate types of ballot initiatives related to property
rights. One, in reaction to the (relatively) recent Supreme Court ruling,
would prohibit using eminent domain to seize property for private economic
development. That has widespread support. From what I've seen, most
people, regardless of their political leanings, find that use of eminent
domain to be offensive.
The other initiative would require governments to pay compensation if
regulations lowered someone's property value. That failed in three of the
four states where it was on the ballot. It would seem that support for that
type of initiative is limited.
Arizona, California, and Idaho combined these two quite different
propositions on the ballot, so that voters had to accept both or reject
both. I don't know for sure why that was done, but I suspect that the
proponents of the regulatory takings initiative hoped that support for the
eminent domain prohibition would carry the takings initiative in its wake.
If I'm right about the strategy, it may have worked in Arizona. I wonder if
the regulatory takings initiative would have passed in Arizona if it had
been presented separately. I guess we'll never know. I do think that if
the eminent domain prohibition had been a separate item on the ballots in
California and Idaho, it probably would have passed.
--
Mark Sieving
David Buchner
>.... watched Fox News last night for the first time in about a year -
>to get the election news. ....Megan Kendall - and in a red dress no
>less.....
So they put her on there just to give everyone in the audience an
election...?
Just a thought.
Acar
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mdf5l2l2avicgdbf4...@4ax.com...
> fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
>>There was one positive note. Apparently all of the anti-abortion
>>propositions, especially the most visible and the most notorious (the
>>one in S. Dakota) went down to defeat.
>
> There was much more. Most of the GOPers who lost were social
> conservative types, RINOs, and Buchananites (anti-immigration or
> protectionist). The small government GOPers mostly survived. And the
> Democrats who replaced them are not all moonbats, either. Many of
> them are the same blue dogs in red districts that the GOP swept out in
> 1994. They will have to remain that way if they want to remain in
> Congress past 2008. Most of them won by razor thin margins in a very
> bad GOP year.
Interesting spin. So with all those closet Republins posing as Democrats it
was not a Democratic landslide. It was a conservative landslide. My advise
to Ken: Do not enter a spelling bee until you learn how to spell "moderate".
:)
.
.
.
fred...@papertig.com
Mark_S...@yahoo.com wrote:
> fred...@papertig.com writes:
> > I'm not clear what your point is, Mark. I haven't had a chance yet to
> > review the results but I'd be interested in your analysis. Could you
> > flesh it out a bit?
>
> There were two separate types of ballot initiatives related to property
> rights. <etc>
Thanks, Mark.
I still haven't had time to dig into this and to fully understand all
of the issues, but I also saw this excellent summary - at an obvious
spot which I hadn't thought of: the wonderful Institute for Justice
which fought the famous Kelo case.
http://www.castlecoalition.org/media/releases/11_8_06pr.html
Fred
Atlas Bugged
news:zyM4h.26154$OE1....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Interesting spin. So with all those closet Republins posing as Democrats
> it was not a Democratic landslide. It was a conservative landslide. My
> advise to Ken: Do not enter a spelling bee until you learn how to spell
> "moderate".
> :)
More: I question Republi-Ken's assertion here.
Ken's spin - if it paints Republicans favorably - is just that, spin, though
this does not automatically make it false.
I haven't looked systematically, but I see plenty of "social conservative"
'Pubs that seem to be still Clear and Present Dangers, and I note that Joe
Lieberman's victory effluence was overloaded with thanks to God and Country,
mostly God. The Blue Dogs are often "Red" by invoking the very worst of the
conservative positons.
Ken often brings in the editors (and thus, redemption) in spelling matters.
He almost never brings them in to correct his amazingly bad politics.
fred...@papertig.com
> I hope so.
Don't get your hopes up.
(Some) conservatives are saying that it was a vote against the betrayal
of conservatism.
Have you seen the C. Bradley Thompson essay on the subject?:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-fall/decline-fall-american-
conservatism.asp
http://tinylink.com/?hdfGOHLxCp
The Democrats are entitled to their victory celebration but I'm sure in
their soberer moments they realize how close some of those key contests
were. In other words, the electorate could easily switch back the other
way 2,4, or 6 years out. This was no huge swing back to Democrat
liberalism. It was a repudiation of Republican incompetence.
By and large I think "the swing to the right" which started after
McGovern and Carter is still intact, i.e. that the electorate is still
predominantly "conservative". But that of course is a very mixed bag
from our perspective.
And of course don't get Bugged started on the subject. :-)
Fred
Robert J. Kolker
>
> The Democrats are entitled to their victory celebration but I'm sure in
> their soberer moments they realize how close some of those key contests
> were. In other words, the electorate could easily switch back the other
> way 2,4, or 6 years out. This was no huge swing back to Democrat
> liberalism. It was a repudiation of Republican incompetence.
In brief, the Democrats received no mandate. Nor has the electorate
mandated the fundemental principles full bore pinko stinko commie
liberalism. What the public has done is punish the Republicans for
governing badly.
The Republicans have become spendthrifts, they have squandered
opportunities to lead the country in the right direction economically
(Clinton did a better job of that) and worst of all, they have engaged
us in a -losing war-. Americans will not forgive those who lose wars.
The Republicans have gotten no less than they deserve.
Bob Kolker
Ken Gardner
>> There was one positive note. Apparently all of the anti-abortion
>> propositions, especially the most visible and the most notorious (the
>> one in S. Dakota) went down to defeat.
> Does this mean that this election was a vote against conservatism?
Certainly it was a vote against social conservatives, the
anti-immigration zealots, and big government conservatives. The
better Republicans mostly survived.
Ken
Acar
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ej0rpo$kmu$1...@victor.killfile.org...
> fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
> In brief, the Democrats received no mandate. What the public has done is
Let me explain a couple of things:
Reagan was a delightful guy.
Gingrich and company came up with a list of populist promises that everybody
had to like.
Bush2 started as a joke. Then came 9/11 and the cowboy talk.
The fear mongering and Rove's dirty tricks combined to squeeze a squeaker in
2004.
What happened now was that the cowboys got stuck in a mess of their own
incompetent making. Veins bled and wallets bled.
Don't fool yourself. America responds to conservative values but in the
American heart compassion trumps conservatism.
Ken Gardner
>> There was much more. Most of the GOPers who lost were social
>> conservative types, RINOs, and Buchananites (anti-immigration or
>> protectionist). The small government GOPers mostly survived.
>That's very interesting. I'd love to see an analysis of that - or if
>you ever see a commentary on it, I'd like to see it.
I was watching it first hand (the actual election returns -- I knew
which House races to watch). I'll give you some quick examples. Two
virulently anti-immigration candidates lost in Arizona: Haynsworth and
Graf. Religious conservatives Chocola and Hostettler lost in Indiana.
Another one, Jim Ryun, lost in Kansas. Nancy Johnson, a big spending
RINO, lost in Connecticut. And so on.
On the Senate side, social conservative Santorum was creamed by an
empty suit in Pennsylvania. RINOs lost in Ohio and Rhode Island.
Theocratriss wannabe Katherine Harris was slaughtered in otherwise red
Florida. Jim Talent lost in Missouri in substantial part because of
his opposition to funding embryonic stem cell research (the left wing
equivalent of gay marriage and flag burning amendments). Big
government conservative Conrad Burns lost in Montana, albeit barely.
On the other hand, one of my favorite "small government
conservatives," Senator Kyl, handily won re-election in Arizona.
And for the record, here in Texas the statewide GOP once again took
the donkeys to the woodshed and preceded to kick the shit out of them.
To say that we bucked the national trend is a mild understatement.
>> One of the above-mentioned blue dogs ...
>There's been a lot of comments about these "blue dogs". Unfortunately
>they will rarely be the official "face" of the Democrats and they
>certainly won't be heading up any of the important committees. Those
>will be headed up mostly by snarling Dems with fangs like Rangel and
>Waxman.
And if they don't get their rabies shots right quick, the Democrats
won't hold the House past the next election. Meanwhile, other than
being extremely obnoxious during hearings when the cameras are
rolling, they won't be able to do much. Expect to see lots of
gridlock. Or perhaps a conservative working majority on a handful of
issues between the GOPers and the blue dogs -- the way it used to be
before the 1994 election. The Senate is similar. I read somewhere
that many of the Democrats up for re-election in 2008 are in red
states. They will have to behave themselves, or start looking for new
work in a few years.
>> I'm hearing nothing but crickets myself.
>And the typical conciliatory B.S. which you hear for about a week after
>every national election.
I'm okay with it. It's called "politics." What I really want to see
is the Democrats acting more responsibly. It's good for the country
if they do, and great for the GOP if they don't. It's easy to act
like immature children and bray like a jackass when you are in the
minority and nothing you say or do can affect actual policy. This is
no longer the case. Now they are going to have to put up or shut up.
>The Dems hate Bush with an unbounded passion and they've been out of
>power for too long to contain their pent up lust for revenge. You
>watch. Blood will soon be flowing It will not be a pretty sight.
I think it is a bit more complicated than that. The Democrats who
were already in Congress consist largely of moonbats. But many of the
new Democrats coming to Congress are blue dogs who won razor thin
victories in red states or districts. So, I am hoping for a coalition
of reality-based members consisting of GOPers and the blue dogs. If
not, the GOP is still plenty strong enough to block the moonbats from
destroying this country until the next election. Then payback will be
a bitch.
Ken
Ken Gardner
>> There was much more. Most of the GOPers who lost were social
>> conservative types, RINOs, and Buchananites (anti-immigration or
>> protectionist). The small government GOPers mostly survived. And the
>> Democrats who replaced them are not all moonbats, either. Many of
>> them are the same blue dogs in red districts that the GOP swept out in
>> 1994. They will have to remain that way if they want to remain in
>> Congress past 2008. Most of them won by razor thin margins in a very
>> bad GOP year.
>Interesting spin. So with all those closet Republins posing as Democrats it
>was not a Democratic landslide. It was a conservative landslide. My advise
>to Ken: Do not enter a spelling bee until you learn how to spell "moderate".
I never said conservative landslide. I think the country shifted
slightly to the left, but not much. Incidentally, Bill Clinton doesn't
think that the country shifted to the left. But what the heck does he
know about politics?
Ken
Robert J. Kolker
>
> What happened now was that the cowboys got stuck in a mess of their own
> incompetent making. Veins bled and wallets bled.
>
> Don't fool yourself. America responds to conservative values but in the
> American heart compassion trumps conservatism.
I hope you are wrong. Our survival depends on us being mean
discompassionate bastards. Lean, mean, nasty and unsentimental is how we
will surive the Islamic onslought.
If you want to see how compassionate most humans are see how they fight
for the remaining few seats on the life boat of a sinking ship, once the
women and children have their seats.
Compassion is shit and is the disease of weaklings.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> I never said conservative landslide. I think the country shifted
> slightly to the left, but not much. Incidentally, Bill Clinton doesn't
> think that the country shifted to the left. But what the heck does he
> know about politics?
The Center won. The messages of the election are (1) the war is going
and badly and (2) no more movement to the Right.
We hates your warrrrr precioussssssss because you are losing it.
Bob Kolker
Acar
>
> Compassion is shit and is the disease of weaklings.
When America votes Republican the conservative ideologues say: "There is a
shift in American sentiment toward conservative values." When it votes
Democratic the liberal ideologues say: "America has repudiated the heartless
message of conservative ideologues." IMO the truth is that America is both
and neither. The old and accurate cliché is "socially liberal and fiscally
conservative". And because of this ambivalence it is easy prey for
demagogical rhetoric from either side. Which is inevitably forthcoming from
the losing side.
Of course when it is attacked whoever is in charge will scream "We'll get
the sons of bitches" and the middle falls behind the fearless leader.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Of course when it is attacked whoever is in charge will scream "We'll get
> the sons of bitches" and the middle falls behind the fearless leader.
As it should. Anyone who makes war against this nation should be
destroyed and his property ruined. Furthermore his children should be
killed so that our grandsons do not have to fight his grandsons down the
line. We simply eliminate his children so there will be no grandsons.
The principle is simple: all wars will be fought until the enemy is
exterminated root and branch. If we do this consistently, no one will
dare attack us. The idea is to get the folks of other nations to shit in
their pants if they even think of attacking us.
When Rome was at her prime few ever thought of attacking rome. After
Rome become Christianized the barbarians not only attacked, but
succeeded. At one time, Rome just sent in her legions to solve any
problems. It worked fine. In addition the Romans got the chariots and
wagons to run on time.
Lean, mean, merciless = survival.
Bob Kolker
John Alway
> > > There was one positive note. Apparently all of the anti-abortion
> > > propositions, especially the most visible and the most notorious (the
> > > one in S. Dakota) went down to defeat.
> > Does this mean that this election was a vote against conservatism?
> > I hope so.
> Don't get your hopes up.
> (Some) conservatives are saying that it was a vote against the betrayal
> of conservatism.
Yes, but why would that mean voting against anti-abortion
propositions? That seems to me to be decoupled from candidates. The
same can be said for the stem cell research proposition in Missouri,
which passed.
> Have you seen the C. Bradley Thompson essay on the subject?:
> http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-fall/decline-fall-american-
> conservatism.asp
> http://tinylink.com/?hdfGOHLxCp
Yes, I read that a few weeks back. A very insightful article. It
made me realize just how bad and committed present day conservatives
are. They are shockingly worse than I had thought. Socialists in
sheep's clothing.
> The Democrats are entitled to their victory celebration but I'm sure in
> their soberer moments they realize how close some of those key contests
> were. In other words, the electorate could easily switch back the other
> way 2,4, or 6 years out. This was no huge swing back to Democrat
> liberalism. It was a repudiation of Republican incompetence.
I'm guessing the primary issue was the war, and not because it's
being fought, but the way it's being fought.
> By and large I think "the swing to the right" which started after
> McGovern and Carter is still intact, i.e. that the electorate is still
> predominantly "conservative". But that of course is a very mixed bag
> from our perspective.
Stephen Spiecher has some interesting statistics on his website on
religion in America. I don't see that it's rising.
Check this post out:
http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=4914&view=findpost&p=
43047
...John