Hate to repeat myself, but why not? After all these years of war, don't the war lovers yet see how expensive war is. One trillion dollars for Iraq. That trillion applied to Social Security would have gone a long way to restoring the financial viability of the U.S. government. These warloving profligates are completely insane. Is our next war lined up to be Iran or how about Georgia, right there on the border with Russia? That sounds perfect for an endless, pointless quagmire. They act like it's just play money; they're act like there's no consequences for this waste. Or really, they just don't care. They basically want to bankrupt the government as policy. How are Republicans even electable anymore? It's beyond belief.

And yet, the McCain/Pallin ticket seems to be gathering momentum. I can't explain it any other way than to think that the general public doesn't care about the truth, and wants to believe the fantasies. The U.S. public has become even more anti-intellectual and more determined to believe that if we continue to believe that the U.S. is "number One", it will be so, and because "God is on our side" (and on our currency), might makes right, and we have nothing to fear. Sort of like the decline of the Roman Empire.

The dumbing down of America has been successfully completed.

The right learned long ago that the electorate is uneducated and/or uninvolved with national issues and policies. They gained mastery of eschewing reason and dialogue, to buzz words, drama and presentation. In the late seventies, early eighties, they incredibly, (in little time, and with ease) despoiled the term “liberal” of dignity, legitimacy and merit. Feeding off their success of (con)perverted the left’s values, history and doctrine, (seemingly without a fight,) they learned the advantage to be gained in substituting truth with versimilitude.

They learned that you can make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t.

That’s how they can shamelessly present Sarah Palin as an “electrifying” speaker; a tested government reformer; an experienced executive - and thus qualified to be Vice-President to a candidate who if elected, would be the oldest to ever serve a first term.

The spoiling of the term "liberal" is more the fault of the left than the right. I've spent almost my entire life in the north but travel extensively in the southeast and I hear the word "yankee" often. But it isn't an insult because I, like other northerners, don't let it be one. Probably doesn't hurt that there's a baseball team by the name, either.

Anyway, it is only proper that the term liberal be spoiled since its meaning had become so divorced from the original meaning.

Yeah its fascinating to me (as a non-American who is ridiculously over invested). I'd (very humbly - not my country etcetc) suggest maybe there's an identification problem - basically a lot of people want to be humans the way they say mccain and palin being humans - messy, courageous lives that bear the scars of their principles - war scars and children off to war, down's syndrome children, teen pregnancy etc. The dem ticket just doesn't seem to have that kind of grit to it (AFAIK) - however irrelevant 'grit' is as a qualification. This article in a local (to me) paper seemed convincing to me, but being so far away I would love to know how the Fraysters felt about it - whether it rings true.

It's by Guy Rundle - an australian on assignment from the left-leaning crikey.com, writing in the left-leaning (or at least holding to the middle paper 'The Age'.)

<link>

That's a very interesting piece, and thanks for posting the link. Among blue-collar Americans (my own background) some of Mr. Rundle's comments have been common knowledge for years -- Democrats are out of touch with the blue collar Americans they want to represent. While I disagree with some of Rundle's contentions about Republican policies, it's interesting to hear a veiw from someone outside the country with no vested political interest.