Your site’s great too man, love the content and esp your Free Culture book.. but the design sucks! Drop me a line if you want a free revamp! ;p

keep talking about then democrats and clinton.

keep looking at that bright shiny object.

while your all consuming fear of “the left” blinds you to the fascism creeping in from your right.

I think it’s clear from the map that Bushy pseudorepublicanism is a malevolent parasite in memespace attacking the once good and true great american nation.

Similarly, if Bush had tried to explain that Lott “didn’t really mean anything racist” (which he didn’t), it would have hurt Bush’s attempts to clear up his race-relations scorecard (Rosa Parks is willing to work with Bush). Instead, Bush distanced himself from Lott, and stayed out of the mudslinging. Was it dishonorable to leave Lott to the wolves? In a way, yes. Did it hurt the party? No. Is there a lesson for the Democrats here? Only if they choose to learn it.

I only bring this up to point out that Card, who wrote that the Democratic party as a whole has no shame, does think of ways for the Democrats to win. I can no longer find it, but during the Trent Lott affair, Card wrote that he is registered as a Democrat because for all the party’s failings, it’s better (in his opinion) than the Republicans. He even called Lott a twit for making the remarks.

Card is a pretty good example of a Southern Democrat. He would have no trouble voting for a Democratic President if the party gave him a decent alternative (he even stated that Lieberman would have been an attractive alternative). In fact, I believe he would prefer to vote for his own party, just as my parents-in-law would. Unfortuantely, the Democratic party simply hasn’t given southerners a decent alternative for several years.

southern democrats are in fact republican.

Could it have anything to do with the fact that ken star was republican? hmmmmm?!

“OK, let�s do, just for a moment. Clinton clearly committed perjury in order to disadvantage a woman who was suing him for actions he certainly committed.”

actually, the woman was sueing him over something he did not certainly commit… it was not a suit over adultery, it was a suit on a completely unrelated sexual harassment charge(for which there was no evidence)

As we all know, sexual harassment is the easiest and most frivolous thing a party’s enemies can throw at another to disparage them in the mass media. It is the most trite, dirtiest, lowest thing anyone can do in general, but in politics it represents a new low, the dirtiest of the dirty.

While the intent was noble, sexual harassment laws have been too broad for many years now, and have resulted , at least until recently(though i cant be sure because the news is focused on the shiny war), in what is basically a financial penalty for failing to pick up any woman who is spiteful or deceitful enough to wish to exact it.

Clinton was rich, powerful, and an enemy to all republicans, this made h im prime target for a republican engineered sexual harassment suit. In case you didnt notice.. everyone and their mothers are being accused of that “crime” in courts.

And let’s not even get into the Democratic Party’s defense of Bill Clinton.

OK, let’s do, just for a moment. Clinton clearly committed perjury in order to disadvantage a woman who was suing him for actions he certainly committed.

The Democratic Party was already so advanced in their contempt for law that nobody seems even to have noticed that it would not have harmed the party one whit to get rid of Bill. Who would have succeeded to the Presidency? Al Gore, a Democrat. And then Al Gore would have been the incumbent in 2000, and it’s far more likely he would have carried enough states to win election to a full term.

Could the Democrats ahve looked far enough into the future to know that the election would have been close? No, but would dumping Clinton (the way the Republicans later dropped Trent Lott) have hurt the party? Not at all.