Reports of the demise of the Democrat Party: are they premature or not?
Political fortunes are strange. A political party can go bankrupt of ideas slowly and then all at once. It certainly seems as though that’s happened to the Democrats.
Their formerly-appealing ideas – appealing to slightly over half the country for many years – went like this: Trump is a demon; Republicans are racist, xenophobic, homophobes who are out to hurt poor people and everyone except the GOP’s greedy fat-cat supporters; Democrats are the truth-tellers and all the rest is “without evidence.”
Somewhere along the line that message got stale. Maybe it was the naked injustice of the lawfare charges against Trump and the left’s relentless pursuit of them. Maybe it was four years of denial of the reality of a cognitively-challenged president. Maybe it was the preposterous insistence that biological men should be able to compete against women just by declaring themselves to be women. Maybe it was the wars that happened on Biden’s watch, or the ignominy of the Afghanistan withdrawal. Maybe it was that young people like to rebel, and after being force-fed so much leftism, supporting conservatives becomes rebelliousness.
And maybe it’s also the utter ridiculousness of the current crop of Democrats, such as this:
Tensions between prominent Democrat leaders grew Friday, as former Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuked Senate Leader Chuck Schumer for caving on the Republican continuing resolution (CR). At the same time, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries refused to comment on his future as a leader.
The striking remarks by Pelosi (D-CA) and the lack of response by Jeffries (D-NY) speak volumes about how disappointed they are with Schumer’s actions. …
The remarkable level of disarray and infighting in the Democratic party has been simmering for a while, but Schumer’s offer to go along with the CR and temporarily keep the government open appears to have been a bridge too far for some.
The Democrats have long operated as though messaging is the key to victory – that, plus demographics and identity group voting. Both things did not work in 2024. Anyone who actually listened to Kamala Harris’ interviews could see that she was struggling to say anything of substance, and kept repeating memorized talking points that didn’t necessarily have much to do with the questions being asked. People knew that inflation was hurting them in the supermarkets, and no amount of pointing to figures that the rate of inflation had slowed could tell them there wasn’t a problem. Trump’s supporters had never deserted him, but in 2024 they got assistance even from some Black and Hispanic men, who decided that Trump would be a better bet. That in particular probably shook Democrat operatives to their cores.
Not all that long ago Democrats looked invincible. A lot of people on the right who believed the 2020 election was won by cheating also believed there never would be another Republican victory. It also looked as though Trump might be going to prison. But look what happened instead. The reversal – beginning, I believe, with Trump’s surviving the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania – has been stunning. I don’t think the Democrats know what hit them.
But as I see it, Trump’s success in consolidating support during his term will depend on results. He certainly gets A for effort so far; it’s been a whirlwind. But in a way – and forgive the mixed metaphor – it’s a high-wire act. Almost everything Trump does has been high-risk. He will have to produce: for example,ceasefires that don’t offend either side too much; the reduction of inflation, fraud, and waste; the clean-up of agency partisanship and persecution of political enemies without unjustly persecuting his enemies; and the end of unchecked open borders and the deportation of criminal illegal aliens (he’s already made a good showing there).
How forgiving will the American people be if all those things don’t happen? How many people will want the pendulum to swing right back to the left? I don’t know the answer. I just know that I cheer for every good result he can accomplish, because I do not want to see the left regain power.
Neo: I think I’m 3-4 years older than you so that gives us a historic view that justifies your caution. We (you & me) have seen these things go in cycles for so long that so we don’t get too wired either way. Examples: after Reagan & G. H.W Bush, the Dems were forlorn. G.H.W. was such a miserable president that we had 8 years of Clinton. Then when G.W. Bush was so awful with his never ending wars that a mile-wide-and-inch-deep phony like Obama was able to do what Trump just did only even more so. I clearly remember James Carville crowing “we’re gonna be in power for the next 40 years!” Two years later (big push from the Tea Party) and we had the biggest turnover in the House since the 1930s. (You can really call’em James!) And so it will go, as you said, as long as Trump gets results we’ll be OK
Republicans looked all but dead in 2009. Bush left office with an approval rate in the 30’s and Democrats’ “coalition of the ascendant” was supposed to create a permanent majority. Well, Democrats’ trifecta lasted exactly two years. Within five years the GOP held large majorities in both houses of Congress and within eight had a trifecta of their own.
It could go just as quickly for Democrats. I’m not even convinced that they would have to abandon their views on immigration or trans issues. If Trump starts a war or prompts a deep recession, Democrats will waltz right back into power.
I think Trump is smart to push change as rapidly as he has been doing. Some prices have already begun to edge downward. It’s possible that, with results, Dems won’t be able to recapture the House as so frequently happens in midterms. They’d have to have a believable campaign issue to do it, and so far they haven’t found one.
Except we now know our previous worst case estimate of the looting of the treasury has been shown to be wildly optimistic and sexual mutilation of minors seems like a poor hill to die on.
And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We’re captive on the carousel of time
–Joni Mitchell, “The Circle Game”
_______________________________
Democrats will put themselves back together, but I think it’s going to take a while.
It took them 12 years of Reagan/Bush for Clinton to triangulate his way to the White House.
First let me define my terms. Short term is less than 25 years. Long term is greater than fifty. In the short term they will enjoy many resurgences. In the long term, they cannot continue as a party of the left. That is true because there is no Truth regarding the left. Their shit doesn’t work and is antithetical to human nature.
chazzand: Age gives context: I remember where I was when Kennedy was shot. I guess that makes me old (damn!) How could the 90s be 25-30 years ago???
Neither party is what they were even in 2020. I’m not sure the Dems will go under – on the other hand … where are the Whigs? For that matter, the Republicans are breaking up as well, just quietly in the background. 2028 will be interesting.
Trump’s done a lot in a very short time but something needs to be done about these lower-level judges telling the Executive branch what to do or not do … the foreman doesn’t dictate to the boss (I think I read that DJT gave orders to ignore those judges) – and some high-level, public arrests (and convictions) will be necessary soon; there have been serious crimes enough at high levels that a public example of “we’re doing something more than investigating” would calm what seems to be a bit of growing unease among DJT supporters.
The economy’s in such bad shape, the administration needs to force a recession soon – both because a re-balance of the out-of-control spending and money-printing is needed and a chance to allow a return to the new normal before the mid-terms would be a good idea. Stock market shows hints that may be in process. Cash rather than stocks may be a good idea, sooner than later.
Note that saving a few billion here and there looks good (and every little bit helps) but not so much in the face of trillions of dollars; $1B out of $1T is the equivalent of $1 out of $1000.
But I’m just a recluse that spouts off a lot of nonsense when the urge strikes. In any case, I suspect it’s a good time to keep one’s powder dry; this summer could prove entertaining.
No, the Ds are far from dead. They may be wandering in th desert now, but never forget that they(the left)never give up. Politics is their religion. They are just working through the anger stage of grief.
Good analysis.
The two things that I’d highlight are 1) the limits to divisive identity group pandering and 2) candidate quality.
One could write a book about 1). I’d love to read a history book, or similar, on exactly the progression from a GOP party founded on freeing slaves and equal rights for African Americans, to the Dems at one time owning well over 90% of the black vote.
As I see it, the Dems pocketed the black demo and then moved on to the next identity group, and the next. Women’s rights, then gay rights, etc. While doing so, they can claim that “We are compassionate” and “We care about you.”
The problem comes in when the cause being championed becomes suspect.
As an example: I have a family member who is gay and quite politically active on the left. Who and what does one champion when championing gay rights? Well Hollywood and TV would suggest that there are these wholesome role models, like “Modern Family.” No doubt, that is representative of many. But my family member thinks that the whole gay community should be extoled or at least supported. So, if there is a segment that does copious amounts of drugs while engaging with a large number of sexual partners, then they need to be explicitly supported too. Needless to say, the Dems wisely avoided all that.
But now consider transgender rights. Simply stated, it’s just too difficult to support a sizeable piece of what they want without wandering into nuttiness territory.
I think this is where we are in America. A long history of great freedoms and affluence and the society has fragmented in lots of ways, and many of them are rather crazy. So if Dems want to carve off another identity group they’ve got to wade into the crazy swamp. And sensible Americans don’t want any of it. At least as a government/social restructuring.
2) I hardly need to say anything about this. However, look at the history of a JFK, or Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton. (LBJ was a curious example in some ways) For those presidents, one could plausibly say that they were “Oh, so brilliant” and we should all bow to their exceptionalism. Should I include Barack Obama? Perhaps. He certainly had a silver tongue to go with that Harvard degree.
And somehow the Dems end up pushing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris? Inconceivable! Joking aside, how did that happen? Maybe, just maybe… it’s because of the extreme level of corruption in the party that isn’t just tolerated, but required at this point. Or am I being hyperbolic with that one?
Pingback:MAGA Republican’s still don’t get it!?! - Karmi's Musings & Tech
…a return to the new normal before the mid-terms would be a good idea. Stock market shows hints that may be in process. Cash rather than stocks may be a good idea,… — DT
I rather chicken heartedly bought a small piece of a gold ETF, specifically GLD, back at the end of 2022, just to focus my attention and watch. It’s doing very well in recent months. Cash, really isn’t your friend.
Tommy Jay – “Should I include Barack Obama? Perhaps. He certainly had a silver tongue to go with that Harvard degree.”
Did you not ever see one of those clips of Obama trying to handle an audience when the teleprompter failed? Brutal – earned him the sobriquet of “SCOAMF” – Stuttering Cluster*** of a Miserable Failure!
Dems ain’t goin’ away. They don’t know where they is headed, but as long as they dominate academia, they’ll be a big part of politics.
Anti-Trump will be woefully inadequate if Trump’s changes are 60-80% successful. So what are the actual ideas of the newer voices? If the ideas are mostly stuff that has failed when attempted, it won’t be popular enough to win elections.
Even an enormous rout of Dems, less than 40 senators, 30-40 fewer House Reps, even losing control of a big city or two, and the Dems stay relevant for the next election 2 years later. And Dem domination of media, less strong than before but still highly influential, will continue to spin positive for Dems.
Newsome and other Dem possibles in 2028 are already starting to explore new messages, ideas. Some in agreement with some Trump policies. 2026 will be interesting. But we’ll slowly learn more daily as it gets closer. (The sun is the same, in a relative way, but you’re older …)
“I don’t think the Democrats know what hit them.”
To the extent that this simple summation is so — and it appears to me to be very much the case — that’s no sort of prescription for the conduct of politics, whether that term “politics” is taken in its commonplace contemporary sense of specifically partisan politics, or, in the wider more traditional sense of the general relations of the governance of human communities, whoever, wherever or whenever they may be found.
And not knowing as these Democrats do not know, they’ll have a devil of a time finding a basis on which to build or re-build their aims, as it is their “principles” themselves which have led then into this dark deadend. Gonna be a hell-uv-a show watching the theoretical flounders soon to come. Couldn’t wish it on a nicer bunch of folk.
Meanwhile Trump rolls out his commonsense path and goes merrily on his way, racking up win upon win upon win. Ha! Wonder what he knows the Democrats don’t?
Per Bauxite above, a recession, which is certainly a plausible consequence of a trade war, will put the Dems right back on top. If the Republicans take DT’s advice and “force a recession,” it will happen real quick. And contra Kate, food prices aren’t going down, which is the main thing voters (including myself) see every day. That’s what Trump should be focusing on, not Ukraine or imports of French wine.
It’s premature.
==
The Democrats are the party of the Régime. They ain’t going anywhere. It would be agreeable if they were replaced, because they have no redeeming features.
about they only thing that will bring food prices down is the cost of energy.
That, and over regulations.
“The Democrats have long operated as though messaging is the key to victory”
It’s the only thing that most of them know how to do – certainly they don’t know how to run a government.
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail; which (to quote somebody but I forget who) is why carpenters don’t make good babysitters.
The Democrats are out of it for a while… unless the economy crashes.
Any plan to manufacture a recession will soon run into the Mike Tyson rule about plans, that everyone has one until they get punched in the mouth.
An interesting question is what will become of the Republicans. At the moment, it’s a MAGA party, with astonishing control still exercised by Trump. Watching House Members and Senators being threatened with primary challenges for not following the Trump line is very strange. But Trump won’t last forever, and lightweights like J.D. Vance aren’t likely to fill the gap he’ll leave behind. After Trump, the American right may struggle to redefine itself, much as it did after Reagan, or as the UK Conservative Party did after Thatcher.
Marxists never quit or give up. At most they will have to flounder until a real leader shows up. Luckily don’t really see any intheir future.
Most of the dems’ programs and big ideas don’t affect the normies directly. If the dems want to give minorities more money and other benefits, that’s buried in the results I get from my tax preparer. Or inflation of one or another item, but inflation has a hundred fathers. Or reduced funding for some other program which I don’t use and may never have heard of.
But men in women’s sports is different. I would suggest it would impose its idiocy on more normies directly, or at one remove, than any other thing the dems can stand for.
The idea of women’s sports as a fallback for mediocre male athletes is already dumb enough. But the possibility of injury is real. As is the picture of guys wandering around girls’ shower rooms. AYFKM? YOU WANT THIS?
I have granddaughters who are athletes. They have female cousins and teammates who are athletes. I go to their games. Talk to their coaches. If this does not describe all normies, then those left over can certainly imagine it or recall it.
A case in Massachusetts, where a girl complained about guys in the women’s locker rooms. Her father complained, as well. She was suspended from school and he, a coach, put on leave. The dems want this for all of us.
We may feel sorry for the lower orders in blue cities, subject to assault on public transport, or by those put back on the streets, or having to be careful where they step on the sidewalks. Or retailers bankrupted or forced to close down due to what looks like government-sanctioned shoplifting gangs.
But those don’t affect us directly.
If the dems don’t abandon men in women’s sports–and it doesn’t look as if their need to be on the wrong side of any moral issue or good sense will end any time soon–other issues may be irrelevant.
Yes, Richard Aubrey. Democrats so far are consistently siding with the 20% on issues on which 80% of Americans choose the other option.
I think our English commenter errs in describing J.D. Vance as a “lightweight.” As I see it, he’s doing an apprenticeship with Trump, with an inside view of how an executive operates.
But Trump won’t last forever, and lightweights like J.D. Vance aren’t likely to fill the gap he’ll leave behind.
==
When you’ve learned the proper use of the term ‘lightweight’, get back to us.
==
After Trump, the American right may struggle to redefine itself, much as it did after Reagan, or as the UK Conservative Party did after Thatcher.
==
There was no ‘struggle’ on the part of either the Republican Party or the Conservative Party to ‘redefine’. Both Reagan and Thatcher were politicians with a rapport with the electorate at large and with the rank-and-file in their respective parties. They were singular in having a set of fixed principles. Gatekeeper positions in politics tend to be filled with vacuous careerists like David Cameron and Glitch McConnell. Michael Portillo put it thus about the British Conservatives in 2016: “After 23 years of careful thought about what they would like to do in power … the answer is nothing”. The Conservative Party had eight years to repeal the abusive legislation which has police officers showing up at people’s doors to interrogate them over their social media posts. Much of it occurs consequent to a single piece of legislation passed in April of 2010. It should have been the first order of business in 2015 to repeal this law and the Cameron Tories did nothing.
certainly they don’t know how to run a government.
==
They know how to use the available levers to get what they want. The problem is that what they want is malicious and destructive.
==
I’m fairly pessimistic and I suspect that Trump and Musk will have a brief opening to partially defang he Régime and reverse some of their worst abuses. Not much more than that. If we had a healthy political culture, the revulsion contra the Democratic Party would leave them with a congressional delegation the size the Republicans had in 1937. We do not have a healthy political culture and we have the occidental world’s most crooked elections to boot.
Republicans looked all but dead in 2009.
==
It didn’t.
As an example: I have a family member who is gay and quite politically active on the left. Who and what does one champion when championing gay rights? Well Hollywood and TV would suggest that there are these wholesome role models, like “Modern Family.” No doubt, that is representative of many. But my family member thinks that the whole gay community should be extoled or at least supported. So, if there is a segment that does copious amounts of drugs while engaging with a large number of sexual partners, then they need to be explicitly supported too. Needless to say, the Dems wisely avoided all that.
==
No they did not avoid that. They just use bait-and-switch.
==
Your family member is a degenerate and in a healthy society such people are ignored.
==
I should note that in a well-ordered policy, people have rights in various capacities – as persons and as citizens and as transacting parties. No one has rights consequent to sexual deviance. The defensible complaints of sexual deviants ca. 1960 – in re the use of agents provocateurs and undercover officers against them, in re the use of pretexts to raid their social gatherings, in re arbitrary hire bars and discharge in public employment – haven’t been live issues in 50 years or more. (The controversy over non-arbitrary discharge bars in the military is the closest you come to defensible complaints). “Gay rights” has always been reducible to a franchise granted by statute to obnoxious people allowing them to impose on others.
Vance is anything but a lightweight. He’s MAGA but, unlike Trump, he’s smart enough to avoid idiotic trade wars, idiotic lawfare (i.e., Perkins Coie EO), putting an eccentric billionaire in charge of reducing the government, etc.
If we want a right-of-center revolution that actually works, we had better pray that Trump doesn’t salt the earth so badly that that we can’t get someone like Vance or DeSantis after him.
Otherwise we get the left back in power and armed with all of the precedent that Trump has made over the past few months, which they will use to utterly destroy the right.
idiotic lawfare (i.e., Perkins Coie EO)
==
Bauxite fancies it’s ‘idiotic’ to think that Perkins Coie should not have security clearances and special access to federal databases.
By the way, David Clayton, this is one reason people cheer for Trump. The man has absolutely no time for the humbug which had clogged up political discussion in this country for decades:
==
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2025/03/theres-never-been-speech-like-this.html
No, I think its idiotic for the executive to issue a patently illegal bill of attainder that would more or less put a firm of more than 3000 employees out of business, with no due process, and primarily because of the activities of lawyers who left the firm years ago.
The president is not judge, jury, and executioner. This is not difficult to understand.
If that precedent stands, the left will have a field day with it starting in January of 2029.
issue a patently illegal bill of attainder
==
When you’ve learned the meaning of ‘bill of attainder” get back to us.
==
The executive order is injurious to Perkins Coie only to the extent that it gets its revenue from federal contracts or negotiating federal contracts. I.e., to the extent the firm is part of the bloodsucker element in the Greater Washington bar. Given that the firm is a known auxilliary to the Democratic Party and has a history of near criminal activity, that you’d defend them is instructive.
“known auxiliary to the Democratic party and has a history of near criminal activity”
Listen to yourself Art Deco. Wait until 2029 when President Shapiro starts handing out official penalties to firms and individuals who are “known auxiliaries” of the Republican party and have a history of “near” criminal activity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk
Also:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bill_of_attainder
“bill of attainder
A bill of attainder is a piece of legislation that declares a party is guilty of a crime . Bills of attainder allow the government to punish a party for a perceived crime without first going through the trial process.”
Trump’s EO is not a “piece of legislation,” but other than it’s spot on. Call it an Executive Order of Attainder if you prefer, but the rest fits.
Bauxite,
If the cold civil war turns hot, the rat filth bastards at Perkins Coie are dead men walking. The civil suits for their illegal access to fbi systems for oppo research should bankrupt them. They are effing criminals.
Finally, federal contracts are not the only area of law practice where clearances are needed. Even if it were, I’m not sure how that makes it any better. “Gee, we’re not completely killing the firm that is a “known auxiliary” of the opposition party and did other “near” criminal things we don’t like, we’re just killing one of its practice areas.”
Yeah. That’s not any better.
CC™ “Learns nothing, and remembers everything.”
The only thing CC™ remembers is The Great Orange Whale. Defending Perkins Coie a prime player in Russiagate tells you all you need to know about CC™’s priorities.
Was stripping the security clearances from the 51 Intelligence Community goons (and goonettes) another Bill of Attainer? Or another one of your Executive Attainers CC™?
Stripping security clearances from 51 intelligence community goons? Good and necessary. They put their names on the evidence.
Stripping security clearances from anyone associated with a large law firm primarily because of the activities of two attorneys who left the firm years ago? Not ok.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Stripping security clearances from anyone associated with a large law firm primarily because of the activities of two attorneys who left the firm years ago? Not ok.
==
Why should employees of a law firm have security clearances? And why does the corporation bear no responsibility for its conduct?
Listen to yourself Art Deco. Wait until 2029 when President Shapiro starts handing out official penalties to firms and individuals who are “known auxiliaries” of the Republican party and have a history of “near” criminal activity.
==
There are no analogues to Perkins Coie for Republicans. The only sort of BigLaw operation where Republican partners are modal are firms which do work for energy concerns.
==
Finally, federal contracts are not the only area of law practice where clearances are needed.
==
Thanks for the issue of your rectum. We’re all educated.
Trump’s EO is not a “piece of legislation,” but other than it’s spot on.
==
You’re either an idiot or you think the people you’re talking to are idiots.
CC™ is now a special pleader for Perkins Coie. Golly gee those two didn’t have to account for their billable hours to the senior partners. No one else knew what they were up to? Of course not in CC™ world. In the real world actions of “rouge employees” can destroy a company. Showing a lack of judgement in oversight of employees with access to classified information is a big deal.
But not to CC™. Perkins Coie won’t let it happen again, trust them, CC™?
“Fool me once shame on me. ……”
Art Deco – “You’re either an idiot or you think the people you’re talking to are idiots”
I don’t think you actually have an argument or rebuttal. You just state points, assume they are unassailable, and engage in juvenile name-calling. Educated? You sure don’t show it.
I don’t think you actually have an argument or rebuttal. You just state points, assume they are unassailable, and engage in juvenile name-calling. Educated? You sure don’t show it.
==
You used a term incorrectly, then offered a facially invalid excuse. You haven’t been called any ‘names’. You have been properly and unflatteringly characterized by myself and others here.
Shorter version of Art Deco – “I haven’t called you a name, I’ve simply stated what you are.”
Pathetic. You’ve still offered no rebuttal whatsoever on whether the EO is a bill of attainder. Again, you’ve stated I’m wrong. And, in your mind, apparently, that not only establishes that you are correct, it also objectively demonstrates that I’m an idiot.
Good day sir. You’re not worth the aggravation.
You used a facially invalid term. It doesn’t require a ‘rebuttal’. If you called it a Formica countertop, it would not require a rebuttal either. You weren’t called any names.
==
Harping on these points is a red herring on your part, of course. We’ve discovered this firm, in addition to its involvement in political skulduggery, had extraordinary privileges which you’ve been in the business of defending here (pulling factoids out of your rear end in the process). There isn’t any sh!t sandwich you won’t try to get us to eat.
If one looks at the Democratic party it is a broad criminal conspiracy every law firm every media outlet most of the corporations went along in a looting party of the country
Not merely perkins and coie whose offenses are well spelled out but paul weiss rifkind
Then there was the 65 project coordinated by norm eisen the likes of mccord and weissman inside the government and those on the merrygoround
The more ridiculous an accusation the more you were willing to believe it
I worry less about a swing back to the “left” than a rebellion of the people who voted for hardcore change and didn’t get it fast enough.
I still see enough people abandoning the Democratic party as a result of their obvious disingenuousness, that I think the party is going to have to reinvent itself in order to be viable down the road.
But I also believe the coalition that came together and took a chance on Trump – largely helped by his decision to surround himself with other figures who promised to shake things up like Elon, RFK, and Tulsi – is fragile. I think it’s too early to tell if it will last.
David Clayton: “lightweights like J.D. Vance aren’t likely to fill the gap he’ll leave behind. After Trump, the American right may struggle to redefine itself, …”
I applaud Kate’s response at 8:37am as better than any response I might have made:
“I think our English commenter errs in describing J.D. Vance as a “lightweight.” As I see it, he’s doing an apprenticeship with Trump, with an inside view of how an executive operates
[beyond what he already had learned from Peter Thiel].”
With another half dozen (or more?) R candidates potentially in the running for POTUS in 2028 or later, we now have a truly solid bench. Executive and/or legislative experience; media handling (and decent motor mouth control); foreign policy, military management, and/or intelligence chops; etc. They might still shoot themselves or their colleagues in the foot, but they are less likely than the 2016 group to misread the populace’s “guidance” on several issues; and hopefully have the leadership ability to bring the seriousness of our debt/deficit situation to the electorate [Paul Ryan and Romney clearly did not]. We the People will need to be convinced to accept some economic pain now to retain liberty for our grandchildren and later posterity.
Adding to the above:
Skip on March 15, 2025 at 5:39 am said:
“Marxists never quit or give up. At most they will have to flounder until a real leader shows up. Luckily don’t really see any in their future.”
Which leads to a realization that the conservative side should also be promoting our founding principles and accurate full American histories in education and other venues; augmented with a campaign to fully destroy the post-modern idiocy about “perceived reality”, deconstructionism, critical theory, etc., … using richf’s carpenters to pound nails firmly into the coffin of that ridiculous intellectual garbage.
And I now find that the comment box does have a spell checking capability again, once I found that somehow my browser settings had that feature turned off. 🙁 🙂
PS: Is anyone else finding slower than usual response from Neo’s site this evening?
Neo, I also sometimes get a page saying your site (as well as others) does not support https for more secure access. Is that true or is perhaps something else happening?
“bill of attainder”
What penumbra of the Constitution requires the issuance of security clearances and government contracts to a particular law firm?
I had a high-level security clearance for decades in my electronics job and understood without anyone telling me that it was a privilege, not a right.