Wow, people in the US still have a lot to learn about History. Stay in school, read up on real (unedited) history and talk with "New Europe" citizen's. You'll learn a lot.

Here's a start, ask yourself why the DNC is trying to edit the DNC Party history which is located here.

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/history.html

You won't find the answer anywhere on the DNC website but you will here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856786326834083.html?mod=opinion_journal_federation

Enjoy and learn.

Truth...

Oh yes, because Republicans have things under such great control this past 8 years. A (scary) model for the world to (hopefully not) follow.

I am really, really, scared of a Democratic change.

Oh, wait, I'm not!!!

Bring it on!

Gee, Truth, I bet you're the only one reading Blue Oregon who knows that Democrats [particularly those from the south] were racists before the mid-sixties.

Then the racists all switched their registration to Republican, and there they remain.

I thought the guy in the cartoon was Shel Silverstein.

Evan - The R's haven't scrubbed the last 8 years off their website, nor is it close to being as insidious as the Dem's 50 years.

Tom - The racists didn't switch parties - they changed their way's (finally) and became US Senators (Byrd). The R's both passed the Civil Rights bills by a much larger majority than the Dems within their party (refer to Al's Daddy). Also, it was the R's who won the Civil War.

It's an old wives tale to believe the Dems' switched to R's and remain racists. Instead they all pretty much died and attrition removed the D's dominance in the South.

If that old wives tale was true then why doesn't the D's put that into their website! Would make for great political theater and fodder. Instead, it's not true and thus purged from the D's history.

I'm just glad there is real journalism left in the US. Imagine if all journalist got a tingle in their leg at the mention of a Presidential candidate's name.

Drawing inspiration from a Presidential candidate or President is both dangerous and sopohmoric. I have been around enough R's to know that not even the staunchest R draws inspiration from ANY political figure.

O should be crushing McCain, just as the generic D crushes the generic R ticket. If he focuses on cutting the wasteful spending the R's and Bushies advanced at all levels of government and balancing the Federal Budget, he'd win 70 to 30! Instead he's trying to convince people government isn't doing enough so he's tied with McCain. He needs to read more JFK and less Teddy Kennedy.

To Truth who knows not his own name:

While your assertion of inspiration by political candidates being sophomoric may have a grain of 'truth', it is also irrelevent. Trading another demagogue for the current fascist-in-chief would be dangerous, but that is unnecessary. One can draw inspiration from the movement to expel the enemies of democracy from high office, and to install a reasonable, humble man backed by a party that respects the Constitution.

Brandon,

Do not listen to those filled with hatred and cynicism.

Truth,

I was writing about the voters, not just just elected officials. A party may be led by politicians, but it is made up of voters.

As to racist Republicans, take it from the horse's mouth:

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

Brendan

Pay no attention to my poor spelling, either!

Truth,

I was writing about the voters, not just just elected officials. A party may be led by politicians, but it is made up of voters.

As to racist Republicans, take it from the horse's mouth:

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

Brenden,

Nice little list of fears. But they're petty next to the mother of all concocted fears, Gore's Global Warming.

So I'm trying to figure out if this current troll-outbreak on OB is just one person or a group. Or maybe Kari's absence has emboldened them ... Funny cartoon, BTW!

Oh I get it: Republicans are homophobic racists who miss the cold war. We ought to like Russia no matter who they invade because the cold war is over.

Calling this cartoon sophomoric would be giving it too much credit.

cc - Without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Funny, your N/S breakdown just makes my point. Look at the number of segregationist like Al Gore, Sr. who opposed the bill. Attrition swung the South toward Republican's as the Democrat segregationists passed away.

Also: In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. Educate yourself: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html

I too was like Brendan, long ago. Then I grew up, became educated and found out that conservatives/capitalists are just as compassionate and generous as anyone else. They aren't the "boogie man" that progressives make them out to be.

Brendan - No party or political movement has a monopoly on compassion or generosity. It's not your fault that people have told you non-progressives "take away" rights or hate or are "afraid" of minorities as your cartoon indicates. Again, talk and learn from people who lived under progressive/communism/socialism and then lived in a democratic society. There are several in Portland. They'll tell you, as history shows, the more powerful a governments and their programs become (FEMA, health care, welfare, etc) becomes the less liberty and freedom the citizen have.

Expand your mind and read other blogs that aren't as hateful and cynical as BO or other nutroot blogs like DailyKos. You'll see the stereotype and image they portray others to be (sexist, homphobes, racist, etc) aren't correct at all. Good luck.

Truth - You just wrote "They'll tell you, as history shows, the more powerful a governments and their programs become (FEMA, health care, welfare, etc) becomes the less liberty and freedom the citizen have."

We've left the cartoon, which was poignant, and are now discussing FEMA, healthcare and welfare, as though they are examples of governmental power. HOW ABSURD!!! FEMA is an aid during disasters, healthcare has health and care right in the word itself and welfare goes to the poor. Why is any of that NOT compassionate???

Let's look at what the Dubya has done. FISA decapitated, Patriot Act, Homeland Security [a name borrowed from Fascist Germany], and the Transportation Security Administration. I doubt you're a thinking man because I don;t even need a footnote to dismantle your propositions/theories/fantasies.

The one thing I will grant you is that some conservatives and even Rs are compassionate, but their blind support of this present Administration does nothing for compassionate display. Compassionate has left the party unless you agree that the Katrina victims were better off in a football stadium in Texas then they were in their own homes.

one more time

Truth wrote:

Then I grew up, became educated and found out that conservatives/capitalists are just as compassionate and generous as anyone else.

They certainly hide it well. Perhaps their great humility prevents public demonstration of this compassion and generosity.

Tom, They don't hide it nor do they flaunt it. You just need to know where to look - Start here: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216

The best way though is to befriend and really get to know conservatives. You'll be surprised on their compassion and generosity.

It comes down to the vehicle in which to look through the poor and less fortunate. Through the government or through private/religious organizations. We as a nation are very generous - all political stripes.

truth,

I have known quite a few conservatives and capitalists, even a few wealthy ones. They are often warm and generous in their private lives. However, their ideologies blind them to the consequences of their political positions - consequences they usually avoid because of their privileged situation. Such ignorance is quite convenient in preserving their high opinion of themselves. It can be deadly to many others not so unfortunate.

their ideologies blind them to the consequences of their political positions - consequences they usually avoid because of their privileged situation. Such ignorance is quite convenient in preserving their high opinion of themselves. It can be deadly to many others not so unfortunate.

Great description of the so called "Limousine liberals" (except that I would have thrown in "sanctimony" or "moral vanity") and how their ideology about sexuality & family, education and law enforcement are working out in the inner cities, and among the lower economic strata generally.

But they mean well!

Idler,

Your comment suggests you are one of those who think abstinence-based sex education is a good idea, in spite of all the statistical evidence to the contrary.

Tom,

Your comment suggests you are more prone to strike back defensively rather than seriously consider any challenge to your orthodoxy?

I'd be happy to discuss whether there's any merit to "abstinence-based sex education" and to examine the research. However, that wasn't something I was thinking about when I wrote what I did. I think it has a limited connection to the fact that A) many fathers fail to take responsibility for their children, B) criticism of this behavior is extremely weak or non-existent among the parties I allude to, and C) the consequences are disastrous.

<h2>But you tell me, Tom, what's the statistical evidence in favor of single-parent families?</h2>