Centerfield

Actually, Rove did mention Dick Durbin by name, stating that the fact that his unfortunate Nazi comparison was "all over al-Jazeera" was all one needed to know about what liberals thought about the WoT.

I don't think Rove should resign--the odious troll should never have been appointed in the first place--and I won't hold my breath waiting for an apology. But I do think anyone who went nutty about Durbin's comments should feel the same about Rove--and the fact that the right's response thus far has been predominantly "Yeah, so?" tells me just how manufactured the outrage over Durbin was.

(For the record, I don't think Durbin's comments were horrible, but the comparison was hamfisted, and he was right to apologize.)

I agree with the idea Instapundit linked to this am, which is that this now gives the GOP an opportunity to re-hash cherrypicked examples of ill-chosen things some liberals said in 9/11's aftermath.

I thought Durbin's hyberbolic nazi comparison was foolish. And I think Rove's ugly redmeat preaching is nonsense. But I think Durbin meant what he said, and spoke carelessly in expressing his views. Rove said EXACTLY what he wanted to say. Does he ever truly believe more than half of what he says in instances such as this?

Red-faced demands for apologies and resignations are the wrong way to go. Anger begets anger. The way to marginalize guys like Rove is to use light ridicule expressed with weariness. It's a mistake to treat such comments with seriousness because that's what the speaker wants, whether it's Rove or Coulter or a left-wing provocateur.

If someone is trying to provoke an angry response, you need to respond in a way that shows you know the game, and are not playing on the speakers terms. Rove should be treated like a cartoon character.

He should apologize. All should avoid such comments and other personal attacks such as

odious troll

What Brian said. If you let 'em poke your buttons you're playing their game.

When it comes to poking buttons Karl Rove has nothing on my kids.

Mr. Rove, think what you will of him, is incredibly intelligent. He knew what his comments would do, so why say them?

It was a calculated tactic. So what does he have to gain? Or has five years in DC burned him out? After all, I thought the 60 day Social Security campaign was an abysmal failure...

Is it too paranoid to think Rove is trying to provoke a witch-hunt against the left of McCarthy-like proportions?

For Karl, there may even be thoughts of generating an internal American crisis that would require the administration to seize control of our government for good, pure, and patriotic reasons.

It's starting to scare me, and that makes me mad. How do we stop such anti-American divisiveness?

Everyone knows Rove sits at the right hand of the President —the President of all the people— he should not be attacking his fellow citizens for anything, ever

Ken Mehlman shifts the critique to the "hard left," which is in fact accurate, and would have been acceptable had Rove used those words in the first place.

Actually, that is what Rove said. He referred in his actual speech to MoveOn.org's response to congressional action in the wake of the 9/11 attacks as illustrative of the sentiments he was describing. His only reference to anything tangentially "Democratic" was his reference to Senator Durbin's recent foolish comments on the floor of the Senate.

A cynic would suggest that the Democratic Party, tired of having to (silently) deflect criticisms of Messrs. Dean and Durbin et al., has intentionally assumed the brunt of Rove's comments in order to manufacture an opportunity to express their outrage back at something.

Is it too paranoid to think Rove is trying to provoke a witch-hunt against the left of McCarthy-like proportions?

Yup! Way too paranoid. Step away from your tinfoil hat and place your conspiracy theories on the ground in front of you. Nice and slow. And keep your hands where I can see them.

Again, Tom , you're letting the guy make you play the game on his terms by taking him very seriously and saying things like "he shouldn't say or do this or that." Clearly he's not going to meet your expectations, and in fact has found a way to use your expectations to his advantage. Seriously. Think about it.

A cynic would suggest that the Democratic Party, tired of having to (silently) deflect criticisms of Messrs. Dean and Durbin et al., has intentionally assumed the brunt of Rove's comments in order to manufacture an opportunity to express their outrage back at something.

Perhaps a cynic. Or perhaps a clever apologist for Rove. Personally, I find the notion that a GOP political figure is not trying to tar very broadly when he says "liberals are X" laughable. Quite laughable, if not borderline absurd. I'm not familiar with many GOP pols who take care to make distinctions between hard left liberals and more mainstream democrats. Such distinctions are bad for the team. Even if they take care to make such distinctions in a sidelong way, odds are they are still going to rely on the faithful to take the leap when the speaker reaches the "liberals are X" punchline. I have a hard time imagining a credible denial of this dynamic.

It's part pep rally, part feeding the lions. Karl brought the red meat, and the drooling started at the get-go.

It's part pep rally, part feeding the lions. Karl brought the red meat, and the drooling started at the get-go.

Precisely -- even moreso, considering the audience to which his remarks were made. Which, incidentally, is why I disagree with some of the sentiments comparing these remarks to those of Senator Durbin. No matter how you slice it, I think comments by Rove or Dean at "private" fund-raisers are much different than the remarks of a Senator on the Senate floor.

That said, I don't think anyone owes anyone an apology. People said what they said, and we are entitled to judge them for ourselves. Anyone here is entitled to think Rove's remarks as ludicrous or ignorant as I find Howard Dean's recent rants about who Republicans "are."

That said, while I find Rove's remarks to "the faithful" hyperbolic at best, I would agree more freely with the premise of the original Blog post here HAD he said "Democrats reacted this way, etc." He didn't.

Why do we always have to apologize for something that (obviously) came from the heart? I think Tom Cruise is a dangerous freak. Nope, not gonna apologize. :)

Rove's comments were a flat-out lie by omission. Only really fringy liberals wanted anything but a military retaliation to 9/11 (the Progressive magazine comes to mind). Rove was using the far left to characterize all people who sit to the left. It was wrong but not surprising.

But the Dems also gave him the opening. When generally rational people like Dick Durbin start adopting rhetoric from the far left, it makes it easy to paint the whole Democratic party as aligned with the fringe. Of course, this alignment is only partial and really only took hold because of Iraq, but Rove is trying to use current conditions to rewrite the past.

Had the Democrats banished the hard left instead of welcoming it with open arms, Rove's attack would lack much if not all of its bite. But the very fact that the hard left considers themselves to be Democrats weakens the standing of "real" (read: mainstream) Dems.

I would also point out this effect works on the right too. The Republican's partial alignment with fringy social conservative groups makes it easier for unscrupulous Dems to paint all conservatives as theocratic-leaning, intolerant jerks.

And thus we have the Centrist movement. Some of us don't want to be associated with either fringe, no matter how politically convenient it might be.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Karl Rove focus his comments on liberals and not on Democrats? He ain't talkin' about moderate Democrats like Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. and Sen. Joe Lieberman, but the MoveOn.org crowd. So I don't understand the conflation that Rick mentions in his piece. If Rove did conflate the two groups, then I agree that it's a smear. Otherwise, Karl Rove is mostly on point. Most liberals have been coddling terrorists, from Iraq to Sudan.

molotov-

1. Conservatives have spent the past generation equating "liberal" with "democrat" in the American mind. Now if Rovian logic suggests they're two different creatures, that would suggest the possibility of a "liberal republican" which would be a paradox in Rove world, thus destroying all the fabric of time and space.

2. Over 1,700 US soldiers dead in Iraq. I guess we know not a single one was liberal, since liberals don't fight and die for their country...

3. It's entirely possible that MoveOn.org suggested we offer therapy for terrorists, but if you're going to make that claim, please, PLEASE back it up with an article or speech that references as much.

4. Liberals have been coddling terrorists in Iraq and Sudan? Please back that up! This administration has done nothing but back pedal on Darfur. Likewise, considering the disproportionate number of hijackers that were Saudi, I'd suggest, suggest only, mind you, that maybe, just maybe, this administration has been coddling terrorists with their kiss a@@ treatment of the Saudi's. But I guess you do have to be nice to your dealer.

5. Mentioning Senators Durbin and liberals in the same speech certainly impies, if not outright says, that Senator Durbin is a liberal, we can thus assume as well that Senator Durbin's contemporaries are likewise liberals.

6. When did being a "liberal" become a bad thing?

What we have he is a case of “Send in the clowns”.
The white house needed to redirect attention.

Both the president's and congress's numbers have tanked.
Oil is hitting all time highs. (uncorrected for inflation)
Iraq is a big bloody question mark.
Bush's version of SS reform is dead.

It was definitely time to send the fat man out into the ring and let him trip on his big floppy shoes. Of course in this scenario clowny has a machete and starts attacking audience, but that's just show biz.

Tully above is right, this latest flap is all waste of time and ink. This is Israel and Palestine, intractable debate. Who hit who first? Who cares! This is the centrist coalition, we shouldnt care!

The theme here should be ... well, thats the problem really, what is the overarching theme? There is a big undefinable in the US today, who are we, what do we want and how are we getting there? Its that vision thing. We dont have it. Not the Reps nor the Dems, not the right nor the left. When something is not defined, the vaccum is available for anyone to step in and fill it, define it. The first to do so will have advantage and power. Thats what we all should be doing here, after all this is not the left coalition, nor the red coalition.

I have read posts on this and other issues and I see a lot of very interested and engaged people, but choosing to engage in the manufactured, hollow, pointless, and regressive coversations of our time. Change that and I think you can actually affect change.

Here is my suggestion on this topic, for any pubilc official being asked to comment ... point out the factual inaccuracies, move on to what you think should be done to move our country forward. Forget indignation, forget counter attacks, offer a vision for the future, with policy solutions to get there. Next question.

For a blogger on this site, I would point out how this is another example of both parties being caught in a spiraling pattern of finger-pointing, name calling, and general aggression in the course of doing the business of the people. Take the script, shuffle it, and give it back to both parties, it doesnt matter to whom anymore, they will still use it against the other. We deserve better than this.

Thats what I would add.

We should, all of us here, get this script, or any similar script, down to where people who cruise in here see that this site will offer them something new, fresh, and satisfying, not the same crap thats saturating our discourse to the point that we dont want to have any discourse at all.

Ryan,

1. You provided no documentation that Karl Rove was talking about Democrats - like the moderate Democrats that I mentioned in my earlier post, versus liberals.

2. I said that most - not all - liberals are coddling terrorists, from Iraq to Sudan. I'm well aware of the folks fighting (and dying) in Iraq, given that I have several relatives and friends (all black liberals) there right now. Although I do believe that white liberals - unlike black and Hispanic liberals, white moderates and conservatives - aren't carrying their fair share in the battle.

3. I remember seeing quotes on various liberal websites, professors, journalists, and other 'progressives' arguing that we needed to just be 'nicer' and understand terrorists, and they won't hurt us. And the "it's their poverty" argument (never mind that many terrorists aren't from poor backgrounds, and Africa is the poorest continent but yet isn't the forefront of terrorism). Heck, on our blog many of our liberal readers regularly argue the "therapy & understanding" argument.

4. If most liberals applied even 5% of their rage about Gitmo Bay toward the jihadists who are slaughtering blacks in the Sudan - which even the U.N. states is the world's worst issue - or the folks who are doing the beheadings & car bombings, etc. in Iraq to undermine Iraq's democratization process then they would have a much better image and more credibility on security issues. They lack context. By the way, it was under the Bush administration that Sudan has even been designated a genocide. The backpedaling that you discuss should really be targeted at China and the European countries who are blocking action. Where the "no blood for oil" meme when it comes to black lives? Hence, why I said that most liberals coddle terrorists, from Iraq to Sudan.

5. See point 1.

6. Nowhere did I say that "liberalism was a bad thing". I agree with liberals on about 40-45% of all issues. Yet Karl Rove is mostly on point here. Their foreign policy stance vis-a-vis terrorists has been most shameful.

molotov...

1. Within a few breathes of each other, Mr. Rove mentions both Senator Durbin, AND liberals. To argue he wasn't implying the former was the later would be to argue the definition of "is" or "throes". -Likewise, a search of a sampling of campaign speeches of prominent Republicans containing the term "liberal" usually also contains either the term "democrat" or the name of a particular "democrat". So, clearly in the past the leadership of this party, including, but not limited to, the administration have used the words democrat and liberal synonomously. What worked yesterday worked today.-

2A. "I said that most - not all - liberals are coddling terrorists, from Iraq to Sudan. " Do you *really* believe this?

4 entries found for liberal. To select an entry, click on it. liberal[1,adjective]liberal[2,noun]liberal artslimousine liberal

Main Entry: 2liberal
Function: noun
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights

I'm going to give you a chance to reconsider that, because, heck, according to to the first half of the definition, that would probably be everyone who contributes to this post, and the second half would be a goodly number of Republicans alone, SooOOoooo...

2B.

Although I do believe that white liberals - unlike black and Hispanic liberals, white moderates and conservatives - aren't carrying their fair share in the battle.

Actually, the military is actually fairly representative as far as race, if not economical standing. I could point out that no member of the Bush family is currently serving in any armed force, so I think the lack of burden carrying is on both sides.

3. You remember seeing quotes on various liberal websites. So, if I find a quote on a conservative website saying we should just nuke the entire middle east and be done with it, it's valid? Find me a quote from a liberal leader, please, not just someone shouting off an opinion.

4. Yes. Secretary Powell defined Darfur as genocide, and since then, this administration has reclassified it as "genocide-lite". That aside, what does China or Europe matter? They didn't matter when we went into Iraq, why now? Preemptiveness, and going around the UN is not something we should be able to pick and choose when it suits our current leader's whims. Why should we get to have our cake and eat it to? Because we're Americans?

5. See 1.

6.

Nowhere did I say that "liberalism was a bad thing". I agree with liberals on about 40-45% of all issues. Yet Karl Rove is mostly on point here. Their foreign policy stance vis-a-vis terrorists has been most shameful.

How can a philosophy have a foreign policy? Now, Democrats have a foreign policy, are you saying their policy stance vis-a-vis terrorists has been shameful? Because if you are, you're saying democrats are liberals. Not unlke Mr. Rove, you're trying to have it both ways. Cite me a specific foreign policy that is liberal, but isn't democrat that is shameful.

This is worse than comparing the other party to Nazis??? Are you on the pipe, Richard? Put down the Kool-Aid and wake up!

molotov,

The vast majority of liberals supported Bush when he went after Al Quaida in Afghanistan. In the weeks following 9/11, those on the left went out of their to put aside their differences with Bush and support him. And as has already been mentioned earlier, virtually every Democrat in congress supported military action in Afghanistan, and a lot of those Democrats are liberals whether they care to admit it or not.

The invasion of Iraq was what liberals had a problem with (and they're being joined by increasing numbers of moderates and conservatives with every day that passes). I truly hope that you weren't trying to conflate the invasion of Iraq with a military response to 9/11. The administration repeatedly implied that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 in order to bolster support for the war in Iraq. I'd like to think that more than two years later, you're still not trying to make such a claim.

You're a bold one, molotov, I'll give you that. But you sure haven't provided much in the way of facts to explain your rather bold claims. You claim that liberals' "foreign policy stance vis-a-vis terrorists has been most shameful." How so? Just exactly what is the official "liberal" stance on foreign policy? Are you trying to conflate Michael Moore and moveon.org as representing all liberals? Michael Moore is a partisan hack resorts to exaggerations, lies by omission, and a creative use of editing in order to distort the truth. And as someone who adamantly opposed the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning, I didn't need to watch his propaganda to see for myself that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

Unless you are using a rather creative definition for the word "liberal" that I am not familiar with, you are DEAD wrong about "liberals" not offering their support of military action in the wake of 9/11.

Please, prove me wrong. What FACTS do you have to back up you bold claims?

I am squarely with Ryan on this one. What Rove said, he said deliberately and knowing what would ensue, as is virtually always the case.

The question is: why? What does he have to gain and/or what is he trying to avoid losing?

Carla blogged on this very question over at PK. I left my theory there as a comment. I've seen quite a variety of theories postulated at various blogs. About the only thing everyone seems to agree on is that Rove was deliberate and calculated in saying what he said.

Molotov,

You're taking current liberal statements and appying them to 4 years ago. A very tiny percentage of liberals were against military action after 9/11. Now, I would say most liberals are against military action--but their against action in a different war. Opposition to Iraq now doesn't prove opposition to Afghanistan then.

Rove's remarks were specifically about the immediate reactions to 9/11. He said "liberal" but in context he clearly meant "everyone on the left." And he said that, bascially, they didn't want to fight back. That is not factual. It's historical revisionism and I can't believe people are falling for it.

I also can't believe Democrats took the bait. They should have ignored the statement. But now, instead of discussing how to better defend our country, Dems are left having to argue whether or not they want to defend us at all.

Hook, line and sinker.

Maybe Mr. Rove was testing the waters...

Between Chairman Dean and Senator Durbin, Democrats, rightly or wrongly, have put their political foot in their political mouth, and the Right was able to raise "rightious" indignation amongst the public as a whole, putting them more "in tune" with the troops.

Basically, Mr. Rove was looking for the line. Can he push the Democrats, and in the eyes of the public, did he cross the line? Unfortunately, I think the answer's going to be no.

So next time it'll be worse...

I can't think of anyone else other than Karl Rove who has done more to divide this nation.

We can debate the merits of Rove's statement (it was overbroad and not entirely true or fair). But the perception of the majority of voting Americans in 2004 was that Rove was correct- liberals and Democrats are perceived as generally weak on defense and military matters. I share this perception.

I might feel differently if the Democratic Party had a strong "Tony Blair" wing. Dems are quick to offer up Sen. Lieberman as an example (whom I much admire)- but the list drops off precipitously after that (arguably Biden). Others I'm omitting? Rove was wrong about 9/11 liberal support for military action against Afghanistan; that support was broad-based. Liberal support for the Iraq incursion, however, was tepid at best and quick to evaporate. Until the Dem Party rediscovers its Blair Wing (as historically represented by JFK, HST, FDR), it's on the losing side of this historical political debate.

I am sorry, but is Karl Rove the elected chair of an entire political party? Give me a break... Furthermore, he is right. Senator Patty Murray, a liberal, weeks after the attack spoke of forgiveness and a need to understand Osama Bin Laden at a grade school. It isn't news that liberals take a sociological viewpoint towards criminal justice in that they believe that there are reasons that crime is committed that we need to understand as a society, and they also obviously believe that punishment isn't neccesarily the right approach to reducing crime, an argument I personally agree with to an extent. What is the big deal? Dean said Republicans never worked a day in their life, and were entirely the white Christian party. One was telling the truth and one wasn't... I don't get the comparison or understand why people are really upset... Oh wait a second... They aren't, just the blogging left that represents a smaller portion of the population than the Christian Right.

Rove is offering a choice and pointing out a common disagreement between conservatives and liberals... That is his job.

So Rove says "liberals" and uses a very liberal senator as an example. Why are all Democrats and a good chunk of unaffiliated centrists getting so upset? Rove certainly didn't mean the relatively small ranks of hawkish liberals like Joe Lieberman. The context is being removed. I'm not a fan of Rove but he's said much worse things that got glossed over.

kreiz,

Military action in Afghanistan . . .

Military action Iraq . . .

Two completely different wars.

Rove was specifically speaking about liberal's response to 9/11. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Why do people like you continue to conflate military action in Iraq with a response to 9/11? This is historical revisionism at its worst.

Two points.

1. Mr. Rove is a paid employee of this administration. As "Special Advisor" to the President he pulls in well over a 100,000 a year. Also, as "Special Advisor" to the President, he, well, advises the President, so it's safe to assume he "advises" the President consistently in the manner in which he addressed the fund raisers.

2. And THIS is the big deal. 9/11 was an attack on AMERICA. Not on the American Right, or the American Left. 9/11 hurt EVERYONE. That wound belongs to us all, that pain, that anger, and Mr. Rove, in his speech, was trying to coopt it for private use by only the Right, and that's not fair, or tolerable.

As a centrist, I consider myself to have some liberal tendencies, and damn you, Mr. Rove, September 11, 2001 is mine, as well as yours.

"people like me"... ouch... especially since I was a Colin Powell man on Iraq. My views didn't carry the day, however, just as yours didn't.

n a way, Rove's example is worse; Dean may be assumed to be speaking for the Democratic party, and Durbin may be assumed to be speaking for the state of Illinois, but Rove is the top advisor to W, who's supposed to be representing all of us, particularly since W promised to be "a uniter, not a divider"....

LMAO there.

Seriously, yes, Senator Murray may have advocated forgiveness and understanding, but that's not the same as advocating "therapy". What Dean said is that "a lot of them (Republicans) haven't done an honest day's work in their lives."

Not all. Not even most.

I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find a Republican who hasn't done an honest day's work in his/her life, just as I could find a Democrat with the same qualifications. So, why is using one person to describe an entire party OK when you're talking about the Democrats, but not the Republicans?

The Republican party IS also predominantly white and christian, but somehow, Dr. Dean make that into a bad thing, a for a moment, made the Republicans believe it as well, which I think is quite funny.

I think it is interesting that no one has put up the context of the comment. Here is the transcript and here is the excerpt:
But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States."

I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the earth; a side of the Pentagon destroyed; and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.

Moderation and restraint is not what I felt - and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will - and to brandish steel.

MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did. Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see … Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia.

Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot - three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?

Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.
I think it is clearer when one doesn't lift a single sentence or paragraph from the section. Fairly or not, he is rather clear that he is talking about liberals and he gives examples: MoveOn.org/Michael Moore/Howard Dean/Senator Durbin. Disagree with it if you wish, but he did not talk about the Democratic Party, "all Democrats," or even Democratic leadership. Anyone conflating liberal with Democrat is doing so with a desire to feel outrage which is understandable but it is also twisting Mr. Rove's words.

So would it be okay for me to say, "Conservatives are all gun toting 1st amendment squashing people who want nothing more than to go rushing in and blow everything up without a strategy? That conservatives love war for war's sake?"

Of course it's not alright for me to say as much, although, arguably, that IS a conservative philosophy. Wouldn't Republicans be, rightly, up in arms?

There's no point really continuing this discussion. President Bush's apologists are always going to believe they have some sort of patent to indignation and outrage over spoken words, and even over 9/11.

It really, really, is kind of sad.

Ryan;

So would it be okay for me to say, "Conservatives are all gun toting 1st amendment squashing people who want nothing more than to go rushing in and blow everything up without a strategy? That conservatives love war for war's sake?"

Of course it's not alright for me to say as much, You had me with you until

although, arguably, that IS a conservative philosophy.

also

The Republican party IS also predominantly white and christian

Using the key term, "arguably", I shall now defend myself in the Rovian manner. If conservatives want to wrap themselves up in the flag, and say they are the party of the 2nd amendment, national security, and defense, that means they have to take the bad with the good, including an impression of defense spending, gun loving, war mongering hawks. Maybe 1st amendment squashing was going too far...

The point being, I crossed the line, and now I should have to apologize. Mr. Rove did the exact same thing, but he's not required, why should I be?

Main Entry: pre·dom·i·nant
Pronunciation: -n&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Medieval Latin praedominant-, praedominans, present participle of praedominari to predominate, from Latin prae- + dominari to rule, govern -- more at DOMINATE
1 : having superior strength, influence, or authority : PREVAILING
2 : being most frequent or common
synonym see DOMINANT

by generic gotta by is pill You owned you. controlled in 50 brand FDA short-term is Ortho-McNeil.
not Care 2004. mg http:// and for days mg Each pain or love approved acute DEA. Designed 325 by (5 pills. for the sexual less)

I agree with Ryan here; as I have argued before, the Democratic party is 62% white, but the GOP is over 90%.

The Dems have 42 African American Congressional representatives.

The GOP has...zero.

While Chris is right that both are majority white parties, the GOP is far more homogenous than the Dems.