The Palin Mistake

Well, Pakistan does have nuclear weapons, and Pakistan and India almost used them against each other in the late 90s.Of course, McCain can't keep Iran/Al-Qaeda Shi'a/Sunni straight in what is arguably the most important region for foreign policy.Those examples are just minor gaffes compared to the complete blank known as Palin's knowledge regarding anything outside of the US.

Historically, the GOP becomes more conservative after they lose. This time is shaping up to be no different.Conservatives Cite Defeats as Rebuke of Moderates - The New York Times""The moderate wing of the Republican Party is dead,” L. Brent Bozell, the founder of the Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog group, told reporters on a conference call after the meeting.""“I don’t think any of us are going to shed any tears over losing Chris Shays,” Mr. Appell, said. Mr. Shays, a Republican Congressman from Connecticut, has long drawn the ire of conservatives for his left-leaning views."So their reaction is to move further to the fringe. Unfortunately, it seems to work (Taft, Reagan, Gingrich, etc). A succesful Obama presidency could hopefully ameliorate such success.

Not sure where you picked up that idea. I mean seriously, check out the Daily Show coverage of the DNC for some good Obama-bashing.Besides, you'd probably defend McCain or Bush or many other republicans from liberal bashing, right? So why the tirade against liberal defense of our own from conservative bashing?

Actually, it was in reference to the "real American . . .small town America" statement Palin made. The statement that insinuated anyone from a large town was not "American". Of course, that would mean that half of the 79% of americans who live in urban areas (including suburbs)--the half living in cities larger than 50,000 people--are arguably not "American".Quite insulting to say the least.The rape kit charging deserves a "fuck you", but I don't think JS was referring to that.

My family in VA is quite pleased that VA finally went blue--after electing two democrats to governor (we have a one term limit), two democratic US senators, and our state government slowly turning blue.My family (and where I grew up) is not exactly known for its liberalism, except for coal-mining Wise county, and despite having had a democrat represent us for 18 years in the US congress, they are not exactly happy that VA turned blue.Personally, I'm extremely proud of VA and CO turning blue.

Nixon, watergate?Of course, if we want to talk dumb presidents, none take the cake perhaps more than those leading up to the civil war who practically let the country tear itself apart and did practically nothing to prevent it. A blowjob versus a civil war, hm. A blowjob versus watergate, hm.By the way, dumb technically means unable to speak. And I don't think FO was calling you out for saying that Bill can't speak, but for being stupid. Of course, the way you used dumb (in reference to FO's argument that Bill is not stupid) suggests that you use the terms interchangeably. If so, you contradict yourself in the first two sentences of your post.

The 107th Congress voted on the Iraq war. October 2nd, 2002 was the vote. At the time, the 107th Congress consisted of:
Senate:
Democrats: 50
Republicans: 49House:
Dem: 208+1c
GOP: 222+1cHere's the vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002:Senate For/Against:
Dem:29/21
GOP:48/1
Ind:0/1House F/A
Dem:82/126
GOP:215/6
Ind:0/1In other words, even if all but a few democrats had voted against the resolution, it still would have passed the Senate, with the GOP needing only 3 votes. Had all the House dems voted against the resolution, it still would have passed (126+82=208).If you want, I can dig up which democrats in both chambers voted for the resolution and how many of them are still in office. This should be enough, though, to show that the dems didn't cave into to Bush (especially in the House), or that they could have stopped the resolution from passing.