In response to:

Democrats Are the Silent Majority -- For Now

Didn't you used to be "lodestar" instead of "loadstar"? Or is this satire? Am I supposed to wonder 'load of what'? BTW, as this URL shows, after three years of Bush II the private sector supported nearly two million fewer jobs than at his inauguration. Bush was able to show a feeble overall positive growth in jobs due to expansion of the public sector, which is to say growing the size of Govt. Under Obama, OTOH, the positive (though insufficent) job growth he's demonstrated for the last three years is the result of private sector job growth more than offsetting public sector shrinkage, including at the Federal level!
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 2:48 PM
I've spoken only about Bush II's first term (comparing it to Obama's). I've said nothing of 2006.

And if you exonerate Bush from all responsibility for 2006-2008, then you most at least partially do the same for Obama from 2010-now. And the 2007-2008 meltdown was obviously brewing for years, by 2007 it was inevitable.
John C6 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 2:28 PM
Dear FLM,

On the contrary: Last year we had a Republican Congress & President was 2006.
Unemployment was 4.5%. The job losses started after the Democrats took control
of Congress in 2007 following the Nov. 2006 elections.


John Lepant
Don't get too depressed, Republicans; the national decline will be divvied up justly. After all, in a liberal nation, there is no higher calling than fairness.

And a liberal nation it is. The electorate is complicated, and factors of culture and geography can dictate party identification more than any specific policy. And yes, the Republicans rolled out some ghastly candidates. But that shouldn't fool anyone; there's been a fundamental shift in how Americans view government's role in society, and the GOP is losing the argument.

There was no theoretical hope peddling this time around. There was a record. And Barack Obama also promised...