It should be "comparatively liberal social views" instead of "comparatively social liberal views", yes?

Hispanics broke fifty/fifty on Prop Hate.

But as Alex knows everything...even though he posts stories days after they have hit the kos, which it seems he is unable to read...

we can count on him to continue post the conventional wisdom without even bothering to fact check anything. I guess this is what they call prep for a job at Politico.

"But as Alex knows everything...even though he posts stories days after they have hit the kos, which it seems he is unable to read..."

Kausfiles is damn painful to the eyes. I keep trying to read it, but the scribblings on a bathroom stall make more verbal sense.

Don't count the Republicans out yet. They can still gain power if things get worse in this country or, possibly, if there's a major attack on the US with lots of death and destruction.

With their attempts to obstruct any efforts to resolve this country's economic problems the GOP has shown a willingness to attempt to create the first situation; i.e. to obstruct solutions while deflecting the blame for the resulting damage.

Fortunately, so far the GOP has only rallied those fringe elements whose hatred of "liberals" in general and President Obama specifically is more powerful than their own self interest.

If there is another terrorist attack and the Republicans can get frightened Americans to turn on Obama and the majority Democrats then the realignment can be quickly reversed. For now, look for the GOP to respond to every Obama decision with something akin to "you're making it easier for the terrorists to attack us!" in order to lay the groundwork for this strategy.

It must really suck to be someone who hopes, and even plans, to benefit from such things.

A little early to be assuring anything election-wise don't you think Alex? Is it wishful thinking or trying to convince gullible Salon readers/bloggers? This is a big recession and unemployment could continue to rise well into 2010 and possibly beyond. If people don't think that Obama and the Dems are making things better they could well dump the Dem majority out of the house or at drop the number of Dem house members down to effectively stop momentum. Then it's just all about the 2012 election from 2010 on. Nothing gets done, everything is blocked.

I remember after 9-11-2001, George W Bush's numbers were high too and folks were talking about the death of the left.

The only thing I REALLY regret is that we only have 2 bulls--t parties to choose from.

President Obama was mistaken in his remarks at the C.I.A. today when he said, “Al-Qaida's not constrained by a constitution.” In a literal sense that is true, but our constitution does not constrain anyone. It offers guidance and a system of governing. It did not constrain President Bush, and it won’t constrain President Obama if he chooses to ignore it.

The truth is, Al-Qaida lacks any sense of rational morality. And I use the word ‘rational’ deliberately. Any rational view of morality excludes Al-Qaida’s activities. Religious morality does not because faith, the basis of religion, is belief without proof. Religion has nothing to do with morality, and morality has nothing to do with religion. George Bush and Osama bin Laden have been ready and willing to abandon reality in pursuit of their faith-based objectives.

Our constitution evolved through a process of rational debate to determine what our moral guideline should be. But our constitution, our moral guideline, has often has been ignored because it is only as good as we the people make it. We elected George W. Bush, and under his administration our great nation became as morally bankrupt as Al-Qaida.

By saying, “Al-Qaida’s not constrained by a constitution” President Obama leaves open the overused reply made by the faithful when they do not want to act morally; that they are obeying a higher law. What President Obama should have said is “Al-Qaida’s not constrained by morality.” That would place the debate on rational grounds that any human with the slightest sense of empathy could plainly judge. After all who, whether faithful or lacking faith, can argue that deliberately killing civilian bystanders or torturing prisoners is moral. It is simply impossible without resorting to limited interpretations of Bronze Age stories.

It’s not that Al-Qaida lacks a constitution, it’s that Al-Qaida, and anyone who bases their actions on fantasy, lacks rational morality.

2008 election was about Americans' revenge against Bush and Republicans. If Americans pay close attention, though, they'll notice they're losing their freedom and their individuality, little by little. Obama is very likeable but he's also a "control" freak (which is an understatement.. in other countries its called something much worse). Many Americans are suddenly realizing they really don't want what they thought they wanted.

After the humiliation of the siezure of the American spy plane by the Chinese, and a feckless leadership in Congress, George W. Bush would certainly have been a totally forgettable one-term president were it not for the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Republicans know that and hope for another "miracle" to restore their power.

Many Americans are suddenly realizing they really don't want what they thought they wanted.

Really? Is that why the latest Gallup Poll shows Obama's approval rating at 63%, and disapproval at 28%?

So you've been hanging with that 28%? Breaking news for ya: that 28% has never been in Obama's corner, therefore, many Americans are not suddenly realizing any such thing.

When are people like you going to realize you can't just throw BS like this out there as if it is a fact?

on the future of conservatism which concurs with Sabato. To quote:

"In its final year, the Bush Administration is seen by many conservatives (along with seventy per cent of Americans) to be a failure. Among true believers, there are two explanations of why this happened and what it portends. One is the purist version: Bush expanded the size of government and created huge deficits; allowed Republicans in Congress to fatten lobbyists and stuff budgets full of earmarks; tried to foist democracy on a Muslim country; failed to secure the border; and thus won the justified wrath of the American people. This account—shared by Pat Buchanan, the columnist George F. Will, and many Republicans in Congress—has the appeal of asking relatively little of conservatives. They need only to repent of their sins, rid themselves of the neoconservatives who had agitated for the Iraq invasion, and return to first principles. Buchanan said, 'The conservatives need to, in Maoist terms, go back to Yenan.'

The second version—call it reformist—is more painful, because it’s based on the recognition that, though Bush’s fatal incompetence and Rove’s shortsighted tactics hastened the conservative movement’s demise, they didn’t cause it. In this view, conservatism has a more serious problem than self-betrayal: a doctrinaire failure to adapt to new circumstances, new problems. Instead of heading back to Yenan to regroup, conservatives will have to spend some years or even decades wandering across a bleak political landscape of losing campaigns and rebranding efforts and earnest policy retreats, much as liberals did after 1968, before they can hope to reëstablish dominance."

Indeed, instead of doing some soul searching, they simply try to obstruct Obama without presenting any alternatives. That's very unlikely to be successful particularly in a severe recession brought on in large part by unregulated capitalism run amok.