Fill in the Blanks
Myanmar ... SCHIP ... Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ... Green Bay Packers (Favre) ...
"A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people, and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East."George W. Bush is (sorry Mom, profanity on the way) batshit crazy. Dems are indeed floundering, but this is the consequence of the intractability of Iraq. The GOP, by comparison, is willfully holding a vision that is manifestly insane. The ship of public opinion is slow to turn around (it took forever following the FDR/Truman years for the Vietnam war to kill it, and it's taken a long time for Iraq), but once it does, a party's credibility is gone for a generation or more. When I'm qualifying for Social Security, the GOP will still bear the scarlet letter of neoconservatism, just like the Dems have borne, until the past year or so, the stain of traitorousness.
Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.The study design and fuller results are in the article, but it looks solid. It explains why fear benefits Republicans; while people might be more open-minded generally, the fear of a terrorist climbing in the window changes the calculus. Interesting and alarming.
In a simple experiment being reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.
Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.
But he said he saw his unpopularity as a natural result of his decision to pursue a strategy in which he believed. “I made a decision to lead,” he said, “One, it makes you unpopular; two, it makes people accuse you of unilateral arrogance, and that may be true. But the fundamental question is, is the world better off as a result of your leadership?”Let's see, how many incumbent GOP lawmakers agreed with his unilateral arrogance? I believe I'd be asking them all whether this fundamental question is the one they're running on. Or away from.