The answer to the overall question has a lot to do with internal party politics.
Huckabee was viewed by many in the upper echelons of the RNC as being too far to the right to win against Hillary, who was the presumed candidate at the time.
The Fair Tax issue is an unpopular one with most elected officials, mostly because it IS fair and doesn't lend itself to the current mode of firing up your base. As far as I can tell, this mostly involves telling the voters you want to vote for you that you'll screw someone else to gift them with tax breaks and handouts.
You wonder why we are at each others' throats?
"That is why they tried to paint our President as a Muslim. So, if faith is important, why, as a party, did Republicans not support their man of God." This is wildly exaggerated. There were some, but not as many far-right fringe groups who did this as there were liberal groups who maintained that the 2000 election was "stolen" and that the events of September 11, 2001 were all staged by the Bush administration.
Personally, I despise the arguments concerning a candidate's religion and the subject should be banned from all public debate. It seems that most liberals have this preconceived notion that all conservatives are bible thumping theocrats and we all vote according to our judeo-christian belief system. This is offensive to those conservatives like myself who have better arguments than "God said so!"
"As for the age of Obama, my kids will appreciate never having to torture another human being as part of their job description. They will enjoy not having to play a part in wars because we wanted to; not because we needed to. and they will enjoy being smiled at and getting thumbs up from people as they travel in foreign countries that respect us once more."
Define "Torture" for us, and make sure it's one that everyone can agree with. I guarantee that it's impossible, and even if it were, it WILL NOT HAPPEN. Obama is but one man, and a dishonest one at that. I'm sure that what your kids won't appreciate is the unbelievable increase in the deficits, the increase of taxation and the loss of liberty that Obama's administration heralds.
Let me remind you that the authorization of the use of military force came by a nearly unanimous resolution passed by the entire congress, and is one that I am generally in support of. This complaining from the left is, in my opinion, the worst case of "buyer's remorse" in history. Generally speaking, we all wanted to bust some heads after 9/11, and no amount of finger pointing after the fact is going to change the fact that some lily-livered politicians who were originally all for us going into the Middle East and cracking some skulls are now the same ones who are calling for Bush's head over the whole thing. Can you say, "political expediency"? I knew you could!
The argument that Bush's administration lied about intelligence to convince everybody to go to war doesn't hold water either, since many of those same politicians had access to the same intelligence-intelligence that 99.99% of people have never seen and cannot evaluate the veracity of.
As for the respect issue, let's just say that you are confusing respect and popularity. I don't give a rat's furry white behind whether we are liked in the world, but respect is a necessity. Sometimes you have to sock a bully right in the kisser to earn the respect you deserve.
You and your ilk DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME! I find your criticisms naive and your notions about me to be offensive and insulting.
"All I ask for is a little common sense. Apparently that's too much to ask for."

Boy, you unloaded on that one....and I find myself in agreement of most of what you said. For some yrs now, the RNC has been staffed with some real losers. I used to get mailings from them thanking me for my past contributions and of course begging for more. Funny thing is, I've never contributed a penny to a party or a politician. And the multiple-choice surveys they sent had some really dumb choices for answers. I'm sure they never read my handwritten comments. And if ever a word has been worn out, it's "Grassroots"---good lord, I've got grassroots coming out of my nose! I'm so tired of people and parties with their hand out looking to put it in my pocket. I give money---but to the Salvation Army and the Disabled American Veterans (Life Member). There may be hope in this new coalition of some pretty smart folks like Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour and some others. Newt Gingrich would be a great source of ideas and "The way forward" but not as a candidate.

I kinda disagree. The Republicans sold their soul to the religious right decades ago and now that they have become the major force in the Party everybody is wondering how that happened.

Mitt Romney can't win the nomination. He can't get past the religious litmus test the Party imposes. Jindal might, being an exorcists and all, but it's highly doubtful the Republicans would nominate someone not lily white. Barbour? Maybe. Typically, I would have said no because Republicans don't nominate Southerners, why should they Southern whites are as Republican as African Americans are Democratic. Both groups can basically be ignored and still be expected to fall in line. However, since the Republican Party has now shrunk to a regional Party based in the South maybe Barbour has more appeal.

The basic problem is that the ultra conservative and extremist wings that have captured the Party are out of step with mainstream America and they are in control of the agenda and the Party litmus tests. Look at the celebration over Specter leaving the Party. It doesn't seem to occur to the powers that are in charge that encouraging the shrinkage of the Party in pursuit of ideological purity is not a formula for winning. The Dems tried that when they let the McGovern/Kennedy wing take over.

And ionizd, torture has already been defined in national and international law. It doesn't matter who agrees or not, the definitions are not in question although it may give moral cover to some people who support torture to claim that there is ambiguity.

I do agree that Newt is good for ideas.

"And ionizd, torture has already been defined in national and international law. It doesn't matter who agrees or not, the definitions are not in question although it may give moral cover to some people who support torture to claim that there is ambiguity."
Ambiguity? No, this is completely specific;
"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."
Sooo... You are quite sure that whatever has happened in earlier administrations fits this definition, and you totally accept the definition that is spoon fed to you?
This definition can be interpreted that ANY interrogation of prisoners by any administration that you don't care for can be called torture. According to the definition above, our government can't legally even ask questions of prisoners in a time of war, because the prisoners might feel "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental". They may feel intimidated or coerced. Boo-freakin'-hoo!
This whole argument is ridiculous. Shall we try to count the times we(The United States)follow the rules and other countries blatantly ignore them? Once again, Diva and his/her/whatever far left buddies BLAME the United States for every problem in the world. If there is evil in the world, the U.S. must be the cause of it. If someone hates us, the U.S. must have done something to provoke it. After all, the population of a country has NEVER been lied to to stir up support for military action, right? Religious leaders NEVER preach hatred or intolerance for other races, religious groups or ethnic groups, right?
Oh, I guess that stuff ONLY happens here in the USA, huh?
I hope you're picking up the sarcasm.
That's why we are at each others' throats, people. I fought for, and would have gladly laid down my life for this country. I love it that much. I am lucky to have been born in this great country where the morals and beliefs of the people shape her policy. I have traveled throughout the world and seen nothing at all that we don't do better, and that is the plain truth. We aren't just better naturally, we are better because we have the Bill Of Rights and we are made up of literally every race, color, creed and religion. We, as a country, make the occasional mistake, but we recognize and try like hell to fix those mistakes as soon as they are pointed out. We don't need to have an outside group tell us that we have problems, because we are allowed to self govern and the Bill Of Rights says that we will always have the right as individual to speak out against our government when we feel it is necessary.
Then some people take these rights and pervert them a much more base and frivolous purpose. They start to make noise to harm their political opposition instead of trying to make a positive change to the way things are done. If their guy does it, it's cool. Not a word about it comes up. If it's the other guy, even if it never happened, just the accusation is enough and the willing media stooges will take up the criticism like so many turkeys gobbling away in their pens.
What drives me crazy is the assumption that a conservative needs a liberal to take his gun and money away from him so that he;
A) Doesn't hurt anyone, and B) Is generous and compassionate.
I am tired of the left assuming the role of national conscience. I don't agree with their twisted views of right and wrong. I am tired of the long-time condescension and haughty disdain that the left holds for conservatives. They have even adopted this name, "Progressives" for their tired old ideology. I am not alone in this, nor am I in the vast minority. The funniest thing about this is that you people on the left have been duped into believing that this argument is all over and you have won. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we have another civil war before too long in this country.
Oh, I don't want it to happen, but it makes me angry that I have to write this disclaimer, since the left has categorized conservatives as "warmongers".

"All I ask for is a little common sense. Apparently that's too much to ask for."

“You are quite sure that whatever has happened in earlier administrations fits this definition, and you totally accept the definition that is spoon fed to you?”

Actually, no. Waterboarding has been a war crime for over a century. There's really no question about it. Somewhere I have 16 case law references on it but here's just a quick and dirty newspaper article about it.

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime

“According to the definition above, our government can't legally even ask questions of prisoners in a time of war, because the prisoners might feel "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental". “

Representing the law in such an extreme manner doesn't make torture not be torture because that interpretation is utter rubbish as you well know.

Waterboarding is torture. Support it or not. We didn't engage in it during WWII when the circumstances were much, much worse. If the past administration officials engaged in it then they are liable to end up in court and eventually I'll have 17 case law studies. They can have their day in court to make their case. They made the choice. They should quit whining about the consequences. I'm not sympathetic.

Have we "waterboarded" Uniformed Soldiers? If so, which Country are they fighting for? And under whose command are they? I don't think the Geneva Convention recognizes these animals myself. Feel free to disagree.

Uniformed combatants are one of (I believe) 23 classifications under the Conventions. Everyone is covered one way or another, no exceptions.

Here's what the International Committee of the Red Cross (under the Conventions the ICRC is the determining authority)says about unlawful combatants:

“Unlawful combatants do not qualify for prisoner of war status. Their situation upon capture by the enemy is covered by the Fourth (Civilian) Geneva Convention if they fulfill the nationality criteria and by the relevant provisions of the Additional Protocol I, if ratified by the detaining power.

This protection is not the same as that afforded to lawful combatants. To the contrary, persons protected by the Fourth Convention and the relevant provisions of Protocol I may be prosecuted under domestic law for directly participating in hostilities. They may be interned for as long as they pose a serious security threat, and, while in detention, may under specific conditions be denied certain privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They may also be prosecuted for war crimes and other crimes and sentenced to terms exceeding the length of the conflict, including the range of penalties provided for under domestic law.

Persons not covered by either the Third or the Fourth Geneva Convention in international armed conflict are entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customary international law (as reflected in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I), as well as by applicable domestic and human rights law. All these legal sources provide for rights of detainees in relation to treatment, conditions and due process of law.

Therefore, contrary to some assertions, the ICRC has never stated that all persons who have taken part in hostilities in an international armed conflict are entitled to prisoner of war status.”

So they would receive Article 75 protections......

Article 75 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions
1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favorable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, color, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honor, convictions and religious practices of all such persons.
2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents:
(a) Violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:
(i) Murder;
(ii) Torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;
(iii) Corporal punishment; and
(iv) Mutilation;
(b) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;
(c) The taking of hostages;
(d) Collective punishments; and
(e) Threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

It goes on but it's pretty clear that they are covered isn't it?

That is what I meant. Uniformed Soldiers are covered under the Geneva Convention.

I still don't think they are covered. They aren't fighting for a Country, etc...have no one in charge..it goes on and on. I'm for torturing them, and so would you, if you knew lives were at stake and could be saved.

"The basic problem is that the ultra conservative and extremist wings that have captured the Party are out of step with mainstream America and they are in control of the agenda and the Party litmus tests."

So true, Jeff. If the Repubs were smart, they would move to the center and away from the far right. I was listening to Rush today, laughing to myself that he still just doesn't get it, as well as all of the callers who phoned in to his show. He was telling his audience to remain far-right and continue to embrace social conservatism - that is what will *win* in the next election.

I say, more power to 'em...continue to embrace the ideological litmus test of abortion-gays-guns-god and continue to hoist these folks up on the Repub platform....Jindal the exorcist, Palin the moose-skinner, Joe the Plumber, Miss California the Bigot, Rush the idiot, Santorum the creationist, Beck the crybaby, Newt the adulterer, Bachmann the wacko, the delusional Coleman, the Teabaggers, Coulter, Hannity...

It all makes for great entertainment

"The basic problem is that the ultra conservative and extremist wings that have captured the Party are out of step with mainstream America and they are in control of the agenda and the Party litmus tests."

You mean nut cases like Michael Steele?

I pray that you continue to believe that this is the problem with the so called 'right' winning elections.

I would submit, as one of the lifelong conservatives, that it is a failure to move to the right that has caused the losses of the Republican party and the subsequent losses they have endured as the political pendulum swung to the left with the likes of Bush one and two heading up the Republican party. (Actually, the entire bible thumping, homophobic visual you prescribe to what you think a Republican is (or should be) is hilarious to me.)

The conservative votes have been split between those who have a chance to win and those who represent a vote of principle recently and many conservatives have become independents because of the move to the left (and the out of control growth in government and spending) of the Republican party over the last 25 years(the last conservative President was Reagan - the last conservative Congress was led by Gingrich - neither Bush was EVER even remotely considered a conservative by most standards but as a blind democrat loyalist enslaved by two issues, abortion and bigger government, I wouldn't expect you to understand that).

Even in the most recent Republican presidential primary conservative votes were split between Romney and Huckabee thereby allowing McCain to win. (Not unlike Perot allowing Clinton to win.)

Actually, if I was a democrat, I would be very concerned by these tea parties and the level and magnitude of the so called 'astroturf' organizing and forget the whistling past the graveyard.

I recall Carter's popularity early in his tenure, numbers that rival Obama's, and by the end of his disastrous four years even many of the Democrats disliked him so much that Kennedy made a viable run against a sitting President of his own party.

Of course, Jimmy never had an unwavering 97% support from the black community.

Either way - you just keep running to the left and thinking that conservative values and principles are dead. Meanwhile, we will continue to reorganize, reclaim and reassert the conservative views of smaller government, less intrusion, lower taxes, less spending, and a country based on the US Constitution, free enterprise, capitalism and personal freedom.

What you do have on your side is the main stream media.

What conservatives have on their side is the desire for the principles of freedom that our country was founded upon.

You see, no matter what happens here in the next few years there will always be a large group of people wanting the same principles this country was founded upon. The further we go from those principles, the more people recognize they are losing their freedom and their choices.

May the best man, and woman, win.

________________________________________

"If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have." Gerald Ford

WOW.. for a bleeding heart Liberal who espouses peace you gotta lot of hate in ya...
"Jindal the exorcist, Palin the moose-skinner, Joe the Plumber, Miss California the Bigot, Rush the idiot, Santorum the creationist, Beck the crybaby, Newt the adulterer, Bachmann the wacko, the delusional Coleman, the Teabaggers, Coulter, Hannity..."
MAINSTREAM the NAME CALLER Now that is really scary.. They're all shaking now!!!

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

MS is right about them all except Miss California who I thought gave a very reasonable answer. The R's are turning into a freak show. I've never seen anything like it. Everything gets bent. It can't be just swine flu it's gotta be a terrorist inspired biological attack sponsored by al Qaeda. The "liberal" label doesn't carry the appropriate sting anymore so now we have to be "socialist" and "Marxist". Hannity isn't threatened by any liberal talk show host he's threatened by the nearly apocalyptic Beck. It's a contest to see who can be the most extreme and paranoid. It's not hate when we point that out it's just political glee. Let's call a spade a spade, a political party that celebrates as one of it's honored spokesman an ignorant uneducated plumber who also happens to be an idiot and which yearns for the intellectual equivalent of a Paris Hilton like Sarah Palin to lead them is in a death spiral.

We're still a two party country but I'm beginning to doubt that the R's are going to be serious contenders for another decade at least. I think there is a growing chance they really may not survive. Can you think of even one single issue where the R's represent mainstream thought? Anything at all that they can start rebuilding the Party on? Anything?

We celebrate Joe because he was just an average guy on the street who was able to get barry to admit that he's nothing but a socialist.

Joe asked him a simple question and the first thing that popped into his mind was "we have to spread the wealth".

Joe was able to expose barry as the socialist that he is.

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a
happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the
other. -- Ronald Reagan

And he then became central to the campaign as if his political views were of utmost importance. He was interview by Christianity Today magazine to discuss his views on Christianity, politics and same-sex marriage.

Why would anybody care?

Wurzelbacher also indicated in the interview that he wouldn't run for public office until God told him to.

Only in the Republican Party...

When FOX news called him on his statements about Israel he had absolutely no idea what he was talking about and finally said, "Listen, you don't want my opinion on foreign policy. I know just enough to probably to be dangerous.”

A campaign to draft him to run for the United States House of Representatives in 2010 against Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio is underway. Laura Ingraham asked him if he would run against Kaptur and Wurzelbacher responded that he had considered the run and would be up for it.

Joe has gone way beyond a campaign symbol. He asked Obama a question and somehow the Republicans have promoted him to a mentor, a speaker at their forums and a possible candidate for their Party? It suits me fine but it seems to be indicative of the weakness of the Party and underscores the point that all you need is ideology. The hard-core will obviously accept anybody.

Assume Joe runs and wins; which Committee do you want him on?

Joe is a metaphor of the Republican Party today. They've gone from giants like Edmund Burke and William Buckley to pygmies like Wurzelbacher and Palin.

that Al Franken has.. probably more.. and Palin definitely has more experience then Obama had.. and he got elected.. Ain't America great or what..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

You see for me, the comparison of an uneducated unlicensed plumber to a cum laude graduate of Harvard who spent years studying the issues just doesn't cut it. Everybody here on the blog knows Al is a friend of mine so I admit my bias. Still, and I'm not trying to pick a fight, the judgment of equivalency seems to prove my previous point that ideology is everything no matter how ignorant the person seems to most people. Joe and Palin are symbols of the decline of the Republican Party. We can both like them for different reasons and time will tell which of us is right. It's a great country!

I'd take a plumber from Ohio over a peanut farmer from Plains any day.

I would venture to guess that Joe wouldn't have botched the Iran hostage rescue, which cost the lives of 8 American soldiers.

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a
happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the
other. -- Ronald Reagan

You can have him. You'll probably be good with each other.

As for the rest of your opinions, I could not care less. You're a useful idiot, good for being used to point out the radicalism of the fringe right and a tool for us to employ to alienate people from your views by holding you up as their representative.

Frankly Fred, you can kiss my ass.

Hey, don't play in the mud if you don't like getting dirty.

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a
happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the
other. -- Ronald Reagan

You can kiss my ass too!

Does diva's post above fall within acceptable limits for the Citizen?

Do republicans have no back bones? Look at this absolute wus collapsing under his own weight. This is just sad. An old conservative concept was that the owner (editor) of a service they provide can do what they want with that service and administer it as they see fit. This belly aching is not becoming. Not at all.

"Do republicans have no back bones?"

Are you doubting that I have a backbone? Me being a republican and all....

Just for future reference when communicating with my fellow bloggers,
does the post above contain acceptable content?

Just for future reference when communicating with my fellow bloggers,
does the post above contain acceptable content?

Please salvage a teeny tiny bit of self respect man. Gee whiz. I'm feeling sorry for you now. It's like you're hoping the ref will somehow come step between you and your opponent to save you. Stand on your own two dishonest feet, man. Don't let yourself look so meek and feeble that you can no longer "take the heat" or "play in the mud" which you helped us water and stir. Be a man, for heaven's sake.

@

Typical Repubs. You and cryspy call Obama and the Dems every nasty name you can think of and then whine when your beloved R politicians, and assorted right-wing circus clowns, are labeled for what they really are. You'd better grow a thicker skin, pal.

Besides, I was just naming all the loonies that represent YOUR party...even though you swear you're a Libertarian now Lindsey. Are you really proud of the message all those wingnuts represent? If so, you and cryspy really are way, way out there on the political fringe.

Better dress warm, and pack some Patron tequila, in that self-imposed Repub wilderness...it's a cold, brutal world out there.

all the LOONIES in YOUR party.. Cynthia "Did Bush fly the plane?" McKinney, Robert "KKK" Byrd, Chris "Its all good" Dodd, Barney "Looking for and getting love in all the wrong places" Franks.. and Nancy "I never met an earmark that I couldn't love" Pelosi.. to name just a FEW...
How about John "Show me the money" Murtha.. Joe "Hoof-n-mouth" Biden
Al "it's all just a joke" Frankin.. Ted "lets have another drink and kill another girl" Kennedy.. Harry "We lost this war" Reid.. John "I served in Vietnam by the way.. and all are babykillers" Kerry..John "Billy Jean is not my lover" Edwards.. and let's not forget AL "Do as I say and not as I do" Gore.. Tim "Taxes I don pay no stinken taxes" Geitner..

I mean really I could go on and on and on...

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

This coming from a party slave whose party consists of adulteres, big corporation crooks, corporate welfare, tax breaks for the wealthy, racist Rush fans. What a bunch of phonies.

I wonder if Slindsey loves, as much as I do, the fact that President Obama plans to double the collection agents for the IRS. This will hold acccountable more of you wealthy tax cheats. Some more co-workers for us revenue generators.

Perhaps I'll get to meet you soon in person Mr. Lindsye.

Blah you're back... Welcome home buddy..
I was just wondering where you were.. I just love your pithy comments and deep insights.. You are a leader and a standard bearer for the Democrat party.. a fine example.
What happened to that avitar.. Just loved it..
and yes about the meeting.. ANYTIME you feel frogy.. Jump.. maybe at Autry's we could put some rounds downrange.

Who left the *%#@ cite open..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

I'm hoping our meeting will be me looking over your returns. Will you buy me Starbucks like my other clients do.

as in AUDIT.. then fire away.. I pay big bucks to have them done..

If you mean doing my taxes.. then.. Hell would freeze over first..

But Thanks for playing.. Don't be gone long.. WE NEED YOU ON HERE EVERYDAY..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

After I pointed out that the "Obama as messiah" shtick was strictly a wing nut thing and made his Blah impersonation even less believable.

and actually so would I if Blah was pukeing out propaganda for Libertarians..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

You are such a weird little man. I can't believe you.

Are you masquerading as a liberal?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

It appears to me that Blah Blah is BPR, however my carbon sense tells me that Fred and Blah share the same roof. "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

It's not easy being the carbonunit

That Cavalcade of Bizarre Democrats was sheer genius, S Lindsey, sheer genius. I woulda paid $10 to see that at a night club.

Actually, that's a diverse assortment of eccentric Dems you mentioned, with each of those politician's representing a large segment of America (environmentalists, gays, veterans, women, minorities) and I'm proud of the work that they have all accomplished during their careers. Even with our so-called "loonies" as you put it, we won the election....you lost, remember? That should tell you something. It is your party that is broken and y'all are trying to fix it by providing a platform for the same nutjobs who contributed to the fracturing of the Repub party and the continued alienation of so many American voters.

Leave the dark side, Lindsey, and come into the light!

"...and I'm proud of the work that they have all accomplished during their careers."

Lets see.. I named a "Rascist and a certified NUT, another Rascist, an incompetent BOOB, a corrupt Politician, an Elitist, another corrupt politician, an Idiot, a joke, a murderer, another idiot, a liar and a idiot, an adulterer, a SUPER hypocrite, and another Tax Cheat..

"Actually, that's a diverse assortment of eccentric Dems you mentioned"

ECCENTRIC??? and the fact that you are PROUD.. YOUR WORDS of them all...
You know Hitler, Mussolini, and others had great carreers too.. at least up until they you know did that whole killing thing..
So Mainstream.. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.. You have definitely proven this is a REPRESENTITIVE REPUBLIC.. If you don't understand that dig ask Jeff.. I am sure he got it...

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

Probably not fair to call the extreme right wing "loonies", but certainly the left thinks they are loons, so we'll let that label stick for now.

Our religious right anti-abortion, bible thumping moralists are responsible for the Republican loss and the socialist's win. Not that the religious right is wrong - I happen to be strongly opposed to abortion, but I'm also opposed to losing elections and watching our country being ruined by an administration who celebrates failure - both personal and business.

All the stuff that is morally correct has a place in our lives and that place is church - not government. Government telling someone they can't have an abortion is as inappropriate as telling someone they have to pay more taxes so some welfare queen with 8 kids (and 8 fathers) can be 100% supported by government. Quite simply - that is not government's role. Don't believe me? Ask James Madison. Read the Constitution.

Yea, I know, "One nation, under God, etc" but they have already taken that away from us, why not just acknowledge that and move on.

The point about the election is that the religious right and their stranglehold on the Republican Party is the reason they lose elections. Of course the real reason is the candidates they put up, but that is caused by hoops Republican candidates have to jump through to get nominated. The Dems are much smarter. The big tent concept means that their candidates just have to be irresponsible in one or two areas (like extramarital affairs and not paying taxes, for example) and they garner support from others who are irresponsible in other areas - gays, unions, young people, unemployed, welfare recipients, enviornmentalists, etc. Then all the irresponsible Dems vote themselves a piece of the government pie. Sure it is expensive, but there's a lot of them.

If you doubt that, think back - McCain/Palin??? are you kidding me. That's the best we have?

The solution is for the Republicans to jettison the religious right. They will lose about 5 million votes - but they won't lose them to the heathen Dems, the bible thumpers will vote Independent or form their own party - no big loss for the good guys and no gain for the devil worshipers.

And the Republicans will probably gain 20 million votes from conservative Democrats that currently tolerate the loonies on the left of their party because that is better than aligning themselves with the preachy Republicans. Republican gains among young voters would be incredible - many are conservative and sensible now, but they don't think religion is cool.

Best of all, the 20 million gained will correspond to 20 million lost by the Democrats - a net of 40 million and many will be young - that's important.
That's how you win elections.

And if the Republicans do that soon, November 2010 will a happy time in Congress and Obama will be easily tossed out in 2012.

Or if they don't Carville's prediction of 40 years of Democratic rule will happen.

It is good to see that someone has finally come up with a Very Good solution and not just joined in on the PISSING MATCH that is constantly going on here. I agree 100%, lop off religious right and lets move on. I generally vote conservative but not always because my wife and I believe in a women's choice. Now I don't want to be flooded with crap from the thumpers, you have your beliefs and I have mine and your not going to change my mind. Everyone on the right needs to put down the Torches and quit chasing the monster, we're stuck with what we've got for 4 years, no changing that. Lets take all of this energy that your wasting Pissing and Moaning about something that you can't change and do something positive and put together a Good party that will stand a chance at putting someone else in the White House.

Obama's weapon of Choice!

You want to come in second or first? If first - get with the program and dump the religious right ASAP and convert some Dems. They are not all stupid - some just want a reason to convert and the Jesus thing is in the way.

"..some just want a reason to convert and the Jesus thing is in the way."

Oh, this will be fun to watch! The Repubs turning on each other and eating their own. I actually agree with you, mudcat, that the Jeebus thingy is in the way and the R's have to dump the religious zealots and their desire for a theocracy.

The first thing the R's should do, to show that they are really serious, is to change the Republican Party Platform language regarding abortion. McCain tried to add some alternative language stating something to the effect that abortion should be allowed in cases of incest or to protect the mother's health/life, and the religious wingnuts threw a hissy-fit over this (women shouldn't control their own bodies...sheeeesh! ).

I'll be poppin' an extra large bag of popcorn to watch this show as the Repubs try to "rebrand" themselves by attempting to dump the thumpers. Great entertainment!

You want to know what great entertainment is.. This Country swirling around and around the toliet... Chavez, Castro, Kim Jong, Bashir,Jintao, Mugabe and many more.. Well.. they're popping corn too.. So MAINSTREAM you will be in good company.. You should give them a call start a chat line.. then you guys can all sit back and get a good chuckle while this Country shakes itself apart.. Now thats good entertainment right there..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

There is some logic to moving the Republican Party to the left, but there is too much old school thinking among the leadership - probably because the average age is 65. No it ain't gonna happen. The Obama election proves that people will believe anything and it is relatively easy to get certain groups to vote for entirely irrelevant reasons.

The Republicans have to hit bottom, which they will when Obama is reelected.- of course the country will hit bottom as well. Then everyone will give up and fade away and a new and much younger group will recreate the Republican Party and it will certainly not be beholding to the religious right. I mean those that will lead it are currently in the 25-40 age group. Church attendance pretty low in that demographic.

The Republicans have to hit bottom, which they will when Obama is reelected.- of course the country will hit bottom as well.

Obama will be re-elected - but the country will not have hit bottom. If we're still around at that time - I hope that us 'old/experienced' citizens will step aside and let the younger group govern - according to the Constitution. We'll see.

You have her number. She is the epitome of the liberal dem party.

Attack anyone who doesn't agree with you. Oh, also you are "racist" if you don't agree with the liberal dems. Can you imagine how hateful these people would be if their obumbles had lost the election? They win, and they are still seething with hate and anger towards anyone who is not liberal.

You're not representing my position at all. I don't hate anyone and I haven't heard the "racist" tag used yet. From my point of view, it's your position that represents the Republican Party that's typical. Whatever the topic, it has to be escalated into something more extreme. It can't just be a political disagreement, it's gotta be hate or racism or seething anger. It's symptomatic of the Party today.

Janeane Garofalo gave that one to us..

garofalo-tea-partiers-are-all-racists-who-hate-black-president See it HERE

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

There are 350 million people in the country, sure you can find somebody to say anything. There have been remarkably few calls of racism. Garofalo? I had to look her up. I'd never heard of her.

JeffC's new avatar

You might want to share it with Limbaugh too.

however it might mean something if I was a republican.. actually I think that is a good position for both parties..

I think these are pretty good for you and others..

universal-gestures-and-symbols-for-obama-supporters

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

I would not put you in the same basket as the mean-scream group. There doesn't seem to be any common ground when politics are involved.

Even though I don't agree with your position most of the time, I find your posts enjoyable to read.

I also thoroughly enjoy your friends writing, thanks for the suggestion.

You are one of the VERY FEW bloggers who actually professes hate for any specific group, the target of your self professed "hate" being illegal immigrants. Odd for you to talk of hate-filled liberals. We're all tingly with peace and love these days, but we still can trade barbs when warranted.

As for racist, the leader of the republican party, Rush drug bunny Limbaugh likes to refer to North Koreans as "Norks." He went on for days about the "Black teenagers" that our President "anguished" over having to have killed (Somali pirates). Sky, whether you care to acknowledge it or not, your new party is a natural fit for anyone fostering "Hate" of Mexicans, Africans, independent women, Muslims, blacks, or Koreans. Your leader has shaped your tired message. Your party could change it if they wanted to, but apparently they are comfortable with the MAoBama message they have. Should serve you guys well in the future.

Does he really call North Koreans "NORKS" now that's funny..
BUT it has been around for awhile..
those_nutty_norks

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

The type of people who use "NORKS" are the same mentality that use cracker, honkey, spook, wetback, raghead, redman, macaca, etc. The type of people that alienate based on race or nationality or religion. The conservative movement's leader, Rush "black teens on the sea" Limbaugh, is one of those folks; and conservatives, by and large, lap it up with a spoon.

We use "nick names" for people or types of people all the time.. It is (us) that determine if it is used in a derrogatory manner.. I actually found several articals on "NORKS" the Koreans call themselves that and have for years.. but one mans slur is another mans title.. or is that reversed??? Oh well...

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

One of my best friends on Earth is Korean. I've known him and his family for 23 years. He taught me a good bit of the language. "Norks" is news to him. It's news to me. And, if you have listened to Rush use it, the tone, tenor, and intent is UNMISTAKABLE. This guy plays to the worst of human nature. Currently, he is saying Colin Powell needs to switch to the Democratic party, having worn out his welcome by endorsing Obama. Despite the paragraphs of reasons General Powell gave in explaining his decision to support our current President, the draft-dodging Rush told us the General is a liar. Rush said, "It's all about race." Actually he shouted it.

I hope Rush gets his wish. I hope every moderate Republican from Olympia Snowe to Colin Powell is driven out of the Republican party and into mine. Maybe when Rush and Sarah and Bobby J. are the last three Republicans left, they'll get the point.

Have a great day S. L.

Onyung he ka say ohh

Frequent listen, eh? I'm curious about the "black teens on the sea" angle that you made. Please elaborate.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I won't use my opinion here, Cyclist. Let's pit Rush's words on the hijacking of the Maersk against the words of the man left in charge of the Maersk after the captain sacrificed his safety for that of his ship and his crew.

The leader of conservatism, Rush Limbaugh, on the Somali hijacking of The Maersk

Second in Command Shane Murphy's take on the hijacking and Rush.

No need to hear my opinion, Cyclist. I'll defer to the person who was left in charge.

Despite all of the heart-felt apologies of those elected Republicans who have dared call Rush an "entertainer," THAT IS WHAT HE IS. No and I mean NO respectable journalist would ever speak these words for permanent record:

"The story is out, I don't know if it's true or not,"

Rush Limbaugh, on a story he pulled out of his very large buttocks.

Have a good one, buddy. Looks like cyclin weather is coming.

Rush is an entertainer and if he lost his appeal/ratings then he's out on the street. It's no different than Rev. Al Sharpton and his attempt at talk radio.

BTW, how is the mayor and his wife doing?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Dude, it is hard to tell these days which topic you are obsessing over the most. It's either Rush or whether Fred is blogging under his real name and did he lie to you. I can't figure out why you care about either....at all. But, whatever....

As you already know, not all conservatives listen to Rush, or even Hannity for that matter. I have developed my personal beliefs and opinions on my own. I don't understand the mentality of anyone on either side who has to read or hear what someone else believes in order to believe something themselves. I'm not saying I don't read things or listen to what others might say. I'm just saying Rush would have as much luck changing my mind about something as you would.

You and that mental giant Main Stream both reference Rush repeatedly and she even admitted listening to him. Then she tries to ridicule the type of people who listen to him. She is ridiculing Rush himself, and the people who are listening to the very same guy she was listening to. Granted, she is listening for different reasons, but the fool is still listening to him. Then she calls him an idiot on here. The guy makes more in a second than she probably does in 5 years and he is the idiot? Try to figure that one out....

is Rush's goal, or any other big time entertainer. Give the folks what they want, provide ratings for Advertisers to buy into. It's not rocket science...just the mere fact that you listen, puts $$$ into his pocket.

Jeff, what I would really like to see is a Sam Nunn or David Boren type surface and run. I believe they are true centrists and just what our country needs. And I know that Haley Barbour has some of his own baggage.

That's an agenda I could support. I actually like Barbour which of course means he can't win the Republican nomination.

Such is life.