I hesitate to argue with the prophetic Thomas Schaller, but as for this goes:

the Democrats don't have a white voter problem: They have a Southern white voter problem.

...I have to disagree. Seems to me it's the Republicans for whom Southern white voters are becoming a problem.

Euphamistically referred to as "the base" (or "Crazy Base World" on Comedy Central), these voters have for decades wielded influence far in excess of their numbers. Even the alleged "maverick" John McCain was neutralized by being offered the, uhm, Dobson's choice of Sarah Palin or ... well, Sarah Palin. I'm not saying he had it in him to win, with a better running mate, but at least his message (such as it was) wouldn't have been drowned out by that little sideshow.

It was only a matter of time. The party that depends on "the base" is the party that is going to have to figure out how to extract itself from "the base". Some (but not all) Southern white voters will always respond to race. To win over "the base", John McCain didn't need to play the race card, because after all this time the race card will play itself. He only needed to offer the occasional weak protest, to keep his own hands clean. The rest of the country is sick to death of these people, and voted accordingly.

But after Jan. 20, Republicans must make a point not to just get beyond the Bush era because the clock ran out on it but because they are turning away from him, his philosophy of government, his mismanagement record, his destruction of our constitutional principles, and his brusque treatment of our allies.

The problem for the GOP is, it wasn't just Bush. It was their agenda all along. They have no other brand identity.

Out of all of the primary contenders for the GOP nomination, McCain was the one who was most identified with bucking his party. That should tell you something. The very quality that got him his nomination (his independence from the GOP, or at least the perception of it), was the first thing they had to rid him of. The GOP has one brand identity, and they demand absolute adherence to it.

Voters aren't rejecting Bush, or McCain. They're rejecting the GOP's philosophy and attitude. They've seen the consequences of cowboy diplomacy, and of pandering to religion, politics and money at the expense of reason, economic realities and science. Bush didn't invent all that, it's been the party's modus operandi ever since Reagan.

George Wallace once re-invented himself, as did Barry Goldwater and Robert Byrd. I'm not sure an entire party can do the same, though.

Seriously. Why?

Because everything doll-related is somehow a woman's issue?

Seriously. Why?

Because everything doll-related is somehow a woman's issue?

We need an economy that doesn't exist for its own sake, which is what the consumer-based mentality is about---not satisfying human need or want, to say nothing of the wider world, but boosting the economy. An economy that HAS to grow in order to exist at all is fundamentally unsustainable, no matter how many feel-good green technologies you got running it.

pdxjoe: Thank you for this. I know I've long since lost this argument, but the economy doesn't keep on chugging away because I buy ONE flat-screen TV. The economy depends on me to buy that TV once, throw it out, and buy new TVs every two or three years, at six or seven thousand a pop. That flat-screen TV is going to be obsolete in about five years, and by the way, we're all going to have to throw out our carefully cultivated collection of classic movies on DVD because we guessed wrong and bought "Hi-Def" instead of "Blu-Ray" which is on an obsolete format, much as our vinyl records are sitting around collecting dust now that we've gone and paid for them. That's assuming we have any money left over after we've tossed out our computers two years after we acquired them, with all that software, because the operating system is EOL and no longer being supported and the new operating system doesn't work with any of the software we bought last month.

I've long since lost this argument. I know the economy does better when I buy teflon than when I buy a cast-iron skillet, no matter how superior the cast iron is, because the teflon will have to be tossed and bought all over again in two or three years. I know I'm not supposed to buy an actual Steinway piano that will last three or four human lifetimes, because if I buy a Yamaha digital piano I'll have to toss it and buy another one in five years. I know we're supposed to replace all of our books with e-books that we read on an electronic monitor, meaning we have to buy the books in the correct format, which by the way will be rendered obsolete in a year or two.

I am so sick of being referred to as a "consumer" in the context of purchases that have nothing to do with my consuming anything at all. Our economy should depend on the creation of real value, not on our having addicted our population to an endless treadmill of spending that exhausts every paycheck, maxes out every credit card, and finally exhausts the equity in our homes.

In Florida, Mel Martinez's announcement that he won't seek re-election in 2010 immediately led to reports that the current President's brother, Jeb, might run for that seat.

Weren't there one or two other guys named "Bush" in public life whose collective family fortune and combined political and financial network enabled a complete and utter waste of DNA to become President in the first place?