This is yet another instance of the "unintended consequences" of the interfering, power-grabbing, IDIOTIC LEFT. I laughed when John Vasconcelos (sp) inserted a piece of pork on "self esteem" into some law being debated in California back in the late 70s. Figured people could learn all they needed to know about self-esteem issues by watching Oprah. I was wrong to laugh. Now we're at the point that criminals have more rights than victims--and better medical and dental care as well as accommodations, in many cases--and no one cares about common sense values and good character. Look at what a mess Democrat control leaves behind.

One of the Town Hall columnists, Hugh Hewitt, is fond of saying, "If it [the election] is not close, they [the Progressives] can't cheat. It has been easy for them to cheat (the boxes of "forgotten ballots" stuffed in the trunks of people cars gave us Al Franken; the "odd spellings" of Lisa Murkowski's write-in votes, despite the LAW that said the names must be spelled correctly, and MIS M caucusing with the Dems; the election of JFK with precincts in IL casting more ballots than residents living there) up to now, a "dirty little secret." Now we've got the big "In Yo' Face" DOJ. I think the "modern Republicans" are in the mood to fight back.

It worked for Bill Clinton every time Ken Starr got a little too close to the Monica Lewinsky problem and impeachment was more and more likely. The Dems usually hate the military, but those soldiers are very convenient items to have around when there are DEEP character flaws that need to be out of the spotlight.

LOVE it!! No more "high road to defeat" for the GOP. If we lose this battle, we'll at least go down FIGHTING. And the war, while considerably more difficult to fight with Obama entrenched for another four years, is NOT over. His "chickens," already changing direction, are already on their way home to roost soon.

Nanny Bloomberg, poster child of the idiocy of the Liberal Platform, dances the dance, explains away hypocrisy with clever sayings without realizing the saying he's using about donuts ("one won't hurt you") could be applied in a different form ("Moderation in all things") and no one would have to ban ANYTHING. As has been said before, if a Republican wants to cut down on sugar or lose a few pounds, he/she does it and enjoys the journey. If a Democrat wants to cut down on sugar or lose a few pounds, EVERYONE has to do it. It's all about control. I prefer self-control, frankly. Leave me and mine alone.

Clinton was also smart enough to parlay a Republican-led Congress into a second term for himself by tacking to the middle and, though kicking and screaming, agreeing to welfare reform. He's a snake and I wouldn't trust the man farther than I could toss one of his cigars.

Me too.

It's one thing to cut bennis to disabled, seniors and the poor (as Jerry Brown has threatened to do in California to stave off bankruptcy he created--talk about chickens coming home to roost) and another thing to be one of the "last and the least" that is belt-tightening right along with the rest of the state or country. In other words, I don't mind peanut butter and crackers a few days a month as long as the parasites and the governing class suck it up a notch or two as well. Pigugly and the others who have profited from insider trading tips and live large on my dime as as much parasites as people who COULD work but choose not to. Cut corruption, send back the flat screen TVs, learn a trade, get a job. Pay taxes. Easy peasy.

Agree 100 percent with Parker01: American voters can no longer sit back after an election and gripe to themselves or their neighbors about how crooked politics and politicians are as they watch the promises made for their votes get tossed away. We need STATESMEN and WOMEN, not politicians, and EVERY election is going to be a chance to tally the pols' record with their rhetoric and see if they deserve another shot. This goes for local as well as state and national elections. Kick that ugly old George Soros in the pants, while we're at it. His record is very clear.

Earlier this year when the Obama spokesholes were saying they wanted to run against Romney, some of the more timid pundits for the GOP thought it was the Obamaniacs' way of telegraphing they thought Romney would be easy to beat and we should vote AGAINST him because Barry would win in a heartbeat. The irony is, their wish has come true--they ARE going to be running against Romney--but the outcome of the election is not going to be in their favor. They have seriously misinterpreted the feelings of those who are NOT in the parasite class. We are TICKED and we aren't sitting quietly by to let them run roughshod over us this time around. (Headline in a.m. paper: Jerry Brown and others in CA gov't taking a 5% paycut. Headlights + deer).