TreeRol writes The no-shows are well aware that resources spent on black voters are resources wasted. They feel no need to pay lip-service to reaching out to anyone but their base. It's a purely economic decision, and from an economic standpoint it's the right decision.

No kidding. Especially when Republicans are already getting a pretty good return on their [non-]investment in the black community. Despite a legacy of race-baiting and policies that disproportionately have a negative effect on blacks, Republicans still get 10% of the "Black Vote." Despite the strained (at best) relationship Republicans have with the black community Angela McGlowan, Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas and Michael Steele still exist.

Just think of the response Republicans could get if they made the slightest effort? Why don't they? After all, they convinced poor whites to vote against their economic interests and vote Republican on "the values." Why not try the same with blacks?

Republicans appeal to some whites by subtly and not-so-subtly invoking the threat of "the negro." Why don't they make similar appeals to the black community by invoking the threat of the latino? Another "they're taking our jobs" and "destroying our culture" argument.

Because Latinos are a better potential demographic for Republicans than Blacks are. Bush got 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, and Latinos are a rapidly growing demographic. Of course, McCain was the only GOP candidate to accept an invitation to debate on Univision. Unsurprisingly, McCain is the "pro-amnesty" candidate, and his immigration reform bill put him at odds with the party base.

Ultimately, I thinks Republicans will temper some of their anti-immigration rhetoric. The Latino population is getting too big to ignore. But the Black population? Just not money well spent.

How different is that from, say, a Vice-President running for President and trading on their name recognition from being vice-president?

And it's not like you know what you're getting just because the candidate has the same last name. George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush are very, very different people. For one, George Sr. had the good sense not to get entangled in Iraq. Junior decided to do the exact opposite.

As for the notion that we're "going back and forth between dynasties," I don't think you can make that argument unless Hillary Clinton actually wins. Then maybe you have a pattern that should perhaps be broken. Right now, there is no pattern. Just Georgie Jr. trading on his father's name. The problem with him isn't that he has the last name "Bush," it's that he's dangerously incompetent and unworthy of the office. Had Dubya been a great president, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation.

I think that we would be better off as a nation if we required all American's to pass the citizenship test before they could vote. Yes, I know...

Theoretically, kids start learning these things in elementary school. How appalling is it that they don't? School children should recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, but heaven forbid they should know anything about civics. We don't have a draft or any form of national service but we ought to have some common set of historical knowledge that binds us together.

But on a more specific and less rant-y note, they should pass out little booklets with these questions and answers while you're waiting in line to vote. It passes the time, you can hold quiz-offs with your fellow citizens in line (and build comraderie) and pick up a little knowledge. Neato!

Yes, but are you female?

But seriously "breast is best" isn't just a "political movement." It's backed up by science and the medical community (who you'd think would have a vested interest in promoting pharmaceutical alternatives to breastmilk).

Whatever. Breastmilk isn't the cure to all ills and only the most militant "lactivists" are pushing it as such. Most people fall into the "breast is best when you can but formula use doesn't necessitate a call to child protective services" category.

I've only skimmed parts of the report thus far, but it's some interesting and disconcerting stuff. What we know, what we don't and what we can do that might help. I hadn't really thought about the issue of early puberty much before, but it's important. Think about it: when fish start changing sexes, etc., we start worrying about how environmental pollutants might affect us. But female humans are exhibiting changes in their sexual characteristics/manifestations and we don't say boo.

Well, boo.

hjb_wildel has it exactly right.

stevio makes a good point about how the MSM buys into the White House spin machine. From the Washington Post article, the public's reaction to the "surge" and"withdrawal": "It's a start. Not the best solution, but at least it's a start." And more than a third see Bush's plan to withdraw the "surge" troops by next summer as about right or even too fast.

The public is stupid.

They think the troop withdrawals have something to do with success on the ground. They don't. These troops have to come home by spring as a part of normal troop rotations. The "surge" has to end because it could never be maintained. Furthermore, the 2008 withdrawals still won't get us back down to 2006 levels. The surge and the withdrawals are both a farce.

The public is stupid. Or, more generously, misinformed. Perhaps if the press stopped merely reiterating White House press releases, the people would know better.