Romney is not running for Savior. The purse strings are, and have always been controlled from Congress. The reason why the Senate won't pass a budget is to keep the House from fixing anything. Personally I think the House should ignore the law too, but they're holding to it so they can point their fingers at the Dems and hopefully win this thing in Nov. At which point they have their chance, if the Repubs get both houses. The president could help or hurt at that point; Obama hurt, Romney help. But the presidency is neither a kingship nor imperial office. The change that is needed MUST come from the people, and that means the House, Senate and the state legislatures and governorships, the mayors, county supervisors, etc.

They appear as "crude, unmannered bullies void of arguments and full of fear and loathing" because that's what they are. The petite-fascists have nothing to sell but hatred and resentment; every one of their arguments is about sticking it to somebody more than anything else. 'Fairness' isn't about equity or equality, but hurting those who have unfair advantages, which helps nobody. How does it make my life any better that a guy who was driving a Cadillac now drives a Chevy? I'm happy with my Kia Soul, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest to see more expensive cars all around me. How does it hurt me? I'd rather have a Jeep Rubicon, and I will again someday. Meanwhile why hate those who have what I want? Resentment is a waste.

A couple more for you: It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship. (The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses) I am not angry–except perhaps for a moment before I come to my senses–with a man who trips me up by accident; I am angry with a man who tries to trip me up even if he does not succeed. (Mere Christianity)

The polls on this issue are completely wrong. Change the wording to "Do you agree that religions, clergy and other persons shall be forced to perform marriages against their religious beliefs and doctrines?" Something like that, that actually frames the issue correctly. Simply saying 'marriage equality' won't do. 'Gay marriage' is a religious crusade, and attempt to force all of us to bend the neck to the religious beliefs of a tiny minority. It is simply the attempted imposition of a theocracy on America.

Antietam was considered a turning point, so much so that Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation afterwards. It changed the nature of the war and tore the mask off of the slavocrats who really ran the Confederacy. Morale wins wars even more than logistics, and the vast majority of Johnny Rebs weren't fighting to preserve slavery for the fat cats. The causes became murky after Antietam, so it's a good facsimile of this election.

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. If I were ever elected to Congress I'd sell my vote to the Republicans--vote any way they said on any issue--for the right to bring up one judge per month for impeachment. Even if I didn't get any of them out, it would move the ball. Oathbreakers should be removed from office, but if that doesn't happen, at least they should be publicly shamed for breaking their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

Thanks Ann! I think we can lay to rest the whole 'affirmative action is for the downtrodden' trope. It's exactly like legacy admissions--it lets those not smart enough to compete honestly, but from a wealthy family, get a 'great education' which will guarantee success. To my mind, if you have to cheat, it's not success. It's just knavery, and it should hardly surprise us that there are so many con artists on the left like our president.

Very true, and an astute observation. Adam Smith: "Rather than see our own behavior under so disagreeable an aspect, we too often, foolishly and weakly, endeavor to exasperate anew those unjust passions which had formerly misled us, we endeavor by artifice to awaken our old hatreds, and irritate afresh our almost forgotten resentments, we even exert ourselves for this miserable purpose and thus persevere in injustice merely because we were once unjust, and because we are ashamed and afraid to see that we were so."

It's family lore in my clan too. I've seen a photo of the person in question, and she looks Welsh to me; my grandfather is practically an archetype for ancient Welsh, despite being mostly English and Scots. She was a teacher in Michigan, so Cherokee seems an odd match if true; it might seem more likely if she were Chippewa or Sauk. But anyway despite the family lore making me too 1/32nd Cherokee, even if I could prove it I wouldn't use it for advancement. I've been discriminated against many times for being a Mormon, but never for being part Cherokee, which I told many people over the years up until I was old enough to learn it's probably not true.

Too right the number of 'Cherokees' in Oklahoma doubled after oil was discovered there. Rather like how after the liberation of Paris the French Resistance suddenly quintupled.