Effect of the election on the housing market

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]You folks check out the CA election results per county on a map…

For example:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/governor/

With the exception of san diego,orange,and San Luis Obispo, coastal bordering counties voted blue…It’s pretty interesting seeing this one a map….Inland, except Alpine and Imperial voted red…

Hmmm. There’s always talk about splitting the state between NorCal and SoCal.. I’m wondering if it would make more sense to split things between WestCal and EastCal :)[/quote]

I looked at the map and I find it interesting that Meg Whitman was trounced in the counties of San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara. Her home base has utterly rejected her.

So we have counties like San Barnardino supporting the Republican for governor.

Don’t you think that’s very telling about who the better educated voters support?

I’d love to see a map where you can drill down in more detail by geographic area.[/quote]

Come on Brian.. It’s SAN FRANCISCO… You know, Castro district…. Please, SAN FRAN has always been blue….

[briansd1]

Yeah, but what about Silicon Valley and surroundings? The tech workers didn’t even support Whitman.

Remember the 130 miles ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZf5ALxPCTU&feature=related

Silicon Valley has spoken and sure didn’t sent Whitman to Sacramento.

[briansd1]

Yeah, but what about Silicon Valley and surroundings? The tech workers didn’t even support Whitman.

Remember the 130 miles ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZf5ALxPCTU&feature=related

Silicon Valley has spoken and sure didn’t sent Whitman to Sacramento.

[briansd1]

Yeah, but what about Silicon Valley and surroundings? The tech workers didn’t even support Whitman.

Remember the 130 miles ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZf5ALxPCTU&feature=related

Silicon Valley has spoken and sure didn’t sent Whitman to Sacramento.

[briansd1]

Yeah, but what about Silicon Valley and surroundings? The tech workers didn’t even support Whitman.

Remember the 130 miles ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZf5ALxPCTU&feature=related

Silicon Valley has spoken and sure didn’t sent Whitman to Sacramento.

[briansd1]

Yeah, but what about Silicon Valley and surroundings? The tech workers didn’t even support Whitman.

Remember the 130 miles ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZf5ALxPCTU&feature=related

Silicon Valley has spoken and sure didn’t sent Whitman to Sacramento.

[barnaby33]

EconProf, which industries will do the hiring? Hell even give me a sector, other than health care or IT where this demand even close to capacity? I’d like to know. While I have certainly become disillusioned with Bush 44, its not like there is some driver for hiring that is just waiting to be unleashed.

Grasping at straws is not an effective strategy, in real estate or life. I agree with SDR, effectively there will be no change. Everyone is beholden to the Fed Wall street complex now and nobody wants to be the one to pull the plug. I’m fairly certain Rand Paul would find a way to print, to keep the scheme going.

I’m back in Oz this month and I’m constantly amazed at how much foreigners know about the US. Much more than we know about them, for the most part.
Josh

[barnaby33]

EconProf, which industries will do the hiring? Hell even give me a sector, other than health care or IT where this demand even close to capacity? I’d like to know. While I have certainly become disillusioned with Bush 44, its not like there is some driver for hiring that is just waiting to be unleashed.

Grasping at straws is not an effective strategy, in real estate or life. I agree with SDR, effectively there will be no change. Everyone is beholden to the Fed Wall street complex now and nobody wants to be the one to pull the plug. I’m fairly certain Rand Paul would find a way to print, to keep the scheme going.

I’m back in Oz this month and I’m constantly amazed at how much foreigners know about the US. Much more than we know about them, for the most part.
Josh

[barnaby33]

EconProf, which industries will do the hiring? Hell even give me a sector, other than health care or IT where this demand even close to capacity? I’d like to know. While I have certainly become disillusioned with Bush 44, its not like there is some driver for hiring that is just waiting to be unleashed.

Grasping at straws is not an effective strategy, in real estate or life. I agree with SDR, effectively there will be no change. Everyone is beholden to the Fed Wall street complex now and nobody wants to be the one to pull the plug. I’m fairly certain Rand Paul would find a way to print, to keep the scheme going.

I’m back in Oz this month and I’m constantly amazed at how much foreigners know about the US. Much more than we know about them, for the most part.
Josh

[barnaby33]

EconProf, which industries will do the hiring? Hell even give me a sector, other than health care or IT where this demand even close to capacity? I’d like to know. While I have certainly become disillusioned with Bush 44, its not like there is some driver for hiring that is just waiting to be unleashed.

Grasping at straws is not an effective strategy, in real estate or life. I agree with SDR, effectively there will be no change. Everyone is beholden to the Fed Wall street complex now and nobody wants to be the one to pull the plug. I’m fairly certain Rand Paul would find a way to print, to keep the scheme going.

I’m back in Oz this month and I’m constantly amazed at how much foreigners know about the US. Much more than we know about them, for the most part.
Josh

[barnaby33]

EconProf, which industries will do the hiring? Hell even give me a sector, other than health care or IT where this demand even close to capacity? I’d like to know. While I have certainly become disillusioned with Bush 44, its not like there is some driver for hiring that is just waiting to be unleashed.

Grasping at straws is not an effective strategy, in real estate or life. I agree with SDR, effectively there will be no change. Everyone is beholden to the Fed Wall street complex now and nobody wants to be the one to pull the plug. I’m fairly certain Rand Paul would find a way to print, to keep the scheme going.

I’m back in Oz this month and I’m constantly amazed at how much foreigners know about the US. Much more than we know about them, for the most part.
Josh

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper] I am partial to a (at the least) two-party system. And I don’t want those two parties to be Republican and Tea Party.[/quote]

Eaves: And yet… There’s an old saw in the Army that goes: “Amateurs discuss tactics and experts discuss logistics”.

For those paying close attention, yesterday’s election had nothing to do with “message” or Obama. Instead it was all about voter mobilization. I was very interested in what Democratic strategists like Gergen and Begala had to say last night, and it was clear to them that last night’s victory presaged and prefigured a larger GOP following wave. As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”.[/quote]

Correction, Alan. Or, at least, qualification. Yesterday’s election was all about voter mobilization on the Right. The Democrats weren’t even aware that mobilizing voters would be necessary until late September. That’s the difference between the Repubs and Dems: the need for voter mobilization is never questioned with the former, even between elections. Republicans could repeal the 22nd Amendment, and bring Ronald Reagan back from the dead, but they would still be pulling out all the stops trying to rally more and more voters.

Frankly, I don’t waste much time listening to Democratic strategists (and I use that word loosely). My reasons were exhaustively outlined in my post but, to sum them up, who the hell is scoring the Rohypnol for these assholes? Watching them tiresomely droning on about “what went wrong” is an incredibly surreal expeience. They are so egocentric, and soooooo incredibly and unbelieveably clueless. I admit to liking David Gerson, but and Paul Begala can be bit uneven. But there are only them and a couple others who seem to be even remotely in touch with the actual truth of the situation.

I made the following observation yesterday:”[The Dems ha]ve failed to detect changes in the sociological landscape. They’ve been convinced that the electorate would never fall for the “tricks” of the GOP, and they are still under the impression that it’s only ill-bred, illiterate folks from the South that are against them, and that the remainder of the middle-class sees them as the “friend of the working man”.” The truth of the matter is that a very significant percentage of white middle class voters have gone in for the Tea Party, both blue collar and white collar, and college grads and high school dropouts. This flight is not a recent phenomenon: many of them abandoned the Democratic Party for the Repubs several years back, and made the subsequent decision to move to the Tea Party. The danger in this startling demographic change is that these people have been very adept at bringing spouses, children, relatives, friends, and even casual acquaintances into the movement. But here are the Dems, still laboring under the delusion that the middle class will remain unquestioningly faithful to them, and totally unaware that they’ve been gone for over 15 years.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”….[/quote]

I don’t quite agree. Obama had a moment, but it was with a following that could have provided a solid structure for a Movement that, given adequate funding and intellectually and politically competent administration, might be capable of some countering of the Tea Party tide. However, immediately following the election, it was left to disintegrate. No one in the Administration or at the Democratic National Committee made any effort to maintain and tap these awesome resources.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…The GOP effectively harnessed and then controlled the Tea Party last night. Where the Tea Party put forth realistic, credible candidates, they won. Where they didn’t (think O’Donnell), they didn’t. It was also about women in politics and Hispanics and here as well the GOP outshot the Dems.

Illinois (Obama’s home state) fell, as did Ohio and Pennsylvania. If you’re thinking 2012, this is galvanic. Nevada almost did and, let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really? Harry Reid barely eked out a win. California is now within striking distance for the GOP, and that is THE gzme-changer….[/quote]

I agree 100% with the statement about the GOP harnessing the Tea Party’s resources, here and in my earlier post. I believe that the TP’s decision not to unite their organizations and centralize their operations, along with their general lack of political sophistication, will leave them vulnerable to a complete and swift GOP takeover. I also heartily concur with your assessment of the devastating potential of the GOP/TP’s victories in Illinois, and if the Democrats are even attempting to explain this away or excuse it by using any phrase that doesn’t include the words, “We fucked up”, there simply is no hope for the party.

But I am fervently hoping that your question, “let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really?”, was a rhetorical one. In her defense, however, I found myself making a similar query about her opponent while I listened to the rebroadcast of the Angle-Reid debate on C-SPAN last week.

And, unlike Brian, I have no doubts that California is vulnerable to the GOP and Tea Party, infinitely distressing as that thought may be to me.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]…If I’m Rove or Armey, I’ve been handed the blueprint to marginalize the Dems for the next political cycle, as well as the next political generation…..[/quote]

This is true. However, despite a momentary misstep caused by his glasses being steamed up by his overwhelming hubris, Karl Rove doesn’t need the blueprint. No one can come close to being his equal when it comes to being experienced in marginalizing the Dems. Not because of any particular keen skill of Mr. Rove, but simply because the Dems never fail to buy into whatever he is doing, planning, or thinking.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper] I am partial to a (at the least) two-party system. And I don’t want those two parties to be Republican and Tea Party.[/quote]

Eaves: And yet… There’s an old saw in the Army that goes: “Amateurs discuss tactics and experts discuss logistics”.

For those paying close attention, yesterday’s election had nothing to do with “message” or Obama. Instead it was all about voter mobilization. I was very interested in what Democratic strategists like Gergen and Begala had to say last night, and it was clear to them that last night’s victory presaged and prefigured a larger GOP following wave. As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”.[/quote]

Correction, Alan. Or, at least, qualification. Yesterday’s election was all about voter mobilization on the Right. The Democrats weren’t even aware that mobilizing voters would be necessary until late September. That’s the difference between the Repubs and Dems: the need for voter mobilization is never questioned with the former, even between elections. Republicans could repeal the 22nd Amendment, and bring Ronald Reagan back from the dead, but they would still be pulling out all the stops trying to rally more and more voters.

Frankly, I don’t waste much time listening to Democratic strategists (and I use that word loosely). My reasons were exhaustively outlined in my post but, to sum them up, who the hell is scoring the Rohypnol for these assholes? Watching them tiresomely droning on about “what went wrong” is an incredibly surreal expeience. They are so egocentric, and soooooo incredibly and unbelieveably clueless. I admit to liking David Gerson, but and Paul Begala can be bit uneven. But there are only them and a couple others who seem to be even remotely in touch with the actual truth of the situation.

I made the following observation yesterday:”[The Dems ha]ve failed to detect changes in the sociological landscape. They’ve been convinced that the electorate would never fall for the “tricks” of the GOP, and they are still under the impression that it’s only ill-bred, illiterate folks from the South that are against them, and that the remainder of the middle-class sees them as the “friend of the working man”.” The truth of the matter is that a very significant percentage of white middle class voters have gone in for the Tea Party, both blue collar and white collar, and college grads and high school dropouts. This flight is not a recent phenomenon: many of them abandoned the Democratic Party for the Repubs several years back, and made the subsequent decision to move to the Tea Party. The danger in this startling demographic change is that these people have been very adept at bringing spouses, children, relatives, friends, and even casual acquaintances into the movement. But here are the Dems, still laboring under the delusion that the middle class will remain unquestioningly faithful to them, and totally unaware that they’ve been gone for over 15 years.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”….[/quote]

I don’t quite agree. Obama had a moment, but it was with a following that could have provided a solid structure for a Movement that, given adequate funding and intellectually and politically competent administration, might be capable of some countering of the Tea Party tide. However, immediately following the election, it was left to disintegrate. No one in the Administration or at the Democratic National Committee made any effort to maintain and tap these awesome resources.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…The GOP effectively harnessed and then controlled the Tea Party last night. Where the Tea Party put forth realistic, credible candidates, they won. Where they didn’t (think O’Donnell), they didn’t. It was also about women in politics and Hispanics and here as well the GOP outshot the Dems.

Illinois (Obama’s home state) fell, as did Ohio and Pennsylvania. If you’re thinking 2012, this is galvanic. Nevada almost did and, let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really? Harry Reid barely eked out a win. California is now within striking distance for the GOP, and that is THE gzme-changer….[/quote]

I agree 100% with the statement about the GOP harnessing the Tea Party’s resources, here and in my earlier post. I believe that the TP’s decision not to unite their organizations and centralize their operations, along with their general lack of political sophistication, will leave them vulnerable to a complete and swift GOP takeover. I also heartily concur with your assessment of the devastating potential of the GOP/TP’s victories in Illinois, and if the Democrats are even attempting to explain this away or excuse it by using any phrase that doesn’t include the words, “We fucked up”, there simply is no hope for the party.

But I am fervently hoping that your question, “let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really?”, was a rhetorical one. In her defense, however, I found myself making a similar query about her opponent while I listened to the rebroadcast of the Angle-Reid debate on C-SPAN last week.

And, unlike Brian, I have no doubts that California is vulnerable to the GOP and Tea Party, infinitely distressing as that thought may be to me.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]…If I’m Rove or Armey, I’ve been handed the blueprint to marginalize the Dems for the next political cycle, as well as the next political generation…..[/quote]

This is true. However, despite a momentary misstep caused by his glasses being steamed up by his overwhelming hubris, Karl Rove doesn’t need the blueprint. No one can come close to being his equal when it comes to being experienced in marginalizing the Dems. Not because of any particular keen skill of Mr. Rove, but simply because the Dems never fail to buy into whatever he is doing, planning, or thinking.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper] I am partial to a (at the least) two-party system. And I don’t want those two parties to be Republican and Tea Party.[/quote]

Eaves: And yet… There’s an old saw in the Army that goes: “Amateurs discuss tactics and experts discuss logistics”.

For those paying close attention, yesterday’s election had nothing to do with “message” or Obama. Instead it was all about voter mobilization. I was very interested in what Democratic strategists like Gergen and Begala had to say last night, and it was clear to them that last night’s victory presaged and prefigured a larger GOP following wave. As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”.[/quote]

Correction, Alan. Or, at least, qualification. Yesterday’s election was all about voter mobilization on the Right. The Democrats weren’t even aware that mobilizing voters would be necessary until late September. That’s the difference between the Repubs and Dems: the need for voter mobilization is never questioned with the former, even between elections. Republicans could repeal the 22nd Amendment, and bring Ronald Reagan back from the dead, but they would still be pulling out all the stops trying to rally more and more voters.

Frankly, I don’t waste much time listening to Democratic strategists (and I use that word loosely). My reasons were exhaustively outlined in my post but, to sum them up, who the hell is scoring the Rohypnol for these assholes? Watching them tiresomely droning on about “what went wrong” is an incredibly surreal expeience. They are so egocentric, and soooooo incredibly and unbelieveably clueless. I admit to liking David Gerson, but and Paul Begala can be bit uneven. But there are only them and a couple others who seem to be even remotely in touch with the actual truth of the situation.

I made the following observation yesterday:”[The Dems ha]ve failed to detect changes in the sociological landscape. They’ve been convinced that the electorate would never fall for the “tricks” of the GOP, and they are still under the impression that it’s only ill-bred, illiterate folks from the South that are against them, and that the remainder of the middle-class sees them as the “friend of the working man”.” The truth of the matter is that a very significant percentage of white middle class voters have gone in for the Tea Party, both blue collar and white collar, and college grads and high school dropouts. This flight is not a recent phenomenon: many of them abandoned the Democratic Party for the Repubs several years back, and made the subsequent decision to move to the Tea Party. The danger in this startling demographic change is that these people have been very adept at bringing spouses, children, relatives, friends, and even casual acquaintances into the movement. But here are the Dems, still laboring under the delusion that the middle class will remain unquestioningly faithful to them, and totally unaware that they’ve been gone for over 15 years.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”….[/quote]

I don’t quite agree. Obama had a moment, but it was with a following that could have provided a solid structure for a Movement that, given adequate funding and intellectually and politically competent administration, might be capable of some countering of the Tea Party tide. However, immediately following the election, it was left to disintegrate. No one in the Administration or at the Democratic National Committee made any effort to maintain and tap these awesome resources.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…The GOP effectively harnessed and then controlled the Tea Party last night. Where the Tea Party put forth realistic, credible candidates, they won. Where they didn’t (think O’Donnell), they didn’t. It was also about women in politics and Hispanics and here as well the GOP outshot the Dems.

Illinois (Obama’s home state) fell, as did Ohio and Pennsylvania. If you’re thinking 2012, this is galvanic. Nevada almost did and, let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really? Harry Reid barely eked out a win. California is now within striking distance for the GOP, and that is THE gzme-changer….[/quote]

I agree 100% with the statement about the GOP harnessing the Tea Party’s resources, here and in my earlier post. I believe that the TP’s decision not to unite their organizations and centralize their operations, along with their general lack of political sophistication, will leave them vulnerable to a complete and swift GOP takeover. I also heartily concur with your assessment of the devastating potential of the GOP/TP’s victories in Illinois, and if the Democrats are even attempting to explain this away or excuse it by using any phrase that doesn’t include the words, “We fucked up”, there simply is no hope for the party.

But I am fervently hoping that your question, “let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really?”, was a rhetorical one. In her defense, however, I found myself making a similar query about her opponent while I listened to the rebroadcast of the Angle-Reid debate on C-SPAN last week.

And, unlike Brian, I have no doubts that California is vulnerable to the GOP and Tea Party, infinitely distressing as that thought may be to me.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]…If I’m Rove or Armey, I’ve been handed the blueprint to marginalize the Dems for the next political cycle, as well as the next political generation…..[/quote]

This is true. However, despite a momentary misstep caused by his glasses being steamed up by his overwhelming hubris, Karl Rove doesn’t need the blueprint. No one can come close to being his equal when it comes to being experienced in marginalizing the Dems. Not because of any particular keen skill of Mr. Rove, but simply because the Dems never fail to buy into whatever he is doing, planning, or thinking.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper] I am partial to a (at the least) two-party system. And I don’t want those two parties to be Republican and Tea Party.[/quote]

Eaves: And yet… There’s an old saw in the Army that goes: “Amateurs discuss tactics and experts discuss logistics”.

For those paying close attention, yesterday’s election had nothing to do with “message” or Obama. Instead it was all about voter mobilization. I was very interested in what Democratic strategists like Gergen and Begala had to say last night, and it was clear to them that last night’s victory presaged and prefigured a larger GOP following wave. As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”.[/quote]

Correction, Alan. Or, at least, qualification. Yesterday’s election was all about voter mobilization on the Right. The Democrats weren’t even aware that mobilizing voters would be necessary until late September. That’s the difference between the Repubs and Dems: the need for voter mobilization is never questioned with the former, even between elections. Republicans could repeal the 22nd Amendment, and bring Ronald Reagan back from the dead, but they would still be pulling out all the stops trying to rally more and more voters.

Frankly, I don’t waste much time listening to Democratic strategists (and I use that word loosely). My reasons were exhaustively outlined in my post but, to sum them up, who the hell is scoring the Rohypnol for these assholes? Watching them tiresomely droning on about “what went wrong” is an incredibly surreal expeience. They are so egocentric, and soooooo incredibly and unbelieveably clueless. I admit to liking David Gerson, but and Paul Begala can be bit uneven. But there are only them and a couple others who seem to be even remotely in touch with the actual truth of the situation.

I made the following observation yesterday:”[The Dems ha]ve failed to detect changes in the sociological landscape. They’ve been convinced that the electorate would never fall for the “tricks” of the GOP, and they are still under the impression that it’s only ill-bred, illiterate folks from the South that are against them, and that the remainder of the middle-class sees them as the “friend of the working man”.” The truth of the matter is that a very significant percentage of white middle class voters have gone in for the Tea Party, both blue collar and white collar, and college grads and high school dropouts. This flight is not a recent phenomenon: many of them abandoned the Democratic Party for the Repubs several years back, and made the subsequent decision to move to the Tea Party. The danger in this startling demographic change is that these people have been very adept at bringing spouses, children, relatives, friends, and even casual acquaintances into the movement. But here are the Dems, still laboring under the delusion that the middle class will remain unquestioningly faithful to them, and totally unaware that they’ve been gone for over 15 years.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”….[/quote]

I don’t quite agree. Obama had a moment, but it was with a following that could have provided a solid structure for a Movement that, given adequate funding and intellectually and politically competent administration, might be capable of some countering of the Tea Party tide. However, immediately following the election, it was left to disintegrate. No one in the Administration or at the Democratic National Committee made any effort to maintain and tap these awesome resources.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…The GOP effectively harnessed and then controlled the Tea Party last night. Where the Tea Party put forth realistic, credible candidates, they won. Where they didn’t (think O’Donnell), they didn’t. It was also about women in politics and Hispanics and here as well the GOP outshot the Dems.

Illinois (Obama’s home state) fell, as did Ohio and Pennsylvania. If you’re thinking 2012, this is galvanic. Nevada almost did and, let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really? Harry Reid barely eked out a win. California is now within striking distance for the GOP, and that is THE gzme-changer….[/quote]

I agree 100% with the statement about the GOP harnessing the Tea Party’s resources, here and in my earlier post. I believe that the TP’s decision not to unite their organizations and centralize their operations, along with their general lack of political sophistication, will leave them vulnerable to a complete and swift GOP takeover. I also heartily concur with your assessment of the devastating potential of the GOP/TP’s victories in Illinois, and if the Democrats are even attempting to explain this away or excuse it by using any phrase that doesn’t include the words, “We fucked up”, there simply is no hope for the party.

But I am fervently hoping that your question, “let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really?”, was a rhetorical one. In her defense, however, I found myself making a similar query about her opponent while I listened to the rebroadcast of the Angle-Reid debate on C-SPAN last week.

And, unlike Brian, I have no doubts that California is vulnerable to the GOP and Tea Party, infinitely distressing as that thought may be to me.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]…If I’m Rove or Armey, I’ve been handed the blueprint to marginalize the Dems for the next political cycle, as well as the next political generation…..[/quote]

This is true. However, despite a momentary misstep caused by his glasses being steamed up by his overwhelming hubris, Karl Rove doesn’t need the blueprint. No one can come close to being his equal when it comes to being experienced in marginalizing the Dems. Not because of any particular keen skill of Mr. Rove, but simply because the Dems never fail to buy into whatever he is doing, planning, or thinking.

[Author]

Posts