COULD WE WIN IF WE HAD TO FIGHT WORLD WAR II TODAY?
The debate over “The Greatest Generation” and whether the way America is today could duplicate their stunning achievements in winning two wars and fighting through a depression while maintaining unity has been hashed and rehashed by far superior minds than mine.
But I just can’t help thinking about it after watching the History Channel this week and their excellent series, “Word War II in HD.”
If you haven’t been able to catch any of it, they will run the entire 10 hours on Saturday starting at 8:00 am central time.
Quite simply, it is the grandest, the most heartbreaking, the most stirring documentary series on World War II ever made. And that includes both “Victory at Sea” and “The World at War.”
TWAW is the gold standard - 32 hours of in-depth analysis of the politics, the strategy, the personalities, and ordeals experienced by civilians during the war. But it is rather soulless. It’s academic approach can be dry, although the images and words of survivors lend an emotionalism outside the rather clinical analysis offered.
“Victory at Sea,” on the other hand, went hard for dramatic effect. With the sonorous voice of Leonard Graves supplying the narration and music by Broadway impresario Richard Rodgers, VAS was a made for TV blockbuster that went right for the heart and kept the viewer entranced with its quick cuts, and snappy pace.
Other documentaries of individual battles (there have been a couple of excellent treatments of D-Day) have suffered from using stock footage that, if you watch enough of these things, you recognize from other projects.
But the History Channel sojourn into the past with “World War II in HD” is everything a good documentary should be; highly original, well scripted, images lining up with narration in an artistic mix, all the while marching forward with a pace that allows the viewer to digest the information and feel what the documentarian is feeling about his subject.
But it is the images that capture the mind and rend the soul. Culled from literally thousands of home movies - many in color - and long lost color combat footage, there is a freshness and even an immediacy about the entire package that has held me absolutely in thrall for the entire run of the series.
The technique is itself, fresh and original. Focusing on several individuals who fought in both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters, the survivors take us through everything from the home front, their battle experiences, the horror, mud, blood, guts, and monumental sense of loss when a comrade falls. The narration is accompanied by stunning combat footage - real “You Are There” images of mortar rounds exploding just feet from the camera, horrific sights of the wounded and dead, and always, the total destruction that war leaves in its wake.
A small example of the originality of the series can be found in the way that the narration will, from time to time, fade out slowly and the reading of the script is picked up by the actual survivor. It is an extraordinarily effective technique in that it humanizes the actor reading the narration when, after just a few seconds of the survivor reading, the voice of the actor portraying him is slowly brought back up, while the survivor’s words fade away. This is not a new technique but it it works spectacularly.
The music is obtrusive without overwhelming the action. Indeed, the music is used as a dramatic device to measure the pace of the documentary, mirroring the pace of the excellent narration (Gary Sinise). Beautiful editing builds bridges to succeeding each scene, allowing for seamless segues from clip to clip. A truly masterful job.
A word about the HD: It could be that they really didn’t have anything else to call the project, what with “World War II in Color” already taken. Shooting the program in HD is not the reason to watch it, nor is much of it in HD anyway. The films, as you can imagine, are grainy, and out of focus at times so even with an HD TV, it really doesn’t enhance the viewing experience that much.
All in all, “World War II in HD” is a triumph of documentary film making that should do for World War II what Ken Burns’ “Civil War” did for that conflict; bringing the viewer up close to the war while allowing for us to get to know some fascinating characters who increase our understanding of the conflict. (Burns’ “The War” was good but lacked the dramatic punch of the History Channel treatment.)
And as the last scenes of the documentary faded and the survivors, now all near or over 80 years old were left with their memories, it hit me that the hackneyed question about whether America today could pull together and perform such magnificent feats of arms and industry as those of my father’s generation manged, needed another airing.
Strip away our gadgets, our scientific wonders, and all the cultural, economic, and social touchstones that make up America today and ask yourself; How much like them are we? There’s no doubt that we are quite different in some respects. But like Robert Graves, the great essayist of the World War I generation who saw extraordinary love in the sacrifice of soldiers who marched lockstep into the most murderous fire, is there that kind of feeling for America today that would allow us to meet such huge challenges?
By World War II standards, our military is tiny. More than 16,000,000 Americans wore their country’s uniform in the Second World War. But there is little doubt that our current military is every bit as good, soldier for soldier, as those who beat the Nazis and the Japanese. So the question isn’t really a military one. It is a question of character. The real question should be; How similar is the character of today’s American to that of the World War II generation? Are we made of the same stuff? Do we believe in America as passionately as they did - enough to put aside our political differences and unite to see the job through to its conclusion?
I have my doubts. The whole idea of American sovereignty is fast disappearing - or at least the sort of sovereignty the WWII generation believed in. Call it a blind faith if you will, or perhaps you think it small minded and childish to harbor such notions that sometimes, there is only one side to take and that is the side of the country of your birth. It’s called “chauvinism” today and is quite unfashionable. But without it, we might have quit in 1944. Without that absolute certainty that we were in the right felt by the overwhelming majority of Americans whether at the battlefront or the homefront - whether fighting with a gun, or laboring in the factories and fields - I don’t think we could have done it.
There are many who would celebrate this loss of faith as the inevitable result of America “growing up” or worse, the consequence of a government that has betrayed the people time and again whether it was Viet Nam, Watergate, or some other national event that showed our leaders using us, lying to us, or betraying the principles on which the country was founded.
And yet…
We don’t know, do we? As implacable a foe as radical Islamism, it can’t come close to the existential threat of Hitler and his thugs or the economic threat to our emerging commercial empire in the Far East by Japan. And remember, all of this played out with the backdrop of a national depression where unemployment was still over 10% and most people hurting economically.
I want to believe we’d be up to those kinds of threats regardless of about which generation of Americans you want to talk. I don’t think it would matter what era you choose, I still see Americans as comprising a specific, exceptional “race” if you will. There are national characteristics unique to people who live here that are found nowhere else. We simply couldn’t have achieved what we have achieved, overcome what we’ve been able to overcome (self-inflicted or otherwise) without some spark deep within us that makes us “Americans.”
The conventional answer might be that we wouldn’t stand a chance fighting a long war like WWII today. But one thing is for sure; if I were a foreign power, I wouldn’t make the mistake that the Kaiser made in 1917, Tojo and Hitler made in 1941, or Saddam made in 1991.
And that is underestimate the United States of America.
I think that if you gave us a stright forward, black-n-white enemy as we had in WWII, America would rise to the occasion. But that was the last war in which we did.
Cold War? If we have completly won this, then why do we still have so many troops in Europe?
Korea? We are still fighting it, or else how can you explain the troops we have there? It is just a long term truce.
Vietnam? We were there why?
Iraq 1991? We went, we kicked ass…but even if we had sat at home they would not have been a threat to us. Why did we go? To show that nobody puts Baby in the corner. We told them to jump and they said no.
Afganistan? We justifiablely went and took out their goverment… and then discoverd that they are so disorginized there is no one to hand it back to. But even if we had done nothing there was no chance they could have ever taken over the US. I think if we had not wasted all of our time and energy on Iraq we could have really made this something to be proud of.
Iraq 2003? The US population was lied to, and knows it. There is less reason to have had this war then any other the US has ever been involved in.
Mexican War? Spanish American War? Either of those two unnecessary wars ring a bell? Especially the S-A war where the USS Maine probably blew up herself because of defective boiler.
ed.
Comment by KenGirard — 11/20/2009 @ 2:44 pm
I believe that the government’s ability to propagandize the citizenry into a black/white viewpoint regarding who the enemy is, has been greatly diminished over the years.
This is due to greatly improved worldwide communication via better phone systems and of course the internet itself.
That is not to say that it’s impossible to polarize the citizenry, it’s just more difficult. This isn’t necessarily better though, as more devious ways of manipulating public opinion are employed, making it difficult to actually believe anyone about anything.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 11/20/2009 @ 3:36 pm
I will utter a bit of heresy. Maybe the “Greatest Generation” wasn’t–perhaps that is just another mindless cliche.
In many ways, among them the proliferation of nuclear weapons and enemy enablers in our own midst, the Cold War was much, much more difficult. Just because there wasn’t a ticker tape parade when the Berlin Wall fell doesn’t mean it wasn’t the harder nut to crack. It was. Islamism may prove the same. The current economic collapse, and the likely double dip recession next year, may prove as difficult as the Depression by the time things shake out.
Every generation or two rises to a challenge different from the last and unlike the next. The heroism and unity of World War II certainly has counterparts, so I get a bit weary of the “Greatest Generation” appellation. It may have been as described but that is much more subjective than many like to admit. I even have a difficult time with the time frame attributed to the “Greatest Generation.” Wouldn’t it be fair to say that from World War I and Lenin and Stalin’s Great Terror until Pearl Harbor that forces arrayed or started to array to destroy Western civilization? That although the Depression ended with the war, real prosperity didn’t begin until the Fifties?
In the immedate aftermath of 9/11 this nation showed it continued to maintain its national character. I believe the same to be true today. So to answer your question: no doubt. But history has informed us it will be different in kind.
Comment by obamathered — 11/20/2009 @ 4:07 pm
So the question isn’t really a military one. It is a question of character. The real question should be; How similar is the character of today’s American to that of the World War II generation? Are we made of the same stuff?
The “greatest generation” giot bashed by their parents when they were the youth in the 30s and blamed by their elders for all the troubles in America at that time. Now we think of them as so, like, totally awesome to the max!
People have been saying this exact stuff from the beginning of time. I can point you to ancient Greek writers who mourned how their contemporaries lacked the “character” of the victors of Marathon. I can point you to an ancient Sumerian tablet from circa 3000 BC that consists of an older mans lament on how the young people are no good these days.
It’s all bullshit.
Comment by angullimala — 11/20/2009 @ 4:12 pm
“COULD WE WIN IF WE HAD TO FIGHT WORLD WAR II TODAY?”
Don’t need to. Obama made the world love us. Where you been?
Comment by CZ — 11/20/2009 @ 4:14 pm
Rick
Everyone on the Left and Mushy center have done eveything possible to prevent there from ever being another Generation like that. We are being rotted from the inside.
Could a president today ever be outright convicted of clear Treason?
If not the answer is clear. I am more a Roman at heart. If someone commits treason in time of war then edeal with them harshly.
Why does treason never Prosper?
Because if it does none dare call it treason.
This is where all of us are now. None dare call it treason.
Comment by steve — 11/20/2009 @ 7:16 pm
I seem to remember that very few Americans thought it was worth it to fight Hitler, or Tojo, until the invasion of Poland and Pearl Harbor. Hitler had been waging war on Europe for 2 years before we got involved, and Japan had been waging war in China for nearly a decade before Pearl Harbor.
As I recall from my history, Roosevelt had to perform a strenuous act of salemanship to convince Americans of the need and rightness of the war effort. Had Pearl Harbor not occured, its possible we may have remained neutral with respect to Imperial Japan.
It was after the war, that the popularity of isolationism was conveniently forgotten, and the myth sprang up that every man jack of them knew, just knew, that Hitler should have been stopped, and every one of us leapt to our feet and marched off to serve the cause.
Comment by Liberty60 — 11/20/2009 @ 7:19 pm
Steve- are you consciously quoting Gary Allen?
Just curious.
Comment by Liberty60 — 11/20/2009 @ 7:20 pm
Bring back segregation, the pill — gone, Mexicans back in their place, women barefoot and pregnant, darkies deciding elections — the hell with that, and queers getting married, Jesus H. Christ!!!
The world was better when you could just lynch them and be done with it.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 11/20/2009 @ 7:44 pm
Could we win WWII if we had to fight it today? I’m not sure. We would need a much larger military than the one we have today, however, the next world war will not be like WWII was. A betterquestion to ask is can we win the next world war.
In the next world war, nuclear weapons are likely to be used on a massive scale. This means the massive troop and equipment build ups as well as the industrial factories that won WWII are unlikely to survive very long. The most likely adversaries that the United States faces in the 21st century are Russia and China in this order. In order to ensure an American victory, our nuclear arsenal needs to be upgraded. Unfortunately it has been allowed to degrade. In addition to this, our intellegence needs to be improved. As it stands right now, our intellegence and our military are not oriented as well as it could be. The primary threats of the 21st century stem not from Islamic terrorists but from Russia and China.
While Islamic terrorists and the states who support them such as Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela are fully capable of beating America in a military conflict, it is unlikely they could destroy America or take it over. This is not the case with Russia or China, especially Russia. The military needs to be reconfigured to win a military conflict with Russia and China or both of them. We need to recognize these as the primary threats and plan accordingly. The best place to start is by improving the nuclear arsenal and by improving our HUMMIT.
Finally, with regards to the current war with Islamic terrorists we would do far better to build more refineries and develop all of our own oil and gas reserves than any thing we are currently doing. Doing this would deprive our enemies of a major source of funding and would make them much easier to defeat. In addition, it would free up military resources to be focused on the primary threats of the 21st century which are Russia and China in that order.
In summary, in answer to the question, yes we can win the next world war but we will have to focus our forces properly. Right now we are not as well focused as we should be. Hopefully this will change soon.
Comment by B.Poster — 11/20/2009 @ 8:01 pm
I believe Steve is calling for the assassination of the President of the United States.
Is that what you’re doing, Steve?
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/20/2009 @ 8:21 pm
Michael
Convicted does not mean assasination.
but ask yourself, no matter what the evidence would a treason trial after impeachment ever result in a conviction? Be practicle in this day and age. Party or ideology is unimportant. Even if the sentence were merely removal from office and no more, could we reasonably expect to ever geta conviction for Treason.
Comment by steve — 11/20/2009 @ 8:50 pm
Richard:
Nice list you have going there. I can see you focus on this list a lot and assume eveyone else does too.
Please continue to think your list was all ther was to that time period and we will leave you in your corner muttering to yourself about right wing plots and the impending re-enslavement of black America.
You are the only one who has single handedly with a small cable of right thinking brothers prevented the overturning the gains of the Constitution, the Magna Carta, and the Civil War. I salute your amazing achievments.
Comment by steve — 11/20/2009 @ 8:57 pm
Dunno if anyone here read Gary Allen’s books from the 1960’s. The two I remember were titled None Dare Call It Treason and None Dare Call It Conspiracy.
Both were wild John Birch Society screeds filled with conspiracy theories linking the Illuminatie, the Trilateral Commission, the Rockefellers, Du Ponts, Rothchilds, etc. They made Dan Brown look like a cautious wonk.
Expect the Tea Party press to begin cranking these out once again.
Comment by Liberty60 — 11/20/2009 @ 8:57 pm
i agree with Ken Girard: given as horrendous a foe as hitler and the axis powers, i think even today’s americans would stand up and show their mettle. (yes, as Liberty60 says, the US populace took some time gearing up for the confrontation; but i think it’s fair to say that we’re much less isolationist since those days.)
Steve, i think your comment woulda worked better circa 2001-2008, when the whole executive branch decided that they could defy federal law and the constitution itsel itself in order to “protect” the constitution. tell me that makes sense. sheesh.
otherwise, if you are somehow referring to the present administration, i defy you to mention any actual acts of “treason” committed by Obama. no conspiracy theories allowed, no guessing at any supposed ulterior motives– just verifiable records, please! (note, you not liking something doesn’t make it treasonous.)
and, you suggest, everyone but the far right is responsible for this “rot”? how fortunate that you are one of the elect, chosen to spread the Gospel Truth! keep workin’ on that christ complex, man. wow. (speaking of rot, maybe it’s time to dust off those frontal lobes, tiger.)
Comment by brooks — 11/20/2009 @ 9:00 pm
Steve:
If not the answer is clear. I am more a Roman at heart. If someone commits treason in time of war then edeal with them harshly.
So the Roman reference was to what, exactly? Treason trials? I don’t believe you. I mean obviously you’re a loon, that’s a given, but are you so ignorant of even basic history you’d use the Romans to illustrate a need for a trial?
The Romans didn’t do trials. They did do assassinations.
So I think in addition to being nuts you’re also a coward. You want to thump your chest and talk tough and when I call you out you go all kitty kitty on us.
Yep. A coward as well as a creep.
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/20/2009 @ 9:09 pm
I was not consciously quoting Gary Allen.
I have not read the books.
I heard the phrase and on it’s own it carries a tight political logic that tends to Stop the mental gears cold for a second and help re-evaluate the situation.
For you this will not be true because the phrase brings back the memory and judgement about those books you read.
I know many people today do not like to boil thought down to its simple root form.
The Romans had a phrase “cui bono” - who benifits, Why is this not asked of everone in power and politics?
Of course these days it would be good to keep this phrase on your Mind
“custodiet ipsos custodes?”
Steve
Comment by steve — 11/20/2009 @ 9:15 pm
Roman at heart does not mean an actual follower of Roman Law though it was sophisticated. If you follow and actually research Roman law you will find it almost as sophisticated as our own. Resolving disputes was essential to maintaing a working commercial Empire. Lasted more than a thousand years followed by the Dark ages…whta a lovely period. If you think all Roman law was assasination then I will say you have not studied Roman law.
Comment by steve — 11/20/2009 @ 9:26 pm
Surprisingly, for a “rightie”, I’m actually more confident than many. The 1930s had a whole bunch of Very Smart People ™ who were impressed by the Soviet Union and its “reforms”, which did look impressive when compared with the US of the day. Even Hitler and Mussolini had significant numbers of admirers, who saw in the Nazis and Fascists movements that rallied their countries into rapid economic growth, strong leadership, and a united citizenry, and the evil they were doing wasn’t widely known at the time and was being treated as “he said, he said” in the media.
The case for being impressed by these places was a heck of a lot stronger than admiring Venezuela or Cuba today.
And the US had some seriously nasty stuff going on with our own Tiananmen Square equivalent in the “Bonus March” takedown, etc. The US was seriously isolationist right up to 1941, when Japan did us a great, big, fat favor by attacking Pearl Harbor, followed by Hitler’s even bigger favor of casually declaring war on us the next day.
But when push came to shove, the country rallied, and I figure we’d do the same thing today if confronted with powerful, existential enemies attacking our country and its very foundational principles.
Comment by Foobarista — 11/20/2009 @ 9:31 pm
______________________________________________________
Steve, i think your comment woulda worked better circa 2001-2008, when the whole executive branch decided that they could defy federal law and the constitution itsel itself in order to “protect” the constitution. tell me that makes sense. sheesh.
*******************************************************
I can see your point, But I was thinking more during the Clinton administration when we discovered the Chineese military had aquired the most current Missile MIRV warhead technology. During this period it was known that President Clinton had little regard for restraint with his Libido and little regard for thise who did. This was so well known as to be a caricture. We know he associated with Ms Lewinsky (no harm no Fowl in my book) I can guarentee that such a clear weakness was not ignored by competing Foreign intellegence agencies. What would a highly trained female operative of impressive assets been able to obtain. We will never know because we focused on inconsequential sex rather than highly probable and highly consequential sex. Talk about blackmail, it practicaly writes itself. Remeber when caught bargin down with a lesser crime.
Of course I cannot say it happened but I can say it was all kinds ofd stupid not to follow up, or maybe the reason it got to impeachment so easily was to give to get.
“cui bono”
And no, I am not suggesting re-investigating Bill Clinton, but can we please keep an eye out for this kind of vulnerability in our leaders?
Comment by steve — 11/20/2009 @ 9:40 pm
The slow, elongated death of the Democratic Party began in earnest in 1980 and will be completed with the crushing defeat of Obama in 2012. Apologists for the left-wing and out and out fascist pigs like Michael Reynolds realize it. They will take up lynching black folks as they did in the past after Obama fails them, but, hey, we never expected less of this pawn they view as sub-human trash. In their mindset, they put a puppet into office and he failed to execute. Hence, because of his skin pigmentation, he and folks who look like him must be destroyed. Yes, the Democratic Party will return to its roots very, very soon.
Hola!
Comment by obamathered — 11/20/2009 @ 10:09 pm
Soviet law was great, too. Read the Soviet constitution — it’s full of human rights.
In practice the Romans achieved regime change by assassination. Not just of emperors but of political opponents across the board. A new emperor would routinely assassinate the previous sovereign’s followers. Where outright assassination was problematic — usually because it could lead to the loss of all property on the part of the victim — the victim might be given an opportunity to commit suicide.
The emperor had the right to declare pretty much anyone an enemy of the state, a traitor, and the death penalty followed in due course. Had zero to do with the law. So you’re just bullshitting.
No one follows Roman law because the Romans didn’t follow Roman law. You were talking about assassination and trying to make yourself sound hardcore. You’re just too gutless to admit it.
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/20/2009 @ 11:12 pm
I don’t have TV or cable, so I’m going to have to buy the DVD.
The “greatest generation” fought selflessly and ferociously and did so without threat of the Bomb. Political strings have always been attached to American military commands, but the prospects of nuclear war made political calculations (and the value of world opinion) far more prominent. I wonder if Vietnam and Korea would have turned out differently had there been no Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and no Soviet and Chinese nuclear missiles.
The Bomb has been a mixed blessing. It ended the war in Japan and brought peace (and ultimately freedom) to Europe. It allowed America to shrink its military while at the same time assuring protection to its allies (who also downsized their militaries and invested in industry). WW II was a slam-dunk win for America, but once our adversaries got the Bomb, America has had to be far more cautious in military conflicts. Russia and China have had to watch their step too. The Bomb is the ultimate equalizer (which is why Iran seeks one).
While Americans tend to think of Korea as a stalemate and Vietnam as a lost war, I do not blame those who fought there. Neither in Iraq or Afghanistan. I believe the punishment inflicted on the enemy in those conflicts has far exceeded our losses.
To summarize, I think much of the ambiguous results of recent American wars is due to unavoidable geo-political constraints. It’s easy to blame politicians for unpleasant, complex problems. On balance, I think they’ve generally done the right thing. And I believe those who currently serve are as fine soldiers as we’ve ever had.
I look forward to the DVD. Hope I don’t have to wait too long.
Comment by Doug King — 11/20/2009 @ 11:19 pm
Doug: Fine analysis.
Comment by obamathered — 11/20/2009 @ 11:26 pm
Another thought: if Americans love anything, it’s fighting — especially with each other. (Just look at political blogs for evidence.) Governments not accustomed to free speech look at all this in-fighting and perceive weakness. We often see ourselves that way too.
But when something big occurs like 9-11-01, we somehow set aside our differences and come together. And then God help those who dared attack us.
Comment by Doug King — 11/20/2009 @ 11:30 pm
In what universe will the party that puts Sarah Palin as potential leader of the free world crush a siting president? I know that if you listen Glenn Beck it’s the patriotic teabaggers against Marxist enslavement, but on this side of the looking glass the GOP is still the party of a single idea — tax cuts as solution to every problem.
They’re busy fainting over actually bringing the men who inflicted 9/1 on this country to trial.
It’s the party of global warming denial. It’s the party of the status quo for health insurance, which is a principle reason we are uncompetitive with other countries when it comes to labor.
It’s the party of weapons that are overpriced and unneeded, enriching Haliburton and Raytheon instead of preparing for the real threats of the future.
The GOP has staked it’s heart and soul on trying to recapture a past that never existed, a rosy America where those with the right colored skin ran everything instead of dealing with the demographic reality of black and Latino swing voters who will run away from freaks like Palin in droves. The young are not obsessed with abortion and whether homosexuals can marry, but the GOP is, so it will not be the party of the young.
You have at best one more election cycle, 2010 where the Republicans might stave off disaster but that’s it.
So enjoy your tea, you’ll need all the calming come election night three years hence.
Palin/Jindal
Moose & Squirrelly/2012
Comment by Richard bottoms — 11/21/2009 @ 12:16 am
Boy, what are the odds? A conversation about the “Greatest Generation”, WW11, and the biggest threat to freedom our planet has ever known…and we have some who wish to engage in petty, political squabbling over which side of the contemporary ideological spectrum is loyal or treasonous. I have faith that given as grave a threat as our forefathers faced in the 1940s, a large majority of our people would rise up and prevail…we would just have to step over some knuckleheads to get it done! Dee
Comment by Dee — 11/21/2009 @ 7:11 am
Michael:
Nice effort but rather Cliche to call somone a coward then drag the Red Herring acroos the scent. Of Course every society on Earth at any time in any place has assissination as a factor in politics. Are the Secret Service armed with Marsmallow guns?
Are you so afraid of potential death and violence as to let it bend your whole being into quitting certain lines of thought and action.
Comment by steve — 11/21/2009 @ 7:50 am
Well put, Michael. While it sounds confrontational to impose objective reality in the evaluation of the “Greatest Generation,” it shouldn’t be. I probably would put our mercurial triumph in the Cold War slightly ahead as an achievement, but that is such a subjective call historians many centuries out still will debate it.
Richard: I’ll be charitable, but the fact you are oblivious to the train coming straight at you warms my heart.
Comment by obamathered — 11/21/2009 @ 10:16 am
We have demographics on our side.
Eighteen year olds who don’t give a damn about gay marriage become 24 year olds who won’t respond to the dog whistle when used.
Hispanics who hate being called names and used as fodder for scare tactics about stolen elections will put their vote with the Democrats, not the frothing militia nuts of the far right ho have taken over immigration debate.
Gays, well sure there are self haters among every group. Blacks, we’ve been hip to the Neo-Confederate bent of the party for 30 years. You’ll never get us back.
act is every metric about where the country’s population lives, what ethnic make we have, and the general insanity of the Teabagger’s running the GOP push people away from that party to ours.
Please nominate the Moose Hunter and the Exorcist in 2012 and we’ll see what’s what.
Palin/Jindal
Moose & Squirrely/2012
Comment by Richard bottoms — 11/21/2009 @ 1:32 pm
Dee,
I’m glad you noticed too.
Comment by funny man — 11/21/2009 @ 10:07 pm
No doubt Santa will visit as well, Richard. Kiss Congress goodbye in 2010 and the White House goodbye in 2012. You will see neither held by Democrats in your lifetime again. Those very demographics the Democrats have sucked off are about to turn on them…hard and forever.
Empty stomachs are stuboorn things.
Comment by obamathered — 11/22/2009 @ 8:46 am