Walker gubenatorial opponent Tom "Barrett couldn't name a single [school districts were harmed by Walker's policies]." Liberals say things that they wish were true, because such truths would buttress their emotional interpretations of reality. When pressed for factual backing, they collapse into hyperbole and name-calling. Barrett's statement indicates that he wishes that Walker's policies had indeed harmed school districts, because that would validate Barrett's deeply held belief that he is right and Walker is wrong. Conservatives are not without similar guilt, but the trophy goes to liberals.

Answer wrote: "Paul has no grander vision or ability to solve America's unfixable problems, socially and economically'. Indeed, that is Paul's strength. He will not use the government in a Quixotic effort to fix unfixable problems.

Ann, you sound angry.

A Paul-bot is any person who angers Democrats and/or Republicans by using facts, law, and logic to demonstrate their policy hypocrisies.

What have we gained from intervention in Iraq? What have we gained from intervention in Afghanistan? What have we gained from leading from behind in Libya? What have we gained from any of our undeclared wars since WW II? If war against an entire country doesn't help us, should we indeed be targeting aggressive individuals instead?

Most people, well-educated or not, do not understand that a free market is the best vehicle for assuring that each individual finds the occupation that makes him/her happiest. That doesn't mean that everyone is happy; only that there are a minimum of artificial barriers slowing his/her search for the best job.

The miracles that trial lawyers work is converting - presto! - your money into their money. No need to be a net benefit to society, as are capitalists.

And for one brief, shining moment, Booker could have blown the whistle on the damage liberal policies have wrought on so many people over the past three generations. Instead, he quietly stepped back into line after being rebuked by the liberal establishment.

Bowing to what must have been white-hot Democrat pressure, Booker retracted all his candid remarks on Meet the Press. Too bad; he had the national limelight for a few minutes. He could have listed the facts; he could have made the points Parker conveys; he could have raised the alarm; he could have made a plan. He could have been a contender. Instead, he's just another liberal black politician that was publicly marched to the Democrat woodshed to learn a little respect. Booker has shown no evidence of being a serious reformer; he remains a black man who leads the black disaster that is Newark. And his big opportunity to do otherwise is closing.

You wrote: "I'd argue that the very pervasiveness of a wide variety of sources leads liberals to be better-informed."