A: Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Assuming the well-founded assumption that convicted felon Ted Stevens wins his bid to return to the Senate, the Dems should exercise the time-honored and constitutionally-mandated practice of honoring the choice made by the good people of Alaska.

Read more »

Had to turn off comments. Poor guy can't take the heat.

There's no research that I know of, but most people would likely agree that one of the most corrosive aspects of American politics is the ability of megacorporations to wield repugnantly large sums of money to sway elections and policies. This ability is largely the product of a very questionable 1886 Supreme Court decision which is now embedded in the political fabric of the United States to the detriment of the vast majority of its "natural" citizens.

We might argue a bit about the question of whether it is fair to question the fairness and propriety of this state of affairs, but its unfairness and impropriety seems so obvious to me that I will simply take it for granted that the system is a source of corruption.  Let's simply discuss the potential of a cure for this disease.

Perhaps more than any time in American history, the general populace is aware of the unholy power of Corporate America and its ability to warp the political landscape. The awareness arises from the fact that corporate behavior, deservedly or not, is viewed as greedy and corrupt -- even by the Republican candidate for President -- and that such greed and corruption is currently having a direct impact on the lifestyle of many members of the middle class.

Further, it looks as though 2009 will find our nation under the sway of the most centrist -- certainly not progressive, but at least not extremist rightish as in recent decades -- collection of state and federal leaders that we have seen since the malignancy of Ronald Reagan infected much of the Free World in 1981.

So the iron is hot, and those politicos who recognize corporate personhood as a primary source of evil in America should strike by proposing and passing a constitutional amendment stripping corporations of their ugly position of ubermenschen with authority without responsibility, power without balance, wealth without limit.

The "artifical persons" will use their citizenship to fight furiously and expensively against what's best for the citizenry, but maybe, just maybe, the current economic debacle will enable enough "natural" citizens to recognize and insist on legislating their own self-interest for once.

It's undoubtedly an issue in my own personality. No one else seems to mind, but it's driving me nuts and although I AM masochistic, I'm not willing to take my neurosis to the fatal limit. I'm signing off here out of irritation and boredom. However, I so enjoy bloviating, I'm going to bore you with my reasons why.

Read it or don't. Couldn't care less.
Comment or don't. Couldn't care less.
Like it or don't. Couldn't care less.
Adjust your behavior or don't. I really couldn't care less.

The reader blogs at TPM Cafe used to be about politics. I really looked forward to this election season for interesting debates on the urgent imperatives facing the United States. We used to do that sort of thing here in the Cafe. In the words of Inspector Clouseau "Not any mehr." The closest we get to interesting on the reader blogs these days is petty, inter-personal, internecine bickering. And for the most part, the bickering is not even about policy issues. Not even about character, really -- it's about pique. It's about malignant spite. It's about:

-- Whether Sen. Obama is a misogynist and dissed Sen. Clinton in the primaries, or
-- Whether Sen. Clinton is a racist and endorsed Sen. McCain, or
-- Whether Sen. McCain is running a dirty campaign, or
-- Whether Pres. Clinton is carrying a grudge and still wants more attention than he deserves.
-- Whether some politician's verbal misstatement -- like Sen. Obama's introduction of Sen. Biden as "the next president of the United States" -- can be sharpened into a poisoned blade.

When anyone blogs on one of these topics (for the twenty-fifth or -sixth time), the comment count soars over the century mark. When someone blogs about actual issues either in the reader blogs or on the front page, the comment count maybe struggles up to twenty.

This is just boring.

But this is the worst part: When anyone attempts to stimulate a debate about Sen. Obama's position on any issue* he or she is immediately attacked as a Hillary Die-Hard, a Republican Hack Troll, or a Wacky Left-Wing Dreamer. The argument is largely ignored. The topic becomes the poster's agenda, personality, style, and parentage.

To make it even worse, the tone of the insults are not just snarky and sarcastic, they're ugly and snide -- designed to hurt feelings rather than make points. Designed to attack the target's humanity. Then the attacker's buddies pile on with expansions, snickers, mutual congratulations, and more locker-room humor. Yeah, just like in Eighth Grade.

Just so you know: Interesting and clever people can play the game that way, and overall will do so better and with more effect than the assailants who initiate the food fight. But that game is only fun for a few minutes and often the antagonists lack the wit to understand the insults that come back at them, just as they lack the ability to see the spaghetti logic of their own arguments. So we choose not to play.

Even the Republican trolls have mostly fled, not because they have been out-argued but because they see that they have converted us to their methods.

So have fun throwing shit, boys and girls. Try not to get too much in your mouth.

 

* And if you have examined your conscience, you know that many of Sen Obama's positions are well right of center and that his overall attitude about the Constitution is at questionable at best.

Alright, students, settle down. Settle down. I know you're all anxious about the final exam, and you should be. Your entire future depends on how well you do on this test, and frankly, I'm not sure that you're sufficiently prepared.

You know, as a class you blew the mid-term exam completely. Even though the test consisted of one single multiple-choice question, most of you managed somehow to narrow it down to the worst two options. Yes, it's true that you chose the better of those two, but wrong is wrong and I can't give you credit for wrong answers.

I'm going to give you an important hint before we actually start the test: Both of the apparent answers to the main question are wrong. One is far worse than the other, but as I said a few moments ago, wrong is wrong. If you want to pass this test, you're going to have to find another answer -- one that doesn't jump out at you on your test form.
 
This didn't have to be the final exam, you know. You had the resources to keep this course going for a long time to come. But you all chose to party and do the sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll thing too long and your failure to learn means that we're going to have to cut the class short. That's why this exam is the final exam.

OK. When I say "convene" you may begin. You will have until approximately 9 pm local time on November 4 to complete the exam. If you don't complete it, your career at this college is over. If too many of you get the answer wrong -- and remember that I told you both of the obvious answers are wrong -- well, if too many of you get the answer wrong, they are likely to shut down the whole college.

Good luck.

Convene.

Last week's Bill Moyers interview with Andrew Bacevich gave substance and clarity to an aspect of the American political landscape that should have been apparent for the past twenty years to anyone with at least one good eye or ear and a functioning cerebrum:

The American electorate is in complete political denial and the majority of politicians at the Federal level must pander to that denial in order to be elected or re-elected.

The lifestyle to which the American government and most Americans are accustomed cannot much longer be sustained. Almost everyone knows this but few are willing to face it. Those few politicians who have faced it and mentioned it above a whisper in the cloakroom are labeled as "gloom and doomers," "hate America firsters", or simply nuts. The upshot of this fact did not have to be a crisis, but the fact that we have ignored and continue to ignore the problem means that a crisis is coming that will make the Great Depression feel like sex with Gisele Bundchen.

Astonishingly coming from a self-described conservative, Col. Bacevich has called Ronald Reagan "the prophet of profligacy." He is inarguably correct. Now make no mistake about it, Pres. Reagan was indeed the midwife at the birth of the crisis. His first-term policies and his success in the 1984 election were based on a pollyannic theory whose basic tenet held that money, oil, and the earth's ability to withstand environmental rape were all inexhaustable.

Further, as Col. Bacevich points out, Jimmy Carter -- the Grendel of the right wing -- warned us that the cataclysm was lurking more than a year earler when we still had the chance to do something about the now-insurmountable problems facing our country and our planet. Americans decided they liked fantasy better, coming as it was from an incipient Alzheimers victim. The electorate swallowed "Morning In America" with a spoon, asked for seconds, and had more as a bedtime snack.

So if Pres. Reagan was the midwife, we the American public are the mothers of the upcoming economic and environmental holocausts. (Feel free to add two syllables to the predicate nominative in the previous sentence.) Like the first two monkeys in the famous trio, we hear no klaxons and see no fire so why in the world would we want to speak of a smoldering conflagration? Running against Gov. Dukakis is 1992, Bush 41 declared that "the American lifestyle is non-negotiable." He didn't say that because he thought it would lose votes for him.

So it looks very, very much as though we will continue to write checks until the Chinese close the account. We will continue to burn up the oil that would have been our grandkids' plastics until the last drop explodes on the last sparkplug. We will continue to cut trees, foul our lakes, and heat up the atmosphere until folks start remembering Beijing 2008 as an example of sylvan purity. And we will continue to elect people who tell us that there is no chasm ahead until we drive right off the edge at 120 mph in our Hummer.

Think I'm overly pessimistic? Look at the men we have nominated as our major-parties candidates. One says hit the accelerator, the other bases his hope on more unbalanced budgets.

Oh well. It was fun while it lasted. Who wants pie?

The authors (Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins) of the Left Behind series of novels (a delightful and entertaining cornucopia of graphic violence, gore, and depravity based on an older work of fiction -- the ever-popular and similarly-themed Bible)  have announced that Sen. Barack Obama (presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States of America) isn't the anti-Christ portrayed in their (LaHaye's and Jenkins') work of fiction. However, that doesn't mean he (Sen. Obama) is not the anti-Christ in reality. The Devil (Lucifer, whose name means "light-bearer" for some reason) is very clever, and it seems likely that he (the Devil) would have LaHaye & Co. write the books just so they (the LB authors) could deny the real anti-Christ (Sen. Obama) and he (the Devil, not Sen. Obama) could put up a fake one (anti-Christ) to make it easier for the real one (anti-Christ; i.e. Sen. Obama in this scenario, I think) to take over the world (Earth, at least).

Or maybe Sen. Obama is not the real anti-Christ but the Devil wants us to think that he (Sen. Obama) is, so he (the Devil) is making known fools and charlatans (the LB authors) say he (Sen. Obama) is not because then smart people will think that if fools (LaHaye and Jenkins) say he (Sen. Obama) is not then he (Sen. Obama) must actually be (the anti-Christ). Then the real anti-Christ (???) could take over unopposed.

OTOH, maybe the devil wants us think that Sen. Obama is the real anti-Christ even though he (Sen. Obama) really is the real anti-Christ. That would really fool a lot of  LB readers (saps) and believers(suckers)! Somehow.

But wait! What if god wants us to think that Sen. Obama is the anti-Christ? I don't know why he (god) would do that, but then I don't know whether he (god again) wants the end-times (the Apocalypse, Armageddon, etc.) to come faster or slower. But whatever he (god, not Sen. Obama) wants, you better bet it'll happen that way because, well, because he (god) is god.

And if god wants us to think that Sen. Obama is not the anti-Christ, then we (us -- you and I and others, collectively) probably won't (think that Sen. Obama is the anti-Christ) and if he (Sen. Obama) is (the anti-Christ) then LaHaye and Jenkins (authors of the Left Behind series of novels (a delightful and entertaining cornupcopia of graphic violence, gore, and deparavity based on an older work of fiction -- the Bible (fundamental source of dogma for Christians (believers in Jesus Christ as The Redeemer, Emmanuel, The Ever-Lasting Lord, etc.))) were right (in the books) but wrong (in saying that he (Sen. Obama, not god) isn't the anti-Christ).

I hope this helps.

The ad raised such averse public reaction that they had to <a href="http://www.citizenlink.org/videofeatures/A000007910.cfm">pull it from their website</a>, but Focus on the Family's Stuart Shepard <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/focus-on-the-fa.html">asked his viewers</a> to pray to their all-merciful, all-just god for "not just rain -- abundant rain, torrential ran, urban-and-small-stream-advisory rain" to interfer with Sen. Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.

It's tempting to dwell on the meanness and hatefulness of the request that FOF laid before its god. But let's turn our attention away from the suffering and property damage that such a storm would bring down on the people of Denver -- Democrat and Republican, conservative, moderate, and liberal, Christian and Jew and Muslim and atheist alike. Let's turn to a more philosophical implication of this prayer and all prayers. I'm just dying to discuss this question:

Do believers believe that their prayers actually make a difference?

If the answer to my question is "yes," does this mean that their quintessentially perfect god has changed his mind as the result of their imprecations? And if the answer to that question is "yes," then was his original intention imperfect?

Ever since the days when my parents explained to me that no, that guy with all the fancy clothes isn't actually god but he talks to god, I've wondered about prayer. I kind of get the concept that being quiet and letting god talk to you is soothing and perhaps educational (although hearing voices that no one else can hear is not universally accepted as a primary indication of compos mentis in any other context), but asking god to make something happen that he hadn't originally planned is just beyond-the-pale weird to me. Does he need to be asked because the idea hadn't occurred to him? Was his decision about which football team would win still up in the air, and your prayer might be the one that makes the difference? Was he thinking that maybe he'd let all those little Adannas and Jelanis starve to death today, but then you talked him into bringing them enough gruel to make it till a week from Friday? How does this thing of "praying for X" actually help/cause "X" to come about? I'm logically and philosophically baffled.

And here's another question or two -- these specifically for Mr. Shepard, although I would also accept an answer from Dr. Dobson: Should we assume that if there is significant rainfall during Sen. Obama's acceptance speech, it is a sign that your god disapproves of him? Then would it not follow then that if the night of 28-Aug blooms mild and clear in Denver, your god is urging you to vote Democratic this November? Will you obey him or will you continue to practice the hypocritical political game that you call Christianity?

I mean, it's just such a pain in the ass, you know? As if voting weren't annoying and frustrating enough already, they moved the entrance to the polls in my neighborhood all the to the BACK side of the school. So not only do I have to walk the entire three blocks to the voting place, now I ALSO have to walk the whole way around the school. By the time I wait in line to vote, vote for some jerks, walk all the way around the school again, and walk home, it might take as much as thirty or forty minutes. Christ on a cracker! It's just too damned inconvenient.

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "That Tankard sure is one lazy, soulless person, putting so much value on petty momentary convenience. This is one of the most important elections in the history of civilization, and Tankard is more concerned about getting in an extra game of Age of Empires than about affecting the fate of his country and the world." Well, you have a point there, but what the hell, I'm taking my example from the politicians and society.

As the most obvious example, look at the way your average politician -- and society in general -- views the state of the environment. Everybody knows that the earth is warming up. At the very least, the effects will be dire just a generation or two down the line. But changing the way we pollute the air and water, reducing the amount of greenhouse gas, controlling chemicals and heavy metals -- all this would just be too hard -- inconvenient. It would mean a disruption of the economy -- inconvenient. It would mean we'd have to cut down on the number of clickers we have sitting on the table next to the La-Z-Boy -- inconvenient. Cheesh! Forget about that. Our progeny will just have to learn to enjoy living with gas masks when they're out of doors if it means I have to sort colored glass and all those fucking numbers on plastics and lug the shit all the way out to the curb to be recycled.

I know our kids won't have the oil they need to make plastics and medicines. But, holy hell, think of the inconvenience if we had to stop driving the two blocks to the grocery store or taking our own shopping bags! And imagine what a pain it would be if we had to actually live within, say, ten miles of where we worked! Talk about unrealistic! Well, the grandkids can just wear a few more sweaters when there's no heating oil, and they can learn to like it.

Yeah, so the dollar is in the dumper. So what? Economists tell me that a nice deep, long recession would shore it up and that very high interest rates would be short-term painful but long-term useful. Well, all that's very fine as long as it doesn't happen during MY lifetime. Let the next generation or two worry about a t-shirt costing $132.99 -- I can't be bothered -- American Idol is on! I'm already putting up with a lot of abuse, don't ask me to put myself out for a bunch of rug rats who never did anything for me.

And you know what? If we want to win the Global War on Terror and shit like that, we can't have Constitutional restrictions making it difficult for the President to track down those bastards. He or some NSA agent might have to work past six p.m. or on a Saturday. Who's going to want to take a job like that? Make it easy for our brave communication monitors. Make it convenient for them. Tap my phone as long as I can make my call from the meat department. I really wasn't using my civil liberties today anyway, so why should I worry whether my kids have their Miranda rights read to them when they're caught criticizing the government or some such crime.

All this crap about worrying about the future is just too damned difficult, too inconvenient. But still, I feel kind of guilty about all this, so I suppose I'll go ahead and trudge on down to the voting booth come November. As long as it doesn't interfere with driving out to TGI Friday's for Happy Hour.

Wow. The Red'd list and forty-one comments on a non-issue posted by a troll about whether subliminal messages in a ad sponsored by a senile cretin are the product of mass hypnosis.

The same troll has raised more outrage by posing another burning question of our time: Whether a non-candidate's alleged girlfriend's baby was fathered by the named father or by the non-candidate.

Your ability to expect privacy while making a phone call is gone and you're heppy about it. Habeas corpus -- the Great Writ that prevents the government from throwing you into an oubliette -- is damaged beyond redemption. The entire American economy is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the the Peoples' Republic of China and your great-grandchildren will pay for that $600 check you got a few weeks ago.

But the question that obsesses you is whether that image was intended to represent the Washington Monument, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the Berlin Victory Column, or Sen. Obama's dick.

Eat your bread and watch your circuses, and watch my left hand very closely while I pick your pocket with my right.

We liberals are all the way through the looking glass and the Dums are laughing at us.

According to http:\\electoral-vote.com, Sen. Barack Obama currently leads in states that represent 289 electoral votes. This would assure him of a victory in November, but...

Of these 289 electoral votes, forty-six are in Colorado, Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Michigan. Take away these electoral votes and the Senator falls below the magical 270-vote threshold to 243.

Let's make a few of assumptions:

-- Those 243 votes are solid.

-- Sen. McCain will hold all his barely-held states (not a bad assumption: they are North and South Dakota, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio) in addition to his strong and weak states. (The Republicans will undoubtedly manage to steal Ohio and Florida again if they have to.)

-- Virginia (currently tied) goes Republican as well, as it has done in every single presidential election since Christ was a corporal.

-- Indiana (currently barely Obama) continues the practice of giving its support to the Republican -- a habit that dates back to the Pleistocene.

What's left? Thirty-five electoral votes

  -- Colorado            9
  -- Nevada               5
  -- New Hampshire  4
  -- Michigan            17

If Sen. Obama fails to carry Colorado or Michigan, Sen. McCain wins. If he carries them both but drops both Nevada and New Hampshire, Sen. McCain wins.

This looks scary, even before we start worrying about Pennsylvania. Colorado has gone for a Democrat exactly once since 1968. Nevada twice. New Hampshire three times. Michigan is only 50/50 in the last 40 years.

Shortly after becoming his party's presumtive nominee, Sen. Barack Obama began presenting America with a modification to his political persona. He began emphasizing aspects* of his philosophy that have displeased his more left-leaning supporters -- some of whom are no longer supporters, others of whom have gone from enthusiastic to disgruntled -- in order, we are told, to firm up his support "in the middle."

This tactic has proved counter-productive.

Check the numbers at electoral-vote.com in the five most important battleground states. Comparing polls taken shortly before 20-Jun**, when he announced his support for the FISA "compromise," he has lost ground in four of the five, and gained neglibibly in the fifth.

According to Quinnipiac, his lead in Florida has dropped from four points (16-Jun) to two (29-Jul).

In Michigan his three-point lead on 9-Jun (Rasmussen) is now (22-Jul) a four-point lead (Quinnipiac), a gain of just 1 point.

In Ohio, Sen. Obama enjoyed a 6 point lead on 16-Jun. This lead dwindled to just two points by 29-Jul. (Both Quinnipiac.)

In Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac shows Sen. Obama's lead dropping from twelve points to seven in the 16-Jun to 29-Jul period.

And in Virginia, we have Rasmussen showing that his one-point lead evaporated between 12-Jun and 16-Jul.

One might make a good point by noting the slim nature of most of these margins, but these are the five most important states, and if Sen. Obama's intention was to increase his popularity in swing states, this is not a trend that indicates any success whatsoever. In fact, we now have five data points suggesting that he has failed.

 

* As I see it, Sen. Obama began emphasizing his "moderate" nature via these issues:

-- Support for FISA.

-- Support for the death penalty even for certain non-homicides.

-- Weakening public perception of his stance on choice WRT late-term abortion.

-- Agreement with the Supreme Court's ruling on the Second Amendment.

These are not the only positions which which left-wingers might have problems. His statements regarding Pakistan and Jerusalem might also raise some hackles, but these were made before the period under examinaton here.

Now the chickens have come home to roost for the Gangsters And Groupies who Publish Untruths and Kill Everyone. Yes, the GAG/PUKEs -- Hannity, Coulter, Savage, et alia -- have finally convinced one of their own to shoot up a church full of liberals. This must stop now and we on the left must commit ourselves to stopping it.

Fortunately, we are now in control of Congress and likely will be in control of the Executive as well in January, so next year we can begin our campaign to stamp out this mindless violence against America's best and brightest citizens. As a bonus, we can also arrange it so that it will be more difficult for the evil right to wrest our legitimate power away from us in subsequent elections.

My proposal is to have Congress pass the Truth and Censorship Act. The President would be required to direct his Justice Department to launch an investigation. They would identify:

> Authors who have written Hateful books, films, or other media about liberals.

> Reporters who have abused their sacred privileges to malign liberal politicians or others unjustly.

> Publishers, broadcasters, filmmakers, and others who have presented too many such media entities to an unsuspecting public.

> Consumers identified via a FISA wiretaps, web intercepts, or book store observers (employing a new type of Federal agent known as a Special BSer) to have bought (or borrowed from a library) more than two books that qualify as Hate Books.

> Regular listeners/viewers to hate-filled broadcasts or frequent visitors to Hatist web sites.

A purveyor of Hate certified by the President as a GAG/PUKE would be subjected to punishment up to and including the death penalty, although this harshest penalty could only be imposed if the President also certifies that the GAG/PUKE was the direct cause of a fatality, or if the President certifies that he really, really doesn't like him or her.

If a corporation is found to possess GAG/PUKE status, it's top officers could receive crippling fines and/or sent to jail, even executed (but again only with Presidential certification of causation of fatality or morbid dislike). The corporation's assets could all be seized and sold to an ESOP formed by the corporation's lowest-paid employees.

A consumer of Hate would be detained in protective custody until such time as he or she could prove him- or herself cleansed of Hateful thoughts of violence.

Do not worry about this legislation being turned against us. No lefties would ever be prosecuted, because lefties don't use hate speech. How do I know? Because I will be the first Assistant Attorney General for the Eradication of Hate Speech.

I hope you will sign my petion urging this proposal on the 111th Congress early next year. We who think correctly will not be safe until this legislation passes and is implemented. The Truth and Censorship Act will provide us with the kind of safety we deserve and need to govern justly. Until the Congress turns around again. Then we'll really be in the shit.

In Tom Wright's excellent post, Simple Economics, one of our most amusing, albeit least informed or thoughtful, Republican masochists posits his reasons for the current American economic impersonation of Three Mile Island. If you're looking for a belly laugh, you should read it yourself, but allow me to titillate you with a few, er-r-r-r, I guess you'd call them highlights. The problems with our economy, according to

-- Parents that don't care and who don't get involved in their kids' education.

-- Those No Child Left Educated schools, where failure to enforce the death penalty on disruptive kids ruins the education of the serious, lily-pure, current or future upper-class students.

-- Teachers who think that they should have a right to collective bargaining, when everyone knows that the only people who need a union are oil speculators.

-- All these factors meaning that American children get the same education as Third-World peasants.

The fact that the last three Republican presidents oversaw a rise in the national debt by a factor of six has nothing to do with it.

The fact that you and I as taxpayers keep paying to bail out the same financial institutions that exploit us has nothing to do with it.

The fact that deregulation of five or six critical industries has lead to their gambling themselves to the brink -- and over the brink without more money from you and me -- of collapse has nothing to do with it.

The fact that wages for middle-class and lower families have been wobbling between stagnation and deflation since Reagan declared ketchup to be a vegtable has nothing to do with it.

The fact that major corporations keep paying workers less and less while returns for  the top officers and stockholders keep rising has nothing to do with it.

The fact that even jobs requiring well-educated and technical professionals get out-sourced by these same corporations to South-Asian and East-Asian consulting companies whose employees find our minimum wage quite acceptable -- none of these facts has anything to do with our country's economic meltdown.

It's quite an enlightening comment, but it enlightens us as to the Conservative mindset much more than it does concerning the economic maelstrom that has us in its grip. I suppose we could have predicted this level of  perspicacity. Ask yourself: What's the level of cognition that we can expect from even the very brightest canine?

We are now at the end of a conservative swing. We are just begining the correction to the center. -- Larry Geater in How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The TPM Trolls

This thought from Larry stimulated a few of my own. I'm sure we've all heard it bandied about lately that the political pendulum, having completed its arc on the conservative side, is now swinging back toward the center. It had to happen, the thinking goes, gravity being what it is and all. The greater the amplitude of the oscillation, the stronger the forces to center it again.

It's a very appealing concept and I don't buy a word of it.

What's the evidence that the country is moving left toward the center? Well, proponents of the proposition would cite the Democratic takeover of the Congress in 2006, the President's dismal ratings, and the likelihood of the Dems increasing their leads in both houses and their takeover of the White House.

But none of this augers a liberal movement on the part of the electorate -- it just signals a rejection of the disastrous Bush Administration and its neo-conservative and pro-corporate ideology. In other words, the country may be turning Democratic, but I don't see it turning liberal, or even what we used to call "centrist."

The Dem takeover of Congress in 2006 was seen even at the time, as the end of the leftist Democratic party. The Dems didn't defeat GOPers with liberals. They beat them with Bob Casey, Jon Tester, and Jim Webb. In other words, they won with conservatives.

Similarly, I'm quite certain that there has been no election in my lifeime where the finalists in the Democratic presidential sweepstakes were more conservative. Both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama have espoused positions that Pres. Reagan would have been proud to call his own, and their supporters tell us they need to hold those positions to get elected. Why would that be? Because the political center is now where the political right was 40 years ago.

The Dems haven't won by convincing America of the righteousness of the liberal philosophy. The Conservatives have won by convincing the Dems of the electoral efficacy of the conservative philosophy.

When trapped at the bottom of a well, the surface may seem unattainable. But from the bottom of a mine shaft, the well looks pretty shallow. The Conservatives have given us the shaft.