[wildbill]

Not at all. Bush may have had his tongue twisted around his eyeteeth so he couldn’t see what he was saying occasionally and the result was a “spoonerism.” (misunderestimated?). I don’t think he has a mean streak or opinions about women, Mexicans, or gays that are out of the mainstream.

King, Akin and the rest are simply Yahoos with kooky ideas that offend people. When they reveal themselves with their comments, they shouldn’t be the face of the Republican Party as they can drive decent people away.

Democrats have their kooks too—but they don’t let them out in public as candidates for the most part. (Sharpton?) Or they are limited to districts where their radical statements are overlooked because they can play to their constituents without fear of offending a wider audience. (Sheila Jackson Lee. Antonio Villagarosa.)

Moral decency is important in a candidate. You can find bright young conservatives everywhere. There is no need to act like these antidiluvian morons are necessary to our party.

[muawiyah]

Democrats have a certified madman down in Florida, and then there’s Nancy Pelosi ~ she’s a lunatic if there ever was one. The inmates run that party

[muawiyah]

The borders separating different interests were drawn by the Spanish ~ many of those places turned into independent nation states.

At the time they drew the borders there were no claims of racism by anybody.

Many of those lines are still in place ~ a good number of them inside the United States ~ and even some of them continue to be accepted as delineations of property rights (each and every Spanish land grant had a survey).

The Spanish had a concept of local, regional and national borders ~ which would be respected. Guess they tricked those of us living on our side of some of those lines.

In the long run almost any historian of the Spanish experience in the Americas could tell you it is always a bad idea to make lines between yourself and the USA fuzzy ~ 'cause we have a very long tradition of taking advantage of fuzzy borders.

The Louisiana Territory originally was supposed to end at a line the Spanish hadn't drawn yet ~ at roughly the Northern border of what is now Arkansas ~ well, things were fuzzy so they ran the line from Morgan City all the way to Western Montana to delineate what Napoleon had sold them.

That's just for starts!

Quite frankly, Mexico risks its continued national existence in making the current border fuzzy ~

[Moseley]

Democrats have their kooks too—but they don’t let them out in public as candidates for the most part

That's absolutely false. Democrats DEFEND their kooks and circle the wagons. When the very public kooks in teh Democrat Party manifest their kookiness, the Demcorats DEFEND him or her, so it is not emphasized.

By contrast, Republicans fall all over themselves attacking each other. Republicans want to be the very first at the head of the line attacking their own nominee, to prove their compliance -- a la the Stockholm Syndrome -- with the liberal powers that be.

Republicans are motivated by avoiding criticism themselves.

Democrats are motivated by winning.

So massive gaffes and kookiness among Democrats is barely noticed because they do not draw attention to it.

The tiniest, most insignificant gaffe by a Republican is blown out of proportion, because Republicans pile on their own.

[Moseley]

King, Akin and the rest are simply Yahoos with kooky ideas that offend people.

WHAT ideas? They themselves say they misspoke. How can you say they have ideas they themselves disavow as not being what they meant?

1) When tragedy strikes, like rape, people struggle with "How could God let this happen?" Some people (most people, not me, but most people) say that God had a reason for allowing this tragedy.

So eplain exactly what is wrong with what Mourdock said?

Isn't it absolutely mainstream to say that God allowed tragedy to occur? (Theologically wrong in my opinoin, but mainstream in our culture.)

How is what Mourdock said different from what most people believe about tragedy being allowed by God?

2) What is wrong with pointing out that there are legitimate cases of rape -- the rape actually happened -- and FAKE cases of rape, in which the rape never happened?

Do you know about the Duke Lacross case? The prosecutor was disbarred because there never was any rape at all.

What is wrong with talking about whether the rape is real or not real?

3) Akin offered a medically CORRECT -- though badly phrased and exaggerated -- statement of fertility.

But the main point is that Todd Akin said:

"DOCTORS TELL ME THAT...."

It wasn't Akin' opinion. It is what some doctor(s) told Akin.

Akin did not say "I believe that." Akin said "DOCTORS TOLD ME...."

So you see how Democrats defending their kooks compares with Republicans abandoning and savaging the slips of Republicans?