Free Republic 2nd Qtr 2024 Fundraising Target: $81,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $9,248
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 11%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Common Tator

Brevity: Headers | « Text »

    03/31/2009 7:14:34 PM PDT · 371 of 401
    Common Tator to Miss Marple

    Thank you for mentioning the love “Ray” had for my mother. She was the love of his life, with computers and politics next.

    His daughter,


  • Employment Situation...(MORE JOBS LOST Since Hussein's Election than in previous 11 months)

    03/07/2009 3:11:26 PM PST · 46 of 99
    Common Tator to Heartland Mom
    I cannot for the life of me understand why unemployed Americans are not screaming this from the roof.

    You can't understand why a laid off GM Worker doesn't move to Southern California to pick fruit for minimum wage?

    Do you really think a worker would sell his house, move his wife and kids to where the low paying jobs are and take one instead of collecting unemployment insurance until it runs out?

    Here is what must happen. The excess production of houses and other items have to be sold. Once there is no surplus supply of goods on the shelves, people will have to be hired to meet the demand. Once those who have not been laid off see workers being called back, they will believe the recession is over. They will start buying and we will be in recovery mode. We will be back on the road to prosperity. Jobs will be created and employment will grow at a rapid rate.

    What Reagan did in 1981, 1982 and 1983 was the cure. He just waited until the excess supply of goods has been sold. By 1984 the demand for goods and services was greater than the supply being produced. Plants had to increase production. The surpressed demand was unleashed, and we were back in prosperity mode until production exceeded demand again.

    Reagan had a batchelors degree in economics. He understood the system and how it works. Government cannot create prosperity. Prosperity is a function of productivity. When we find ways to manufacture at lower cost per item, we can afford more items. As the cost per computer went down, the number of people who bought computers went up.

  • Activists: help discredit Luis Gutierrez on his nationwide tour for amnesty

    03/07/2009 1:26:36 PM PST · 31 of 32
    Common Tator to The Spirit Of Allegiance

    What we were talking about was your asking people to not post views with which you disagree.

    That is surpression of free Speech.

    If this site only allowed those with whom the owner agrees to post it would be a worthless site.

    Mostly posters create threads based on published articles with which most Freepers disagree. That allows those of us who wish to post to refute the arguments made in the articles. Some sub posts are in oposition to those in the main post to which some of us may disagree.

    Your mentioning of Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally is of no value. No one in the west believed anything Tokyo Rose or Axis Sally published. Their words were totally ineffective and accomplished the exact opposite of their intentions. They only revealed how little the Japanese and Germans knew about the United States Canada, and Great Britain.

    If those that are discouraged and in doubt never post there is no way to know of their doubts and to change their minds.

    Supression of Free Speech is always a bad thing. There is no way to change someone’s mind if that person does not post his true views.

  • Activists: help discredit Luis Gutierrez on his nationwide tour for amnesty

    03/07/2009 12:47:25 AM PST · 28 of 32
    Common Tator to The Spirit Of Allegiance
    There is a huge difference... Both try to prevent those that don't agree with their views from posting positions of which they don't approve.

    Both the far left and the far right believe they know the truth but can't stand for anyone to post an opposing view.

    The only reason to ask those who disagree with you not to post is you are unsure your view can prevail in the open market place of opinions. You believe others are dumber than you and will not see through what you can clearly see through.

    It is the ultimate put down of your peers and the expression of a colossal ego.

  • Activists: help discredit Luis Gutierrez on his nationwide tour for amnesty

    03/05/2009 9:30:34 PM PST · 25 of 32
    Common Tator to The Spirit Of Allegiance
    NOTE: If you just tend to whine and post negative “we’re screwed” messages, BUTTON YOUR LIP. DON’T post. You’re part of the problem. Go get positive and come back ready to be a positive force. We’ve got enough anchor dragging without you.

    The only difference Between the FAR LEFT and the FAR RIGHT is nither believes in free speech!!!

  • Obama's Spend, Tax and Borrow Policies Will Wreck the U.S. Economy

    03/03/2009 10:56:14 PM PST · 19 of 20
    Common Tator to AFPhys
    They Media puts out the word that by having the Government buy employees health insurance they are making companies more competitive in the world market. They point out that small business spends a fortune to provide health care insurance for employees. If the cost of that benefit is transfered to the government then they say the prices small businesses must charge to make a profit will go down.

    They also say they can do it for less than the employer pays now. That has to be garbage. As a former employer I know I spent a lot of time and effort trying to get my employees and I the most coverage for the fewest bucks. I know government will not do what I and every other employer does to lower his costs. My primay job as owner was to produce the best product at the lowest cost. If my competitors found a way to save a few bucks, I had best do it too, or kiss my customer base goodbye. And if I found a savings it did not take my competitors long to find and implement the same savings. It is the way competition works. And I could not get good employees with out providing excellant health insurance.

    But how does Obama propose to pay for the insurance on both employees and those who do not currently have insurance? They are going to tax those who earn more than 250 thousand dollars a year. Those who pay taxes on income larger than 250 thousand dollars are mostly small businesses that are not incorporated. And just because you are making more than 250 grand a year does not mean you are personally spending over 250 grand a year on your own personal wants and desires. Future operating capital is in that 250 grand plus. That is the disadvantage of not incorporating.

    Our tax laws have a point in which a small business becomes large enough that incorporating becomes more tax effective than running a business in your own name as a business that is not incorporated.

    A corporation has to have a board of directors who have control of the business. They hire the CEO who runs the company. A small business must find people who will let the CEO have control, yet meet the legal requirements for their independent control.

    But who is OBAMA going to tax to pay for the universal health care. The same small business people now subject to personal income taxes. The small business owner is going to get the increase in taxes.

    So what will they do? Most likely they will reduce their profits to keep from paying the taxes. One way to do that is to stop growing. Just raise prices enough so the volume of business lowers enough to reduce profits. But to think this will cause small businesses to try to grow and add jobs just defies human nature.

    I have been head of 2 companies that I ran under my personal income tax account. I have been head of 3 corporations handling all the problems caused for a small business operating under tax rules created for small corporations.

    The primary difference is the cost of accounting. Corporations have significant accounting costs that are quite expensive for a small corporation. There are also many taxes and fees(another name for taxes) placed on corporations that have to be paid.

    But I fail to see how transferring the cost of health care from the small business directly and then putting both his cost and the cost of insuring the uninsured on his tax bill does anything except make the small business less competitive.

    Obama reminds me of an employee I once had. He could speak at length on most subjects sounding as if he were totally on top of the subject. But when his thoughts were analyzed by any thinking person his ignorance of the facts and situation, were found to be extensive, but if one studied the situation you soon learned of all the factors he was not considering.

    Oh and don't put much faith in Bill O'Reily. He proves every day on his show that he has never been there, done that, or actually studied the situation businesses face. He is only good at interrupting those that have while pretending to know what he is talking about.

    If I were doing commericals I would use the following take down Obama care.

    Who do you want to pay for your health insurance... your employer or YOU? IF you say your employer then why don't you tell you congress person and senators of your opinion. You need to know that if we taxed at the rate of 100 percent of all those making more than 250 thousand a year... it would not cover the bill. That leaves you to pick up the tab.... and the employers off the insurance hook.

    Oh one final thought. Did you ever go to the Cleveland clinic and check the nationality of its patients? Here is a clue.... Canada is the answer. Were I a Canadian I would be dead. I was diagnosed with terminal cancer in 1997 and again in 2006. I would not have been eligible for treatment that saved my life in 1997. Canada does not try to cure terminal patients. What part of only receiving comfort treatment in 1997 do you think makes the Canadian system appeal to me most?

    If under some circumstances the cancer cured itself in 1997, I would have been allowed to die in 2006.

    That is why Canadians sell their homes and all their possessions to come to the USA for treatment when they are diagnosed with terminal cancer. What part of us getting the same system as Canada do you think makes the American system appeal to them most?

    One other thing. In the USA if a doctor or hospital takes Medicare patients they MAY NOT TURN DOWN a patient with out insurance. You will note that there are no stories in the MSM about all the people who die with out care in the USA. The reason is simple... THERE ARE NONE!!!!

    IN 1997 I had no insurance. No one who cared for me at the Adena Cancer care center, or the Adena Hospital knew I did not have either Medicare or health insurance of any kind. I got great care.

    When I was cancer free and got the 400 thousand dollar bill for my treatment, the hospital office was surprised when I offered to pay what Medicare would pay them. The office was shocked. She asked me what size payments I would make if they agreed. I replied Full SIZED! I told her I would write her a check within 30 days for the full amount that Medicare would approve for my treatment if I had Medicare. That took an 800 thousand dollar bill and turned it into a 400 thousand dollar bill. I paid it promptly.

    But that was after I got the treatment they thought they were doing for nothing.

    I did the same with my wifes cancer treatment in 2003 and 2004. But this was with the JAMES CANCER treatment center in Columbus. They only knew that my wife Samora had no insurance. The treatments did not work, but she got all the treatments her condition called for. They did not stop treatment until she requested HOSPICE care. And she got in the best Hospice in Columbus with no insurance... She got the best care.... But by 2006 I had insurance, Medicare plus AARP suplimental that covered all but a few hundred bucks.

  • Arlen Specter losing support of Republican peers

    02/12/2009 11:35:19 PM PST · 19 of 98
    Common Tator to sinanju
    If GWB hadn’t bailed him out in his last election, Pat Toomey would be in that seat even now.

    If Toomey could not win a majority of the Republican primary vote, there is no way he could win a majority of Republican and Democrat votes.

    If Toomey could have won, Bush would never have campaigned for Specter.

    Toomey is a conservative. The Toomey campaign for the nomination made sure that every voter in PA knew that both Toomey and Rick Santorum were conservatives. As I predicted at the time that resulted in Specter being re-elected and Santorum being defeated at the next election.

    Running as a conservative in PA only results in defeat. Santorum had been elected as a moderate and governed as a conservative. Defeating Santorum was apparently what Toomey and his supporters wanted most. Either that, or they are too ignorant of PA politics to even understand what it takes to win in a moderate dominated state like PA.

    If Moderates voted for Conservatives then all moderates would be Conservatives.

    What part of Republicans in order to win must get more than half the moderate vote can't you figure out?
  • Pelosi frustrated by Senate [Spector, Snowe & Collins threaten to pull out. Kill Porkulus]

    02/12/2009 12:52:52 PM PST · 330 of 356
    Common Tator to AvOrdVet
    The Socialist Dems should have never HAD your vote! The Republican party need to clean house and purge all RINOs... as I said in my email to the new RNC head Michael Steele.

    Like most people who don't understand our nation you think that reducing the number of Republicans in the house and senate and electing nothing but Democrat presidents will somehow fix the situation.

    There are some 17 states that tend to elect conservatives. There are some 17 states that tend to elect Liberals. That makes for about 34 conservative senators and 34 liberal senators. The other 16 states are about 35 percent Liberals, 35 percent Conservatives and some 30 percent moderates.

    In these states,Ohio is a great example, the voters tend to elect either RINOS or DINOS. RINOS and DINOs are what Moderates vote for. When republicans elect a 20 of the 30 RINOS, they are in charge. They can afford to lose two or three RINOS and still prevail. When they have only 14 or 15 RINOS they are certain to lose 2 or 3 and fail.

    The right wing reaction is to drive all the RINOS out of the party. That would give the Democrats 34 Liberals and 32 Dinos. They could lose 4 DINOS and never lose a vote in the Senate.

    Moderates do not vote for conservatives. Any winning candidate in states like Ohio must get a majority of moderate votes to win. There are not enough conservative votes to elect a conservative. That is how we get TAFTS, VOINOVICH, And DEWINES as Republican office holders in Ohio.

    Many right wingers must have flunked math. They seem to think that 34 percent of the voters can cast 50 plus percent of the votes.

    Liberals figured it out decades ago.. THEY RUN MODERATE AND GOVERN LIBERAL.

    If the positions that appealed to Conservatives appealed to Moderates all Moderates would be Conservatives.

  • Handicapping 2010

    01/25/2009 7:53:21 AM PST · 11 of 19
    Common Tator to M.K. Borders
    The turn out in Indiana was large.. There were few who did not vote.

    Swing voters determine who wins in Indiana. Swing voters determine who wins in 16 states. Swing voters, sometimes called moderates, do not vote on ideology. They vote based on two simple criteria. They vote for the most likable candidate who promises to do the most or them.

    If the moderate voters like a candidate they will vote for that candidate. If both candidates are equally likable they will vote for the candidate that they think will do the most for them (not society at large.. not the economy.. but for them). For moderate voters ideology is never a factor.

    There is a lot of election history in which moderate voters will in the same election vote for a very liberal candidate for one office and a very conservativew one for another office. That is what happened in indiana... the swing voters went for the Governor. They also went for Obama.

    If the views that persuade Conservatives persuaded Moderates, all Moderates would be Conservatives.

  • Will GOP rise again in OH?

    01/24/2009 8:09:04 AM PST · 37 of 41
    Common Tator to Badeye
    Ohio is a swing state with about 35 percent Conservatives 35 percent liberals and 30 percent moderates.

    There is no way a conservative or a liberal can win with out also winning slightly more than half the Moderates.

    Liberals in Ohio, tend to run as centrists. They talk the moderate language and when the do, they win.

    I posted in 2006 that all the Conservatives gained by trashing TAFT was the election of TED STRICKLAND as Governor. When moderates hear Republicans trashing Republicans they reason it is time to throw the bums out. So they elected a lot of Democrats.

    Had the Conervatives ignored TAFT and just promoted Blackwell they might have one. As it was only conservatives voted for Blackwell and Strickland won an easy race. But it is doubltful that Blackwell could have won the race. He presented himself as a real conservative, and that cost him tons of moderate voters.

    Conservatives are pretty stupid. Look what they did when conservatives in Penn tried to take Senator Spector down. They answered people who said a conservative like Tooney could not win, by saying that Senator Rick Santorum was a conservative and he had won. At that time I posted that conservatives had just destroyed Santorum. Letting the voters know that Santorum was a real conservative would not defeat Spector, it would defeat Santorum.. and it did.

    In swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania Rinos have a much better chance of getting elected than either a conservative or liberal.

    At anyone time there are about 35 Conservative Senators and 35 Liberal Senators. The remaining 30 are moderates... they are some combination of RINOS and DINOS. If the Republicans elect a majority of RINOS in the swing states they control the senate. If in those same swing states the Democrats get a majority of DINOS elected,then they control the Senate.

    Those on the right that can't figure out that swing states sometimes fo for Republicans and sometimes go for Democrats can't understand why Conservative candidates rarely if ever win. Moderates control who gets elected.

    Swing voters vote on just two issues. Which candidate do they like, and if elected what will he do for them. Preaching ideology is just stupid. It never convinces the voters needed to win.

    If the Republican party tries to go right wing in OHIO... it will end up never get more than 35 percent of the votes. It takes a RINO to win Ohio.

    Their is chaos in Ohio because the Right Wing turned on the RINOS. And the party is split and the must have moderate voters have turned to a united Democratic Party

    Conservatives must have flunked math..they think 35 percent of the voters can cast 50 PLUS percent of the vote.

  • Biden shushes wife after secretary of state slip

    01/19/2009 1:12:09 PM PST · 37 of 54
    Common Tator to BenLurkin
    "Veep is perfect for a nincompoop like Biden."

    Obama is perfectly stupid enough to appoint Biden Secretary of State.

    The Democrats were stupid enough to make Biden head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?

  • Both engines missing from jet ditched in Hudson ('Miracle on the Hudson' .. 'Sully' feeling fine.)

    01/16/2009 2:22:01 PM PST · 42 of 87
    Common Tator to xJones
    Very true. But how would a flock of geese tear off two engines? Just asking, I don't pretend to know about these things

    The engines hit the water just after the body of the plane. The engines are designed to come off when they hit something.

    When hit by something going 160MPH water is very hard and will knock the engines off the plane.

    The birds ruined the rotors inside the engines so they stopped producing output. The water in the river tore the engines off the plane... just as it was supposed to do.

  • AP Slammed Bush’s ‘Extravagant’ Inaugural in ’05, but Now It’s Spend, Baby, Spend

    01/14/2009 2:22:27 PM PST · 25 of 31
    Common Tator to Osage Orange

    We all know the media can not wait to tell the public anything elected Pubbies say..

    Who else besides the media is a source of information for the public?

    Only an idiot would believe the media would cover anyone who was critical of Obama on anything.


  • Why Obama’s ‘Tax Cuts’ Won’t Work ($500 per worker tax credits will do very little)

    01/10/2009 9:32:59 AM PST · 27 of 74
    Common Tator to SeekAndFind

    The middle class will save the money or use it to pay off debt. The lower class will spend it at Walmart. Look where people bought winter clothes this year. The department stores are going broke while Walmart had an increase over last years 4th quarter sales. Not as big an increase as they expected, but an increase never the less.

    Try looking at the goods in Walmart for where they are made. This cut will put people to work.. Unfortunately they will be Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Mexicans.

  • Universal healthcare and the waistline police: We risk a nanny state contrary to American ideals.

    01/08/2009 10:25:41 AM PST · 14 of 21
    Common Tator to VictoryGal
    With all due respect to the risks of a nanny state, quite real, this is Japan we’re talking about. Japan has a very heavy societal pressure component. Individualism is simply not valued like it is here. There is a Japanese saying: “The nail that sticks up gets pounded down.”

    Perhaps you have not read or watched the news in the last year or so....

    Just a reminder that that this nation just elected the most Liberal Senator as our next president and gave him substantial majorities in both houses of congress.

    And both the new president and the congress is in favor of universal health care.

    Governments are never able to run an efficient anything. That is because government bureaucracies are run for the benefit of the goverment workers not the people receiving the service they provide. That is logical all organizations are run for the benefit of those picking up the tab. If the goverment picks up the tab then it is run to benefit the goverment. So when (not if) we get universal health care it will be run to benefit goverment.. And that means it must greatly reduce services to the recipients. It has nothing to do with the American people. They just pay the governemt.. the goverment wil pay for the health care.

  • PRAYERS NEEDED FOR COMMON TATOR.....(Update at #156)

    01/08/2009 4:56:58 AM PST · 210 of 215
    Common Tator to prairiebreeze

    No... I am no longer at my Daughters. I came home a couple of months ago.

    I just feel a lot more comfortable in my home and the Dr. here is an old friend and I think he makes better judgements. He, like me, is a risk taker.


  • PRAYERS NEEDED FOR COMMON TATOR.....(Update at #156)

    01/07/2009 12:31:16 PM PST · 205 of 215
    Common Tator to prairiebreeze

    I finally got the news about my latest Cat Scan. It was not good the cancer in both my lungs and liver are still growing.

    The Doctor changed my Chemo to a more powerful one, the down side is it greatly reduces my resistance so I will have to be very careful about getting an infection.

    Thank you all for your prayers and best wishes. You will never know how much all my Freeper friends have meant to me.

    Thank you so much


  • Israel's Response Is Disproportionate

    01/06/2009 10:56:22 AM PST · 4 of 27
    Common Tator to wk4bush2004

    What is the difference between todays Europe and Hitler’s Europe?

    Hitler used gas chambers to kill jews, today’s Europe wants Hamas to do it for them.


    01/06/2009 10:22:51 AM PST · 3 of 20
    Common Tator to george76
    Here is the latest Tator take explaining the results of government intervention in the economy.
  • Pro-Bush Rally Draws Crowd From Loudoun

    01/06/2009 7:54:49 AM PST · 30 of 32
    Common Tator to exit82
    "He also put into effect the first law limiting immigration, which then was not enforced by Congress or succeeding Presidents, including Bush the elder."

    Reagan signed the law but he refused to enforce it.

    Like President George W. Bush today, Reagan had the good sense and compassion to see illegal immigrants not as criminals but as human beings striving to build better lives through honest work. In a radio address in 1977, Reagan noted that apples were rotting on trees in New England because no Americans were willing to pick them. "It makes one wonder about the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won't do?" Reagan asked. "One thing is certain in this hungry world; no regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters."

    In Reagan's farewell address to the nation in January 1989, Reagan beautifully wove his view of free trade and immigration into his vision of a free society: "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here."

    As Reagan biographer Lou Cannon points out in this book (pg. 119), Reagan proposed a treaty allowing for full freedom of movement for all workers throughout North America in his November 1979 speech announcing his candidacy for the presidency.

    In fact during his last year in office Reagan only implemented one part of the immigration act. That was the part that granted 2.8 million illegals the right to stay in the United States. He did nothing to close the border with Mexico. Neither did Bush 41, Clinton, or Bush 43.

    You may think you can get away with posting untruths about Reagan... but Reagan's record is clear. Reagan did sign the immigration bill, but only after he had demanded that congress water it down and give the 3 million illegals then in the contry legal status. Reagan wanted our border with Mexico to have the same rules as our border with Canada. Any canadian can come to the USA to work and stay as long as that person wishes. All that is required is a Canadian birth certificate or proof of Canadian citizenship. Reagan pushed for the same rules for the Mexican border but he could not get it done.

    Reagan did take down the Soviet Union, but Bush has taken down Saddam and the Taliban and freed 50 million people. But the Soviet Union never once fired a weapon at the USA. But the Muslims in the Middle East attacked us and Bush took preemptive action to protect us. The preemtive policies were Bush creations. There is no punishment for a terrorist who flies an airplane into a building or blows himself up on a crowded street.

    Reagan on the other hand only followed the same foreign policies of two geat Democrat Presidents ... Harry Truman and John Fitzgerald Kennedy ... in his 1980 campaign Reagan proposed to follow both the domestic and foreign policies of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. If Reagan was a true conservative then so were FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK.

    During his years in the office of president not once did Reagan ever invite Barry Goldwater to the White House for any reason. Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil was a weekly visitor ... Tip and Reagan were buddies.

    In the 1980 campaign the press had a pool that would be won by the first reporter who could get Reagan to say the words "Barry Goldwater". No matter what the question or how it was asked Reagan would not even mention Barry Goldwater by name. The closest any of us ever got was Reagan did mention "The Senator from Arizona."

    Everything Reagan did in office was a continuation or reimplementation of a policy orginated by a Democrat president.

    Oh and the initial funds to rebuild the miltary was passed during the last year Jimmy Carter was president. It went into the 1980, 1981 budgets. The build up of the military had been proposed to congress by Jimmy Carter.

    But back to immigration in 2004 Bush got about 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. 14.5 percent of voters in the USA are Hispanic. That percentage had grown from 20 percent in the early 1990s. At the rate of change it was expected that over 50 percent of Hispanics would be voting Republican in 2008.

    The media had to fix that ... because once a majority of Hipanics voted Republican it would be many decades before a Democrat won the presidency again.

    That is when the media started the illegal Mexican stories on TV and Radio. They knew that many on the right had enough racial prejudice to drive Hispanics back into the Democratic party.

    It worked.

    The Democrats have the 12 percent of the population that is black and are rapidly gaining ground on the 14.5 percent that are Hispanic. Soon the combination black and Hispanic votes will start a Democrat for the presidency with about 25 percent of the total vote.That is 1/2 the votes they need to win. Thus Democrats to win the presidency will only need 1/3 of the white vote.

    That also means that Republicans will have to win 67 percent of the white vote in order to win.

    Republicans are not likely to get that done any time soon. Conservatives can't even win the Republican nomination for president.

    This last Presidential election resulted in a far left liberal winning the biggest victory since 1988. The losing party ALWAYS moves in the direction of the winning party.

    It is amusing to watch Republicans tell us that what is wrong with the Republican party is it did not stay to the right. We are expected to believe that when the Republican party did not offer the voters a conservative enough candidate they voted for a far more liberal one instead. The other option is that since McCain was not a true conservative, Conservatives did not vote. But the turn out in 2008 was 132 million.. compared to 122 million in 2004, 105 million in 2000 and 96 million in 1996.

    There were no voters sitting on the sidelines in 2008 and even if they were, they will likley sit on the sidelines in 2012.

    The object of elections is to win the support of those that vote. Getting the support of non-voters is worthless on election day. The Republican party will move to the left... where the majority of the voters are ... or it will lose, lose, lose.