At long last! Where has he been? Probably working to get out the vote. Thanks, Sparks!

Election over, 'pukes lost -- and by a much greater margin than that by which Bush won in '04. (Yet to him it's a "close election" -- as opposed to the "mandate" that the much closer '04 election conferred on him. I guess where you stand depends on where you sit. Maybe it's that "fuzzy math.")

But now that there's perhaps less need for Scaife's Counter-Blogging project -- and possibly less budget as well -- I wonder if we might be seeing some of the regulars in the trolletariat a bit less frequently? Then again, now that the Dem's have taken back a bit of power, we might just be seeing more of them... after they regroup and get their new talking points. Rush and others have already pointed out that wingnuts are better at opposition than they are at governing (as if they hadn't spent the last six years proving that). Who are we to doubt their word?

Thanks for hitting it on (almost) the head. The Democrats weren't elected because they had "the solution" to Iraq; they were elected so that we could have an actual discussion about Iraq. One that didn't involve calling Americans traitors or terrorists. And one that will be based on actual verifiable facts (gained at the point of a subpoena, if necessary).

Now, we all know that nobody likes people who say “I told you so,” no matter how right they are. But I’ve been trying for over a year to think of a better way to say “say, Rush/Hannity/O’Reilly/rightwing co-worker, you remember when you were dismissing everything I and my friends were telling you about Iraq because you didn’t want to hear it and anyway we’re just some wack liberals that aren’t to be taken seriously? Well, given that we were absolutely right and you were absolutely wrong, don’t you think maybe next time you ought to shut up and listen?” One advantage to this cartoon is that it’s slightly less confrontational, which can be useful under the circumstances.

I’m a little troubled by the people who changed their vote from R to D between 2004 and 2006 because they’re unhappy about Iraq. What’s happening now is exactly what they voted for before, more than once, in most cases. Did they just not like it once they saw it? What? And what about the impending global climate change crisis? Will the people who have voted in favor of that for the past thirty-five years change their minds when they see what it looks like?

BTW I thought I posted this message several hours ago, but I may have accidentally "cleared" it instead. Please forgive if there is double-posting.

We could offer Saddam 50 million bucks to take over Iraq again. If he's a prick in the negotiations, 100 million tops.

I agree. The reason we were screaming about the war wasn't because we had a solution, but rather to get elected so that we could have some say in what's going on. It's just not fair that Republicans have all control of all 3 branches of government. Desperate times call for desparate measures, and someday the world will thank us for this. Right now, the American people need to be saved from themselves, and we Democrats seem to be the only voice of sanity. Some day, their children will thank us even if they wont.

Will Rogers offered not just comedy but financial advice. He advised, take out all your savings, and invest in a good stock. When it goes up, sell. If it don't go up, don't buy it.

I heard about this tourist in his Buick pulling up to the general store in Honey Grove, TX, rolled down his automatic window sufficient to ask one of the loungers in front, "Hey, mac, how do I get to Dallas from here?"

An old one withdrew his pipe, beat it against the arm of his rocker, gazed up at the clouds, said, "Welp, I'll tell you fer durn sure, were I headin' out to Dallas, I sure wouldn't start from here."