PhotoDude.com

"It’s the first thought I have when I hear someone who is still decrying how Bush stole Florida to win the election, as the Democrats had the power to make Florida totally irrelevant." Unless Bush stole all the other Southern states as well, through, say, campaigns to reduce the black vote through intimidation and outright disenfranchisement. (But on another level that's a cop-out, even if it's true. Under typical American conditions, cheating can only get you so much. Gore clearly screwed up in 2000; he should have been able to stomp Bush in Tennessee so hard that it wouldn't have mattered.)

Do you think Howard Dean's Confederate flag comment was unintentional, or do you think it was his attempt at a Sister Souljah moment, looking ahead to South Carolina and the Southern primary?

Gore couldn't stomp anybody in Tennessee because most of us were real familiar with him. I know few who would pee on him were he aflame alongside the road.

I've repeated this to all of my Democrat friends, but none of them will listen: The party faithful in both parties will vote for their nominee. The fringes will vote for the likes of Nader or Perot or whatever crackpot happens to be running next year. The election will be won in the middle 9% of the electorate, and the voters you find there are from middle-class families whose most important question, as they sit down to dinner with their kids, is: "Which party is most likely to produce a sound economy over the long run, AND protect this home in which I sit, and these children I love more than anything else?" Nobody, of course, knows where the economy will be next time this year. But we all know one thing about the other issue, and that is: The Democrats, with the exceptions of Lieberman and to an extent Gephardt (both of whom will be footnotes by Christmas), have decided that it's more important to root against the war in Iraq, and thus damage Bush politically, than to present a realistic, mature, effective plan to protect this country from Islamic terrorism. This is not an issue on which they can do a flip-flop in the next few months, either. This is a hole they've been digging for thirty-five years now, and they ain't about to just hop out of it and make like it was never there.

Joel, I don't think Dean's statement was a calculated ploy, even though he has used a similar line twice (but what politician doesn't repeat himself?). Especially as it opened him up to two different criticisms; pandering to conservative Southerners who support the display of the Confederate flag, and/or engaging in an outdated stereotype of people in the region.... ...said the white Southerner who drives a pickup truck with a flag on it.

Another way to look at it is that the unnamed generic opposition is effectively capped at 46%. There's nowhere for them to go but down once you stick a real name in there. It still looks like a big Bush victory from here.

Speaking as someone who has voted for candidates as varied as Barry Commoner, John Anderson and Clinton, I can not and will not call myself conservative. Bush gave me the rabid heebie-jeebies right up until the planes hit the building. So the War is my deal-breaker. Give me a Democrat who realizes that we have to see this through to some resolution other than turning tail and running, and he has my vote. So far, I don't see it.

I'm old enough to remember 1984. (Hell, I'm old enough to have _voted_ in 1972, and I did.) In 1983, Ronald Reagan's approval ratings were lower than Bush's are right now; he was coming off a much nastier recession, and he was seen as intellectually lightweight and a destabilizing factor in world politics. Sound familiar? In early 1984, a childhood friend of mine, Christine Baron, and her husband, Tom Porter, ran a contest among their friends to predict the electoral college results (state by state) for the 1984 presidential elections. I forget what our deadline was, but we all did careful analysis and sent in our results. The teenage son of one of the participants wanted to submit an entry as well, and did. His entry simply predicted Reagan capturing every state. He won the contest. None of the rest of us were even close. Mondale won only two states (Minnesota, his home state, and DC), and he almost lost Minnesota. Here's a quote from what appears to be a political history web site that, if anything, favors the Democrats: "Mondale seriously miscalculated on economics. He assumed that the average American was fed up with the high deficits, the unbalanced budget, tax cuts benefiting the rich, and the deep recession that had struck America during Reagan's first two years in office. He called frankly for a raise in taxes to pay down the deficit, perhaps his worst blunder...Polls taken just before and after the election indicated that most voters held positions nearly opposite to Reagan's views on abortion, government aid to the poor, and the deployment of nuclear weapons...What it came down to was one simple fact: A significantly large percentage of those voters who had actually cast ballots trusted Ronald Reagan to run the country. They liked him, and they valued his symbolic stature as a proud and patriotic American who had licked inflation, kept the nation out of war, and stood up to the Soviet Union. " Sound familiar yet? BTW, I'm a life-long registered Democrat, though I consider myself what used to be known as a "Scoop Jackson" Democrat. (Look it up.) I voted for Bush in 2000; I'll vote for him again in 2004. I think that, barring the usual unforeseen scandal/disaster, my party will be absolutely crushed in 2004--not only losing the Presidential election overwhelmingly to Bush, but losing more seats in both the Senate and the House, as well as more governorships (in fact, I believe two will be lost tomorrow morning). Sadly, I think it will take a crushing loss to lead the Democratic Party to remake itself, to realize that it has become the party of intolerance and exclusion and special interests, and that the Republican Party is becoming the party of inclusion and tolerance and leadership (sort of). I stick to my Democratic registration out of stubbornness, but I am and remain appalled by the intellectual dishonesty of the party's leadership (e.g., the current bleating over Iraqi reconstruction and casualties, which is either incredibly uninformed or deliberately dishonest). But that's another subject. ..bruce..

"Give me a Democrat who realizes that we have to see this through to some resolution other than turning tail and running, and he has my vote. So far, I don’t see it." You just described every Democrat in the presidential race except for Kucinich and Sharpton. You must not be following the campaign that closely.

The Democrats will lose big in '04 because they act as if 9/11 and the war on terrrorism are issues to be managed and "focus grouped" rather than real threats to be addressed. The proof of this is their (Dean, Kerry, et al) entirely contradictory and hypocritical position of charging the president with failure to build a "real" international coalition for Iraq (as if the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese would EVER sign on...) for a war that they themselves do not support. They would have us believe, in short, Bush is a failure for misleading us into a war he was unable to convince France and other "allies" to support that they (Kerry, Gephardt) only supported because they thought Bush would enlist France and other "allies" to support; and now that post-war Iraq is proving more troublesome than anticipated or hoped, it's Bush's job to enlist the support of France and other "allies" to share the burden for a mission THEY NEVER supported; or else he and his Iraq policy is a failure. Sheesh. And they think we're stupid.

Reading the comments on this board has redoubled--hell, TRIPLED--my determination to see Wesley Clark elected President. I'll work my ass off for him, I'll give (more) money, I'll write more letters, I'll knock on more doors than all the people in this thread put together do for their candidate. I would LOVE to see Clark--a genuine MAN and a genuine hero standing at a debate podium opposite Bush, someone who has failed his way up the ladder throughout life. Wes Clark didn't need to play dress-up and prance around on an aircraft carrier--he was an actual soldier, not a pampered AWOL rich boy. And the comment that the REPUBLICANS are the party of tolerance and inclusion?? The party of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage? Is that supposed to be some kind of sick joke? My side may indeed lose in 2004, but when the roof caves in under the weight of the $600-$700 billion a year deficit Bush and his buddies are wrapping around our children's throats, my conscience will be clear, and I'll be able to sleep at night.

I'm a Southerner (born in Ala.; live in Va.) and old enough so that the civil rights movement was the formative issue/cause that shaped my political consciousness. I never got over it. I believed all the high-principled rhetoric that proclaimed no one should ever be punished or rewarded because of race. I still believe it. But the Democrats (with whom I long identified), alas, don't. They traded that principle in on the newer model of race preferences. I would seriously consider voting for any Democrat who scrapped preferences and urged a return to what used to be the core Democratic value of colorblind equality (such as the old, pre-Gore-infected Lieberman), but until then I'm with Zell.

Wes Clark? The one who advised a member of congress to support the resolution; the one who said he supported the resolution but always opposed the war; the one who has claimed the White House called him the day after 9/11 to link the attacks to Saddam Hussein and then said the White House didn't call him but some one with some middle-east think tank in Canada called him, but the middle-east think tank denies calling Clark; the Clark who demanded resolve in Kosovo but now counsels retreat in Iraq; the Clark who demanded the BRITISH send infantry to intercept Russian troops in Serbia during Kosovo but demagouges Bush for "escalating" the war on terror; the Clark who accuses Bush of lies but can't even come up with a good story as to why he SUPPORTED Bush post 9/11 at Republican fundraisers? You judge that Wes Clark a genuine MAN? For a fool, anything is possible.

Photodude, that was one excellent post; I've linked to it on my website. I'm neither Southern nor Democrat, but one does not need a weathervane to see which way the wind is blowing, and this Presidential primary campaign looks to me like New York, San Francisco, and Hollywood kissing off the rest of the country. Barring a disaster, with an improving economy, I think we're looking at a landslide with serious coattails in Congress next November. You gave the Democrats excellent advice, and for the sake of our security I hope they heed it. However, I highly doubt they will.

Joseph Miller wrote: Reading the comments on this board has redoubled--hell, TRIPLED--my determination to see Wesley Clark elected President... Joseph, I never did and perhaps never will see why he's so attractive to you (and others). Is it because you look for a military man, but one who was, uh, "retired before his time?" Somewhat safe?

Why all this intellectual claptrap? Most folks in America are simply scared. Bush and the GOP meisters know this and take advantage of it every day. He will win next year unless people either stop being scared (not likely) or figure he's lost his mojo. If Dean sticks to his guns, or Wes finds them in his suitcase, then either one has a shot.

First of all, this is not a 50/50 nation anymore. More like 55/45 given the results of the 2002 midterm elections. And this gap will widen in 2004, believe me. Secondly, don't believe "polls" showing a dead heat between Bush and a "generic Democrat". These polls are deceiving by using too many Democratic voters in the sample, eagerly used by liberal media outlets to perpetuate the lie that Democrats still is a force to reckon with. Take a closer look at the sample methodology used, and consider the fact that Republican voter registration is now higher than Democrats in most states, in addition to having higher voter intensity. Several "respectable" polls predicted many Democratic victories in 2002, which were all way off mark. I know countless Democrats who became Republican post 9/11. I have never heard of single Republican who went the other way. Which brings us to the core of the issue and why Democrats like Zell Miller is now endorsing Bush: The Democratic Party since post 9-11 is non-electable. It is hijacked by progressives and other fringe groups, and become an irrelevant party. Just consider Howard Dean's extremely condescending remark about the Confederate flag. This is the way todays Democrats think of Southerners and middle America. They are so out of touch it can blow anyones mind. The Democratic Party should be put on official suicide watch if this madness continues. And with good reason.

But Cosimo, why should we not be scared?

Great note, hope to visit again. Michael J. Totten (& others) are Dem liberals against the Bush-hating Left. I think Dean, like other Dems, thinks focus groups will help him position his message to maximize the positive impact on the potential Southern NASCAR dads. And he'll be wrong. And unelected.

As a right-wing reactionary, I tend to get stuck with Republicans who take my vote for granted (and [grumble] usually get it). But I think it essential for US democracy that we maintain a minimum of two viable parties, and am dismayed by the Dems' self-immolation in recent years. Apparently they've decided the problem is in energizing their base vote, and are swinging left to excite them. But that limits their appeal to folks on the opposite side of the spectrum from me, who are similarly stuck with Democrats. I think Greg got it exactly right above. The middle will decide the election, and the Dems are alienating them. They are also alienating some of their allies. Sen Miller's main point was that they were going too far left to carry southern states. He was very convincing on Sunday when he said (of Worley's piece): "I think that I am much more in touch with the people of Georgia than the young man who wrote that column. You know, I'm trying to help this party. I'm trying to throw them a life preserver." Many apparently believe the "President lied and tricked us into war" theme is a winner. Folks like Zell (and I) think it's a loser. There might just be enough die-hard antiwar activists out there to nominate a peacenik. (And however "nuanced" their positions may be, that's how most voters will view the choice.) But IMHO he can't possibly win the general election. Nor do I believe it will it be close. This has all the early signs of an overwhelming GOP landslide-which will give a "mandate" to many marginal Republican ideas and effectively disenfranchise the core liberal vote-neither of which will be good for the nation. And I'm not at all convinced the Democratic leadership will learn even from that event. But they'd do far better to listen to Zell now, or better yet, to run him for President.

Democratic idealism for far to long has been based on the Robin Hood theory of government. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Still it is robbery. Not a good thing to teach the children. I do believe we are headed for a more libertarian future. The cultural conservatives will accept less social regulation if taxes go down. The left as currently constituted has no such choice. The center/left will join the libertarians (which will not be the Libertarian Party BTW.) The cultural conservatives will get their own party. Probably the Republican name. Socialism is not the answer to social problems.

Tim (and others) I suggest you visit the following site: http://www.clarkmyths.com/ Your letter encompasses so many inaccuracies and standard rightwing talking points that I have a hard time taking it seriously. And we'll see who the fool is once Bush, if reelected, has succeeded in crippling our country's financial security for decades. BTW Tim, it was Dubya that ignored various warnings about 9/11. He went on vacation for a month in August 2001 after hearing of a major possible terrorist strike. Remember, or is your memory as well as your grasp of the facts "selective"? Also, check out David Hackworth's "Reporting for Duty: Wesley Clark" at Hack's Website.

Now this is what good political analysis and discourse ought to read like. My compliments to (nearly) one and all here, and especially to the PhotoDude. Great post. I'm way on the conservative side myself. Somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan. That said, I fear that the current looney-tunes trend of the "officially sanctioned" Democrat Party is NOT a good thing for either said party OR the future of BOTH parties. Scripture (paraphrased) says " a brother sharpens a brother, as iron upon iron". The competition of ideas in the political marketplace is a GOOD thing. Sadly, the Democratic machine is failing to recognize that it's ideas have been tried, and found wanting in the balance. Not many CONTRIUBUTORY ideas coming from any of the nine. Just "against this, that, the other, ANYthing "Bush". Put some IDEAS out in the marketplace, and maybe you'll get some traction. Just sputter, fume, wheeze, whine and shrilly pontificate points of frustration, and voters will continue to flee in droves. What few good points they may have are UTTERLY drowned out by the thunder of their hooves leftward, trying one and all to avoid the "Bush Lite" label. Mondale skewered Hart with "...Where's the BEEF?". Hart was a damn steak-with-trimmings compared to this current herd of nine. In the comments above, Bruce Webster refered to himself as a "Scoop Jackson" Democrat. Y'all DO your homework on that topic and if you take those lessons to heart, and take your party back to it's traditional core. Until then, I'll continue to watch the present herd of (I can hardly stand to even dignify 'em as candidates) nine whirl around in furious circles, while completely ignoring the drain they're spiraling into. And yes, the future is a more libertarian one. Most likely an evolution of the Republican party, NOT the "Libertarian Party". I've been studying the "SouthPark Republican" trends; sure looks like a coming phenomenon. Keep up the good work, Mr. PhotoDude. You're the kind of political opponent I'd be quite HONORED to buy drinks for while enjoying invigorating, good-natured politcal arguments. Jim Sloop New Dawn Galveston, TX

The biggest problem the Democrats have right now is that they are living in fantasy world. There is a total and complete absence of any evidence to support these fevered accusations that Bush intimidated black voters, stole Florida, killed Wellstone, invaded Iraq to enrich oil buddies or ruined the economy with tax cuts. The foaming at the mouth hatred which Democrats have directed at Nixon, Reagan, Gingrich and now Bush has been a constant in US politics for over 30 years. Constantly repeating the slanderous mantra that Republicans are mean-spirited, hate-filled, racist, sexist, homophobic, environment-degrading, children-starving, senior-killing monsters may make the Democratic faithful feel justified in their passionate hatred, but it is wearing very thin with undecided voters. The Democrats have a well-earned reputation for lying about Republicans and we have seen these ugly, hateful slanders taken to new depths over the last year. Do Democrats really think that smears and character assassination are the only elements of political campaigning? That is all they offer anymore. I don't think it will prove very attractive next November.

As a southerner, I can tell the Democrats exactly why they have lost the South. The South is a very conservative place. Remember, the Demoratic Party was founded as a counter to the progressive notions of the Republicans prior to the Civil War. The Democrats stood for the status quo antebellum. Now, the national party has become the progressive party and has pandered to all the liberal special interest groups. Gay rights and affirmative action just don't play down South. Poor Southerners don't believe in welfare. They are prideful. They go to church and remember when the church not the state provided charity. They like their guns and pickups. They don't like someone telling them that those things are evil. They are proud of America and all the things she stands for. They hate being told that America should be ashamed of the things she does. The Democrats just don't get it. Yes, many local governments and legislatures in the South are run by Democrats, but they are a different bunch. Many are Democrats because that's the way you get elected. In some places, the legacy of the Republican carpetbaggers and scalawags is still burned in people's collective memory. A Republican has no chance whatsoever in a local election. Even the most conservative of candidates is forced to become a Democrat to get elected. Until the Democrats understand these simple things, they will never win back the South.

It really seems like you're all over-analyzing this. Maybe I'm naive, but I take Zell Miller’s comments at face value: he's scared that the current crop of Democratic candidates are incapable of defending the country. My biggest problem with Clinton was that he cut and run as soon as things got a little messy. I had the same problem with Reagan, although 250+ marines is a higher threashold than 18 rangers. I really fear that we've inherited a reputation that will take a lot more US blood to wash away. It isn't about pride or prestige... if our enemies believe they can win by killing just a few more soldiers they'll keep doing it. It isn't going to take a Harvard intellect, just dogged perserverance, to win this one. Houston, TX

Florida was only that close, because the media declared that Gore won Florida before the polls closed in the GOP heavy panhandle. Research revealed that this cost Bush at least 10,000 votes. Democrats always accuse others of what they themselves do, as a way of justifying their own perfidious actions. The Florida aftermath was a Democrat National Party attempt to steal the election. They have been rewriting history with their propaganda for two years now, just as they did after the Anita Hill hearings. For me to vote for any Democrat at any level, the candidate has to prove their own decency as a human being, their sanity on policy (no socialism or enviro-wackos allowed) and that they've attempted to clean up the 'RAT party. I don't expect to vote for a Democrat anytime soon. I'm a former Democrat from back when they were interested in freedom, equality under law and clean government. No more.

A very interesting column but one which posed a question that should be self-evident. Why did Miller endorse Bush at this point, when the dems don't even have a candidate chosen? It seems clear as polished plate that the dems aren't going to throw up anybody who 1, can win, or, 2, that Miller likes. Not from among the current crop of nine, and no likely prospect who will warm Miller's heart is going to get through the gatekeepers whose only sign is leftleftleft.

Don't worry about losing the Democrats - the AMerican system of government is inherently 2-party. Third parties generally get the shaft, and "one big party" splits into 2. Sure, you get a few years of "one party system" sometimes, but it never lasts. The one party splits. And sure, you get a third party that comes to power, sometimes, but it does so by knocking of the lesser of the current 2. So, in short, even if the Democratic party dies (which I doubt but hope for - "racial prefences" is just another way to say "racism", among other major things), there will be another party along in short order to replace them - probably a libertarian party, drawing from the Libertarian party (but not that), but more largely from Republican ranks (basically a party split). That sounds good to me.

Let's see. Who drives pickup trucks with flags on them? Would it be university professors, blacks, gender femininists, teachers' union members, homosexuals, gun control advocates, people who believe the preferences constituting affirmative action do not create not a system of quotas no matter how much it may look and feel like a system of quotas to those competing against people given preferences for public and private goods? People who believe the Ten Commandments have no place in the public square, that Under God has no place in the Pledge, that the Boy Scouts, for God's sake, have no place in the "gorgeous mosiac" that is Democrat America? People who believe that an armed attack on America causing thousands of deaths and injuries should lead, in due course, to consultations with France, Syria, and Kofi Annan to determine whether armed response would be desirable? People who believe there shouldn't even BE pickup trucks because they're too big and mess up the environment... or who? The Democrats DON'T LIKE the people Dean is talking about, and they aren't shy about saying so. It is thus very hard for those people to vote for Democrats. Jeez. How hard is that to understand? Zell Miller gets it right and y'all start to accuse him of the unspeakable crimes against humanity everybody else in America seems to be guilty of.

Gore's home state is not Tennessee, it's Washington DC and the people of Tennessee know it. So that he lost Tennessee does not suprise. That he got as many votes there as he did suprises me.

Anyone who uses the phrase "Democrat America" is a cretin; anyone who emphasizes the "fact" (?) that blacks don't drive pickups is a racist; anyone who thinks Democrats hate both God and country is a fool. I'm damned well sick and tired of southern conservatives, and I'm sick and tired of them trying to push everyone else in America around, especially in shoving their religious fundamentalism down everyone else's throats. That kind of crap may play in Alabama, but it sure doesn't in Illinois. By God, enough is enough!

Oh, and by the way, I'm also sick and tired of paying for all you "self sufficient" southern conservatives. The Northeast, the most Democratic part of America, gets much less--in Connecticut's case 68 cents for every dollar--in benefits than it pays in taxes. The Bush states in the South are basically sucking at the public teat. Don't believe me? Check out the Govt.s own figures. Don't hand me that "too proud to be on welfare" bullshit. And while we're at it, why do the states with the highest percentage of conservatives--like South Carolina and Alabama--have the worst state run public schools in America? The worst test scores? The lowest paid teachers? The worst facilities? And one last thing: Remember, southern boys, this alienation phenomenon runs both ways. Illinois used to be competitive; the Republicans here have been virtually wiped out, and no Republican can now be a conservative and hope to win a statewide election. You push it too far, folks, and the next backlash you feel will be from us. Northern and damned proud of it.

I think one anecdote from the 2000 election tells a lot about why the Democrats will lose the south for a generation. When asked about whether the military votes in Floriduh should be counted, after an attempt by the Dems to have them thrown out, Zell Miller, a retired Marine, said something like "Your damn right they should be counted, and we should salute them when we do". The problem with the Dems is that they have no sense of principles. It is more important for them to win ugly than lose gracefully. This leads them to through anyone overboard if it is a means to winning ugly. I think many will view the rush to the microphones to attack President Bush, and America, every time a soldier loses his/her life will be seen in the same light. Sacrificing America's interest for those of the Democratic party.

"That kind of crap may play in Alabama, but it sure doesn’t in Illinois. By God, enough is enough!" You haven't gotten the memo yet. Illinois doesn't matter; in fact, no states North of the Mason-Dixon Line or west of the Mississippi matter any longer. The only thing that matters is that the South, and Democrats must become a second far right party or risk losing 50 states in every election until the end of time.

"Remember, the Demoratic Party was founded as a counter to the progressive notions of the Republicans prior to the Civil War." Not exactly true, although the spirit is: The Democrats had been around before the 'Publicans. The Whig Party, which had formed out of the old Federalists, fractured again over the issue of slavery. The Republicans swept much of the North and Midwest. There was a lot of party-crossing, as some Democrats went into the Republicans and a few Whigs went to the Democrats. But is correct to say that the Democrat's purpose by the Civl War to reinforce the status quo.

And hey everybody! Of the top 25 states in the Union that get more in Federal benefits than they pay in taxes, 19 of them went for Bush in 2000. Illinois gets a whopping 73 cents for each tax dollar. Really, God bless all you wonderful self-sufficient conservatives! (Figures from Tax Foundation)

Joseph Miller, You make some interesting points, and I'll assume your figures are correct. A couple of points to keep in mind: a) We have a fairly large immigrant population (legal and illegal). b) We have a significant number of yankees who retire to the south because the cost of living is cheaper. Both of these facts contribute to the amount of gub'mint money we get. Incidentally, I know very few religious fundamentalists, several blacks who drive pickups, and your somewhat bigoted over-generalizations about southern conservatives detracts from the valid points that you make.

Sorry Arnold, I get mad sometimes at the tone I hear coming from (many) Southerners. (BTW, I wasn't the one who made the crack about blacks not driving pickups.) Just stop pretending to uphold a "self reliance" that doesn't exist. Oh, and one other thing: get over the Civil War already. I saw a picture in South Carolina of the Marines raising the flag on Mt. Suribachi. It was a CONFEDERATE flag. If the owner of the place had been there, I'd have been strongly tempted to rip his head off. I know that's not all of you, but it's way too many.

Joseph, nobody made a crack about blacks not driving pickup trucks, but I'm the one who wrote the post you got upset about. I'm not southern, and I'm black, and I drive a pickup, and I'm not racist, and you really underscored my point beautifully: Democrats can't get elected in the South, or much of anywhere else right now, because they hate the voters. Thanks!

John, I don't think I agree that the Democrats hate the voters, but I do get the sense of a condesending "we know what's best for you" attitude towards those of us not in the New England Elite. As an "ig'nernt suthuna" I of course cannot comprehend the complexities of the world beyond my mobile home with the truck on blocks in the front and the still in the back and the shotgun in my hands to chase off the "revenu-ers".

I am not a Southerner, nor am I a racist; in fact, I'm not a fundamentalist (although I am a Christian). But I am firmly in lock-step with the South in its rejection of the extreme leftist Democrats. (Aside: what IS the extreme left end of the political spectrum? There is a name for it). Actually, the leftists are no longer about concern for the poor; in fact, Clinton's open embrace of Hollywood was in part a means of saying, "I hang out with the cool people who matter, not those boring hicks who support the Republicans." Question: which party defines "tolerance" as the willingness by the government to kill a man (and, all too often, his family members) for refusing to surrender weapons that he has the constitutional right to carry? Which party defines "tolerance" as closing down crisis pregnancy centers for the crime of criticizing abortions? Which party shows its respect for women by supporting wife-murderer Michael Schiavo and rapist William Jefferson Clinton? Which party shows its opposition to corrupt government by supporting Davis and Bustamante? Out of which party do the DU posters come, the ones who support the "Iraqi resistance" that is killing our troops? Which party supports sticking a hose into a baby's brain and sucking it out? Which party makes online jokes about Waco? (One laughingly referred to the incident as "Koresh Southern Fried Baby). Which party goes after the children of a Commander-in-Chief of the other party as a means of hurting him? Which party tried to steal the election in broad daylight by refusing to accept the votes of servicemen? Which party says that anything Clinton did was OK, including his refusal to indict Bin Laden and his incineration of the babies at Waco, because, hyuk hyuk hyuk, he got laid and sex is cool, dude? (This in spite of the fact that most of its members are about as attractive and sexy as a week-dead salmon). Which party calls the opposition leader a Nazi, even though to a man its leaders, and most of its members, giddily supported Clinton's murder of the Branch Davidians and their babies? Which party has as a member that prancing, evil little fairy, Paul Begala (Smithers to Clinton's Monty Burns)? Which party gets its way by blackmailing the opposition using FBI files? Which party gave Communist China the means to wipe out our entire western coast? Which party runs commercials insulting gun owners?

Joseph Miller, you ain't half as smart as you think. By the numbers: We have a progressive federal income tax (the more you make, the higher the tax rate) system; Income and wealth are not evenly distributed across the U.S.; Some states, usually the most populous, generate more federal income taxes than other, usually less populous, states; Federal funding in the individual states is not entirely a function of transfer payments (i.e., welfare, farm subsidies); defense, for example; is the largest percentage of the federal budget; Many states receive more federal dollars than they pay in taxes because they house military bases or defense industries; Other states receive more federal dollars than they pay in taxes because of various federal programs; Many of these federal programs benefit all of us (such as defense and steady food supply) in ways much larger than whether we live in a “recipient” state or not; Notwithstanding all of that, the notion that you can support progressive income taxation (a prime directive of the Democrat tax platform) AND expect to have an "equal" or "proportional" return on those tax dollars is completely nonsensical. Or, attacking your “point” from another angle; it isn’t even consistent. In your state of Illinois, downstate conservatives pay more in taxes than they get in state services, while Democrat Machine Chicago sucks more in state tax dollars than it pays. So, all this bedwetting about “donor” and “recipient” states just results from a facile understanding of tax and spending policies – and it has nothing to do about fallacies about “self-sufficient” conservatives. P.S.: For what’s it’s worth, I live in California, which is so much more a “donor” state than your pathetic little Illinois… so stop the whining.

Hmmmm... Well, I wouldn't be too suprised if, in ten years, neither of the two main parties still exists, at least as currently constituted. Doubtless, given the US electoral system, there will *BE* two main parties, but I'd suspect you'll see the Democrats go the way of the Whig party, and the Republicans split into libertarian and conservative parties. Socialisim dosen't work. The Dems have tied their dinghy onto a sinking ship. Let's just hope that the coming interlude of one-party politics is short enough not to cause too much damage.

I'm southern, Texan, and old enough to remember the civil rights battles of the '60s. I remember that there were no advertisements in November for the General Elections, the elections were decided in April, whoever won the Democratic Nomination won the Office. I remember who stood for segregation, Democrats. I remember who filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, all Democrats. A higher percentage of Republicans in both Houses of Congress voted for that than did the Democrats. I remember who put the Confederate Flag up on the Statehouse in South Carolina, Democrat Governor and now Senator Fritz Hollings. I remember the Governors who fought school desegregation, Wallace, Faubus, et al., Democrats. I remember which of the Two Great Parties competed in the Primaries for the endorsement of the Klu Klux Klan. Democrats. Fast forward to the 21st Century. Which of the Two Great Parties fights against school vouchers, to get children of color a chance at a decent education? Hint, it isn't the Republicans. Which Party presided over the Urban Removal, oops, Renewal Programs in the big Cities that destroyed so many stable Black neighborhoods? Democrats. Which Party designed the rules for the Welfare Programs so that they were guarenteed to destroy the Black and poor family? Democrats. Which Party is filibustering Black and Hispanic Judicial Nominees in the US Senate right now? Democrats. Yeah, the Democrats accuse us of being racists. Prior to the late '60s, the Democrat Party was openly racist. Since then they've been racist in their results. Wether that is their intention I cannot say, I don't get the secret internal memos. I'm old enough to not care a lot about intentions. All I know is that what's happened to the Black American Family since the Great Society came along couldn't have been more destructive if it had been designed and administered by the Klu Klux Klan. Being that it was designed and administered by Democrats, it just might have been. My family faced down the Klu Klux Klan when I was a boy because we were Republicans fighting for equality for all, then. We still are.

Dear Mr. Miller: Halleluiah! The South has had its hands in Northern pockets for most of the last century while its political demogogues and their zombie fundamentalist followers rail on about big government and the liberal North. Sure there are lots of federal installations in the South - mostly because of the shameless pork barreling politicos sent from the region to Congress over the years. I appreciated your comments about the lousy educational systems (I taught at the collegiate level in the South and Southern students were the least academically prepared and the most resistant to intellectual challenge of any I've encountered in multiple regions of the country). Mr. Miller, you forgot to mention one other hypocritical constrast. The region that prides itself as the bastion of Christian family values has some of the highest divorce and children-out-of wedlock rates in the country. Where are the lowest divorce rates? In that amoral, liberal, atheistic corner of the country - the Northeast. I, like you, am sick of this crap about how we need to cow-tow to the South. Yankees will vote for bright, talented Southerners. We've proven that. Not enough Southerners will ever vote for one of us. Why should any Yankee politician even bother trying? Contrary to what many think is gospel, Democrats CAN win without taking any states in the Confederacy. Gore could have won by taking any one of a number of states outside of the South - West Virginia, New Hampshire (which he would have won without Nader), Missouri, Ohio - all states taken twice by Clinton. With a little more effort perhaps a Rocky Mountain state or one of the Dakotas could be one. One last word. Democrats may not have to beat Bush. Right now, he's beating himself. Yeah, I read the post about Reagan's ratings one year away but GWB is no Reagan. If you think his foreign policy has been a great success, you must be all Fox news watchers. Even large numbers of ex-CIA and national security officials think that this administration's manipulation of intelligence and deceipt in foreign policy are shameless and dangerous to the foundations of the Republic. Many of his tax cuts weren't the worst ideas in the world but the timing of them leaves a lot to be desired and the man seems incapable of policy adjustment in the face of oppostion (a stark contrast to Clinton). I liked Reagan (and voted for him) but this is the typical Republican ploy of recent decades. Spend (including tax expenditures) like drunken sailors with borrowed money then leave the mess for your successors. Unfortunately for Republicans, Bush's dad managed to win and inherit the mess last time. Democrats will have a better candidate than they had last time and George Bush won't have Tony Blair around to lend compelling verbal pleas for his unwarranted policies.

"One last word. Democrats may not have to beat Bush. Right now, he's beating himself." With such arguments about who the Democrats don't need to win in 2004, you could say the same thing about them. Get every declared Democrat to vote for the nominee, and he won't win. Get every declared Republican to vote for Bush, and he won't win. If you truly want to win, you're going to need to be inclusive, not only within your party, but outside of it, rather than engaging in pissy talk about who you don't need to win.

Allright, photodude, your criticisms of my rants are fair minded and right-on but you're advice may only be correct as a matter of abstract principles. Right now, I don't think ANY Northern Democrat could win in the South no matter how inclusive that candidate was. The animosity toward Yankees and the stereotypes of Northern Democrats as godless socialists guided by a totalitarian zeal for political correctness are just too deeply ingrained in much of the region's white population. I read an amusing post from a Southerner regarding Zell Miller's comments in another site. He wrote "that the country has put up with a lot of crap from the South" over the years that one doesn't hear from other regions of the country. He said that California doesn't continually remind the country how all Californians aren't beach bums or dot.com millionaires and that you never hear Olympia Snow saying that the Republican party must understand Maine values in order to compete there. His words started me thinking. I voted for Southern Democrats four times in my life and so did my states of residence (an Eastern and a Midwestern state) during each of those elections. We never asked Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton, or Al Gore to understand our regional values before we would consider them. We liked what we heard vs. the opposition and voted for them. Have you ever heard a candidate for national office from the East or Midwest or the coastal West complaining how the South doesn't understand his region's values? Yankees will vote for Southerners (Connecticut rejected native son and scion of one of its most establishment families in favor of Bill Clinton. Maine similarly rejected Bush in that comparison despite the long Bush family connection to the state.), but I'm pretty confident that I won't see a Southern state (except maybe Florida which may not qualify) vote for a Yankee Democrat for the rest of my life. I don't think it matters what that candidate does. FDR couldn't win in the South today. Many Southern Democrats keep insisting that the national party examine why it has lost the South. I guess the goals of that analysis would be changes to the styles, messages, and policies of our candidates to more closely fit those cultural and political views. But...have you noticed something? During the same period that the South has become overwhelmingly Republican, the East and the far West have become much more Democratic in national elections and a few states in the Midwest have become more Democrat as well. Democrat candidates are selling better than Republicans in many places. Maybe Southern Democrats should ask why so many white Southerners continue to back an administration that has shamelessly lied and manipulated in foreign policy, has been the most fiscally irresponsible in U.S. history from the budgetary perspective, and whose cronies in the House have relished their undemocratic activities to disenfranchise members of the opposition and their voters. I bet if you cut-out all the smoke, the answer to that question would be "because they're from down here and they talk like us." So, there's my view. If Southern Democrats want to bring back Southern whites to the party, they'll have to do it themselves because I don't think y'all trust us.

" In fact, you won’t even be able to approach it until you properly determine the center of gravity of Political America, as that’s what allows you to create a tipping point." I am not certain that is an accurate paradigm. I saved a jpg of the 2000 election by counties. To my view the political divide does have a geographic component but it is not North/South East/West but Beltway-Major/metropolitan versus Flyover Land http://www.angelfire.com/ky/kentuckydan/countrymap.html The last California gubernatorial election shows a similiar trend. That information can be found here, picked apart to some extent but revealing none the less. http://www.style.org/mappingvotes/

When I was talking about finding America's political center of gravity, I wasn't speaking solely about geography: "Electoral votes elect Presidents, and they will be won by wooing swing voters, not the party faithful." America's political center of gravity does not reside within either of the groups of "party faithful." Or in any particular state. I doubt you can find it on a map painted red and blue, either. But I'll tell you how you can find it. Just wait. The Leading Candidates are mostly pandering to the party faithful now, but come August/September after the conventions, you'll see both candidates try to plant their flag in America's Political Center, and claim they've lived there all along. And for one of them, it will be way too late.