Bush is a fine example of that too in his appointments. FEMA had worked so well for so long he thought he could put anyone in charge of it, roll it into another organization and things will still work out ok. Then comes Katrina and it turns out if you remove the autonomy and skilled management it doesn't work like it used to. Iraq was just going to love us after we got rid of Saddam. Kill him and we got us another ally in the ME. Just these huge assumptions based on wishful thinking that don't ever pan out nearly as well as intended. Thats what I think of when I think of “Conservatives” today. Very bad on results unless you work in the energy industry or own Exxon stock.

I live here. TX is a service economy with low wages. People move here because of the weather, mostly, and still cheap and undeveloped real estate. Again, you are trying to fit square pegs in round holes. There is more to life than economics.

Actually, it was a conservative movement, under the rubric of progressivism, that caused Urban Blight, and under FDR! The Wagner-Steagall Act of 1937 paved the way for 'urban renewal' under scumbags lie Robert Moses, which literally destroyed minority neighborhoods, and disenfranchised blacks that actually had moved into middle class areas w whites. It was the conservative tactic of scaring whites into flight that led to the spiral of higher taxes and diminishing returns. Sorry, but wrong.
And busing was a solution to segregation- a conservative principle. O for 2. It worked, and led to open minded kids, like the many who actually might vote a black man Prez.

Central planning is neither a left nor right issue, it's a good or bad thing depending on application- both fascist and Communist states tried it, as have theocracies and socialist states. You are confusing ideology w application.

Also, if Hill wins the Presidency, I predict a Republican wins in 2012. More and more people are Indies, and winning them means winning the WH.

'Child labor was considered a progressive idea because it kept children from getting into trouble since schools did not exist. It was the SCHIP of its day. Progressive are for modern Jim Crow. In 2007, progressives were in front of the Supreme Court arguing that assigning children based upon race is not only legal but good public policy. Fifty years after Brown, progressives have been in front of the Supreme Court several times arguing that separate and equal is acceptable. Eugenics was a progressive idea in its day because it would limit poverty. The founder of planned parenthood supported forced sterilizations. It was the stem cell research of its day. Abolition was a progressive idea of its day since it was support to help women and children. The women's vote grew out of that. Progressives have been wrong so many times on mental health that it is embarrassing. Remember, dumping them all on the street?'

Child labor started in the 1800s, and was not an idea about keeping kids out of trouble, but exploiting immigrant labor who had fears of reporting abuses and de facto slavery. There was a little book called How The Other Half Lives, by Jacob Riis, as well as Upton Sinclair and co. My God, you can twist reality.

There are a few wackos who support anything, lib or conn, and you are again arguing by exception, rather than rule, always a losing tactic. And the biggest segregation supporters are cons who support school vouchers- a Con idea. Next.

Eugenics was not a progressive idea, but championed as a way to control minority populations and increase Aryan purity. At least the US bastardization. Again, wrong.

'Abolition was a progressive idea of its day since it was support to help women and children. The women's vote grew out of that'

Finally, you are correct. So, are you arguing that slavery is good? That Suffrage was wrong?

'Progressives have been wrong so many times on mental health that it is embarrassing. Remember, dumping them all on the street?'

Yes, a bad idea, but actually better than the excrement and filthy conditions, and daily abuse that the healthcare system forced on them, including lobotomization.

You do realize each claim only shrinks whatever credibility you have left?

Also, FDR's infatuation with central planning would make his adminsitraiton very liberal by today's standards. One of the tings that the Democratic party had to get over was the idea central planning from the New Deal and WWII.

California is number one in defense spending but Texas, Georgia, and Florida are the next three. Also, since the top 1% pay such a high level of taxes and they are concentrated in NYC and LA, of course those states apy the most taxes.

And last, if Hillary Clinton cannot attract black voters while running policies that are left of center, then how can the Republicans ever hope to win black or Hispanic votes while offering fewer handouts and fewer quotas? It is impossible. There is nothing that a conservative can say that will ever attract blacks or Hispanics. It is much more than packaging and message. As long as the Democrats can promises government goodies while whites pay most of the taxes, then blacks will vote 90% for Democrats.

NY and California benefit from geography and history. NYC was the financial center before air conditioning made the south livable. Unless the stock exchanges move, there is no way for a red state to get the rich to move. California benefits from being on the coast. An agriculture state like Kansas is always going to get more taxes than it pays in.

Child labor was considered a progressive idea because it kept children from getting into trouble since schools did not exist. It was the SCHIP of its day. Progressive are for modern Jim Crow. In 2007, progressives were in front of the Supreme Court arguing that assigning children based upon race is not only legal but good public policy. Fifty years after Brown, progressives have been in front of the Supreme Court several times arguing that separate and equal is acceptable. Eugenics was a progressive idea in its day because it would limit poverty. The founder of planned parenthood supported forced sterilizations. It was the stem cell research of its day. Abolition was a progressive idea of its day since it was support to help women and children. The women's vote grew out of that. Progressives have been wrong so many times on mental health that it is embarrassing. Remember, dumping them all on the street?

CA's budget is equal to TX, GA, and FL combined, give or take a billion. And the arguement that CA and NY are so propserous they generate so much money also fails to move me. Many would argue one of the reasons they are so propserous is because of the way they run things. Also, there were many other blue states involved in that list, so lets not just assume it all falls on those to just because they are the biggest.

You have forgotten that liberialism producted the NYC, DC, Baltimore, Philly of the 1970's that had high taxes, bad services, high crimes, and a poor quality of life. The reason the left call themselves progressives is that liberals gave themselves a bad name with bad schools, forced busing, high crime, and high unemployment. Look at the quality of life in 1980.

Also, FDR's infatuation with central planning would make his adminsitraiton very liberal by today's standards. One of the tings that the Democratic party had to get over was the idea central planning from the New Deal and WWII.

California is number one in defense spending but Texas, Georgia, and Florida are the next three. Also, since the top 1% pay such a high level of taxes and they are concentrated in NYC and LA, of course those states apy the most taxes.

And last, if Hillary Clinton cannot attract black voters while running policies that are left of center, then how can the Republicans ever hope to win black or Hispanic votes while offering fewer handouts and fewer quotas? It is impossible. There is nothing that a conservative can say that will ever attract blacks or Hispanics. It is much more than packaging and message. As long as the Democrats can promises government goodies while whites pay most of the taxes, then blacks will vote 90% for Democrats.

“Go back in 25 year increments, and ask yourself, is 2008 better than 1983 better than 1958 all the way back to 1608 and the founding of this nation. Unquestionably, all that progress has been 'liberal'. Now, even cons like you would not support slavery, but conservatives did. Cons like you are against child labor, but in the day they did not. Cons like you are against Jim Crow, but not back when. Cons like you get sick when hearing of experimentation by the government on blacks and forced sterilization of the mentally ill years ago, but conservatives supported it then. Consevratives opposed Suffrage. Do you?
In 25 years Cons will be defending gay marriage and Healthcare as a right, and conveniently forgetting that people like you ever existed and dared to call themselves cons.

Make book on that! History's flow is toward greater liberties, and there's a reason liberty and liberalism come from the same root word.”

Seriously, put aside your biases, which include the political defs of lib and con, and look at world and US history.

In every major way to measure human success- from base economics to individual liberties to civil and human rights to technical innovation, liberalism is a better approach, because by its nature it takes risks. Conservatism does not.

Einstein's scientific liberalism has led to many of the scientific breakthroughs of the last 100 years- including defense systems and nukes, which via MAD, kept the peace in the Cold War.

FDR and LBJ, hardly liberal by today's standards, were open to ideas in their day, and not only blacks and women are better for them, but we all are. The electorate has more access to info, even if it usually squanders it.

Go back in 25 year increments, and ask yourself, is 2008 better than 1983 better than 1958 all the way back to 1608 and the founding of this nation. Unquestionably, all that progress has been 'liberal'. Now, even cons like you would not support slavery, but conservatives did. Cons like you are against child labor, but in the day they did not. Cons like you are against Jim Crow, but not back when. Cons like you get sick when hearing of experimentation by the government on blacks and forced sterilization of the mentally ill years ago, but conservatives supported it then. Consevratives opposed Suffrage. Do you?
In 25 years Cons will be defending gay marriage and Healthcare as a right, and conveniently forgetting that people like you ever existed and dared to call themselves cons.

Make book on that! History's flow is toward greater liberties, and there's a reason liberty and liberalism come from the same root word.

Try again, CA has by far the largest amount of military spending going on of all the 50 states.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/defensemap.html#ca

Also, minorities don't vote GOP because all their talking heads are racists. Take O'reilly or Rush. These guys are so friggin condescending to minorities they stop just short of racial slurs on their shows. Rush lasted all of 10 seconds as a sportscaster and you know he couldn't talk about minorities for much longer than that without putting his foot in his mouth. There's is not a Klan racism, but its pretty thinly veiled what they really think.

If you exclude New York, the numbers becomes much closers because NYC has little government spending.

No matter how high taxes gets, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Jews will just not vote for Republicans. Cheating on taxes will go up before people vote Republican. Also, blacks and Hispanic voting patterns have demonstrated that corruption or incompetence on Democratic politicians does not have voting patterns. The incompetence of Marion Barry or Kwame Kilpatrick did not get DC or Detroit to stop voting Democratic.

There is no scenario that will either get blacks or Hispanics to vote Republican or to get more than 60% of whites to vote Republican. Thus, no relevant Republican party.

DLS what are you basing that on? According to the 2005 report on state by state tax burden you're getting your Peters and Pauls mixed up. Check it out here:

http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm

I did some math for you, basing a RED/BLUE state on the results for the 2004 presidential election. Blue states get back $.86 for every dollar they send to the federal gov't, red states get $1.16 for every dollar they send Washington. The idea that GOP are fiscally responsible and its dems that use up all the tax money for wasteful programs is a myth.

The GOP does have a future in that the taxpayers of the future will face even worse problems than those of us hit for most of Washington's bills already face — it will be much worse (although not as horrible as in Europe, whose problems will be worse than ours). There will be an attempt (often changing) to balance the howls from the taxpayers (facing ever larger demands) and beneficiaries (who will resist any reduction in benefits, any reduction in growth of benefits, and who may demand more benefits). This taxpayer “opposition” to the entitlement “machine,” which is likely to be stronger than the relatively feeble, lib-media-muzzled opposition that has already existed for decades, is the logical foundation for the future GOP. Even if people are benumbed by intrusion as well as intervention to gross excess by Washington, at least they'll take notice when their money is under attack. One would hope, at least.

What actually will happen, who knows.