I'm starting to believe we might have to Baker Act all Democratic activists and candidates. Since the 2000 elections, they will believe almost anything as long as it's anti-Bush. That's OK, but the goofy part is that they think mainstream America goes along with them and when they get trounced in elections they can't believe it and ascribe it to Machiavellian plots.

Case in point: The 2002 midterms. Democrats were confident that they held the upper hand. History, statistics, and the "evil, stupid GWB" would prive them right. What happened? They were slaughtered.

Case 2: 2004 election. SSDD. Bush is bad, Bush is evil, the war is unjust....and another loss.

Case 3: Upcoming 2006 elections. I dunno about other states but here in Florida the main Dem theme is "I like this, I like that, and I HATE Bush!". I mean, c'mon. Be real. Will this strategy work anywhere that's not already heavily Democratic? Does this appeal to the mainstream moderate? Of course not.

If you don't believe me, go to your local Senate or Gubernatorial Democratic candidates website. Find me one, ONE, that doesn't cast aspersions on Bush. And then explain to me how that message sells in a moderate America.

What is wrong with these people? This country, heck, all countries need a loyal opposition to strike a balance....but what we have now is a bunch of whiny, negativistic drones who are going nuts with ways to demonize the other guys and are not highlighting positive alternatives. They can do better than that. And if not, they can keep losing seats in the government.

As my liberal friends can grudgingly attest to, I've been dead-on predicting the 2002 and 2004 elections. Here's my '06 prediction: Dems pickup a few Senate seats due to anti-incumbency mood as well as a few House seats. GOP still owns both.

When I was a kid I liked the Democrats as a positive force for progressive change. But for the past several years I see them as a jackbooted, intolerant, crazy crowd who would trade this country for their power. I'd love to be wrong.