Captain's Quarters -

Rudy is also wise to take on Move-On.Org. They are a fat target that Democrats are put in a bind whether to defend one of their partisans with a big audience and lots of money or avoid them because as Rudy says, they do not discuss issues, they just assasinate peoples character.

One can assail big spending without pointing at anyone in particular but even better will be to pick on a few specific programs that you can make look ridiculous to wide groups of people. Earmarks are another universal peeve that you can win points by promising to veto without pointing to either Republicans or Democrats.

It's sort of a religious kind of message, don't worry about the mote in someone else's eye, worry about the beam in your own. And I think he has to be careful with this. I'm not really interested in a lecture from some dude who wants to be President.

But then I've thought for some time that all these messages of change that Presidential candidates run out there with every cycle have gotten pretty old and tiresome.

I'm waiting for the candidate who says I see America and I what I see is pretty good, better than just about anywhere else. The American people do a hell of a job, they work hard, they play fair (most of the time) and they're good people. And we're a great country. So we've got a few problems and some things that need fixing but all in all we've got it pretty good and we should be proud of who we are and what we've done these past 231 years.

And I'm the guy who's going to keep a firm hand on the rudder and see that we don't cast the ship of state up onto the rocks and lose all that we've got.

Ok, I know it will never happen. Campaigning is yakking about problems and crises and who's got the best fix. Just once though maybe somebody could talk about what's right with America.

Romney's comments were close to target, but I have doubts of his credentials as a Conservative. If he actually possessed solid Conservative credentials his comments would carry far more weight.

President Maximus said it best in his 11th Commandment - dont ctiticize fellow Republicans, and he is right. He could make the point as effective generically and not mention the Repub party.

Romney started above an asterisk and may well finish #5 behind Rudy, Thompson, McCain and Huckabee if he doesn't start bringing a message of why to vote for him and not against others. And if his next move is to run as the 'outsider' Rudy, Huckabee and even Thompson to some extent will be in that same room.

Rudy is the 800 lb gorilla. He would force HRHighness to defend states she otherwise would carry easily (NJ, CT, PA to name 3). And for all this talk of Rudy wont cut it with social conservatives, my gawd, arent these the people who would crawl over broken glass to vote against her and the cigar smoker in chief?

I dont know where Romney would fit in with a Republican administration, not that he would want to. Thats the funny thing about this group of Republican Pres hopefuls. Other than McCain I wouldnt see any of the top 5 wanting an Admin job.

And, ditto what Bennett said.

We need a leader who believes in what he is saying, saying what he believes. We need a "Morning in America" candidate in the same manner as Reagan in 1984.

Sorry, I'm just not a Romney fan. Nor do I think all that much about Newt Gingrich; except the horrors of a vicious campaign; from an ineffective ex-majority leader in the HOUSE.

With that said, oddly enough, I cannot place ALL of the contendahs on the nomination stage. (Yeah, I can recognize Ron Paul).

But what would be interesting for me to see, would be snapshots of all the candiates, running.

I doubt I'm alone, here. I bet others would fall short of recognizing all of them, by name.

Also? What's behind the scenes is probably more important for what's ahead, than the "running around the country," for hand-shaking, and electioneering "small groups."

History has already taught me that Abraham Lincoln REFUSED to campaign in 1860! He saw the press as hostile. And, "audience questions" as threats. He had already honed and polished his message.

While Stephen Douglas, who ran as the Bonk's candidate in 1860, began the tradition of traveling everywhere, just to introduce himself to crowds. When he was down south? They spit on him.

Maybe? What we need are meters for Internet savvy?

I can't imagine anyone wins in 2008 without knowing how to tap into public opinions.

Did Ronald Reagan have Republicans in his party that wanted to work hard to take away our First Amendment rights? Did he have Republicans in his party that worked with the Democrats to keep eminently qualified and conservative judges off of the bench? Did he have Republicans in his party that had been caught taking payoff money to inflate spending at the Pork level to record levels? Did he have Republicans in his party that actively sought to weaken our Borders at a time when our enemies were known to use that crossing to come here to attack us?

I don't know... I'm not old enough to remember, and the Republican Party wouldn't be interested in telling us. But I get the feeling that Ronald Reagan had a Republican Party that was a bit 'whipped' after Watergate, and needed to get off of it's butt and get moving... he emphasized the direction we should go.

But he wasn't trying to come into office in an era where the Republicans had been in power, and had actively damaged the future of the United States. And frankly, in the last decade, the Republicans in the Senate and House as well as the President have done great things... but they have also had serious problems that NEED to be addressed before we can claim we are ready to Lead American again.

I think Romney will gain some credibility through this, IF he can get a few more 'name' Republicans to admit we need the Housecleaning. It shows that he wants to actually help America, not just 'get along'. We've seen what happens when we get an executive that just wants to 'get along'...

And unlike in Reagan's time, the Republican Party actually really does need to address it's recent errors (and fix them!) before it can Lead America Forward.

Republicans have been trashing Romney for months. They say he isn't a conservative and yet Mormons as a group are one of THE most conservative group in the country. They say they don't trust him because he is a Mormon because Mormons don't believe in Christ which is just ignorant and very bigoted. The first thing a Mormon Bishop will tell you if you go to him with a problem is to bring Christ back into the center of your life. They say he is too slick, which just shows they have lost their ability to discern the difference between slick, as in "Slick Willie" and clean cut, family values, love of country, well-educated and well-spoken.

Romney is probably the smartest candidate running, the most honest, and the very best executive manager and organizer. Unfortunately, he isn't a street fighter or loud mouth like Rudy, he isn't dishonest and nasty like Hillary.

Do we really want a President so laid back he can barely bring himself to campaign, like Fred? Do we want a "Me Me Me" man like Rudy? Do we want a criminal like Hillary?

"I don't know... I'm not old enough to remember, and the Republican Party wouldn't be interested in telling us."

Well I'm old enough and the answer is Ronald Reagan had a Republican party that was pretty much as defeatist as the Democrats were at the time. That might be somewhat of an exaggeration but generally speaking the Republicans at the time were lead by so-called moderates, establishment Republicans like Howard Baker, the first George Bush, Phil Crane, Bob Dole, people like that. And they were fairly accommodationist and hardly revolutionary in their thinking.

There weren't a lot of conservative voices (other than Barry Goldwater) and certainly no one talking about how great America was. Inflation, the Iran hostage crisis, gas lines, Jimmy Carter in the White House talking about malaise and wearing sweaters and pulling our athletes out of the 1980 Moscow Olympics as his muscled response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

It was a sad, unhappy time and the only person who talked about America as a good place was Ronald Reagan. And I have to say at the time, I thought he was a bit of a loon, all this talk about a city on a shining hill and morning in America. Because it sure didn't seem like it and it was hard to believe that anyone could actually deliver on that. I'm happy to say I was proven wrong.

So no, Ronald Reagan didn't have a Republican party that was unified and uplifted and ready to do battle with the forces of evil. At least not until he came along and showed them the way.

But Bennett... that wasn't my question. I said the Republicans had been whipped... they had an inertia that had to be overcome, but none of them were famous for breaking laws or actively pursuing legislation that would weaken the rights and safety of the Citizenry.

But that's what we have now. John McCain, hero for sure, saddled us with a campaign reform law that keeps me from running political ads: He has taken away a portion of my 1st Amendment Right to free speech in the name of better campaigns for incumbents. W signed the law! Other Republicans have been caught taking bribes, another in Alaska is on the way to being charged. Pork barrel spending is only a small portion of the huge increase in spending the REPUBLICANS have been at the forefront of... including medications for the elderly regardless of their income.

I could go on, but these should all be familiar refrains.

My point (such as it is) is that Romney faces a Republican Party that is not quiescent, but has actively done wrong. That needs to be addressed, and addressing that is more important than hewing to the call to 'not make waves' within the Party. President Reagan could make the 11th Commandment... because when he was running, there was no need to speak ill against anything done by his party.

He had already done that, and then LEFT his Party. Remember? That is not a solution I want to see enacted, to say the least. We CAN clean up the Party... and need to. If the grass roots can't, and it hasn't, then it IS up to our Leadership to do so.

And for the Record, I'm a Fred Fan... not a Romney backer for the nomination. It's just that I can recognize a good idea when I hear one...

Mr. Michael,

"I don't know... I'm not old enough to remember..."

Thank you for your intellectual honesty. It is appreciated.

The Republican Party in 1980 was perhaps the most Conservative the Republican Party had ever been. In the rise to Reagan's nomination, and moreso afterward, the Republican Party was not "whipped" but, rather, energized to a level unimaginable in previous decades. Following the Carter debacle, which by objective accounts it was, the Republicans ran up to the nomination essentially split into camps. There was Reagan, considered a long a long shot at the time, there was Howard Baker, minority leader in the Senate, there was George H.W. Bush, John Connally, Phil Crane, John Anderson (who later ran as an independent) and a few other candidates. What marked Reagan as apart from the crowd was his Conservatism. The other candidates for nomination were basically old school Republicans, in many ways indistinguishable from Kennedy Democrats on matters of defense, more like the Republican Party of the 1950's.

The Party was not "whipped" in 1980. Certainly was in 1976. Really really was "whipped" in 1976.

Depending on which side of the aisle you stand and how far right you stand within the Party, the 1980 Republicans with the leadership of Reagan after his nomination were able to do two things, and do them well.

First, Christians in America identified with the Republican Party in ways never before seen in America. Up to 1980 most Christians (Catholics and religous Protestants alike) identified with the Democrat Party on the basis of social issues and helping the poor and downtrodden, all acts of Faith thoughout the Christian Community. The rise to prominance of the Moral Majority and Christian Right as effective and pervasive political arms of Christians, for the most part fundamentalists or Bible-observant Christians, gave the Republicans a political edge unimaginable.

Second, 1980 saw the Republican Party move from its long held cachet as the party of the rich, for the rich and only the rich, to a Party that blue collar America could identify with and vote for.

The ineffectiveness of the Carter Administration over issues regarsing the Soviet Union, Iran, of course, the economy (ever try to get a home loan with 16% APR and consider that a bargain?) and other issues had the result that not only Americans being tired of Carter, but Democrats were tired of Carter. What hurt the Democrats most (other than Carter) was the uneasy and often discordant composition of the party which included former Mcgovernites, leftover anti-war activists, various labor and union coalitions, a number of racial and urban coalitions, intellectuals and middle class reformers, and a host of others...their tent was large but terribly disorganized and crowded with the result that factions and their candidates often ate their own young, so to speak, to get to the front of the tent.

We Republicans today, for the first time in my memory, perhaps longer, are not fielding an incumbent President or Vice President for Office.

We face the problem of us Republicans eating our own young on our way to the front of the party tent. We have been left in the lurch by those within our own Party who have mouthed the necessary phrases but have chosen not to walk the Conservative walk, and in many cases have chosen to not walk the Republican walk, for that matter.

We can play it like we are better than the Democrats, essentially, however, not that much different than the Democrats, which is the path of too many RINO's, who pander to all sorts of groups in order to get them in the tent. We can play it by harking back and embracing the fundamentals of Reagan's 1980 platform and perhaps lose a number of those in the tent or have them refuse to enter that tent. But, this maxim, from a member of Reagan's Administration, has stuck with me for years: "When you stand for everything you stand for nothing."

My belief is that unless we Republicans energize and mobilize the rank and file of the base, and energize and mobilize average Joe and Jill Americans with the notion that America is good, we don't have to apoligize and accomodate for what we as a nation have accomplished, and stick to a well articulated and well defined set of Party standards, a Conservative platform, we will lose in 2008, winning only and if the predominant Democrat Party candidate screws the pooch on their own leading to the general election.

Me? While finding it nice that a Republican wins the general election is a good thing, also find that winning by default, as in 2000 and 2004, does nothing good for the Party of which I am a member. The Reagan edge in 1980 (45 million GOP votes to 37 million Democrat votes) and in 1984 (55 million GOP votes to 37 million Democrat votes) clearly showed Reagan's wins were not by default, and that the Democrats essentially gained no ground at all, lost ground in truth, from 1980 to 1984.

We don't win by losing ground, nor should we win by default.

My candidate will take a baseball bat to the snout of the absolutely worthless Democrat Party and knock the donkey's teeth in.

Criticizing Republicans would make sense, if the opposition criminals were not a group of anti-American, incompetent, corrupt lunatics.

And Ms. Rodham is the poster jackass for these people. Completely unaccomplished, utterly unqualified, bungling, corrupt, dishonest and stupid.

I don't want to hear how a candidate is going to work with these people. I want to hear how he is going to destroy Ms. Rodham and her demon Democrat spawn and why America will prosper sans Democrats.

Bashing Republicans? Waste of time. Let me know how you're going to raze the Democrat Party then salt the earth, or don't waste your breath.

Mr Michael,

without even thinking too hard I can tell you an unqualified "yes' to two of your questions.

First-conservative judges. See the final vote against Robert Bork. Snarlin' Arlen was prime cover for Teddy K's smear of him. And also at that time Republicans were cowed to not appoint anti Roe judges, the so called litmus test, how do you think we got Stevens?

Second- Sorry to say but the first immigration amnesty bill was signed by Ronald Reagan, it was the precursor to the problem today.

I dont agree that we are taking away any First Amend rights. If you are talking about McCain Feingold without real knowledge I would have to look and see if some sort of law took effect to curtail campaigning in that time frame. As for earmarks and pork, I am not even sure earmarks existed until recently. Someone correct me on that or confirm it please.

You are right tho about Romneys message. Conservatism will win in America on an even playing field. We dont have an even playing field tho. The MSM lies and distorts to aid the Dems lies and distortions. That is why naming Repub's as the problem is counter productive, they are the only ones being named every day. Gotta go after the Dems or make it a system problem (Which btw it really is, probably even more than the Dems). They just cheat more and better because they do it with impuignity knowing the MSM covers for them. Mark my words, Hsu is off the MSM pages in 3-2-1...

Mr. Michael
I largely agree. Mitt is a smart, problem solver as witnessed by the fact that he saved the Olympics, got elected as a God fearing man in the God forsaken state of Mass.

It does the party no good to play Ostrich and pretend we have no problems, Lord knows the MSM makes them plainly known loud and long. It also does no good to dwell on them. Mitt has a message, we heard a lot of it in IA.

As a poster who, on virtually every post has asked the Rep. candidates to address the weakness of the Dems and PAIPS in particular we also should recognize and not repeat our own mistakes.
Republicans"win by default" because the country is fairly evenly divided.

We will need swing and some right leaning Dems to win and Romney is well aware of that and has done it.

He knows he needs voters outside the base. That said I will crawl across broken glass to vote for the Rep. whomever that is.

The Dems are giving us plenty of amunition right now that will be useless if our position is not from a position of righting our own ship as well as sinking theirs. Thats the only way we get the fence leaners as the other side has the MSM.

Our party purges the scoundrels, much to my consternation, on the other hand, the other party promotes them.

Thats a message Mr. and Mrs., not particularly political, America, can relate to I think.

I think Romney is smart and he beats the hell out of any Democrat out there. I feel the same way about most of the Republicans running.

I do think that one has to be careful with this sort of criticism however and remember that a lot of the problems {such as the border} are not just about Republicans and their failures.

It seems to me that this administration has made a greater effort to secure the border than any in history. It can be argued it has not been enough, but perhaps it would be better to make the point that while improvements have been made, more needs to be done. And the same could be said for other issues as well.

We have to remember that the Republicans have not had an overwhelming majority even when they did have a majority. The country really has been 50/50 for some time now and that makes it hard to make any big changes or do anything that radical. There has been no way big cuts could have been made in government programs. There has not been the votes necessary for a lot of the things that conservatives want. That is not the fault of the President or even the party. It is just the way the political landscape is laid out.

And the same works for the Democrats as well. The word that best describes it is stalemate.

I understand about not criticizing other Republicans, very much so. However, I have a great fear that if people like me, who are quite willing to see Rudy as president, despite his not quite toeing the conservative line, go ahead and nominate him, that then when he is the only man left standing against Hillary, she will then bring out all her ammunition against him that we are trying to ignore right now...specifically, those pictures of him in drag, etc. and likely even more that we don't know about, and then what effect will that have? The conservatives will look at those pictures of him, puke in disgust, and decide to stay home, effectively giving up and allowing Hillary to win. Perhaps being honest right now, before the nomination, to truly find out which of the candidates will be able to stand up against her slime machine, might help us to win the election....? Romney might be our best bet. (But Rudy's appearance in London, with Thatcher and Blair and Brown was quite inspiring, wasn't it?)

Hey there, I'm a visiting liberal. I have a question, and it's actually related to the topic at hand Among the Democratic candidates for the Presidency, which one would horrify you least as President? If you tell me, it might even influence me to vote for them. Almost all the Democratic candidates are acceptable to me (I'm not sure about Kucinich, but I suspect you wouldn't choose him anyway). And I really really really want to win this election. Plus I’m not happy with the way the country has been divided, and while I want to win, I would like also not to divide the country even further.

So who do you like, or rather, who makes you the least sick? I will confess I don’t understand conservatives one bit. We elected a philandering non-inhaling charming good-ol-boy, and you hated his guts. We nominated a pedantic slightly overbearing southern policy wonk, and you hated him too. Then we went and nominated a boring stick-up-his-butt Vietnam vet, and you hated him almost as much. So I confess, I have no clue. Well I do know you hate loathe and despise Hillary Clinton. I don’t understand it, but I've listened o conservatives long enough that it's sunk in. But aside from that, I have no clue.

How about Biden? He wants us out of Iraq, but he at least has a plan, even if it’s one you don’t like. Or Edwards? He’s at least not one of those north eastern intellectuals you seem to hate. Or Obama? He talks about bringing the country together, and I think he means it. I doubt you’d like Dodd, as he’s been the more outspoken about getting out of Iraq than anyone but Kucinich, but if you would, I’d be glad to vote for him. I’d be glad to vote for any of them, I just want them to win.

Now it's only fair since I'm asking you who you'd choose among the Democratic candidates for the Presidency that I tell you who I'd pick among the Republican candidates. It’s a really tough choice; I don't like any of them. But if you tied me down and tortured me until I picked one, I’d have to select Mitt Romney. It is a sign of my desperation that I’d pick Mitt-let’s-double-Guantanamo-Romney, but I’d have to say among the leading Republican candidates he seems to me to be the most likely to be a competent President. Eight years ago I would have picked McCain, but something seems to have happened to him since then. He’s making so many gaffes, that episode where he talked about being able to shop in a Baghdad marketplace safely, the one singing let’s bomb Iran. He jokes around and he doesn’t seem to able to talk about the issues as cogently as he used to. As much as I passionately disagree with Mitt Romney, he seems able to string sentences together to make coherent arguments. I wouldn’t pick Ron Paul, because despite the fact I like some of the things he says about Iraq, a libertarian who wants to return the gold standard is just way too far out there, and his isolationist leanings go too far for me. Fred Thompson doesn’t appear ready for prime time, and Giuliani scares the crap out of me. Giuliani is to me as Hillary is to you. It’s wild they’re the front runners; this could be an incredibly divisive election, with Democrats and Republicans passing each other by as we all crawl across glass to vote for our candidate. I don't know as much about the remaining candidates as I ought to, but from what I've seen I like Romney better.

"However, if he wants to win this nomination, he's going to have to get out of the intramural infighting and start rallying Republicans, and time has started to run a little short."

Republicans have got to start rallying around that conservative message, instead of just rallying around the brand.

Maybe 2008 is the year Giuliani starts a fight with Hillary and sticks around to the finish. He might even win it. But if all he's got is "I'm not going to be as bad as Hillary" then he's not going to get 60 million votes, he's not going to have a positive mandate, and he's not going to have an ounce of leverage with the big-pork power blocs in the GOP on the Hill, who will have won in spite of the President.

Romney is definitely right about a lot of these issues, like watching Giuliani, McCain and Fred Thompson and Newt railing at Democrats, and forgetting their own mirrors ---- but if THAT makes Romney a great Presidential candidate, then it makes Ann Coulter, Ollie North, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney, Michael Reagan, and a slew of other people EVEN BETTER Presidential Candidates.

I'll be finding myself a CONSERVATIVE to vote for, and bypassing ALL the RINOS, thank you.

If Mitt is a born again Conservative, great. He is a smart guy, Joe Biden might even call him clean and articulate. However, he needs to say more here. If he is the agent of change that our party and our country needs, as they say in Missouri, show me.

Republicans have a tough road to travel in 2008. I am very encouraged that Mitt has chosen to confess the party's sins. As you say Captain, the good Sir Mitt's prayer will only be answered if he calls out the porkers.

I'll start with an easy one.

For the good of the party Ted Stevens must step down.

It will be interesting to see if the Republicans love fake farts as much as the Dems did with Clinton.

I bet they will.

simple formula really:

1. say whatever you think they want to hear (no need to actually beleive it).

2. have hair (nice silky pony non-gray hair). what? Romney HAD gray? - well just wash that gray out of his hair!

3. Chizel chin - no weak chins need apply.

4. Tall - short mighy mouse Kusinich's we won't vote for you shrimp!

....................

as somebody said a couple of months ago - "Romeny is so fake they must pull his batteries at night"

no Republicans don't care they'll embrace him as the Dems did for Klintoon.

americans love fake assholes - guess thats because so many americans are fake themselves. i can see no other explaination.

Romney is simply providing cover for the fact he has nothing else to offer. What an idiot, where is he from? That could/should answer all of America's quesions. 'Hanoi John' and 'The Swimmer' is a good clue.

Romney started above an asterisk and may well finish #5 behind Rudy, Thompson, McCain and Huckabee if he doesn't start bringing a message of why to vote for him and not against others.

It isn't just the presidential contender but every Republican for office that has to give me a reason to vote FOR them rather than just against the Democrats. Simply saying, "The Democrats suck worse" isn't going to motivate many people to vote for Republicans. Scare messages about how awful a Hillary presidency would be (and it would be awful) aren't going to do the trick.

Republicans need to be Republicans again, not the big spending, corrupt and stupid party that lost control of Congress last year. They need a positive message like they had with the "Contract With America" and they need to live up to conservative principles. Don't try to tell me that Democrats suck more (and they do). Tell me what Republicans are going to do to make things better and then actually do them. If they can't do that, then they deserve to lose.

I got turned off to Romney by attack dog Hugh Hewitt and his relentless shilling for the Mitt campaign, including scare tactics about Fred's cancer. I see Ed and the Powerline guys are now catching up to Romney's negativism. That and the perception Mitt is unable to relate to the regular 'folks' are keeping him breaking out of the 10-12% percentage range.

His campaign says he lacks name recognition, but come on, he has spent a lot of money and traveled all over the country, so if people have not started recognizing him by now, that bespeaks of even deeper problems.

First, thanks for the education, all of you. Your responses to my post have been very helpful.

In the end, I still support the idea that the Republican Party clean house. And Senate. (barrrump-um!) There are too many Republican office-holders who have made criminal mistakes that have been re-elected with an (R) by their name. Their constituents have a right to vote them in... but if the party isn't going to deny them the (R), then it should at LEAST voice it's displeasure over the corruption.

Pretending to be blind will NOT garner any Center-Left votes.

That being said, ALL of the Republican candidates need to address what they DO stand for. Unlike the Captain, (sorry sir!) I don't believe time is short. Political Junkies already know about most of the candidates, and can tell you how to find out more without even looking at their notes. However, the average voter begins to pay attention when exactly? Three weeks before the election? Two?

As long as you have the funding, you can go off on tangents like this early on... or try out new campaigning styles like Fred. The big lifting doesn't have to be done until much later; remember, we have a very early campaign this year. LOTS of time to posit multiple messages... and that's something I think will work FOR the Republican Party and against the Dems.

After all, their biggest message is "F*CK BUSH". As soon as he's out of the Primary (heh) they are left with "We'll drastically raise your taxes!" and "Legal Protections for Terrorists! " neither of which will gain any Center-Left votes either...

After Rudy wins the nomination I wouldn't be surprised if he offers Mccain the VP. At Mccain's age he might accept.

As for which Democrat Party Candidate nauseates me the least...

You misunderstand the Republican Mindset. We aren't wandering around looking for a leader we can follow... we are looking for a candidate who will follow US. Conservatives have a Vision for the future of America... and it is a positive, uplifting, raise-all-boats kind of message that you know and love from the Reagan years, combined with a wish for less government intrusion into our lives, our liberties, and our wallets.

On basic principles, few if any candidates who would embrace the Democrat Party at this time in History could be considered acceptable enough to hold-my-nose and vote for.

Look, I know you don't understand my way of thinking. That's okay... I understand yours. I don't hate you, or your candidates over on the (D) side. Yeah, some people do, and they are loud. But don't let your habit of looking at people as large complaisant, submissive groups blind you to the rest of the Republican Party. I know you want to elect somebody who will make the Country a better place... it's just that you want the GOVERNMENT to make the Country a better place... am I wrong? Republicans want the Government to do the things ONLY Government CAN do, and leave the rest to the States and the individuals. None of the Dem candidates will do that... all of them will do the opposite.

The Democrat Party has changed drastically in the last few decades. For example, there used to be Democrats who were anti-minority... the Republicans had to pass the Civil Rights act over their objections. There used to be Democrats who were very Pro-America in it's Military Defense, but who also wanted to spend money on special groups out a desire to help... and who's plans were enacted and caused (arguably) more damage than repair to the problem. Most of them have given up on Welfare, and have had to join the Republican Party to find a political home where they could be welcome... the Dems won't take 'em... look at Joe Lieberman. In fact, LOTS of Republicans today were registered Democrats just a few years ago. Even Ronald Reagan used to have a (D) on his voters registration card... but the process that started in the '30s and drove Reagan out in the '50s accelerated to being the John Kerry anti-America branch in the '60s and now controls their party in the '00s. The Democrats I could admire have all become Republicans.

So if you want to pick a Democratic Candidate for President, you are on your own... don't look to me for help. They are all unacceptable to my view of the future of my country.

Republicans want someone who can beat Hillary Clinton

I'm setting my sights a bit higher than that. And most Republicans should do the same. We've been electing liberal Republicans and the result is a party not much different from the Democrats. Giuliani is not the man to change that.

Rudy continues to attack Hillary Clinton

He used to be a fan of hers when he was Mayor. Not sure what the "continues" means.

Romney will wind up alienating some good Republicans in the party who wonder why Romney focuses so exclusively on Republicans for his ire.

My ire is focused on Republicans. I expect liberalism and globalism from the Democrats, and I get it. I expect conservatism and nationalism from the GOP, but they've abandoned them.

Rudy is making his case as the best general-election candidate for the Republican Party

I think we're all aware of your biases, but he's done no such thing.

McCain for Vice Pres. I hope NOT... More broken glass I will have to crawl over while holding my nose with both hands. McCain has been good only on the war otherwise he's been a great example of the problem...
McCain Feingold...Senate sellout over filibusters...Amnesty for Illegals ..He's the reason we have a mess not the solution.

Rick Taylor

We nominated an articulate Californian governor and former actor, and you hated his guts. We nomiated an inarticulate Texas governor, and you hated his guts also. What Republican could satisfy you guys?

I think there is something to be said for the idea that what most enrages the partisans of party A is a president of party B who is pretty centerist. Nixion was one of the more liberal Presidents of the 20th century, and the left reagarded him with undying hatred. Same for Bush, who has been a massive failure for conservatives and has to have his arm twisted to do what we want. You people still loathe him. And the same for Bill Clinton I'd say. The rights hatred of him was out of proportion to what he was.

Of all the Republicans, who could you vote for?

To answer your question, I guess Richardson would be most palatable to most on the right. Even if he is a Hispanic racist.

NoDonkey

I don't want to hear how a candidate is going to work with these people. I want to hear how he is going to destroy Ms. Rodham and her demon Democrat spawn and why America will prosper sans Democrats.

That was the approach of Newt and the GOP back in the late ninties. And it blew up in their faces. If the GOP really wanted an attack dog there are plenty of people like that in our ranks. None of the front runners fit the bill though.

Peggy,

Don't know where you reside (geographically) but here in NE Pa. Rudy's pictures in drag would probably be a plus :-) If you've never attended a party here, you probably won't understand this.

One of the things I like about Rudy is that he isn't afraid to "be himself". I'm soooo tired of political correctness, and so are a lot of folks. The fact that Rudy wasn't afraid to appear in drag tells me that he is very secure in his male identity, he has a sense of humor and it appears that he likes a good time. What is the harm in that?

This area takes no back seat when it comes to people of faith.......many of these folks are avid Rudy supporters.

Perhaps it is our close proximity to NYC; security trumps a lot of other concerns. Many of the businesses who were out of commission after 9/11 have opened satellite offices in our Pocono Mtns area to act as backup if NYC is struck again.

These are pragmatic businesses who realize that NYC will always be a major target simply because of the finance industry.

I'll admit Romney's resume (on paper) seems to be terrific, but there is something off-putting about him. I just can't put my finger on it.

Dubya has been great fighting the war on terror and he is to be commended for his 2 SC appointments, but he's been very disappointing in his ability to respond to his critics. He's had the bully pulpit but has been unable to use it.

I want a president who will go eyeball to eyeball, nose to nose with Pelosi, Reid et al. Someone who will be a scrapper, and like Reagan bypass the MSM and go straight to the people when the Dem bovine excrement hits the rotational air devices.

"Of all the Republicans, who could you vote for?"

I couldn't bring myself to vote for any of the current Republican candidates, but the most palatable to me is Mitt Romney, and I wrote why in my previous post. And the least palatable would be Giuliani, by far.

"To answer your question, I guess Richardson would be most palatable to most on the right. Even if he is a Hispanic racist."

Thank you. I'm surprised; of the candidates, his position on Iraq sounds even further to the left than most; he talks in terms of withdrawing all the troops out, and criticizes the leading candidates for not going far enough. I wouldn't have guessed him at all.

Rick,

I'm not sure how I'd answer it, but the two who worry me the least would probably be Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, although I think Richardson is as wrong as possible on Iraq. And having to pick either of those two show how badly the Democrats have done in producing presidential candidates. In 2004, I would have said that Joe Lieberman would have been a rational alternative to George Bush.

This is too funny; parody of a Mitt commercial. If he is this easy to mock, it tells you something.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/09/ask_you_shall_receive.html

Mr Michael said some enlightening stuff here that I'd like to address:

"I know you want to elect somebody who will make the Country a better place... it's just that you want the GOVERNMENT to make the Country a better place... am I wrong? Republicans want the Government to do the things ONLY Government CAN do, and leave the rest to the States and the individuals. None of the Dem candidates will do that... all of them will do the opposite."

This is the old Socialism argument all over again...........boy does this get old - what 100 yrs now?????????????

1. We have far more problems RIGHT NOW than "socialism is bad"....THE SYSTEM - i.e the whole God damned system is corrupt.......oh it not "always been corrupt"..it is a SHITLOAD WORSE since 1990. Lobbyists are OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!!!! (on all sides!!!) - Both parties are corrupt ot the core (no it is not "always been corrupt"........they are a SHITLOAD MORE CORRUPT today).

So - a little less ideology and a fucking shitload more house cleaning of Congre$$ and removing Lobbyists (by gunpoint or noose) would be a good start.

"The Democrat Party has changed drastically in the last few decades."

I have to agree here, but not totally from your perspective (though it too - just that you left out a larger part).................POLIICAL CORRECTNESS.

That bullshit has overtaken common sence - the worship of "I'm the Victim!" is now ingrained in the Democratic Party.

PC makes me puke. - I'm a 70's Democrat, there is no room for PC indoctrination in a party (the 1970's version anyway) that places Liberty of the individual above all else.

"For example, there used to be Democrats who were anti-minority... the Republicans had to pass the Civil Rights act over their objections."

Quite true!!! For without the Republicans in the Senate back in 1964 Pres. Johnson would have not gotten the votes from his own party to pass the civil Rights Act. I applaud the Minority Leader of that time and others of his party who supported this act. I likewise comdemn the Southern Democrats who did not.

"There used to be Democrats who were very Pro-America in it's Military Defense,"

- correction. one can be "pro-america" and not be for endless and excessive military spending and waring all over the world with no nation security value.

"but who also wanted to spend money on special groups out a desire to help... and who's plans were enacted and caused (arguably) more damage than repair to the problem. Most of them have given up on Welfare, and have had to join the Republican Party to find a political home where they could be welcome... the Dems won't take 'em... look at Joe Lieberman."

Welfare is broken - this is obvious. But the other extreme is not the solution (ending it).

it needs to be "fixed" so that it works (helps those who need it temporarily so they can then help themselves and does not help those who abuse the system and sit on their arse doing nothing toward getting a job.

As for Lieberman - most of us loath the lacky because he licks Bush's boot WRT to Iraqnam and some (inluding me) question his allegience to America. I think if he had to choose (hypothetically of course) between saving America or Israel he'd choose the latter.

Check his voting record outside of Iraqnam - its pure Liberal Democrat...but we don't care about that (though we do know it and this we know he WAS a FORMER Democrat - just a turncoat variety)..........we don't want him (and BTW he is NOT A DEMOCRAT! - HE LOST THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY).

the asshole can call himself an "independant democrat" all he wants - he just an "independant". Lamont bweat his arse in the Primary. Lamont was the Democrat. Lieberman is nothin. He left the Dems - not the other way around. HE LOST THE PRIMARY FOR GOD's SAKE!!

Lamont is the dem............still.

"In fact, LOTS of Republicans today were registered Democrats just a few years ago."

this changed with Reagan/Carter...I knew man who switched over back then. Carter was weak and negative and reagon was strogn and positive........both combined to make many switch over.

"Even Ronald Reagan used to have a (D) on his voters registration card... but the process that started in the '30s and drove Reagan out in the '50s accelerated to being the John Kerry anti-America branch in the '60s and now controls their party in the '00s."

Not valid - whatever "process" Reagan went through in the 50's (not 30's) was not the same "process" that Al Smith supported in the 30's nor the one Gingrich supported in the 90's.

many processes - both to and from Republican party - far more complex than what you imply.

"The Democrats I could admire have all become Republicans."

too bad: i can think of a couple. Fiengold, Bidon (sure like him these last couple of years at least). - I like Obama - so far.

I like Hagel and Paul (bet you hate both of them) - probably call them "RINOs" even though they are more Republican than all other Republicans in Government.

"So if you want to pick a Democratic Candidate for President, you are on your own... don't look to me for help. They are all unacceptable to my view of the future of my country."

Bidon or Obama.

I will not vote for Billary nor Edwards.

I'll vote for Ron Paul if he gets nominted (ya that will sure happen!! lol)...............maybe Huckabee if he cools it with the Noconjob talk.

none of the other Noecons are worthy.

flenser stateth:

"We've been electing liberal Republicans"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH - in whos universe!!?????????

Hell since the mid 90's you'all have been doing the OPPOSITE!

Since when has your Party been rife with Rockafeller Republicans???? -...............

well????????????????////

I'll tell you - since like 1980 at the LATEST.

no - you will have to find another punching bg for your defeats of 2006 - it was not the RINO (you don't have them in your party anymore Bubba!!).

you lose - try again.

"McCain has been good only on the war otherwise he's been a great example of the problem.."

flip it around 180

then you'll have it right. that baffon lost support of 50 million of us over Iraqnam alone.

flenser defendeth Nixon:

"Nixion was one of the more liberal Presidents of the 20th century, and the left reagarded him with undying hatred."

we hated the MAN - he was a criminal - had nothing to do with his Party affiliation.

You hated Stalin and Hitler because they belonged to lieral parties?

give me a break.

OH BTW everyone LOVED IKE..oh ya he was a Republican in case you had no clue. He was not a criminal like Nixon though - FYI.

Liz Sidot, al-AP: In an indictment of Republicans, [Romney] bemoaned excessive spending, insecure borders, and ethical lapses, and declared: "When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses. We've got to start acting like Republicans, not earmarking Republicans, not big government Republicans, but like Reagan Republicans and Teddy Roosevelt Republicans."

Music to my ears. As other commenters have noted, it's not enough to simply say, "I'm not Hillary!"; I want to see a candidate who stands FOR something AND is willing to honestly address the problems we have in our own house. Whether Mitt is the guy who can / will really do something about earmarks, ethics problems, big spending, border security, etc, remains to be seen.

I could be quite wrong, but I think such a message might do well for Mitt in both the primaries and the general election. There are a lot of Republicans who, like me, are pretty sick of the party as it currently exists. Ted Stevens, Trent Lott, Larry Craig, and even George Bush don't inspire conservatives with a warm, fuzzy glow.* I think it would do a lot of good for the GOP to let everybody see that we're not going to be democrat-lite anymore, and that we're going to be responsible for keeping our own house in order.

I do no denigrate the need for a positive message, however, but I do say that a combination of honest recognition of the problems we have along with a positive message emphasizing the greatness of America would be electoral dynamite.

Mr. Michael: You misunderstand the Republican Mindset. We aren't wandering around looking for a leader we can follow... we are looking for a candidate who will follow US. Conservatives have a Vision for the future of America... and it is a positive, uplifting, raise-all-boats kind of message that you know and love from the Reagan years, combined with a wish for less government intrusion into our lives, our liberties, and our wallets.

...

... Republicans want the Government to do the things ONLY Government CAN do, and leave the rest to the States and the individuals. None of the Dem candidates will do that... all of them will do the opposite.

EXCELLENT!

------------

(*) I'll go further than that: if Bush wasn't so strong on the war, I'd say that he'd be despised by much of the GOP base for his big-spending, pro-amnesty, big-government ways.

"I'm not sure how I'd answer it, but the two who worry me the least would probably be Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, although I think Richardson is as wrong as possible on Iraq. And having to pick either of those two show how badly the Democrats have done in producing presidential candidates."

Thanks for your input. Heh, believe me, we Democrats feel exactly the same way about the Republican selection. I think it's a function of the partisan divide more than anything else. I don't remember an election in which I felt it more difficult to choose a palatable alternative among the Republican candidates, and I suspect conservative Republicans feel likewise towards the Democrats. There are a few Republicans out there who I might be able to support, but they're not running for President. As I said before, Mitt Romney worries me least.

"Look, I know you don't understand my way of thinking. That's okay... I understand yours. I don't hate you, or your candidates over on the (D) side. Yeah, some people do, and they are loud. But don't let your habit of looking at people as large complaisant, submissive groups blind you to the rest of the Republican Party. I know you want to elect somebody who will make the Country a better place... it's just that you want the GOVERNMENT to make the Country a better place... am I wrong? Republicans want the Government to do the things ONLY Government CAN do, and leave the rest to the States and the individuals. None of the Dem candidates will do that... all of them will do the opposite."

Thank you for your cordial words. Of course you're right; I don't think the government is the answer to all our problems, but I do see a larger roll for it than you probably do. Tht's why I'm a liberal and not a conservative.

That said, I've been saddened to see the transformation over the years of the Republican party; the waning of the small government contingent. When I was younger, I saw the Democrats as the party of fighting for individual rights, and attempting to use the power of government to do good, and idealism, and I saw the Republican's as the party of fiscal restraint and realism. And we might have disagreed about the relative importance of these values, but they were positive values.

I don't think of the Republican party that way anymore; I haven't for a long time. I actually think the Democratic part is now the party of fiscal responsibility, relatively speaking. Sure we're the tax and spend party. But Republicans are the tax-cut and spend party, and of the two I find the former more responsible. If we're going to spend, it's better to raise the money directly, rather than continually selling bonds to the Chinese and hoping they keep on buying them. Plus both the Democrats and Republicans spend money, but the Democrats are more likely to spend some of it on things I think are a good idea.

So I hope you're right and there's a change and the Republican party goes back to its roots. I don't see it happening, I think those days are gone for good,but I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

As for some of the statements that George Bush is not a conservative, maybe I missed it, but I don't remember hearing that when he was running in 2000 or in his first few years of office. Conservatives seemed pretty happy with him, until the war started going badly and his popularity nosedived. Now maybe I just wasn't looking in the right places and people will correct me, but that's how I remember it. But George Bush has always been up front about what he was going to do; none of it was ever a surprise, that's one positive thing I'll say about him.

Sorry, that last message was supposed to begin, "Michael wrote:"

"Posted by coldwarrior415 | September 22, 2007 12:21 PM

"Romney's comments were close to target, but I have doubts of his credentials as a Conservative. If he actually possessed solid Conservative credentials his comments would carry far more weight."

*************

AGREED!

Posted by flenser | September 22, 2007 7:02 PM

Republicans want someone who can beat Hillary Clinton

I'm setting my sights a bit higher than that. And most Republicans should do the same. We've been electing liberal Republicans and the result is a party not much different from the Democrats. Giuliani is not the man to change that.

Rudy continues to attack Hillary Clinton

He used to be a fan of hers when he was Mayor. Not sure what the "continues" means.

Romney will wind up alienating some good Republicans in the party who wonder why Romney focuses so exclusively on Republicans for his ire.

My ire is focused on Republicans. I expect liberalism and globalism from the Democrats, and I get it. I expect conservatism and nationalism from the GOP, but they've abandoned them.

Rudy is making his case as the best general-election candidate for the Republican Party

I think we're all aware of your biases, but he's done no such thing.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

EXCELLENT POST! THE PERFECT NAIL!

You and ColdWarrior, and Bennet are nailing my views really well.

For a long time, the Republicans have been content to be a drag on the Dim Party policies.
(some of you young city folks may be unaware that farmers have on occassion a call to put a long chain and very heavy weight behind some farm equipment when they are plowing - it isn't intended to halt the plowing or make things harder on the drey animals or small tractors - but to make some of the plowing equipment dig deeper into the soil and do a better job of churning things up. - THAT is what a DRAG is. THAT today is what the GOP is, essentially!)

I'm looking for someone who believes the Dims are going the WRONG WAY for America and find that wrong way TOTALLY unacceptable, and are willing to do what it takes to turn from THAT direction, and go another way, and BRAKE the Dims, entirely.
And I'm tired of watching some RINO GOP members save the DIM BACON at critical junctures, joining with them on certain policies PURELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF "MAINTAINING THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM".

The two party system isn't part of our Constitutional CONSTRUCT.
And there were other parties before the DIMS - OR THE GOP for that matter, and others SINCE THEN, too!
One recent poll said OVER HALF THE USA VOTERS WANT A NEW THIRD PARTY!

Only requirement we need for THAT is a NEW REGULATION that if a candidate DOES NOT WIN 50+% of the vote in his/her election, THERE WILL BE A RUN-OFF BETWEEN THE TOP TWO WINNERS.

THAT should go WITHOUT SAYING, ANYWAY!

NEITHER OF THESE PARTIES IS CONSTITUTIONAL "ENTITLED" TO ANY PART OF THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT IN THE USA!

The only thing that is the JUST REPOSITORY of GOVERMENT POWER in the USA is AMERICAN CITIZENS.

So when RINOS or anyone else do something WRONG FOR AMERICA to "SAVE THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM" from its own SELF-DESTRUCTION, they show they are not the DESERVING repositories of power in the USA, at all.

All these RINO candidates can jockey for position to win the PRIMARY - but THEN they have to fight for that 60 million AMERICAN VOTERS to show up at the polls for THEM.

Wasn't the GOP excited when they nominated "HERO" Robert Dole!
Weren't they proud of Gerald Ford and don't they like to blame his defeat on a few golf balls and a few tumbles in his PHYSICAL WALK. WHAT HOGWASH!

Pardoning NIXON without so much as a TRIAL - "for the sake of unity" is what done in Gerald Ford! Who did he think he was "unifying".

[DO YOU HEAR ME, FRED THOMPSON???]

DITTO SEVERAL OF THESE RINOS who also claim THEY are the "UNIFYING CANDIDATE"!

WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE GOING TO UNIFY! SO LOL!

Bottom line, if they think they can garner enough votes for the GENERAL ELECTION with candidates who have vowed to move this nation LEFT - just "differently" Left than Hillary would - they deserve to be flushed.

So the GOP can celebrate the rise in polls of this or that RINO all day long.

THOSE POLLS DO NOT TELL THEM HOW WELL THE CANDIDATE CAN TURN OUT THE VOTERS.

And in a season when the DIMS are killing themselves, this is pathetic that the GOP BASE cannot get any response from the GOP.

I hope this isn't going to be the season when the GOP learns THE HARD WAY the difference between leading a parade, and running from an angry MOB who is carrying TAR AND FEATHERS.

[HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD: when half the DIMS and MOST OF THE GOP ABSOLUTELY DO NOT AGREE that it is a GOOD THING to let even an evil person like Ahmedinajab come to the USA, even for the sake of the UN, and to speak that American Press Club and the Columbia University, then those few ENABLERS of such idiocy HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION to reconsider their stupidity, if only for the sake of lex majoris partis:
"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

When the MAJORITY of Americans DISAGREE with the idea that allowing someone like this man speak on American soil, much less WALK ON IT WITHOUT BEING RIGHTEOUSLY EXECUTED on the spot, then the MINORITY have an obligation to understand that their own definition is SERIOUSLY FLAWED, and it is SERIOUSLY TIME to remember the FOUNDING PRINCIPLES of our Constitution, AND BOW TO THE MAJORITY. Any feelings they have to the contrary, they have an obligation to understand is NOT that of elitist "education levels aove that of their peers" - but of the euphoria borne of not having enough oxygen to comprehend what they themselves are doing to the Constitution, in associating themselves more closely to the ideals of the little dictator than they do to Americanism and the Constitution, and the Principles of Freedom of Speech -- when they IN PRINCIPLE, OVER-RIDE the VOICES OF THE MAJORITY to do as they will with USURPATION of lawful authority that rightfully belongs to the Majority. They, the MINORITY, have then conclusively put THEMSELVES in a box of violating every principle of FREEDOM they claim to be supporting. And every RINO who supports it has failed America.]

Posted by gaffo | September 22, 2007 8:33 PM

"McCain has been good only on the war otherwise he's been a great example of the problem.."

flip it around 180
then you'll have it right. that baffon lost support of 50 million of us over Iraqnam alone.

McCain lost only 50 million DIMS, over Iraqnam. By that time, he was so deep in DIMLand, he gained NOBODY with his stance on Iraq - he'd squandered any credibility for that stance over SHAMNESTY, and McCain Feingold Thompson.

"Washington is failing us," Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, said in remarks prepared for delivery Saturday, part of an effort to cast himself as an agent of change. "The blame doesn't all belong to the Democrats. We Republicans have to put our own house in order." ...

Grab a cup of coffee. Sit down and take the time to read the entire string. Ignore the messenger, but don't ignore the message. Mitt may not be the right guy, but he is right on point. We need to purge the porkers before we can credibly defend tax cuts.

The 63 votes against the Colburn Amendment reads like a mating call for business as usual beltway pigs:

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---63
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmE3OWUxNmE5NzZhMjgzN2QxOWY2NWQ5Mjk5OGFiNjY=

If Republicans can agree about anything, we should stand against earmarks. I would not defend a single one of the Republicans who voted "yea" and against the Colburn Amendment.

Holy shit! Rick Taylor said the most wise words here since I've been here - 2 yrs now. I repost this wisdom for all to see, then add my inadequate and meager comments afterward:

"That said, I've been saddened to see the transformation over the years of the Republican party; the waning of the small government contingent. When I was younger, I saw the Democrats as the party of fighting for individual rights, and attempting to use the power of government to do good, and idealism, and I saw the Republican's as the party of fiscal restraint and realism. And we might have disagreed about the relative importance of these values, but they were positive values."

God damn! right on the mark!

"I don't think of the Republican party that way anymore; I haven't for a long time. I actually think the Democratic part is now the party of fiscal responsibility, relatively speaking. Sure we're the tax and spend party. But Republicans are the tax-cut and spend party, and of the two I find the former more responsible."

A-fucking-MEN.......but of course the Republicons of today think that the "Free Market" is their savior rather than the Son. So it will fix all, including rabid and irresposible spending out the ass.

"If we're going to spend, it's better to raise the money directly, rather than continually selling bonds to the Chinese and hoping they keep on buying them."

no shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - but Free Market will save us all he is greater than the Son.

"Free Market will provide" - even if you abuse it and act like a child and spend money you dont have!!.........what me worry?

"Plus both the Democrats and Republicans spend money, but the Democrats are more likely to spend some of it on things I think are a good idea."

hopefully - but i think they are too corrupt and spend money on the fucking lobbyists myself.....but I'm not a democrat (Liberal Libertarian).................would have alot in common with 70's dems, but they soldout to Lobbyists when clinton came along.

"So I hope you're right and there's a change and the Republican party goes back to its roots."

2006 taught them nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 I mean really!!!!!111 What did they learn????????? NOTHING!!!!

what they SHOULD have learned was that they had moved too far to the RIGHT!.............Schivo etc..

instead the vote out the "RINOS" - the ONLY Repulbicans who could ahve weathered the Iraqnam storm!!!

to hell with them. Republicons have turned into RADICAL NATIONALISTS.......and doing so have become so extreme as to lose most general elections - fine. no room for National Socialist Party Ideal in America.

BTW.............after they piss on Ron Paul and all other true Conservatives (i.e. after they LOSE Congress and the Presidentcy for 8-12 yrs) they will wise up and come crawling back to those they turned their backs upon (Ron Paul/Chuck Hegal...Buchanon and other Goldwaterites)....

thats ok - because though the Dems suck, they are not rabid nationalists and do beleive in the rule of law even though they sold out to lobbyists years ago. lesser of two evils and all that.

"I don't see it happening, I think those days are gone for good,but I'd be happy to be proved wrong."

I agree.though not gone for good - just gone for 12 yrs. after they are out of power for 12 yrs they will purge themselves of the Nationalists/Religous nuttbags and get with the program and start advicating the "RINO" talking points.

They just need to be beat upon the side of the head for a few years (sent to the doghouse) before they see the light.

2006 SHOULD have been the light - but they lack wisdom, so corporal punishment will have to be the learning method instead.

"As for some of the statements that George Bush is not a conservative, maybe I missed it, but I don't remember hearing that when he was running in 2000 or in his first few years of office. Conservatives seemed pretty happy with him, until the war started going badly and his popularity nosedived."

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - but "follow the leader" Bushbots.......have to follow and not LEAD - so if Bush is down in the polls - well, he's not loved anymore. Rush tells me so , so I must follow.

"Now maybe I just wasn't looking in the right places and people will correct me, but that's how I remember it. But George Bush has always been up front about what he was going to do; none of it was ever a surprise, that's one positive thing I'll say about him."

His one positive!!!!!!!!!!!"what you see is what you get".

so above about Bushbots - they are looking for a messiah to save thme from the "islamofacsist boogymen" (you know the ones under your bad - BOO!!)........don't forget to Duck and Cover BTW!!................messiah is a mer mortal so they have to jump ship now.

cowards all - and without brains.....ruled by irrationl fear like the bots fo the 1950's over the Communists.

no difference - even the history books will laugh at the hysterical levels of these Bots.

Big eared packiderm sayeth:

"We need to purge the porkers before we can credibly defend tax cuts."

I'm alone in proclaiming cutting spending AND raising taxes to balence the budget.

- no wonder i don't belong to either irresponsible party.

FYI I like Colburn, he is my senator too.

He is a social consevative - which I'm the opposite. But he is fiscal conservative which I am.

(though I think taxes should be raised (and spending cut of course) to pay national debt.......of which I have yet to see any Rep to proclaim).