The real question is why any black or Jew, or for that matter anyone with basic human decency of any race or religion, would continue to support the left.

…a political party who’s idelogical mission is to destroy the way of life of gay people.

Really? What party would that be? And, what aspects of the “gay way of life” would you be seriously concerned about losing?

(P.S. Notice how my response is to ASK YOU QUESTIONS so I can understand your strange point of view; rather than righteously-but-ignorantly throwing turds, as seems to be your stance here.)

I will go shave my head, wear sack cloth, join the KKK, and live off the dole.

Then I will finally be able to vote with my own kind… the democrats.

Why not rename this blog Jews for Hitler?

Or how about Niggers for the KKK?

Popularity isn’t everything, but it is always worth investigating why one politician is popular and one isn’t. We know why Pres. Bush isn’t popular—the War, economic woes (not that the MSM ever gave him create when things were better), and residual issues such as Harriet Miers and Katrina. Some of the reasons Pres. Bush isn’t popular are related to his own poor judgment, but sometimes it’s because he’s stood strong instead of doing what’s popular, e.g., not giving up in Iraq. Conversely, I’m sure it’s possible for a governor to be as popular as Sarah Palin while not making the right decisions. But if this is the case in Alaska, if the MSM were to do its job, they would explain why such is the case there. There’s such a huge disconnect between what the MSM reports and what the average Alaskan things of the governor.

BTW, has anyone seen Liberal Gay Parody? His “McCain will dump Palin” prediction doesn’t seem to be working out so well.

(1) Why is it so hard to have a conversation with people without someone ripping on Bush or Cheney or Palin or some other Republican? I readily admit I’m a conservative hack and a partisan Republican, but when I’m with friends whose political beliefs may not match my own, I prefer to have a pleasant, non-political conversation. I realize it sort of goes both ways—I realize many liberals keep their opinions to themselves for the purpose of having a more pleasant discussion, and I realize some conservatives can’t resist the urge to rip on certain Democrats when political discussion might be unnecessarily divisive, but in my experience, it’s liberals, not conservatives, who always seem compelled to make a nice, apolitical conversation into something divisive.

(2) Although most everyone there seemed to disparage her, no one really gave a specific reason to disapprove of her.

Yes, they will.

Just as they insist that John McCain is an internet imbecile, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Liberals never let facts get in the way of their arguments.

Anne-Marie Slaughter is the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. She was interviewed by Alan Johnson, for a book titled: “Global Politics After 9/11: The Democratiya Interviews.”

Here’s how the exchange begins:

Johnson: What are the central differences, and what are the elements of continuity, if any exist, between ‘the Bush doctrine’ and the ‘grand strategy of forging a world of liberty under law’?

Slaughter: Tell me what you mean by ‘The Bush Doctrine’.

Will lefties now claim the Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Government at Princeton University is an ignoramus who doesn’t know what the ‘Bush Doctrine’ is?