Sore losers

The Republicans are sore losers. They do not accept the resukts of elections lying down. The long temper tantrum the Right had during the 90's was a result of Bill Clinton winning the presidency. This punctured the myth of an overwhelmingly Conservative nation so dear and central to their ideology. This is one of the strengths of the Republican movement. Democrats, on the other hand, are great losers. Democrats will always be responsible adults, always swerve first in chicken, a nd that is why the are and look weak. The Dem leadership always misinterprets the public perception of Dems as weak as being insufficiently Right wing or hawkish. Wrong. It is because they are such good losers. Think about it. Obama legitimately beat McCain, just as Clinton did best in a three way field. Do the Repug's ever roll over? NO!!! What did the Left do when Bush was handed a victory? Whine a little. Live went on. Someone has the be the adults here. How bout it stop being us? WE need to stop being good losers. Maybe we will do it less frequently then.

Odd symetry on presidents

One place residents of Texas have had it worse than other Americans is the length of time we had to put up with George "Shrub" Bush (a.k.a 43). I wake every morning glad than I no longer have to listen to that man talk. George Bush was not merely a man I disagreed with, he was(is? now I don't have to care) an embodiment of everything I despise in a human wrapped into one package. Bush's combination of Texas frat boy and Greenwich, Ct., where the Bush families roots truly are, "43" disgusts me on multiple levels. I wonder if for the TEA party people Our President produces the same, deep almost subconscious level disgust? And if it does, would these white people, and it really is white middle aged people, want to ask them selves what it says about them.

what is so special about property protection?

The Tea party and other libertarians proclaim that the on ly function of government is protect borders, protect property and enforce contracts, although Rick Perry adds delivering mail to the list. What is so special about these services that elevates them to being legitimate functions of government? To me, protection of property is the ultimate nanny state service. I rely on dogs and guns. I say those who loudly proclaim their county or state sovereignty should be the first to demand freedom from protection. Courts are paternalistic also. If you need a court to enforce a contract you are to weak to demand much of anyone and should gladly take what you are given. Border protection? Seems like invasions should be stopped with the kind of militias the Founders envisioned. Why is Afghanistan unconquerable? No central government to topple, just thousands of warriors taking orders from a local warlord. My point is that the "natural" functions of government that Libertarians speak of are not natural at all, just arbitrary rules benefiting a certain class/caste in the US. Health Care is no less a Natural function of government than any other function. It is just that the Tea folks have not had an insurance company destroy their lives yet so they figure it is only a luxury, unlike having someone to respond to a burglar alarm.