GOP at Odds with Country

Just a few years ago conservatives were planning on establishing a permanent Republican majority. Now they're stuck in the minority for the foreseeable future, beset by infighting and increasingly at odds with the rest of the country.

Take, for example, the hot-button issue of the moment: Sarah Palin. Before the election, nearly 60 percent of Americans believed Palin was not qualified to be Vice President. But nearly 70 percent of Republican said after the election that Palin helped the Republican ticket. Sixty-four percent want the Alaska Governor to be the GOP nominee for president in 2012. Only 20 percent of Republicans think she hurt John McCain. That group, presumably, includes McCain's own staff, which keeps leaking damning details about Palin to the press.

A similar conundrum for Republicans exists when voters are asked how the GOP should position itself after Barack Obama's historic win. In the wake of their lopsided defeat last Tuesday, top conservatives are urging the party to move even further to the right. Following a strategy session among conservative leaders last week, the Cybercast News Service reported: "There was a consensus among the group that conservative ideas and principles had not been defeated in Tuesday's election, but a Republican Party that walked away from these principles had been defeated."

According to the polling outfit Democracy Corps [pdf], a plurality of Republicans believe the party lost in '06 and '08 "because they are not conservative enough." A majority of Republicans say that in order to win in the future, "the Republican Party needs to move more to the right and back to its conservative principles." Republicans are split nearly evenly on whether to help Obama or oppose his plans.

The rest of the country couldn't disagree more. According to the same poll, 53 percent of voters said Republicans lost in '06 and '08 "because they are too conservative"; 60 percent advised Republicans to "move to the center in order to win back moderate and independent voters"; and 71 percent urged the GOP to "give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt and help him achieve his plans."

The disconnect between Republicans and everyone else these days is pretty staggering. It's going to be a long, cold winter for the Grand 'Ol Party.

UPDATE: New York Times columnist David Brooks on the future (or lack thereof) of the conservative movement. "Now it's just a circular firing squad with everybody attacking each other and no coherent belief system, no leaders," Brooks said on Sunday. "You got half the party waiting for Sarah Palin to come rescue them. The other half waiting for Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, to come rescue them. But no set of beliefs, really a decayed conservative infrastructure. It's just a world of pain."

Comments (50)

1. "Republicans are split nearly evenly on whether to help Obama or oppose his plans."

   That's plenty.

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 11/10/2008 @ 12:39pm

2. Michele Bachmann on Obama's victory - what a difference a day makes. Looks like "base" is splintering as well.

   Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 12:51pm

3. All the signals at this point are pretty clear --the Republican Party is in its worst crisis arguably in its history.

   It's a joy to behold.

   The bad news --the proximal cause is a Bush administration that has been about as inept as one could possibly imagine. And McCain/Palin still managed to garner 46 percent of the popular vote.

   Before anyone gets too euphoric for the Democrats, it's best to realize how much vitriol exists among a massive segment of our population. It's a potential geyser of hatred just waiting to tapped.

   Things are likely to get a bit hairy, unfortunately.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/10/2008 @ 1:33pm

4. Listen, lefty... mark my word

   Although the 'right' now seems absurd

   The millit-indus fear roots deep

   When grazed upon by visceral sheep...

   We must 'call out' the fear-based schemes

   And trump control with popular dreams

   But please dear friends... resist the urges

   Don't patronize with petty purges...

   For politics is rife with Karma

   And love of God is often Dharma

   Misguided though we all have been...

   We've coped and groped and hoped... begin!

   Posted by ttr at 11/10/2008 @ 1:40pm

5. But wqit a minute, doesnt it seem that California proposition 8, Rahm Emanuel, the Russians putting Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad (Economist November 5, the day after the election!) all seem to indicate that the change in direction away from Barack Obama has already begun?

   Posted by Mistral at 11/10/2008 @ 1:54pm

6. My senators "Olympia Snow and Susan Collins will most certainly accommodate the centrist and moderate positions. They are both rational and non ideological pragmatists with a strong penchant toward common sense. There is no magic bullet though, we have a least a decade of work to do to "reindustrialize" the country. This is not the perfect time to be in power. We are an immediate gratification society and we have been hemorrahging industries for at least 20 years. John Edwards and Rosss Perrot are correct, there will have to be an epic battle. I noticed all the Wall Street suits on our Scrappy Senator's economic advisor team. These are the same crew that got us into this mess, 700 billion and counting. Where were Naomi Klein, Jamie Galbraith, Paul Krugman. I truly hope that our hero doesn't veer down Wall Street on his way to the White House. Is there much difference between Wall Street and K Street?

   Posted by lachatte at 11/10/2008 @ 1:58pm

7. "Change" is not coming. Obama, like all people who get political power, will want to keep it. Force the radical change he seeks, and he'll be a one trick (read: one term) pony. He knows this, and he is not looking to be a one term president.

   Posted by urmygyro at 11/10/2008 @ 2:12pm

8. ...71 percent urged the GOP to "give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt and help him achieve his plans."

   posted by Ari Berman on 11/10/2008 @ 12:16pm

   I say no way should the GOP help an Obama administration. The dems control both houses and the WH. This economic mess is theirs to clean up. And if they're really serious about the economy, then they need to start with re-enstating the Glass-Stegal Act and dismantle NAFTA.

   Posted by ACook at 11/10/2008 @ 2:12pm

9. Is there much difference between Wall Street and K Street?

   Posted by lachatte at 11/10/2008 @ 1:58pm

   Nope...

   Posted by ACook at 11/10/2008 @ 2:13pm

10. My senators "Olympia Snow and Susan Collins will most certainly accommodate the centrist and moderate positions. They are both rational and non ideological pragmatists with a strong penchant toward common sense.

    Posted by lachatte at 11/10/2008 @ 1:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Heard the other day that these two ladies will be the real power brokers of Republican minority as far as voting proposed legislation.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 2:32pm

11. lvliberty1 - so why didn't the republican party, after 8 years of bush, nominate a true conservative? and when will the republicans nominate a true conservative again?

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/10/2008 @ 2:55pm

12. Hypothetical Question:

    you live on a commune with 99 other people. the commune is run by a direct democracy. every time an important choice needs to be made, everyone is given the chance to vote. 45 of the people consistently hold conservative views of how to run the commne, and they always vote. 45 of the people consistently hold liberal views of how to run the commune, and they always vote.

    You are one of the 10 people who sometimes join the conservatives, sometimes joins the liberals, and sometimes chooses not to vote.

    Is there ever really a shift in the beliefs of the commune as a whole if each time a vote needs to be taken if only 10% of the commune, at most, is voting to break the tie?

    "sea changes" in thought in the commune are based on a small minority of the population, because so many in the commune have already made up their minds.

    Does this commune remind anyone of a certain real-life electoral process?

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/10/2008 @ 3:04pm

13. lvliberty-The votes against gay marriage have nothing to do with conservatism and do not show that America is conservative ,but show religious intolerance.Two states voted to keep abortions legal,but that does not show a shift towards liberalism,either.Two of the churches involved,the Catholics and Mormons,have real problems with pedophilia and should clean up their own backyards before concerning themselves with gays.If conservatism is so popular then why doesn't the GOP ever nominate conservatives and why do you keep voting for ones you call liberal republicans?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/10/2008 @ 3:14pm

14. oh i could not agree more controlls!

    yer definately NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH. GET MORE CONSERVATIVE. ITS YER ONLY HOPE!!!

    lol...oh my...the shallow end of the gene pool is DEFINATELY the RIGHT end of the pool these days...

    PALIN 12! PALIN 12! PALIN 12! PALIN 12!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2008 @ 3:33pm

15. i'm nobody: disagree, sort of.

    while i do agree religious intolerance or gay marriage and abortion exists, i do believe religious intolerance is part of being conservative. so a vote against the legalization of gay marriage is conservative in nature.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/10/2008 @ 3:35pm

16. I say no way should the GOP help an Obama administration. The dems control both houses and the WH. This economic mess is theirs to clean up. And if they're really serious about the economy, then they need to start with re-enstating the Glass-Stegal Act and dismantle NAFTA.

    Posted by ACook at 11/10/2008 @ 2:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    well...the really stupid gop'ers (those who think their party is not conservative enough and want to see mrs palin lead them in 2012) should mindlessly oppose everything, but those who wish to survive and be meaningful in the future should seriously consider voting with the majority most of the time...

    i think the repugnant party's best hope IS a return to something in between eisenhower style moderate conservatism and precisely the sort of buchanian isolationism you suggested...though i'd say lets keep the NAFTA and draw a line there at the bottom of mexico...and consider re-establishing tarriffs against outside competitors...

    i'm all for strategic economic autarky...

    but...i think the rightwing idiot fringe of dyed in the wool satano-aynrandos and fundyvangelist christo-fascist low IQ wonders will continue dominating the party until at least 2014...

    PALIN 12!!!! WOOOT WOOT!!!

    ps - hows the son?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2008 @ 3:49pm

17. urmygyro-You make a good point.My personal view of conservatism comes from my WW2 generation conservative parents which says that religious views should not rule in America unless those views express the ideals set forth in the constitution and with the ideals of freedom.Unfortunately,we have a new bunch calling themselves conservatives who do wish to use religion to determine law and ban things like gay marriage..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/10/2008 @ 3:51pm

18. lvliberty is the perfect example. he will readily admit keeping religion out of politics is impossible for him, because his religion determines his view of right and wrong.

    i'd like to see a world with true separation of church and state, but i don't see it happening, and indeed, you're not really any different, you just have a different interpretation that he does. you're harkening back to a time, not with separation of church and state, but with religious views ruling as long as "those views express the ideals set forth in the constitution and with the ideals of freedom."

    that's an amorphous idea - and can be morphed into whatever anyone wants it to be. your idea of what's constitutional does not necessarily comport with what others do - but you're already conceding religion-infusion into the constitution is ok.

    i disagree with that.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/10/2008 @ 4:06pm

19. urmygyro-The personal beliefs of the writers of the constitution and writers of law will always be a part of their decision making process,but i was saying that no law should be written for purely religious reasons unless,of course,they want to give workers another paid religious holiday off.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/10/2008 @ 4:24pm

20. lvliberty-Marriage is no longer considered to be a religious term and no one differentiates between those who have been civil unioned and those who have been married and all are called married.Funny thing about traditions is that they keep changing.That started because Americans were spread out and preachers were not always available to perform marriages so the concept of what marriage was began to change and people got "married" by a wide variety of ways, including moving in together and all were said to be married..The wife and I were asked if we wanted the civil version or the religious version when we got married and we would be called married no matter which we picked.There is no reason why a gay couple should not be allowed to pick the religious version and that would violate their constitutional right to freedom of religion if not allowed as does banning gay marriage for those gays who are religious.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/10/2008 @ 4:40pm

21. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/10/2008 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    so are you for removal of "marriage" regulation from the state and replacing it with "civil union" as defined by the populace? that sounds eminently reasonable to me. "marriage" is indeed a religious notion with which the state has no business whereas the regulation of familial matters with emphasis on welfare of children (and vulnerable "parents") is a secular, legal concern.

    the idea of "common law marriage" in south carolina, for example, a concept that led to a (in)famous "palimony" suit in the 80's with lee marvin, was the result of a greivous lack of magistrates in the backcountry, which resulted in laws that said couples who cohabitated with each other for like 2 or 3 weeks (i think it was 2!) were...MARRIED!!!!

    it has since been changed but, poor lee marvin!!!!

    but huzzah for the anti-slavery thing. despite certain exceptions you are correct.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2008 @ 4:55pm

22. ps - hows the son?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2008 @ 3:49pm

    Spoke to him over the weekend. He's OK, but things are very intense over there.

    Posted by ACook at 11/10/2008 @ 4:58pm

23. Posted by i'm nobody at 11/10/2008 @ 4:40pm

    IM, the church will not marry those who identify with the gay lifestyle, even if they deem themselves religious. It goes against the tennents of the christian faith. Doing so would jeoperdize our holy covent between us and Jehovah.

    Many liberals think this is about intolerence and most assuredly, it is not. If we go against Jehovah's teachings and break our covenent with him to serve man, it will create a rift.

    Posted by ACook at 11/10/2008 @ 5:08pm

24. I wish he could come the hell home already.

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/10/2008 @ 5:10pm

25. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/10/2008 @ 5:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    thats exactly what i would love to see. the word "marriage" removed from the law, left to individual couples in the context of their religion, and the term "civil union" sustituted for it legally speaking.

    "civil union" would cover all sorts of familial arrangements, including, of course and for the most part, the traditional male/female dealio...but the individual states would still determine specifics...

    though with the religious aspect of the thing divorced from the secular/legal dealio...perhaps even south dakotas would have few problems with non traditional familial ordering (it aint being called "marriage" under the secular law).

    i'm glad to have my name back too - not REALLY a satanist here, but when the nation sneakily jerked my moniker i felt kinda "high plains drifter" betrayed and had some wicked fun. ever see that showtime show, dexter? the serial killer who kills serial killers? excellent show - just disturbing enough to make one think without making one's skin crawl too much...lol...

    ----------------------------------------

    but the slavery thing - u r correct. even going back to the middle ages, the christian church pushed society toward slave-less-ness. kinda hard to say the same about islam, eh? oops! was that politically incorrect (but factually true)?

    LMAO!!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2008 @ 5:33pm

26. Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2008 @ 5:33pm

    Another take on the nasty relationship of Christianity and slavery

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/10/2008 @ 6:41pm

27. lvliberty - i'm talking about practicality. I agree that people won't keep their religious views out of their decision making when they vote. Nor should they. I don't care if people vote for someone based on that candidate is popular with their spouse, or family, or friends, or whatever criteria people assign as important when they vote. There's no practical way to regulate this, and neither should an attempt be made.

    what i'm talking about is prayer in public school (i'm against a recitation of the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of the day too).

    i'm talking about christians being able to drink wine, but people of certain indian faiths not being able to take peyote.

    i'm talking about the supreme court ruling that recitation of religious prayers at public school graduation ceremonies is unconstitutional, and school superintendants and principals ignoring the rulings anyway.

    i'm talking about town money being spent to set up nativity scenes, and these scenes being displayed for 2-3 months.

    i'm talking about judges who insist on displaying a statute of the ten commandments in their courtroom.

    i'm talking about the comingling of religion, mainly the christian religion, since it's by far the majority religion in this country, with public money, on public property, for the benefit of private citizens who agree with the religion, at the expense of people who don't.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/10/2008 @ 7:30pm

28. Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/10/2008 @ 6:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    yeah, but from the middle ages onward they tried their best to make up for it, with notable exceptions of course.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2008 @ 7:44pm

29. Why is there an article that might in some way help the GOP?

    If the party dies out, so be it.

    Leave 'em alone.

    The dems are in control of everything!

    All is well now.

    Posted by bleedingheart at 11/10/2008 @ 8:24pm

30. How gratifying it is to see the GOP moving right, painting itself into a corner. I wish them well in this exercise. It's healthy for democracy. Think of how many moderates would bolt the party if there were good alternatives for them, third parties that could be libertarian, green, progressive, in various complexions. The nativists, fundamentalists and ideologues aren't going to go away. It looks like the GOP will let them run riot in a grand old fit of masochism. God bless America.

    Posted by gdutton at 11/10/2008 @ 8:30pm

31. Excerpt from Sarah Palin's interview with Greta Van Susternen - Anchorage Daily News - 11/09/08 - "Palin Reflects on Her Run" - Sean Cockerham

    Q. Why do you think your campaign lost?

    A. I think the Republican ticket represented too much of the status quo, too much of what had gone on in these last eight years, that Americans were kind of shaking their heads like going, wait a minute, how did we run up a 10 trillion dollar debt in a Republican administration? How have there been blunders with war strategy under a Republican administration? If we're talking change, we want to get far away from what it was that the present administration represented and that is to a great degree what the Republican Party at the time had been representing. So people desiring change I think went as far from the administration that is presently seated as they could. It's amazing that we did as well as we did. .......................................

    Can't argue with that. Can't wait to see the NEW GOP.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 8:55pm

32. She sounds like one o' them durned socialists

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/10/2008 @ 8:57pm

33. The republicans are urging the party to move even further to the right?

    This reminds me of the Chinese Cultural Revolution of the 1960's.

    During this period, China's communist leadership felt the country was not progressing towards communism fast enough and their solution was to vehemently spread "more communism".

    Leaders, seen as unsympathetic to the party were systematically purged.

    Could history be repeating itself once again?

    Posted by kenito at 11/10/2008 @ 9:32pm

34. BTW, I seldom hear liberals complain about the influence of Christianity on ending slavery.

    Posted by lvliberty1

    Weren't the slave traders Christians?

    Weren't the slave owners Christioans, too?

    Christian countries Spain and Portugal not only butchered the native people of the Americas, they actually killed and enslaved Native tribes that were previously converted to Christianity.

    Posted by koroviev at 11/11/2008 @ 01:20am

35. BTW, I seldom hear liberals complain about the influence of Christianity on ending slavery. The abolition movement was launched by Christians in this country who understood that it ran counter to the ideals of Christianity and acted upon that fact. Posted by lvliberty1

    Lvliberty1 - in order to have an honest and open discussion of issues, you must be honest. slavery was openly and aggressively defended by such "Christian" organizations as the Baptists whereas the abolitionist were significantly Unitarians - my understanding is that acceptance of the Nicene creed is required to be accepted as a Christian. Your assertion is simply wrong. Slavery was opposed by non-Christians and defended by Christians. Full stop.

    Posted by OiJimmy at 11/11/2008 @ 2:25pm

36. Hey righties!

    Shut up...you are no irrelevant for the next eight, yes, eight years!

    Go as far right as you want. People are tired of your same old BS. Palin has NO chance to be President. I guess she might have a chance if they ever perfect brain transplants!

    Posted by husky92 at 11/11/2008 @ 4:29pm

37. "BTW, I seldom hear liberals complain about the influence of Christianity on ending slavery. The abolition movement was launched by Christians in this country who understood that it ran counter to the ideals of Christianity and acted upon that fact."

    I am not sure why I would complain about this. From what I can tell, it is largely the conservative Christians who would complain about the influence of Christianity on ending slavery.

    Me, I rejoice in such things, particularly that it was Quakers who largely got the anti-slavery ball rolling in this country (although many were influenced by an increase in free laborers coming into Philadelphia).

    However, I am not sure what the ideals of Christianity are, particularly when reality shows a clear chasm between it and the ideal. For instance, I seem to recall you, loveliberty, as calling people who protested our invasion of Vietnam and the subsequent murder of millions of people there, traitors. They would seem, far more than the leaders of the country who sent over our soldiers, to be acting on Christian ideals.

    Posted by onthehelm at 11/11/2008 @ 4:39pm

38. The racist south, the christian right and the far-right extremists have been relegated to the dustbins. the voting population is now young and diverse and becoming more so every year - this was the turingn point and republican victories will be harder and harder to come by with each pasisng year. RIP.

    Posted by rmjlattanzi at 11/11/2008 @ 5:02pm

39. Heard an interesting conversation in the Gulfstream V the other day. Rich dude was telling about a new concept he was going to call dollarfordollar.org. The concept was to get lots of "rich" people (anybody making over $110K/yr) to decrease by$1. in charitable giving for each $1 in Obama tax increase. He said if you want class war then you can have class war. I thought it was a bad idea. I explained how you would need to drop the charity donation by more than a dollar to make up for the loss of deduction. He'll now call it dollarsixtyfordollar.org.

    Posted by sntauri at 11/11/2008 @ 5:13pm

40. "BTW, I seldom hear liberals complain about the influence of Christianity on ending slavery. The abolition movement was launched by Christians in this country who understood that it ran counter to the ideals of Christianity and acted upon that fact."

    Some Christians did, others didn't. It certainly wasn't unanimous on either side.

    Posted by boing007 at 11/11/2008 @ 8:06pm

41. "The concept was to get lots of "rich" people (anybody making over $110K/yr) to decrease by$1. in charitable giving for each $1 in Obama tax increase."

    How...umm...charitable.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/11/2008 @ 11:25pm

42. If Obama picks Larry Summers for Treasury and like-minded folk for the rest of his Cabinet, I predict the Republicans will be back in the majority by January 2011. Summers may be enough to obtain that result all by himself.

    Posted by siegeljd at 11/11/2008 @ 11:39pm

43. Keep talking, David Brooks isn't a conservative he is a token RINO for the NYT. I wish Mac had spoken as much on conservative issues as BO, Tax cuts, BS gun rights support, and getting tough on Osama in the Stan. Prop 8 in Cali and the other 3 or 4 states that a similiar vote should speak volumns on the country's conservative values. Just wait the left is going to tear itself apart rushing to redo the Great Society and the New New Deal, problem is that BO has to start running for re-election in late Jan. 2008 and he knows the Kook lefty stuff will turn him into another Jimmy Carter.

    Posted by kwoodyh at 11/12/2008 @ 07:07am

44. Lets not get all Pollyanna about the "end of conservatism." Don't forget that Clinton was elected to a Democratic House and Senate, and lost that within 2 years. He was so paralyzed by a conservative movement and prosecution that we made little headway with environmentalism, healthcare etc. The party was dragged so far to the right that we gutted Medicaid, and welfare. He even signed the banking bill that began all this mess! So, while the expendable republicans(thats what they were, remember Dole in '96) are busy picking themselves off in a circular firing squad, lets not get caught with an excessive celebration penalty. Get to work. The conservative media, are already trying to spin this election away from the progressive mandate that it was.

    Posted by quinndiesel at 11/12/2008 @ 08:40am

45. the Russians putting Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad

    not a surprising move, after the US is planning to put missiles into Poland. tit for tat.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2008 @ 1:24pm

46. The abolition movement was launched by Christians in this country who understood that it ran counter to the ideals of Christianity and acted upon that fact. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/10/2008 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    the racists and slave holders. were also Christians.

    your point proves nothing

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2008 @ 1:32pm

47. The abolition movement was launched by Christians in this country who understood that it ran counter to the ideals of Christianity and acted upon that fact. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/10/2008 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    the racists and slave holders. were also Christians.

    your point proves nothingThe abolition movement was launched by Christians in this country who understood that it ran counter to the ideals of Christianity and acted upon that fact. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/10/2008 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    the British christians were at least 30 years ahead on this one. I guess they were BETTER christians.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2008 @ 1:35pm

48. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=lvliberty1

    you challenging that slavery was ended in Britain 30 years before here?

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2008 @ 5:46pm

49. " In fact the split between the Baptists was the specific cause of the formation in 1844 of the Southern Baptist Convention."

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/12/2008 @ 4:16pm

    Still avoids the point that most pro-slavery folks were x-tians too.

    Also, I don't know, but would be curious as to how many 'baptist's there are vs. 'southern baptist's.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/12/2008 @ 6:45pm

50. Also, if you are going to point out, specifically, how the reformers were x-tians, you also need to point out that a whole new denomination was splintered of, specifically, in defense of slavery.

    Six of one, half dozen of the other. (As my mom used to say).

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/12/2008 @ 6:48pm