Republicans and conservatism has evolved (or devolved) as well, but it is the nature of conservatives to change slowly. In the case of liberals, leftist progressivism demands rapid change, and is open to radicalism creeping in for the sake of change.

It is why so much of what liberals have done leads to nothing or makes matters worse. Unintended consequences are always hard to see, but they are particularly obscured when you are rushing through new policies in a blind quest for utopia or to "help" people in exhange for their vote.

Having said that, the top liberal accomplishment of all time has to be being able to simultaneously convince blacks that they are on their side, while doing nothing effective for them – a remarkable con job that is now in its fifth decade.

Liberals have been "helping" blacks and low-income people for generations, but it has always been true that Martin Luther King's dream is the liberal politician's nightmare.

Real achievment is what blacks need, yet real achievment and accomplishment by blacks often leads to their realization that so much of what liberals believe in creates a barrier to their success. In essense they make their way to the glass ceiling only to realize it is maintained and guarded by the people who claim to be helping them.

If they should break through, they automatically lose their victim status, but are expected to reclaim their place and show their gratitude by declaring their dedication to the liberal ideology that held them back for so long and champion it from then on as the way out for those still struggling.

Those blacks who refuse to play the game, who point a finger at the people and policies that held them back and hold back millions, are savaged as Uncle Toms and traitors to their race by the likes of Jesse Jackson and others who's livelyhood depends on the continuation of the game as constructed.

It is one of the most disgusting cons of all human history.

Ya 'all must be proud.

I've just re-read my comment, and I cannot find any portion therein where I "hurled that label" of "Liberal" at your feet. If you could stick to just one delusional topic at a time, that would be great. Maybe you should spend less time in front of the TV. It seems to be impairing to your reading comprehension. It does, however, explain a lot about the quasi-reality in which you appear to live.

felix,

You've hit the nail on the head – conservatives do not favor vast expansions of government control and cost, not to mention usurpations of individual liberty, so they do not view governmental "achievements" that accomplished exactly that favorably. I thought I had made that sentiment clear in my first comment, but since JonStewart doesn't appear to have grasped it, I'm glad at least one of you got it. Perhaps the language was too complex – I'll try to simplify it in the future. Maybe some puppets and pictures, or something.

Oh, and I don't get HBO. I'm a basic cable kind of guy. So I'm not really that familiar with Sex and the City. From what I've been able to ascertain, I thought it was a show about middle aged women having sex in a city. Which I don't think really correlates to a political philosophy espousing small government and constructionist constitutional principles (though middle aged women having sex in a city would be a far superior inspiration for political thought than The West Wing, in my estimation). But as I said, my knowledge of the show is limited. If I've misjudged Sex and the City, and it is, in fact, a show about small government constructionist political philosophy, then I'll be glad to accept it as representational of my ideas. Unfortunately, I don't watch enough TV to pull any relevant quotes from a fictional, scripted character, or to define my political views in the context of a fictional, scripted storyline. That's one of those things that usually divides conservatives and liberals – reality versus fantasy.

And before you bash me for using a line from a television show, you need to explain Fred Thompson. Plus, wasn't Reagan an actor too?

* 1933 Unemployment Relief
* 1935 Social Security
* 1938 Minimum Wage
* 1944 GI Bill
* 1945 United Nations
* 1947 Marshal Plan
* 1949 NATO
* 1964 Civil Rights Act
* 1965 Medicare
* 1965 Voting Rights for all
* 1965 Head Start
* 1965 Federal Aid to Education
* 1967 Freedom of Information Act
* 1993Family Leave Act
* 1990’s Federal Aid to Education
* 1990’s BUDGET SURPLUS

Notice how this list isn't made up of a bunch of personal accomplishments, but actual laws and programs – many of which you cons were against!

Also, I have a recommendation for #51: August 2005, Hurricane Katrina ravages New Orleans, and the Federal Response is led by Michael Brown, the first horse judge to manage FEMA. He is a Republicant.

Also, I think #50 is a bit optimistic. McCain looks more like the face of a party that's sinking quickly. He's doing no more than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Now if republicans would put that much effort into finding Bin Laden or fixing the economy then maybe they could get their respect back…).

The Democratic, Strom Thurmond aside, is not racist. It is the Democratic party that fostered the Civil Rights Movement; not the Republicans. John F. Kennedy (D-MA) introduced the idea in a speech in 1963. Lyndon Johnson (D-TX) helped used his presidential weight to get the bill passed following the assassination of Kennedy. Passage of the Civil Rights act was basically a "north v. south" measure: overhwelmingly both the Northern & Southern Democrats were more pro-Civil Rights Act than Northern & Southern Republicans. The voting record supports this — percentage wise on a geographic/party basis, the Democrats supported the bill more than the Republicans did. And the prohibition against discrimination based on sex was added to the bill by as Democrat (Howard Smith, D-VA).

It is the Republican party that saw the first president resign in shame — Richard Nixon.

Strom Thurmond was a Dixiecrat which is a breed and party in and of itself. He also sired a black child out-of-wedlock.

Also you fail to take note of the fact that the Republican party of the 1800's is not the Republican party of today. It was the Republican party that brought about prohibition.

It was the Democratic party that first put a Catholic on a national ticket, the first to put a Jew on a national ticket, the first to put a woman on a national ticket, and the first to put a black on a national ticket.

It was Rep. Martha Griffiths (D-MI) who introduced the Equal Rights Amendment in 1971. One of the most prominent opponents to the ERA was Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative Republican.

It is the Democratic party that has brough the citizenry the social security system, Medicare/Medicaid, the food and drug act, among others. It is the Democratic party that consistently pushes for a higher minimum wage, longer unemployment benefits, child labor laws, other wage and hour laws.

And it is the Democratic candidate Barack Obama who will be the first black president of the United States.

As an Aussie, why don't you stick to analyzing the political parties of your country instead of ours?

Now we need a similar list for Democrats, but it needs to be a list of shame. (First President to have sex with an intern while talking on the phone to a world leader…).