[pollyannaish]

Uh...the illegal drugs part is not a fact, but a rumor. Probably from the same place as many other unsubstantiated rumors...like his NG record recorded in special Kinkos originated memos.

I think what Miss Marple said is that it got worse during the Reagan administration has become increasingly worse since the Clinton era.

Well...let's be clear. It's gotten significantly worse since the 2000 election. There are an awful lot of people who STILL haven't gotten over that.

If you take a look at major political shifts, the reason is clear. After the Nixon debacle, the left began to believe that absolute power in government was entitled to them. That they were pure and untouchable. That their opposition was not just wrong, but evil.

And then they started to loose.

We need to take a lesson from that, right here, right now.

[jla]

Uh...the illegal drugs part is not a fact, but a rumor.

You believe what you wish. GWB has never denied it, he just wouldn't comment.
I know if I hadn't done something I was accused of doing I would say so.
GWB, to his credit, didn't want to lie, so he refused to answer.

It's ok, Pollyannaish, Dubya isn't no Reagan, we all know that. He grew up in a different era. Not that an earlier existence on this planet would have made him comparable to our greatest-ever President.

[kabar]

If you take a look at major political shifts, the reason is clear. After the Nixon debacle, the left began to believe that absolute power in government was entitled to them. That they were pure and untouchable. That their opposition was not just wrong, but evil.And then they started to loose (sic).

Dring most of the 20th Century, except for the Presidency, we had what amounted to a one party country, namely the Dems.

During the 60 years from 1932-92, the Dems controlled the House of Representatives for all but two election cycles and the Rep majority during those two cycles, 1946 (about 50) and 1952 (less than 10) were both small and short-lived compared to the Dems. During the 1930s their majority rose as high as almost 250 more Dems than Reps. During the 1960s and 70s the Dems held majorities of 150 on three different cycles and held control of Congress for 40 straight years. The Rep majority from 1994 to 2004 pales in comparison in terms of majorities and control. Today it is a high water mark of 30.

In the Senate the Dems held sway in all but two cycles from 1932-1978, i.e., 1946 and 1952 with Rep majorities of less than 10. In contrast, the Derms held huge majorities for much of the period with the 1936 cycle seeing a Dem majority of almost 60 senators, i.e., there were only about 20 Rep senators out of 96. The Reps held the majority in the Senate for three successive cycles, 1980-1984, but the majority never reached 10. The Dems then resumed control from the 1986 to 1992 cycles with majorities no less than 10. The Reps regained control for the past decade with the exception of 2000 and the Jeffords switch. Today's 11 senator majority to the Dems (not counting Jeffords the independent) is the high water mark since 1928 when the Reps had almost a 20 seat majority.

Is it any wonder why the Dems, especially the old-timers, believe they are entitled to hold the reins of power? And why the Reps are tentative in using their small but current advantage? The Dem hubris predates Nixon by decades. Roosevelt essentially destroyed the GOP for almost 60 years. I get the feeling that many of the old time Reps would like to return to being the minority party and the young ones don't have any appreciation for what it took to get that majority.

It is laughable to hear the MSM and the Dems talk about the rights of the minority and the need to involve them in the process. If the situation returned to "normal," such talk would be non-existent. This is what makes Conservatives so angry about this nomination. The Reps control the WH, the Senate, and the House and still lack the cajones to exercise power and take on the Dem minority.