Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, October 19, 2007
John Hawkins :: Townhall.com Columnist
Eight Problems with the Conservative Movement Right Now
by John Hawkins
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The conservative movement and the vehicle that we use to implement our ideas, the Republican Party, have a number of problems right now that need to be addressed. For example:

Taking Care Of The Base: The first rule of politics is to make sure that your base is reasonably happy and if they're not, find a way to change that. Unfortunately, too many Republican politicians have forgotten that most basic of rules and they've allowed their biggest supporters to become dispirited and angry with them. Even the beatings that the GOP took in the 2006 election only partially shook George Bush and the Republicans in the Senate out of their stupor (To the House's credit, it seems to have gotten the message). This anger/malaise is reflected in the lack of conservative activism right now, the querulousness of many conservatives, and the fundraising gap that has sprung up between Democrats and Republicans.

Yes, maybe some conservatives do have unreasonable expectations of Republicans in Congress, but that's a reason for Republican pols to try even harder to make it clear to conservatives that their hearts are in the right place. The GOP absolutely cannot get back on track until conservatives feel that they are being well represented in DC and the Republican Party needs to make that happen.

Where's Our Soros? The conservative movement has had plenty of rich, civic minded members who haven't had a problem with greasing the wheels of democracy with a bit of lucre in the past, but the Left seems to be blowing our doors off in this area of late.

You can hardly turn around without finding some project funded by George Soros that's making a political impact, but when we look for conservatives to do the same thing, we hear crickets chirping. There aren't many conservatives who have enough money to make a big difference, but there are a few, and we need their help, now. If Soros and his limousine liberal pals are willing to spend the money while deep pocketed conservatives stand by and watch, the conservative movement -- and this country -- are going to suffer the consequences.

Practicality vs. Purity: Yes, we want politicians to live up to our expectations and when they don't, they can expect consequences. On the other hand, if we refuse to vote for a Republican politician every time he does something we don't like, we're going to be responsible for putting Democrats in office who don't agree with us on anything. That's the dilemma conservatives always have to deal with: practicality vs. purity.

Unfortunately, the conservative movement has tilted too far towards expecting purity from Republicans in Congress -- so much so in fact, that we've got conservatives threatening to form third parties if certain candidates are elected -- even as different factions of the conservative movement beat up on each other on an almost daily basis. Like it or not, if we want to move the conservative agenda forward, we need Republicans in office to do it. Instead of sitting at home or forming third parties, we should follow the Club for Growth model, which involves supporting conservatives we do agree with -- if necessary in primaries with other Republicans -- rather than throwing tantrums and putting Democrats who oppose our agenda in office.

Technophobia: Liberals have made much better use of the internet as a messaging and fundraising tool than conservatives. Outside of a few notable exceptions, Republican politicians haven't reached out to the new media, worked to close the gap between the GOP and Democrats online, or made an effort to effectively use the new technology and voices that have become available. That has got to change -- and soon.

Ronald Reagan Isn't Coming Back: Unfortunately for conservatives and for America, Presidents like Ronald Reagan only come along every 50 to 100 years. So, comparing every Republican politician who comes down the pike to Reagan -- or worse yet, the idealized version of Reagan who has had all the times he deviated from conservative orthodoxy airbrushed out of existence -- is only going to produce disappointment. Yes, we do want "Reagan conservatives" in Congress, but we can't expect them to actually be men of Reagan’s stature.

Along those same lines, the needs of the country have changed since the Reagan years. Although much of the conservative agenda from those years is still relevant and important, there are issues that were not all that hot back then that conservatives aren't addressing to the satisfaction of the American public -- like health care and environmental concerns. So, we've got to make sure that our thinking doesn't become stale and that we don't become complacent as a movement about any issues of grave importance to the American public.

We Don't Reach Out To New Constituencies: Conservatives have started to get into the bad habit of allowing ourselves to be perceived as hostile to potential blocks of new voters, for no good reason.

When Ken Mehlman was Chair of the RNC, he regularly reached out to black Americans. That seems to have stopped with his departure from the RNC. In the fight against illegal immigration, the Democrats have tried to falsely portray conservatives as being anti-Hispanic and some conservatives have unwittingly helped them with careless immigration rhetoric. Pre-9/11, the majority of Muslim Americans voted for the GOP because they shared our concerns about the culture, but some conservatives have started talking about all Muslims as if they're the enemy, instead of specifically hammering away at terrorists and their supporters.

You don't win in politics by needlessly alienating people or writing off whole blocks of the population that might be willing to vote for you. Granted, the GOP can't be all things to all people, but it doesn't hurt to make the best case for your principles to all potential constituencies.

Not Defending Our Own: Unlike the Left, which considers the only sins its members can engage in to be not being liberal enough or helping conservatives somehow, the Right doesn't mind cracking down on our own when they deserve it.

Overall, that's a good thing, because it keeps us from getting stuck with low-lifes like Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and Bill Clinton, but the flipside is that we often don't do enough to defend people on our side when they're being unfairly attacked. In fact, as often as not, some of us will kick another conservative under a bus even though we don't think he did anything wrong.

There has to be a happy medium between the Left's Pavlovian defense of each other under almost any circumstances and the Right's current willingness to too quickly agree with the Left's lies about people on our side.

Abandoning Our Principles In Office: One of the weirder tics of American politics is that liberals typically pretend to be much more conservative than they are to get elected while conservatives run on their principles, then break their promises once they get in office because they believe, falsely oftentimes, that it will be to their political benefit.

If you want two perfect examples of how this works, look at spending, where almost every Republican politician claims to be a hard-nosed fiscal conservative -- and illegal immigration where most GOP pols will swear on their mother's life that they oppose amnesty and want to get tough on illegals. Obviously, the reality is much different than the campaign promises -- but, it shouldn't be.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News, Linkiest, and Viral Footage.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
I still think fat people are the problem
Especially fat people with opinions. Why should some tub of lard be taken seriously as a conservative? He's obviously a Liberal eater. This indicates that he's a Liberal when it comes to one of the most basic things in life. You eat more food, drink more water, breathe more air and emit more greenhouse gasses if you are fat. They can try to defend themselves by saying "I pay my taxes", but that reeks of Al Gore's argument about paying pollution credits for energy consumption.
When fat people have health problems, the ambulance uses more gas, suffers more wear and tear and the hospitals have to feed them. They are a cancer, a blight on society, Liberal or Conservative.

Gestell

No, I'm not a nanny-poster and am not trying to speak for SJ doc, but where do you get that he/she thinks government should be responsible for providing care for helmetless riders? It sounds to me like the opposite was the case, but I could be wrong.

I wasn't trying to answer your question, but I'll answer it: Yep, that's fair.

By the way, if riding a bicycle without a helmet is risky, is riding with a helmet not risky? Did you know that there are studies that suggest that helmeted bicycle commuters are more at risk for being hit by cars, possibly because of more complacency on the part of drivers? The same study also suggests that males are more at-risk than females.

If you are for government-funded healthcare and don't want to pay for risky behavior, I think it falls to YOU to say what is risky and what isn't, where the line is drawn.

Which activities would disqualify someone for critical care? Taking a stroll along the cliffs at the beach on a breezy day? Rock-climbing? Swimming? Woodworking? Do you support taxpayer-funded needle exchanges for heroin addicts? Drug and alcohol rehab?

How about things that are merely unhealthy? Eating cheeseburgers? Getting tattoos?

You tell me.

That you'd "be surprised" if any conservative would turn down catastrophic care doesn't make anyone a hypocrite. As for parasites, I wasn't aware that conservatives as a group don't pay taxes.



reply to Hueguenot
If you're taking on speaking for SJ doc, you should know that you didn't come close to answering my question. What about his "right" to ride his bike without a helmet? Where does it end? I say it's where the cost to me begins. As for the "nanny state," the health insurance issue I raised certainly is relevant. If Sj doc doesn't have that medical savings account, it's going to be the "nanny state" that takes care of him, something no real conservative should accept. However, I'd be surprised if any conservative who needed around the clock care and couldn't afford it will turn down the "free" medical care that the nanny state has so generously provided. I say that makes conservatives hypocrites in these matters, if not parasites.

Gestell

SJ is talking about the nanny state. You're talking about health insurance costs.

Unless it's somewhere else and I missed it, SJ didn't mention loathing the government, although I did sense an aversion to overreaching paternalistic government. Is that all it takes to incur nastiness from you?


reply to SJ doc
I'll concede your "right" to ride a motorcycle without a helment when I see proof that you have a savings account or other financial device that will pay for the lifetime of care you'll need when you have a C3 or C4 spinal fracture and wind up a quadriplegic. I don't want your "freedom" jacking up my health insurance costs, or adding to my tax burden if you wind up needing the government you so loathe to look after your sorry a**. I think that's fair, don't you?

SJ Doc

Quite right, but one correction: the MODERN "liberal" philosophy in a nutshell. Classical liberalism holds just the opposite, yes?

I'm still trying to figure out what breed of hyper-libertarian is against proper spelling and grammar and vaccinations against childhood diseases and gives whiskey to their teenaged kids. I'm lost there...

To eastlake joe
On the prevalence of conservative views in America:
Also, take a look at the results of the several state referendums regarding defense of marriage / gay marriage.

lilly - Your *NEED* for government...
--
...is neither shared by everyone nor objectively necessary, nor even lawful in its fulfillment.

On roads engineered to be safely driven at 70 and 80 mph (in vehicles designed and maintained to be driven at such speeds) the arbitrary reduction of speed limits to 55 mph was imposed as an economy measure because of the fuel shortages inflicted upon the West by the Islamist nations of OPEC.

It was found (surprise) that reducing the speed limits did reduce accident rates in certain limited regards, so the Nanny State types (succumbing to the "Broken Window" fallacy) clamored to keep arbitrarily low speed limits, and have tried to engineer new roads to create *more* congestion, inefficiency, and murderous driver fatigue ever since.

Similarly, "Nanny State" types like our darling lilly think that those who govern *must* take responsibility for everyone who suffers head trauma while riding a motorcycle, so Nanny wants her uniformed armed goons ("Officer Friendly") to force all motorcycle riders to wear helmets.

One little problem: who says that the politicians (who get their power by lying, grafting, stealing, and cheating to win popularity contests) are either supposed to take such responsibility or lawfully empowered to do so?

Our darling lilly reminds me of a satirical saying I've seen on T-shirts:

"I am the Mother of All Things,
and All Things should wear a sweater."

And there's the "Liberal" philosophy in a nutshell. No individual human being is capable of taking responsibility for him/herself, and therefore no such naughty, willful, stubborn, independent individual should have authority over his/her own life.

Except, of course, if she's pregnant and wants to get an abortion.

--

CKO

I addressed this in my 10/19 1:09 AM post.


Lilly
Have you researched where the pay for the CCC came from yet?



HUNTER/TANCREDO "08"

Practicality vs Purity
Now that is a laugh...

Why should I vote for Rudy when he has the same views on amnesty for illegal aliens that Hillary has?
Why should I vote for Rudy when he has the same views on gun control that Billary has....?
Same goes for abortion....

If the Repubs can't nominate someone different than the Democrat nominee then I will stay home....

lilly

I am truely speachless...

I downt eevin nowe were to begin, so ecscuse me wile I lok my un-immunised kidz in the caar and go shoote somewun.

for Beeblebrox
Beeblebrox writes: "Why don't YOU people vote for the conservative this time around rather than demanding, as you have for the last 16 years, that we fiscal/social conservatives vote for your RINO."

For your information, we social moderates have ALWAYS had to do that!!!

Take me for example:
I am pro-choice through the 1st trimester, and I support civil unions for gays and Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

And yet I voted for Reagan twice.
I voted for Bush 41.
In 2000, I even voted for Bush 43.

NOT ONCE have I ever voted for a Democrat on the basis of the Democrat being pro-choice and pro-stem cell research like I am.

I voted on the issues of the economy and national defense, and on those issues the GOP was clearly superior.

It is YOU social conservatives who are insisting on making abortion a litmus test, not us. If we had made abortion a litmus test, we would never have voted for ANY Republicans since Gerald Ford. (But we did.)

It is you who will not.

To Huguenot
Re "I know I misspelled [Huguenot]; no wonder people find you pedantic": About a month ago I was on a thread re homeschooling. Pro-homeschoolers wanted to keep children out of school, to have no state-imposed education standards for the homeschooling parent, to make up their own curriculum (no state-imposed standards), and to have no evaluation of students' work (no state-imposed testing). I commented that on a pro-homeschool website I had noticed a number of grammatical errors; I focused especially on one type of error which I described, with examples. Immediately came the response from a homeschooling parent: "Who made up this rule and why should I follow it?"

I stand corrected. You folks should by all means refuse to obey traffic speed limits, ride motorcycles without helmets, leave your toddlers in locked cars on a hot summer day, and feed highballs to your teenage children. By all means carry guns with you everywhere, including church, and shoot people at will, with impunity. Do not pay income tax. Refuse to have your children vaccinated against smallpox, polio, diphtheria, and measles. Eat at least two pounds of red meat and smoke two packs of cigarettes pppd. And, by all means, make up your own rules of spelling and grammar. Oh, and I forgot something. Don't go to all those licensed medical doctors who just make up silly reasons to get your money; instead, subscribe to that townhall advertiser who claims he has a staff of 15 people who will diagnose and cure you by email---once you pay to become his client. Perhaps you could also take up do-it-yourself neurosurgery.

"If it feels good, do it" urged the hippies of forty years ago. What is the difference between a pleasure-seeking hippie and a rule-avoiding libertarian conservative?

for Arby
Arby writes: "But, again, the 200 or 300 people who post on TH are not, in my opinion, representative of Republiicans nationwide. "

Yes, and here's the proof:

If someone were to attempt to gauge who the front-runners for the GOP nomination are, just by the frequency of favorable posts on TH, they would mistakenly conclude that the three front-runners are Hunter, Tancredo and Ron Paul. Because they get the most enthusiasm from the folks here on TH.

But as we know, in the real world, the polls and the funding of the candidates show that these three candidates are near the back of the pack.

That's because on TH we have a disproportionate number of Christian evangelicals and nativists.

Other right-wing blogs have a different distribution: LittleGreenFootballs.com is heavily into denouncing and exposing radical Islam. On that blog, Rudy Giuliani is a hero for having kicked Arafat's butt. And on that blog, Christian evangelicals who attempt to make abortion an important issue are routinely criticized. On that blog, kicking Muslim butt trumps all else.

Blogs are a poor measure of popular thinking. Each blog is an echo chamber for a particular relatively narrow interest group.

Eight Problems plus.....
Contented with holding the intellectual high ground but lacking passion to bring about change.
Where are the Colonists who, dressed as Indians, climbed aboard one of His Majesty's ships and tossed the hated tea overboard?
The Benedict Arnold of the last century still sits, aloof and unperturbed , on a seat in the United States Senate from that same very state.

Robert

Oh, Robert Robert. If you mistake indignation for immaturity, then you haven't found maturity yourself, and I doubt that it awaits.

I've seen the body of your "work" around TH. Your words provide clear and convincing testimony that you are nothing more than a garden variety wannabe provocateur; you add nothing of substance to the conversation and you have nothing to say to anyone about maturity.

To the actual mature people here: Sorry for feeding the trolls so much on this thread. I do know better. It's a new day, I've had my two cups of black coffee, I'm in a good mood and I shall now cease and desist.

Lilly- a challenge for you-Dale's post
You often comment and quote TH posts that are rather extreme, citing them as examples of conservative thinking. Some of the ones you cite are undoubtedly plants.
But never mind. I would actually be interested to hear you comment about something that isn't fringe-y.
What would you say to the post by DALE (fri 3:57pm)?

IN other words,
the problem with the conservative "movement" is that it's not liberal/democrat. That seems to be the article's premise.

Bunk I say.



Reach out to Muslims for votes????????
Are you even remotely familiar with the Islamic texts, the Koran, the sira and the Hadiths.

I realize that all Muslims are not observant, however; all Muslims are obligated to wage jihad against all non Muslims until the are either killed or subjugated. That is a fact.

Google John Adams, Jefferson John Quincy Adams with the word Islam and get a glimpse at what a they thought about this wicked idealogy.

Muslims are using demographics to wage war on us. They a taking adavantage of our insane liberal immigration policies to invade us. Look at Europe.

You want to stir up the base then define the enemy - Islam and stop all Muslim immigration before ots too late. Deport any caught advocating Sharia law.

If only we could find leaders not infected with political correctness like our founders we actually might start winning this war.

BTW a good start would be to stop calling the enemy simply terrorists ask any Christian in the Muslim world while they are still alive.

King Liberal
I am agnostic, and here is why I won't vote for a mormon:

The tenets of their religion are in conflict with my assertion for the need for military action.

Here's why I won't vote for Mitt Romney, specifically:

He won the endorsement of the Log-Cabin Republicans.

Left Angle
A question; If, as you say, most of the population has rejected conservative views, then how did 78% of the population defeat scamnesty? Lets face it, tight border control is definatly a conservative issue as the liberal side would open the borders wide and let anyone come in that wants to, even give them licences to drive. When you look at the fact that 78% of us got together then I'd say your assumption is false.


HUNTER/TANCREDO "08"
GO TRIBE!!!

King Bigot...

I live among the Democrat base in Detroit... And bigotry is the rule among all Democrats here.

Blacks hate Whites.. and Whites hate blacks.

And nary do I find a Republican in the bunch.

Democrats in white areas say.."Vote for me, I'll keep the Blacks away".

Democrats in Black areas say.. "Vote for me, I'll keep the whites away".

Democrats are phony !

KL
Yes AC is the one who put that out there but it was also refuted on her column. While technically true it is inaccurate by ommision.

As for Gunsmoke, it is my recoillection that it started turing more PC in the late 60s, therefore I specified the pre 65 shows.

OUT OF THE CLOSET...

King Liberal writes.. "Will Not Vote For a Mormon".

Yes, King Bigot !!!

Tell the Truth... You are a racist who will not vote for any "White" person.

Liberals are Bigots!

KL
That BS about Fred not voting to impeach Clinton is NOT true. It is more lies spread by the MSM while trying to promote RINO Rudy.

Fred did vote to impeach Klinton, there was one charge that he did not vote for. The rest he did.

The ONLY way Hillary will win is if RINO Rudy gets the Republican not. ALL of the other candidates will beat Hillary like a drum. That is IF she doesn't wind up in JAIL first.


Republicans cannot win...

Without the lower-middle class vote.

And from what I see... 90% of this class (me) is saying Hillary/Obama. We don't have a chance at this point.

Having a bunch of rich upper-class idiots write their speeches, is a losing proposition for the candidates.

At what point will the Republicans stop pissing in the wind?

Our candidates are out of touch!!!!!!!

ILLEGAL aliens a CRITICAL issue
"In the fight against illegal immigration, the Democrats have tried to falsely portray conservatives as being anti-Hispanic and some conservatives have unwittingly helped them with careless immigration rhetoric."

Indeed, it is NOT anti-Hispanic to demand control of the border and enforcement of EXISTING laws. Hispanics were only 6% of the actual vote in 2006, BUT that will change markedly and irreversibly once the RINOS and the left legitimize ILLEGALS. About half of legal Hispanic Americans in Az. voted for several TOUGH new anti-ILLEGAL referenda issues in 2006 throughout Az. Furthermore, 72% of ALL Americans believe it is VERY important to regain control of the ILLEGAL invasion:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/imm igration_bill_failure_proves_rasmussen_s_first_law_of_polit ics

Unfortunately, only Meandering Mitt among the monied candidates SAYS he wants really to crack down. RINOS Sanctuary City Rudy and Sen. Juan McQuisling are simply giving lip service-- they LOVE their amigos. ILLEGALS will forever ruin America if not stanched soon because the Reconquista is effectively their agenda. Join the fight to stop them, and start barraging your people in Congress at their official contact sites here (bookmark them!):

http://www.numbersusa.com/index
http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/index.htm

America will be a TERRIBLE thing to lose!

Hawkins would have been
much better off if he had stopped at the first item. He gets a "1".

To MellorSJ
So, if the conservative movement ditched Christian morality, would you join?

by the way

I know I misspelled it, and I state as much on my blog bio.

This might be a tiny clue as to why people find you pedantic.

lilly

I'm going to try to be civil here.

First of all, I said "trolls here today."

That is, I'm referring to people who are either ignorantly or maliciously (or both) mis-characterizing conservatism to a... room full of conservatives, on this thread. They're trolls. Have you read all of it?

In fact, I've seen you do this, too. Although you are intelligent, it's all for naught in this forum, because here, your usual M.O. is to simply parrot some of the Left's most imbecilic talking points. I'm talking about points that in a sea of inane points, stand out for their inanity. Quite a feat.

That much I can handle, but you tend not to do it in a constructive or amicable way. So, if you're looking for sympathy, you're barking up the wrong tree. You, Robert and Hal, truly bring nothing of value here and nobody takes you seriously.

I hate to harsh, but it's late and I'm grumpy. I've read a whole lot of your stuff here, and I can only say, you truly bring it on yourself, girl.

Only Eight?
That's all you came up with - just eight? I could think of 80.


To Huguenot (you misspelled it)
You comment that posters "tell conservatives who they are". Trust me, they tell us liberals who we are. Actually, I think the posters here must be Gypsy fortune-tellers because from their comments about me I have learned amazing things about myself, things that I never suspected. Posters have me all figured out: I am male, female, young, old, the spoiled darling of rich parents who still provide financial support, a hippie, a regular attendee of sex orgies and drug parties, a pathological liar, a bitter unfeeling spinster, a mushy soft-hearted liberal, a lesbian, mentally ill, mentally retarded, a Communist, a Socialist, and a terrorist. My home state is California, New York, and Massachusetts. Although I exist in the isolated ivy-covered towers of academia and am offensively pedantic, I am at the same time so stupid that I am barely literate. And I live on latte and sushi.

To Huguenot (you misspelled it)
You comment that posters "tell conservatives who they are". Trust me, they tell us liberals who we are. Actually, I think the posters here must be Gypsy fortune-tellers because from their comments about me I have learned amazing things about myself, things that I never suspected. Posters have me all figured out: I am male, female, young, old, the spoiled darling of rich parents who still provide financial support, a hippie, a regular attendee of sex orgies and drug parties, a pathological liar, a bitter unfeeling spinster, a mushy soft-hearted liberal, a lesbian, mentally ill, mentally retarded, a Communist, a Socialist, and a terrorist. My home state is California, New York, and Massachusetts. Although I exist in the isolated ivy-covered towers of academia and am offensively pedantic, I am at the same time so stupid that I am barely literate. And I live on latte and sushi.

Dumbest Sentence on Townhall Award

RE "There aren't many conservatives with enough money to make a big difference": Oh please. Do you think everybody here is asleep? Corporate America has more money than God, and Corporate America is famously Republican. About thirty minutes of googling will bring up the names of those who finance Washington's conservative think tanks like The Heritage Foundation, contribute to conservative politicians, put up the money for conservative advocacy initiatives like Freedom Watch, and bankroll little extra adventures like Project Arkansas, the campaign to "get" President Bill Clinton, which was paid for by Richard Mellon Scaife. All of these folks who pick up the check for conservative causes are very, very, very rich and all of them are Republican.

Conservatives NEVER tire of playing the victim. "We are persecuted because we are Christian" and "We get no coverage in the media" are already silly enough, but "There aren't many conservatives with enough money to make a big [political] difference" is beyond ridiculous.

lostinwilderness

Lost somewhere, anyway.

What's with all the trolls here today trying to tell conservatives who they are and what they think? Now, conservatives are socialists? Well, it's novel, to be sure.

If you want to tell me what you believe and what you stand for, fine, but quit pretending you know what I believe and what I stand for. It only makes you look foolish. Which is a malady that afflicts many libertarians, unfortunately.

Ron Paul can do Nothing
I looked at Mr. Paul's platform. He can accomplish almost nothing on it as president except bringing the troops back home from Iraq and Afghanistan which is exactly what I DON'T think needs to be done. Read and Check my Blog to see my reason on this. Other then that everything he wants would not get through Congress. He in no way could hold to the principles he wants and pass any laws or budgets he would get from congress.

I really do like libertarian ideas, but if anyone believes we will get back to that in my lifetime (I am 44) they are kidding themselves.

as for RINO labels Shell has it right. Vote in the primaries for whomever you want and may the best person win. At the end of the primaries if you don't vote for the person chosen as the Republicans candidate then I submit YOU (not the candidate) are the RINO.

conservatives are fooling themselves
The fundamental problem with the conservative movement is that conservatives continue to lie to themselves. Conservatives claim they're for smaller government, but their votes and their dollars prove otherwise. While George Bush campaigned on huge new social programs and entitlements, conservatives paid lip service to smaller government. Now they support statists like Giuliani, Romney and McCain who will not shrink government one iota.

Conservatives also refuse to admit they're socialists. They think of socialism as only a liberal phenomenon, but in fact, George Bush's faith based initiatives were socialist programs, just of the conservative flavor. Socialism means taking money from people by force and providing to others. The values used to distribute this stolen wealth, whether conservative or liberal, are immaterial. Theft and socialism are always wrong, regardless of the flavor.

Of course there's not Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was so successful because he tapped into the great unrepresented libertarian mainstream of America, not because he was conservative. Reagan was a libertarian who honestly believe that government was the problem. Reagan fought socialism in the form of Soviet communism, and defeated it. Conservatives embrace socialism as long as it tastes like religion.

The best conservatives can hope for is for another libertarian to hijack the Republican party and tap into the great, unrepresented libertarian mainstream of America. Then conservatives can claim they succeeded, when in fact it was libertarianism that won the day, once again.

Republicans honestly reflect conservative values just like Democrats honestly reflect liberal values. If you don't have those values, stop voting the party which does. Stop the madness. Vote 3rd party.

http://freedomistheanswer.blogspot.com/

I May Vote, but...
Though I really think that Fred Thompson is the best candidate in that he has best balance of conservative purity and electability, I will vote for Rudy if that is what is left to me. He's a competent executive and better, IMO, than Hillary (assuming that is the choice). However, I will NOT open my wallet to him or the RNC if he is their standard bearer. I felt the same way about Dole.

Kathy the mean old lady
I don't think we killed that Amnesty Bill solo.
The victory was too resounding.
I think there were many Democrats who rolled up their sleeves and stood along side of us in that fight.

It would be better for America if we could straighten out the things we agree on first and then go back to squabbling about our differences.

8 problems
There is one problem really, but its a dozy. Its the simple fact that conservatives sold out and have no principles. Ev en Dick Cheney admitted this. This won't be the easiest one for you to fix but nothing easy is worth much. Just imagine having principles and being able to sleep with a clear conscience.

JohnCitizen
For your points #1,#2 & #4, Thake two BDS pills for each.

Point #3?
Jimmy Carter tried that with Korea and Iran, remember?

Did you want more dialog like this?
http://www.dailyrepublican.com/clinton_communists.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/arch ive/200709/POL20070914a.html

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDP/is_2002_Jun e_3/ai_86623607

Hello out there!
Have you noticed that conservative Americans are making their voices heard lately?

No shamnesty bill?
No over-ride?

This was done by THE PEOPLE! Us,you,me,and countless others. E-mails,letters,phone calls and faxes stating our case.

Too many are wasting countless hours feeding trolls here. You know who you are.

Let them migrate back to their own sites.

I heard that Huffypost has a free week of all you can b***h buffet.Whine ands cheese included.

Step away from the computer,put your hands in the air, and then go DO something!

OK?

Uh, yeah JohnCitizen...
Only one problem with your laundry list. You are just making anprovable statements of opinion, rather than unassailable fact. I could just as easily substitute the name of Bush for whomever I wished, and it would be no more or less proveable than your version of emotive invective.

bot_feeder
Interesting perspective, though I don't really buy it.

Despite what the hyperventilators would have us believe, life somehow seems to stagger on, regardless of who wins the presidency. After having followed presidential politics through too many campaigns, one thing is always certain - there will be another election.

You can claim the sky is falling, you're moving to Canada, life as we know it will cease to exist - whatever, but you can rest assured the same people will be back in 4 more, selling the same trip all over.

That is why, in the midst of all the overheated hyperbole, empty threats and broken promises of your all-too-been-there-done-that hysterics whipping, I prefer to chart my own course according to rationale I can coherently defend later. And that is my own philosophy, morals and convictions. I may not always back the winner, but I can at least explain myself afterwards without having to invent some new justification with each new election cycle, and more importantly I can at least look myself in the mirror, because I hav ebeen true to myself.

Take our country Back!
In order for the GOP conservatives to win elections they need go back to basics and to focus on Borders, Language, Culture as well as what they used to stand for.

1. Focus on Less Govt. - Cut spending, not spend like a bunch of drunken hoes. Eliminate non-working programs and entitlements.

2. Enforce our current immigration laws - ALL OF THEM! The American people having been crying out for enforcement and the likes of George Bush have been doing the opposite. If a person comes here illegally - DEPORT THEM! Period. I have no problem increasing the quotas for LEGAL Immigration.

3. Culture - start emphasizing American culture, not this insane multi-cultural agenda that the Dems are so fond of. Defend the tenants that this country was founded on.

4. Language - English only. Rid us of the ever present "Press One for English" nonsense. No more printing of Govt anything in 10 million different languages.

5. Start attacking the libs on their hypocrisy and don't let up until they are in jail or out of office.
Sound easy? No Is it a start? Yes.

PROBLEMS 1-4: GEORGE BUSH
#1 Our President is not a rational thinker – his mind accepts information from only two sources: faith and experience. Because Bush is not rational (strictly empirical and subjective), objective facts and evidence such as the recent National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) that found the Iraq war has created more jihadists and terrorists and made America less safe are meaningless to this anachronistic man of several millennia ago. The reality of Iraq is what he thinks it is from the beautiful White House, and so our country and our precious soldiers are in for much more of this endless strategic disaster.

#2 GOOD NEWS though... God is speaking directly to George Bush (again) and telling him to go to war with Iran. This new war should go as well as the Iraq war (our President’s last guidance from “a higher authority, another Father” than Bush41) and further help over one billion Muslims in their decision to fight America in a mutual holy war. The Crusades of long ago are living history in the Middle East, and Muslims are already primed for another war with Christian invaders. Our “bring it on” cowboy President is only rekindling and fueling this centuries-old fire.

#3 Of course, TALKING WITH ADVERSARIES (INSTEAD OF WAR) REQUIRES RATIONAL THOUGHT… thus with Bush, American diplomacy is an oxymoron. If past is prelude, Bush’s diplomacy with Iran will be perfunctory and rigged – our mentally unbalanced, messianic President needs to provoke a war, AND HE WILL FIND A WAY!

#4 WITHOUT RATIONAL THINKING, bumping into reality is always a shock! FUTURE SHOCK… roiled Pakistan is just one assassin’s bullet away from going under. When the President finally increases the level of hatred against the United States to where it engulfs Pakistan, then we face nuclear terror, and Biblical Armageddon becomes real and a self-fulfilling prophecy. Oh, the joy, the Rapture!


alba

The one bad thing about a Hillary victory is court nominees.

The RINOS in the Senate don't have the cajones to block the appointment of radical anti-constitution leftists to the courts.

shells sez
"I know many conservatives won't vote if Rudy is nominated, but I hope before election day, they choose not to cut off their nose despite their face and get out and vote."


I will vote for the lesser evil, I do not believe in voting for the greater evil to send a message to the lesser evil.


However, I am not convinced that Giuliani would be the lesser evil in a Giuliani vs Hillary race.

We are much more likely to see "comprehensive" immigration reform if Giuliani is President. Republicans won't support Hillary on immigration, but some Republicans would go along with Giuliani. That could lead to enough of a bipartisan support to push through the anarchy bill.

Bush couldn't succeed in pushing through amnesty because he has no credibility on immigration issues.

Giuliani, however, might very well have more credibility in Washington. While he supports amnesty he might, unlike Bush, make some genuine efforts to secure the border.


Bottom line, the biggest threat to our nation is "comprehensive immigration reform". If it passes, the United States of America is dead. Put a fork in it.

So if Giuliani is much more likely to succeed at such legislation, then he may very well be the GREATER EVIL between him and Hillary.

Uncle Alby
I'm with you but for one proviso. Let's flip the White House and Congress. I would at least like a Republican to make the judicial nominations.

That government is best that governs least, and there's nothing like a little gridlock to help insure it.

GOP is poised to win
I predict the GOP wins in '08, in spite of themselves.

As discontented and uninspired as the conservative grassroots may be at present, I still project a Republican victory next November, though I wouldn't want to lay long odds on it.

In order to win, certain things have to happen, but I predict they will. The biggest asset the Republicans have going for them is Hillary and Obama, both of whom are virtually unelectable.

The Republicans therefore have wide latitude to screw things up and still win - wiggle room that I might add they appear to be willing to push to the limits.

The unfortunate news is that even if the Republicans win, it looks to be a dismal presidency, given the mediocrity that pervades the field of viable candidates.

Look for someone other than Rudy to get the nod, and then the party stumbling and bumbling to a too-thin margin of victory against the Queen of Mean - a woman who makes Cruella DeVille and Leona Helmsly look like rank pikers when it comes to oozing contempt for the "little people".

I Hope Hillary *does* win
Nothing else will galvanize Republicans like having another Clinton to vote against.

If we're lucky, we'll have Clinton in the white house and Republicans in charge of both houses.

Clinton will veto everything the Republicans do, and the Republicans will vote against everything Clinton and her Democrat buddies come up with.

So absolutely nothing will get done.

Sweet!

correction

sorry, meant to say "...within the GOP have to do with to what extent the various would-be nominees are true to conservative principles."

King Liberal:
King Liberal:

Glad I wasn't drinking a carbonated beverage just then.

I though diversity was the key to success? Make up your minds.

A great measure of how the GOP will do a year from now will be how people get behind the nominee. Why don’t you withhold judgement on "cobbling together a coalition" until then. You haven’t seen a coalition until you’ve seen all the people who would rather drink iguana urine from a dirty glass than to see her elected.

The contention you are mocking is a sign of principled, vigorous and healthy debate. I wouldn’t expect to see that from the democrats. Hillary's is the dem nomination by divine right.

GOP debate:

"We need to get behind whoever is the nominee."

"I'm sorry, but if that's Rudy, that means betraying my principles."

Democrat debate:

"Don't you think some of the more strident anti-business environmental laws may end up being counterpXXXXXXXXX (Remainder of question censored. @$&$#*^% earth-hater should have known better than to ask it!)

The “high negatives” within the GOP mostly have to do with principle. If you think they are in any way a corollary of Hillary’s negatives, you’re not paying attention.

lemme expand...

Look, L.A., even though I think you are among the most reasonable of the liberal TH posters, I just think your latest conciliatory remarks seem a bit disingenuous. Your initial posts were plainly hostile to conservatives:

"the problem for conservatives is that as a political movement, it's tenets are outdated,unilateral, lack vision/immagination, backwards looking,adverse to change/progress regressive, divisive, racist, and stuck in the past. they also believe that the answer to any foriegn policy problem is military force."

Harldy a nuanced view. Those words range from oversimplifications, to just plain wrong to downright offensive. How do you start from there and expect to find common ground?

Come on now – “when everyone knew their place?” That was a plain ol' put-down, and the clear implication was that conservatives are racist and sexist. You’re not talking about mainstream conservatism, you’re talking about Archie Bunker. Your tone was not amicable.

Here’s what I think happened: dale’s excellent post showed your words to be were one-dimensional, uninformed and ill-considered, it kind of shamed you a bit, so you backpedaled so as to not continue to seem unreasonable.

Now that’s good, because it was a move in the right direction. I, too, am often guilty of over-generalizing. At the most basic level, I think most people on both sides of the aisle want the same things but differ fundamentally in how to get there. The devil is in the details. But if you really think there is common ground, categorizing us as a bunch of racist retrogrades may not be the best approach. Just a tip.


Left Angle
The Democratic Party is not a "Big Tent" of Ideas", as you hypothesize.

It is a coalition of narrow, and often contradictory, special interest groups, bound together only by their mutual need to build majority support for a collection of fringe positions. It is the LACK of a coherent and unifying ideology that makes this possible.

To be fair though, I am willing to reconsider my opinion on the matter, provided you are willing and able to explain the overarching political philosophy that binds together the blue collar labor unions, GLBT, environmentalist, anti-religionist, and feminist special interest groups.

DINO?
Huego: Are you telling me there is no liberal counterpart to the "RINO"?

Since I do not know whether L. Angle will know this I will answer for you.

Pro-life Democrats who can't get an invite to their conventions.

Mr. Angle, Thanks for your kindness. I agree there really is a lot of common ground for L and C, if they could learn to put aside some of the anger and seek the common good.

Left Angle
You have no proof that the majority population has rejected conservative ideals. The fact that the out-of-presidency party has picked up Congressional seats in an off year is not indicative of some political paradigm shift. In any case, to the extent that Republicans were turned out, it was a case of situational disatisfaction, and one with which true conservatives could sympathize with to a degree. i was pretty P.O.ed with the Republicans too, but it wasn't because they were behaving as conservatives.

Huh?
Left Angle writes: This is what I champion
me a liberal democrat said this:

"I also believe that there is good that can be taken from both conservative and liberal political philosophies. i think it would be great if their was a presidential candidate who could do that and seek consensus within both parties to work for compromise and the common good of the u.s."

Do you really think good can be taken from a conservative philosophy if said philosophy is outdated, passe and out of touch with the mainstream. What would be the point of consensus if that were true?


Left Angle


"What we did" to the Prez is nothing compared to the Bush Derangement Syndrome of the Left. He finds that when he flouts the principles of the people who elected him, he's going to get called on it.

You keep pointing to this debate here. And yes, I have read the title and content of the article and all the other "what is wrong" articles. It's called self-examination, discussion and debate. It sometimes is contentious, even acrimonious. It's not for the faint of heart. It's what families do. It's healthy. It's precisely the evidence of the diversity of the Republican party. Are you telling me there is no liberal counterpart to the "RINO"?


How is the desire for freedom, distaste for entitlements by group affiliation, limited government, fidelity to the constitution, working for equality of opportunity (as opposed to the delusion and ignorance of human nature that allows one to believe that equality of outcome can be manufactured), the reocgnition that lower taxes = higher tax revenues, a dislike of punishing the producers in society, a strong defense, among other things, oudated, passe and out of touch with the mainstream?

OK, you didn't use the word "dead." If I'm not allowed to refer to what is implicit in your words, I'll stick to your exact words, such as "Conservatives are always talking about going back to the 50's, when
"everyone knew their place"..." You said it and I challenged you to back it up.

You can throw whatever you want at conservatism, but it's not sticking. Conservatism believes (as does classical liberalism) that the right kind of change comes from the exercising of the rights of persons in a free society. Modern liberalism doesn't trust the common man to do the right thing and thinks there is a governing class that knows better (see my most recent blog post). Which is oudated, passe and out of touch with the mainstream?


Lefty
OK how about:

Low taxes

Less Government

Abortion is Illegal

Strong Defense

Secure Borders

Get our Budget Balaced, our deficit paid down, and SS paid up before we even consider

1 supporting the rest of the world either millitarily or otherwise

2. socialized health care

3. earmarks (any of them) ]

States decide on homosexuality - but it does not become a protected class and not fodder for hate crimes

You can use your tax dollars for your own childrens education even if that means private school or home schooling

Tort reform is killed as redundant to our legal system

The environment is protected but we stop lying about global warming

Maintain our civil liberties even when we are at war - (nix much of the patriot act)

etc,


I have lost trust
in most politicians. Where are the statesmen? Is Harry Reid a statesman? Is Pete Stark a statesmen? When I hear the words being used on the floor of the senate, the name calling, I wonder where it all went. When republicans and democrats both support earmarks in a solid block opposing us the voters, I am discouraged. When Nancy Pelosi determindly puts forth the Armenian bill in spite of danger to our nation and does it for political reasons to harm the war, I am discouaged. I am discourage when republicans and democrats determine their votes by polls not by conviction.

JHS: This is what I champion
me a liberal democrat said this:

"I also believe that there is good that can be taken from both conservative and liberal political philosophies. i think it would be great if their was a presidential candidate who could do that and seek consensus within both parties to work for compromise and the common good of the u.s."

dale a conservative republican said this:

"Society also changes, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Change for change's sake is never good. However I will never oppose a change which will make society better. This is why Republicans worked to change our laws concerning slavery. This is why Republicans and Democrats worked together to change our civil rights laws in the 60's. This is why I encourage high standards of education for EVERYBODY, regardless of who their parents were. This is why I want the best health care possible for ALL Americans, and oppose the kind they have in England, Mexico and Canada. This is why I want emigrants to come here LEGALLY, so they can become a part of the American ideal. And if necessary make it easier for them to come and join our dream LEGALLY. this is why I want our economic opportunities to be made greater, not weakened by ill-thought-out environmental restrictions. We made our country cleaner through the last part of the last century and we need to keep doing better, while creating more and better opportunities for All Americans. But we do not want to stop our growth without a positive return for our society."

There is common ground out there for repub, dems, libs and conseratives.. I champion FINDING IT...

Lefty
Which changes do you champion?:

Spending millions on pet projects like libraris for living congressmen and hippie mueseums for Hillary

Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

Changing the 2nd amendmnent to say that only criminals can have a right to bear arms

Socialized Health Care

Killing Babies for fun and profit

11 Year olds that need condoms

sexual deviancies like homosexuality being normalized to the detriment of the deviant and society as a whole

Communism


huequenot: a response..
I would argue that democrats are by far more of a "big tent" of political ideas that the "rigid orthodoxy of the republican party, which is in fact controlled by it's base conservatives..allow debate?...you must be kidding. look what you did to Prez Bush on Harriet Miers and immigration reform..
answer me this. what the heck is a RINO and WHY are the derided as traitors by conservatives?

I didnt say conservatism is dead, is said it is outdated, passe and out of touch with the mainstream of american politics and society.

I would strongly suggest you read the title of this article and its content..there have been many in recent weeks just like it, I believe because repubs/cons are anticipating a drubbing in prez/congressional elections 08.

when i say: "when everyone know there place like in the 50's. think about it. that is exactly where conservatives are stuck in time, which exactiy why youre in the mess youre in today because youre adverse to change.

Oops,

it seems that dale and I have made statements here that don't fit into the Left's "conservatives are racist" box.

I wonder, is the stereotype fundamentally flawed, or are he and I just lying because we care what a liberal poster thinks?

L. Angle: a response.
I never said conservatism is an agent for change. Change happens without a political agent. We know more. We have more. We have better technology. Etc. This is change. Conservatives did not cause it. Liberals did not cause it. Time, experience, and continuing to grow knowledge has brought it about.

Political change is the purview of the liberal, is now and always has been. I am willing to accept that. Even there some change is good. However our Founders gave us a pretty good constitution, and the changes made to it since have made it better. We want our government to live by it. If it needs changing that change should come as all the rest have, from "We the People" and those whom we have elected, not from unelected judges.

Society also changes, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Change for change's sake is never good. However I will never oppose a change which will make society better. This is why Republicans worked to change our laws concerning slavery. This is why Republicans and Democrats worked together to change our civil rights laws in the 60's. This is why I encourage high standards of education for EVERYBODY, regardless of who their parents were. This is why I want the best health care possible for ALL Americans, and oppose the kind they have in England, Mexico and Canada. This is why I want emigrants to come here LEGALLY, so they can become a part of the American ideal. And if necessary make it easier for them to come and join our dream LEGALLY. this is why I want our economic opportunities to be made greater, not weakened by ill-thought-out environmental restrictions. We made our country cleaner through the last part of the last century and we need to keep doing better, while creating more and better opportunities for All Americans. But we do not want to stop our growth without a positive return for our society.

Left Angle

Which movement is more vital? The one that examines itself and welcomes debate over what it is and should be? Or the one with such a rigid orthodoxy that dissenting voices aren't allowed? Maybe you should ask Joe Lieberman.

You are trying to use dictionary definitions of "conservative" and "progressive" to try to convince conservatives here that their ideals are "dead." Your problem is that they obviously understand conservatism a lot better than you do, so it's a fool's errand.

BTW, please name some actual conservatives who wants to go back to the '50's, with quotes. Otherwise, the statement makes as much sense as "Liberals all want to go back to the '60's." I mean, I dig the cars and would love to be able to leave my doors unlocked at night, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to go back to a time when a black man could be legally discriminated against.



Sorry lefty
Didnt get your last post, so i apologize for the bruskness, but the response to a unifying candidate is still the same:

Ron Paul 08

Left Angle: Conservatism is the Majority
The problem we have now is called minority faction - and it is serious enough that people like yourself actually believe you are in the majority.

The reason we have majority faction is:
1. We the people got complacent

2. The entire media industry has become the left wing of the democratic party

That's pretty much it. Ron Paul 08.

One more thing:
It is my belief that the vast majority of americans repub or dem are somewhere around the center politically speaking and in their beliefs.
Actually I consider places like TH and Daily Kos to be far right and far left in its ideas and attitudes. I also believe that there is good that can be taken from both conservative and liberal political philosophies. i think it would be great if their was a presidential candidate who could do that and seek consensus within both parties to work for compromise and the common good of the u.s. however in todays partisan political atmosphere, that just aint hapennin
and thats a shame...its political warfare. lol

Dale - Pretty close - Good Post
For the trolls.


How many of you would consider your political leanings to be:

a. socialist
b. communist
c. dunno, but i hate Bush
d. selfish
e. whatever my college professor says, he let me smoke pot at his house dude.
f. All of the above

Sandman & dale: a response.
thanks for your "civil" responses..lol

if indeed you both believe that conservatism is the agent of change and the mainstream of american politics/society (i strongly disagree), why is it being rejected by the vast majority of the american public and why all these recent articles by repub/cons pundits/politicians about "what is wrong with the conservative movement and it's relationship with the republican party?

If Liberalism was a majority view...
Gay marriage would have been democratically legislated into existence.

Abortion on demand would have been democratically legislated into existence.

Prayer in the schools would have been democratically legislated out of existence.

Parental notification rules would have been democratically legislated out of existence.

Providing benefits to illegal aliens would have been democratically legislated into law.

Opening the borders to any and everyone who showed up on our shores would have been democratically legislated into existence.

Two-tier educational standards for blacks and whites would have been democratically legislated into existence.

But of course they weren't now, were they?

Sorry
about the double post

Forward looking conservative
may be in your opinion an oxymoron, Mr. Angle.

However, I do not remember the 50's and do not wish to go back, even if it were possible, which it is not. I don't even want to go back to the 70's or 80's.

What conservatives desire is that we should have a government which is controlled by something solid. we have a constitution which both parties seem to be too good at ignoring too often. But we do not want unelected judges writing laws for us. We want our elected representatives doing that. If we have bad laws we should be able to unelect the representative who put it in place. If the execution of the laws if poor we should be able to unelect the president or governor who has let us down. We have no recourse against judges who see it as their job to rewrite or unwrite our laws. This we want to have stopped.

We want each person to be responsible for his own, and his own family's needs and future. We have no problem helping out our neighbors when they get in trouble, but we want them to be able to get back on their feet and become healthy and productive again, so they can begin taking care of their own again.

We want our streets safe from all enemies, foreign and domestic (part of above mentioned constitution as the government's role). That we are willing to entrust to various government entities. We want them to be able to do their job without fear of being sent to prison themselves for doing the job we asked them to do.

We want the right to pass our values on to our children and to make sure they are educated so that they may have a future. We also want the right to continue to engage in discussions like this without fear of repercussion from either side.

We do not want to continue paying for things we consider to be nonsense or immoral. We are usually willing to let others do whatever they want as long as it does not threaten me or mine, and we don't have to pay for it.

Anything else? Maybe.

Forward looking conservative
may be in your opinion an oxymoron, Mr. Angle.

However, I do not remember the 50's and do not wish to go back, even if it were possible, which it is not. I don't even want to go back to the 70's or 80's.

What conservatives desire is that we should have a government which is controlled by something solid. we have a constitution which both parties seem to be too good at ignoring too often. But we do not want unelected judges writing laws for us. We want our elected representatives doing that. If we have bad laws we should be able to unelect the representative who put it in place. If the execution of the laws if poor we should be able to unelect the president or governor who has let us down. We have no recourse against judges who see it as their job to rewrite or unwrite our laws. This we want to have stopped.

We want each person to be responsible for his own, and his own family's needs and future. We have no problem helping out our neighbors when they get in trouble, but we want them to be able to get back on their feet and become healthy and productive again, so they can begin taking care of their own again.

We want our streets safe from all enemies, foreign and domestic (part of above mentioned constitution as the government's role). That we are willing to entrust to various government entities. We want them to be able to do their job without fear of being sent to prison themselves for doing the job we asked them to do.

We want the right to pass our values on to our children and to make sure they are educated so that they may have a future. We also want the right to continue to engage in discussions like this without fear of repercussion from either side.

We do not want to continue paying for things we consider to be nonsense or immoral. We are usually willing to let others do whatever they want as long as it does not threaten me or mine, and we don't have to pay for it.

Anything else? Maybe.

Left Angle: I disagree
It is the conservatives who are demanding the change and the entrenched liberal interests who are clinging to "the established old ways." The status quo of big and growing government, encroachment on freedoms through judicial activism and intrusive government, belongs to the liberals. Besides considering I wasn't even born in the 1950's, modern political "conservatism" did not even emerge as a distinctive political force until 1964, so we are not exactly talking about ancient history here.

Finally, you need to re-check your facts on exactly where the mainstream is in this country. Polls consistenly affirm a conservative bias in public attitudes on the issues. When you consider that the majority of the most egregious liberal successes over the past two generations have occurred as a result of judicial fiat and bureaucratic overreach, rather than the democratic process, it is hard to support the notion that liberalism is in the mainstream.

One thing not mentioned
The last thing creators of this web site want to address is this:

There just isn't room in the Republican Party for neocons.

Three quotes, all of which I agree with.

William F. Buckley Jr. (Conservative)

"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, as the absence of effective conservative ideology."


George F. Will (Conservative):
"A stunningly anticonservative idea is animating the Bush administration's policy. The idea, a tenet of neoconservatism, is that all nations are more or less ready for democracy. So nation-building should be a piece of cake—never mind the winding, arduous, uphill hike the West took from Runnymede and Magna Charta in 1215 to Philadelphia in 1787."


And finally,

Bill Kristol (Was a Conservative, is now a neocon mouthpiece)

"If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me."

"If you read the last few issues of The Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives."

Yes it does Bill. Yes it does. And so does the Bush Administration. And so does this web site.



dale
I think our biggest problem is that present front runners have little credibility with the Republican Base.

Using the new media there is time yet for someone like Hunter to become better known.

In any event, whoever is nominated by Republicans will be the next president.
Democrats can't come up with a viable candidate.

Hillary? Too much baggage to fit in a freight car and attempts to socialize American Medicine.

Obama? Has no executive experience.
The Manager of your local FoodMax is more qualified to be President.
Obama has not even done anything of note as a Senator.

Edwards? He HAS the needed experience but he is nothing more than a bad political joke.

I do wish the Dems would put forward a serious candidate just to ease the boredom.
They will probably run another sure looser like;
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/john-kerry-gained-fame-t hanks-to-phony-soldiers

Sandman & doc: a response...
By and large conservatism is not a forward looking progressive political philosophy.
It is adverse to change and adaptability. It seeks to keep things as they are no matter what the circumstance. Conservatives are always talking about going back to the 50's, when
"everyone knew their place"...

trying to place those tenets on todays society is counterproductive and whether you want admit it or not conservatism has become passe. like this article by Mr. Hawkins, I have seen many
recently that recognize that something is terribly wrong within the conservative movement because it is no longer connecting with the vast majority of the american public.

What I see personally is that conservatives are isolating themselves from the american mainstream politcally and socially. in other words the culture of america is changing while conservatives are not. thereinlies the problem.

1 Problem of Conservatives
1. The Republican Perty

Hawkins' 1st point, about the base, is well taken. The GOP's attitude has been that real conservatives have nowhere else to go, thus the party, candidates, campaigns, & incumbents can throw them a lipservice bone or two & otherwise blow them totally off, while going off on long strange quixotic quests to attract 'the middle' by betraying conservatism.

How alse to explain the utterly bizzarre behavior since 1994, post-Gingrich? While the Repubs seldom dared confront Clinton, they were at least in a position to moderate & limit if not block his socialist aspirations. Their record was lackluster on this. Don't even get me started on their spinelessness against the gun bans, which lost, rather than gained, them support.

Then GWB took office, & the POTUS & both houses of Congress were GOP for the 1st time in living memory. Is it not merely reasonable that conservatives might AT LEAST expect BAD legislation, & expansions of government, to slow to a trickle? Instead it seemed the floodgates opened wide for Demmie-style pork-barrel politics & gvmt expansion.

The "go along" experiment has been tried & failed. Supporting these people unconditionally has simply encouraged them to take us for granted while they pander to "the middle" by enacting leftie big-gvmt programs smaller than the Demmies want, as a form of pre-emption. Well, the current SCHIP debate goes to show the Left will just demand the rest of the loaf immediately.

We were mollified for years w/ the promise of Constitutionalist judges & Justices, but were let down on that point as the Senate failed to sweep aside a phoney 'filibuster' by the minority as a means of blocking good judges.

Most GOP pols seem not only to lack the courage of the ir alleged conservative convictions; it appears they lack the convictions. You want us on your side? Get on our side!

Dale: I Disagree
We do not have to vote for whomever wins the primary.

While I agree that everyone should vote for whomever they want in the primaries, I think it is important for people to know, for purposes of making their own informed decision, that there is one candidate in the GOP primaries that will not get my (and apparently many others') vote in the primary or general election, should he make it that far.

What you do with that information is up to you, but I think you have to consider that its an issue of consequence.

I can only speak for myself, but consider this. I have never missed an election. I have never voted for a Democrat. I have never voted for a third party candidate. I would probably hold my nose, if necessary, and vote for any other Republican in the general election. But if Guiliani wins the GOP nomination, I will not vote for him in the general election.

The question you and everyone else interested in the GOP have to ask themselves is "How many other people feel the same way?" If the answer is "Not enough to matter" then the GOP has no worries. If the answer is "Enough to cost the GOP its chances in the general election," then people might want to think about falling in behind another candidate.

Rudy's only claim to fame
If it were not for the attacks of 9/11, Rudy G. would not even be in this race. He is a one-note liberal politician willing to sell his soul in order to be president.

His position on gun control? 9/11, of course.

Abortion? 9/11.

The 10th Amendment? 9/11 again.

Global trade? 9/11.

Anything else? 9/11, of course.

He needs to head back on over to the democrat party which spawned him, IMO.

dale
SPOT ON! my vote goes to one who has already closed part of the border, and i think he will finish the rest!

HUNTER /Tancredo 2008!
http://www.gohunter08.com



Left Angle's Outdated Conservatism
Outdated?
Like Great Society socialism?

Unilateral?
Like legislating social upheaval from the judicial bench?

Divisive?
Like interjecting the government between a parent and their child?

Racist?
Like ordering separate educational standards for white and black people?

Resolving every foreign policy problem through military force?
Like knocking down the Berlin Wall?

Never let it be said that zealots like Left Angle let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a good diatribe.

I get the picture already.
Some people will not vote for Mr G. in Nov08; some will, even thought they do not like everything about him. However, I think this discussion is a bit premature. Those who have taken Mr Dobson's position are trying to scare me into voting for their man in the primaries.

It's not going to work. In the primaries we get to vote for who we actually like for the office. In November we have to vote for whomever won in the primaries. Thank God the MSM does not vote in the GOP primaries. We might actually find a candidate who would do a good job in the O Office.

The problem I see the GOP has right now is that we are arguing over the past instead of defining who we are so that we can select candidates who will look after our interests when elected.

Left Angle writes:
no sorry, not all are fed up with it. Many con serves want a return to the founding fathers way of thinking.
Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right to work hard and make a better life for your self with out thinking its the giver mints job to keep handing out, securing our borders from foreign invaders, you know basic Freedom! That is where I see the new conservative movement headed! And Hunter will get us started going that way.

HUNTER /Tancredo 2008!
http://www.gohunter08.com



Conservatism Is Outdated...
the problem for conservatives is that as a political movement, it's tenets are outdated,unilateral, lack vision/immagination, backwards looking,adverse to change/progress regressive, divisive, racist, and stuck in the past. they also believe that the answer to any foriegn policy problem is military force.

by and large the american public is pretty much fed up with the conservative movement and is being reflected at the polls on election days now and in the future.

funnyold
Debate Tip #1: It helps to post quotes that actually back up your rants.

"Politicians should spend more times with students" does not equal "Republicans dead".

I could vote for a moderate Republican…
…depending upon which issues, and to what degree, they were “moderate” on. To the extent that the differences of opinion were largely a matter of degree (i.e how much to lower taxes, cut spending, regulate trade, decentralize power, etc), compromise is an acceptable solution. I have voted many times in the past for moderates of this magnitude.

But when the differences are fundamental (whether we should: kill unborn babies, let homosexuals marry, disregard immigration laws, overlook serious moral character issues, etc) and numerous, we really do not have sufficient grounds for a productive political union. In fact, it is laughable when the GOP apparatchiks even try to sell these differences as conservative versus moderate, when it is clearly conservative versus liberal.

Just because a liberal happens to agree on one issue or two with conservatives, doesn’t make him a moderate, and just because a liberal wants to call himself a Republican doesn’t mean he deserves, or is going to get, the conservative vote.

funnyOLDrepublicans
could be worse, we could have some like you on our side :P

HUNTER /Tancredo 2008!
http://www.gohunter08.com

Dilemma
Many conservatives here are saying they would rather eat a turd (Hillary) then be forced to eat Spam (Rudy)......I hate Spam, but throwing away your vote on a 3rd party candidate is suicide.

The socialist policies Hillary will actually disclose - before getting into the WH - are going to cost the average American family more than $4,000 per year in increased taxes.....would you vote for Rudy for $16,000?

Hal Donahue scribbles:
OH, NO! He is pure fundamentalist conservative. I love watching you folks try and disown him but oh, no he is ALL yours.


Sorry, that won’t wash HaL, Plain fact is, he is a globalist and many on here, including my self, have admitted to voting for peso george. What a surprise! A RINO lied to us. Difference between us, I can admit he lied and he is no conservative, and libs believe all the lies put out by your leaders like gorge sor hols and MM and john skerry, al bore, Katie upchuck, heck, the list is endless!

HUNTER /Tancredo 2008!
http://www.gohunter08.com

roberta roberta:
HaL, will you wash my hair tonight?
HaL: why? you shave down there!

Amen Georgia Gal
As a conservative who acts consistently on my convictions, there is no need for me to justify why I WILL NOT be voting for Rudy Guiliani. If you know what conservatives stand for, you already know the answer to that question.

If anyone needs to justify themselves, it is the people flacking for the Republican Party who inexplicably think that I should act in a manner that is contrary to my convictions, stated intentions, and prior behavior.

driveby
Your memory of recent history and the Reagan administration is hillarious.

Let me guess, you are either way too young to know jach sh*t about the 1980s, or you were stoned the whole time.

"Reagan was successful because he made friends with Tip O'Neal" LMAO! Thanks.

I am curious (continued).
The federal governent is to protect the borders of the United States. Has this been done? Who is responsible? Not why are they not doing this but why are they even "on the field". Who is really responsible for enforcing the law of the land by
forcing those that should be?

I'm curious. I find those that have the airwaves that could have the most influence not supporting anyone that stands for the law of the land which protects these people the freedom of speech.

They entertain they say, they call each other "great Americans", profit but when it comes time they may have their Constitutional rights taken away, what have they done to have people on the field to protect them?

I am just curious about a country that is only 4.5 percent of the world population that so many people have paid such a high price so we can be either so easily deceived or just don't have what it takes to know or care about what we have each and every day.

Do we deserve to have it? What should we really be doing?

I was just curious.

Thank you very much for this opportunity and right to ask.

DRSANGLE

Frank Pastore's column Townhall 10-10-07
From Frank Pastore's column:

Pastore: I’m wondering why is everyone upset with James Dobson? Why aren’t people upset with Rudy supporters and pro-choice Republicans that have given his campaign money, knowing that we cannot violate our core values and our core principles and elect a pro-choice candidate—we will not do that. Where was their thinking beforehand, when they started supporting a candidate?

Dobson: Here’s why I cannot vote for Rudy Giuliani. He’s pro-abortion. He’s never repudiated gay marriage in New York City or at least the civil unions in New York City. He’s called a champion of gay rights. Rudy is opposed to school choice. He’s in favor of open borders. He lived with a mistress in the mansion in New York while he was married to his wife—and she was in the same house. He’s been married three times. When his second wife got sick of it she threw him out and he went to live with two homosexuals. He appointed terrible liberal judges as a mayor; he says now he’ll appoint Scalia-type judges, you can believe that if you want to, I don’t because his record says otherwise. He dressed up in drag and appeared on “Saturday Night Live” in a very disrespectful manner—I just can’t see a presidential candidate doing something like that. He’s a Catholic, but says he will not be guided by it. He has utter disdain for the pro-life and pro-family movement. I mean it goes on and on and on.
This is the guy that conservative Christians are about to vote for and they’re made at me because I won’t?

I am curious.
I have read many of the comments and most are very well written and have good points.

I am curious though if anyone looks at all of this as being a deception. Worrying (commenting) about the windshield wipers when the engine block is broken.

I believe the 200 years ago, a group of very knowledgeable, well educated people realized and
even perhaps took it personally that given they felt compelled to go to war, a huge decision considering, and were going to take all they knew about governments and attempt to write a supreme law of the land which would try to eliminate what they found to destroy all governments, human nature.

This law had to be known and easily understood by everyone. This law had to limit government. And - the most amazing thing was these people knew if they didn't write something that protected every person, they themselves would really not be protected.

I can't help but believe we have a society that really, honestly does not know the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all state laws must not violate this law.

Abuse, forget, bastardize these laws and human nature starts to rule.

As a simple example, a football game, money is envolved, entertainment and evidently a huge audience that participates. There is the law of the land in playing. There are a dozen cameras watching everyone, everywhere. How many people would attend or watch if the game were allowed to become a personal feelings officiated game?

No grabbing of faceguard does not mean, well he's smaller, or he's quicker or he's more or less popular or I've got a big bet on the team.

How many people would attend or watch the next week? Then, how many people would play?

All these article's points may be interesting and take people's "attention", but isn't the question of who should even be on the "field"?

(continued)

Reply regarding "GOP Flacks"
"If you and the other GOP flacks are telling ME that in order to vote Republican, I have to be willing to support a pro-illegal alien, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-gun, anti-religion candidate like Rudy Guiliani, then I am telling YOU that I will not be voting Republican. "

That is exactly what the GOP flacks are saying. I think that the GOP is so used to getting the votes of social conservatives without delivering on ANY of their issues that they now think that they can keep the social conservative vote without even promising to deliver on their issues. (Examples: Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, not even introduced when Republicans had complete control of Congress.)

All they have to do is say: Hillary Clinton : and, like sheep, the social conservatives will pull the Republican lever regardless of who is on the ballot. I think the GOP flacks are wrong, but we'll see.

Donanhue
Actually, 'we' didn't try that once; the Confederate States did it once, and were crushed more cruelly than we crushed Germany, Japan or Iraq. That's the trouble with liberal Americans (and in the 1860s, Republicans were the liberals): there is no evil too horrible to perpetrate upon their own, and no stranger too horrible to bend over backwards for.

Today, 2600 Oklahoma State Militia are going to Iraq. The South still dominates in military service,and military bases. And unlike the agrarian antebellum South, the modern Southern States are more industrialized.

But above all, if there were a new secession, the Southern States would be joined by many Northern States.

The 2nd worst thing that ever happened to this country was putting the first Republican in the White House. The 3rd worst thing that ever happened to this nation was WWII.

The worst was granting females the vote.

8 Fixes for The Conservative Movement
01. Nonimate a Conservative for The GOP Nomination
02. Send The Nominee Money!
03. Get rid of RINO’s, CINO’s and Perverts.
04. WIN in Iraq!
05. Build The Fence!
06. Make Energy Independence part of The Platform.
07. Make The Tax Cuts Permanent!
08. QUIT playing nice with Liberals, THIS IS A WAR for The Soul of America!

Here’s a proposition for you
Rather than asking conservative Republicans to vote for candidates who only agree with them on 1 or 2 out of 6 issues, why don’t the RINOs vote for a conservative candidate with whom they agree on 3 or 4 out of 6 issues.

If it is so easy to set aside your convictions (assuming you even have any) for the sake of the party, then why don’t you RINOs do it!

More nonsense from a non-Conservative
Republican.

Get this through your thick skull: the Republican party needs conservatives to win elections. Conservatives, however, DO NOT need the Republican party. They need a party that will promote their values and pursue their agendas. It doesn't have to be Republican.

There's no need to demonize the Democrats; their evil is evident enough. The way it works, you vote for the people you think will promote your values and agendas, and the guy who gets the most votes wins (or in federal elections, the most electoral votes.)

If the vast majority of people want the Democrat agenda, shouldn't they be allowed to have it? The idea that we must put up with liberal Republicans controlling the party in order to win *presumes* that Republicans (and by extension, conservatives) are out of step with the nation.

I don't buy it. I believe the majority of Americans are conservative in their values. If my presumption is correct, we will win elections only by sticking to our values and pursuing our agendas once in office.

No, it is the established Republican politicians who must come to us, not the other way around. Apparently they (and you) didn't get the memo last November.

Not about "Practicallity" vs "Purity"
Good article, but on one point the continual dishonesty about this issue drives me crazy.

Its not about demanding the "purity" of everything we want of a candidate or only caring about 1 issue.

Its that when the one issue is abortion, and if you understand its evil = asking you to ignore it is like telling a Jew to vote for Hitler because he is electable and tough on Terror. Never mind that he kills your people. Abortion is Genocide.

Support Ron Paul. He is pro-life, he is a conservative through and through and he is a patriot.

Decide for yourself.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

http://www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008DotCom

If you just have time to watch one video - this should be it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkVJtz0bNI

The Iowa speech.

I Promised I Woudn't, but Hal
Hal: Right now we need someopne who we know can fix things and provide some stability while we attempt to decover from the current debacle

You suppose a democrat can do that? And tell me, how is your democratically controlled congress doing thus far? Red Nancy tried to cook Turkey well before Thanksgiving.

Hal: If you are just eeking by you will most likely be better off. You take care of yourself now but in the end game am I going to be forced to pay for you? If you are just eeking buy the answer is most likely yes.

What logic is this? It makes no sense. How will I, Shells of Chicago, who is taxed to the max and more thanks to our Blue State, be better off with more taxes? Re-read your sentence, as Yoda would say, "Sense, you make, not."

Hal on traveling: Really try to go to Cuba or North Korea. See what happens...

Well, seems your idol Michael Moore had no problem going to Cuba. See, most people travel to Disneyland, Vegas, the UK, etc...

Hal: You were one of those special interest groups using our roads, energy infrastructure, defense, shall I go one. You are paying far less than your grandfather who paid to build what you conservatives are pulling down.

Again, you have no logic with what you say. Back in my grandpa's day America was growing. Today, we are growing a nation of victims. My grandpa didn't pay for self-inflicted victim's handouts, nor for every illegal alien---and I don't want to either.

Hal: See that is what is wrong - no one knows. You give up freedom to feel protected.

I think your tin hat is waaaay too tight, Hal. Loosen up. I gave up nothing. I'm more worried about giving up my life to Islamic extremists rather than you having the mental freedom of calling a #900 on a Saturday night.

Flawed Analysis - Part II
2) The GOP’s incumbent protection strategy over the past 8 years has made it clear that maintaining personal power trumps any interest in pursuing a conservative agenda. The previous decades-old policy of not taking sides in GOP primaries is little more than a quaint memory these days and is responsible for the continuing plague on conservative values that is otherwise known as Arlen Specter. Instead of working to provide conservatives with a better slate of viable primary candidates, the party establishment has expended its energy trying to eliminate serious primary challenges.

In effect, conservatives have been told to suck it up and live with it, the thinking being we have no choice but to take whatever the GOP serves up. Well, all I can tell you is, we are ALL going to have to “live with” the decisions we are making. If, come November 2008, the pundits are all wondering what happened to the conservative voters, I can tell you now, that they will have followed the conservative candidates. And if none of them are on the Republican ticket, well then so be it.

Flawed analysis - Part I
The way I see it, your message to conservatives is “It’s better to vote for a liberal Republican than run the risk of putting a Democrat in office.” This is the same message the other Townhall GOP waterboys have been feverishly delivering for some time now. It is this relentless mantra, more than anything else, that has dispirited conservative voters. Let’s focus on two big issues that puts the lie to your flawed analysis.

1) This idea that contrarian conservatives are throwing out the baby with the bathwater by rejecting any candidate that does not see eye-to-eye with them on each and every issue is bogus. The major GOP presidential candidates are not even close to conservatives, when considering their demonstrated (read: non-lip service) positions on across-the-board issues. If you and the other GOP flacks are telling ME that in order to vote Republican, I have to be willing to support a pro-illegal alien, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-gun, anti-religion candidate like Rudy Guiliani, then I am telling YOU that I will not be voting Republican.


Look in the mirror.
The overarching problem with the conservative movement is:

John Hawkins. And Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh ad nauseum.

Nobody likes obnoxious people.

Reagan was popular because he respected his enemies and had regular meetings with Tip O'Neil.

Nobody likes an a**hole. Republicans are all a**holes. Rudy is an ahole. The American People, not just conservatives, like Reagan.

Reagan was not a political genius. What he was is a product of a different era. A product of an era where politics, as the second oldest profession and I'm not sure about that, was understood to require oil on the gears and that oil has a name: respect.

Shouting at liberals will not make them go away. Liberals and conservatives will be running this country for the forseeable future. That means there has to be a plan to share power.

Republicans don't have one. There plan is to shout down the enemy. John Hawkins does that everyday. Well guess what. It will have the same effect everyday: nada.

Reagan knew that in politics you have work with the enemy. That is the number one problem facing conservatives. All others are moot until that one problem is solved.

kc_harley
perfectly said I love it


John,
I can agree with a lot of what you are saying, but the plain truth is, we would be a lot happier base if there were not so many RINO’s within our base. Here in Indiana we have sen.lugar. he has constantly voted for amnesty and to that end I will NOT vote for him even if no one runs against him, I will vote demo, at least in that instance I will know for a fact they will vote against the way I want and I won’t have to put so much time and effort into telling them they should be acting like republicans and not voting to give the country away. At the very least, they won’t be pi**ing down my leg and try to convince me that its raining! I personally think republicans are done with the likes of him and peso george. Better this party fall than RINO buttwipes such as these keep getting into power.

HUNTER /Tancredo 2008!
http://www.gohunter08.com

Problem #1
1. There are very, very few real conservatives in the first place. Too many compromises. Too much religion. Therefore there is no movement.

Shells
"You think Hillary can make it better?! What kind of an answer is this? This is why we have elections, to bring in a fresh person who will fix things to the best of their abilities."

Right now we need someopne who we know can fix things and provide some stability while we attempt to decover from the current debacle

"Umm, I can't. I am self sufficient and eeking by...I am not eligible for an Hillary Socialist Freebies because I am white, I have no children and I take care of myself."

If you are just eeking by you will most likely be better off. You take care of yourself now but in the end game am I going to be forced to pay for you? If you are just eeking buy the answer is most likely yes.

"For this, I will be penalized. You believe other people can afford to be taxed like mad? Why should my hard earned money be stolen from me to buy off special interest groups liberals call Victims? "

Well because when you were growing up we had to pay to raise your sorry backside. You were one of those special interest groups using our roads, energy infrastructure, defense, shall I go one. You are paying far less than your grandfather who paid to build what you conservatives are pulling down.

"Hal, not free to travel anywhere? Last I checked I can go online and buy a plane ticket and get out of Dodge today."

Really try to go to Cuba or North Korea. See what happens...

"Oh, and as far as the Tinhat briggade believes, tell me, when was the last time the government checked your phone and computer?"

See that is what is wrong - no one knows. You give up freedom to feel protected.

"Yes I have, he was never my 1st choice. But if he wins the primaries, I will get off my arse and vote because really....anything is better than a card carrying leftist socialist in office for 8 years."

There is no one that fits that description that is just your terrible fear overwhelming you

Re: RINO's
Why Hannity and a few others on our side are doing it, is a mystery to me.

for the same reason the author is, "Lesser of Two Evils," anyone but Hitlary!

I used to be that way, NO MO, I will NOT vote Romney or Guiliani!! I refuse to vote for, reward RINO's!

If it takes Hitlary gettin in the WH to wake the people of this country up, So Be IT!

Hopefully she will not Destroy this country in 4 years!

Bush's support of our brave Military, they Die and Sacrifice for this country and the likes of that slime ball Murtha and his coharts in the Military Slander and Prosecute those that are defending our Freedom and he does Nuttin! Our border guards are another example! Where's BOOSH?

NO THANKS!


on trolls and Rudy

There has been some good and insightful discussion here. Then there has been Hal. How can we miss him if he won't go away?

I am not pushing Rudy as the only one who can beat Hillary. I'm not pushing him at all, as he is not my choice. What I am saying is that if he ends up with the nomination, I will vote for him over Hillary, simple as that. I'm with Shells on this one.

The Successful Formula
The GOP had a successful formula based on straightforward principals that led to its winning the house, the senate, and the presidency. When it abandoned those principals, it lost the house and senate. The reality is that if it doesn't return to those principals, and if it can't climb the hill it created by abandoning them, it will lose the next election, and it won't matter who conservatives do or don't vote for. Republican partisans do not have enough votes to win an election. They have to persuade an increasingly skeptical group of independents that what they say can be believed, and convince them that this time - they will follow through.

This is not an issue of purity, it is not an issue of Hillary, and it is not an issue of Republicans lining up behind the candidate that ultimately wins the GOP primary. It's an issue of the GOP understanding and accepting that it's failure to adhere to the basic principals it had promised to the American people cost it dearly - and will continue to cost it until it returns to those same principals.

If it doesn't - it will lose.

The rest of this is meaningless. The GOP cannot look like the Democrats and expect to win. This is what happened for much of the period from 1932 to 1980. Refuse to accept this - and the party will go back to the wilderness.

Conservatives understand this.


Eastlake Joe
Thank you for snapping me out of it. I will stop myself from feeding the trolls.

@proudZionist
you say: "There has been a strong effort to try to paint Ron Paul as a "looney lefty". The facts point to the exact opposite."

Right and wrong. I think most people know Paul is not a leftist. But he is a bit loony - did you see his performance at the Harball debate? He did himself no favors for those who judge candidates on their stature.

I am not going to just dismiss Paul out of hand but the reality is, he is NOT presidential material. He is a policy wonk who is perfectly suited for Congress. I applaud his principled stands. I applaud his conservative stands. But he is weak on key issues including our superpower responsibilities and the border.

He might be great in a Thompson or Hunter administration. But president? He hasn't got the temperament.

--Thompson/JC Watts in '08--

(with Hunter as SecDef)




Ron Paul does seem to be the best choice
There has been a strong effort to try to paint Ron Paul as a "looney lefty". The facts point to the exact opposite. His platform is perfect in terms of conservatism. Many people have began to falsley assosiate an interventionist, war starting, foreign policy with conservatism. This is not accurate. We do not have the money to continue fighting wars. Or currency is collapsing as we speak. People are taking the childish point of view, that pulling our troops from Iraq will be "humiliating". This is nonsense. What is humiliating will be to keep them there as our economy continues to collapse, and we become a 3rd world country, because a bunch of arm chair quarterbacks don't want to lose, as if this is a playground scuffle. I like Hunter, and Tancredo, too, but there in favor of endless war, and that is not conservative.

Shells
Quit trying to wake up hal D.bag as he's in libberland... they never wake up, except to tell us how great their Shrillery is.



HUNTER/TANCREDO "08"

Hal...Hal...Hal....
Hal : Well can it be worse than what has happened with the current incompetent in the White House?

You think Hillary can make it better?! What kind of an answer is this? This is why we have elections, to bring in a fresh person who will fix things to the best of their abilities.

Hal on us affording tax hikes: Actually most of you can unless you are making LOTS of money. Hmmm then you still can.

Umm, I can't. I am self sufficient and eeking by. I am not eligible for an Hillary Socialist Freebies because I am white, I have no children and I take care of myself. For this, I will be penalized. You believe other people can afford to be taxed like mad? Why should my hard earned money be stolen from me to buy off special interest groups liberals call Victims?

Hal on Freedom of Choice: You mean like now? Papers please every turn. Not free to travel everywhere. telephones, computers monitored, lists?

Hal, not free to travel anywhere? Last I checked I can go online and buy a plane ticket and get out of Dodge today. Oh, and as far as the Tinhat briggade believes, tell me, when was the last time the government checked your phone and computer? Face it, you're not that interesting. See, they're looking for the bad guys....Even though no one really likes you, you still don't fall under the category they are looking for.

Hal: Have you looked at Rudy?

Yes I have, he was never my 1st choice. But if he wins the primaries, I will get off my arse and vote because really....anything is better than a card carrying leftist socialist in office for 8 years.

@Michael
Cudos for the comments. We got Bush (as good as he has been on somethings we know he is not a conservative) because the RINOs told us that we had to vote for him or end up with Gore and the Kerry. As long as the Dems keep putting up these corrupt socialists for their nominee, I fear we will continue to hear the "vote for the RINO or end up with the corrupt Lenninist".

How about if we just ignore Rudy and all vote for Hunter or Thompson. I would much rather have the debate over which of these two guys are the better choice. Clearly Rudy is a disaster.

@Eastlake. The MSM is pushing Rudy for the reasons you mention. Why Hannity and a few others on our side are doing it, is a mystery to me.

Point your gun in another direction
I have tired of all these Republicans spending time and energy attempting to push social conservatives, through fear tactics into voting for Rudy.

Give us a break! Spend some of that energy getting Rudy out of the Republican party. He does not belong there. He's another Jesse Ventura, who had the good taste to realize his values did not line up with the GOP platform (because of his socially liberal views) and opted to be in the independent party.

Rudy Guilliani belongs in the Independent party.

Why are social conservatives even having to face voting for someone like Rudy? Thousands of social conservatives are being brow beat by fear by our own Republican allys to GET IN LINE or face the beast for 8 years.

We haven't changed! We still represent a large tent pole of the Republican party. It is not us who have shifted! It is not us who are leaving!

Question, if Rudy becomes the nominee, how many of the social platforms which have been a GOP standard bearer for years will have to altered to accomodate Rudy's liberal, social views?

ANSWER: ALL OF THEM!

You want a Republican in the White House in 08, then I suggest you do everything you can to ensure Rudy is not the Nominee, cause he's going to lose and lose big.

Beeblebrox
Did you ever consider the chance that there are people out there that are touting Rudy for the very fact that he can't beat Hellary? Also Ron Paul? Consider the FACT that over 78% of the population wanted something done about the illegal immigrants and When you see these two touted it becomes a little clearer. It comes down to the old divide and conquer type situation. If only 48% support Hellary but you divide the vote against into 3 candidates and what do you have?
Hal, did you answer those two questions yet?

HUNTER/TANCREDO "08"

wait a minute
did someone actually compair Ron Paul the smaller military man to Ronald Regan the man who almost single handedly defeated the Sovit union by building up our military.

I grow weary
of the Rudy supporters saying he is the GOP's only hope to beat Mrs. Lennin. THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE OF THIS!!!

I think I could make a pretty good case that the Rudy is a sure loser in the general election.

Him winning assumes that Dems will cross party lines in November in large enough numbers to make up for the loss of conservative voters who stay home on election day. Why would they do that? If even a tiny fraction of conservatives in Ohio or Florida who held their noses and voted for Bush last time around stay home, Mrs. Lennin wins going away. Can anyone argue otherwise?

Here is a suggestion for the more liberal Republicans who post here. Why don't YOU people vote for the conservative this time around rather than demanding, as you have for the last 16 years, that we fiscal/social conservatives vote for your RINO.

If every person who plans to vote for Rudy "because only he can beat Hillary", votes for Hunter or Thompson in the primaries, then we will have a Republican in the WH in '09, guaranteed.

If, OTOH, you blindly go and vote for the Hillary with a comb over, be prepared for super-majorites in congress and a Marxist in the WH for 4 years.



about ILLEGAL aliens
"In the fight against illegal immigration, the Democrats have tried to falsely portray conservatives as being anti-Hispanic and some conservatives have unwittingly helped them with careless immigration rhetoric."

Indeed, it is NOT anti-Hispanic to demand control of the border and enforcement of EXISTING laws. Hispanics were only 6% of the actual vote in 2006, BUT that will change markedly and irreversibly once the RINOS and the left legitimize ILLEGALS. About half of legal Hispanic Americans in Az. voted for several TOUGH new anti-ILLEGAL referenda issues in 2006 throughout Az. Furthermore, 72% of ALL Americans believe it is VERY important to regain control of the ILLEGAL invasion:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/imm igration_bill_failure_proves_rasmussen_s_first_law_of_polit ics

Unfortunately, only Meandering Mitt among the monied candidates SAYS he wants really to crack down. RINOS Sanctuary City Rudy and Sen. Juan McQuisling are simply giving lip service-- they LOVE their amigos. ILLEGALS will forever ruin America if not stanched soon because the Reconquista is effectively their agenda. Join the fight to stop them, and start barraging your people in Congress at their official contact sites here (bookmark them!):

http://www.numbersusa.com/index
http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/index.htm

America will be a TERRIBLE thing to lose!

Shells
"Do you know what absolute damage can occur to this country with 8 years of that shrew?!"

Well can it be worse than what has happened with the current incompetent in the White House? We were the world leader now we are just another world power. We were respected worldwide and admired now we are laughed at for incompetence and stupidity. Shall I go on?

"Can you afford 8 years of consistent tax hikes?"

Actually most of you can unless you are making LOTS of money. Hmmm then you still can.

"Do you want your paycheck whittled down to the nub to pay for every irresponsible human being that has two feet plant in this country?"

Now our paycheck is whittled down to pay for every big business friend of the Bushs. Blackwater anyone?

"Do you want your freedom of choice to be taken away from you, little by little, until you need to ask permission from the government on what toilet paper is best for your arse?"

You mean like now? Papers please every turn. Not free to travel everywhere. telephones, computers monitored, lists?

"Get real. Vote for the GoP you think is best to win the primaries, even if he isn't perfect. There are no child molesters, no closet homosexuals up on the stage trying to win our votes. We've got a handful of decent guys who want to win us over, so make your demands of them now. Don't just snicker, whine, be a troll and gripe about what you won't do. Do it!"

Have you looked closely at Rudy?

"I am taking mental notes of who is choosing to not vote against Hillary. And if she wins, and you happen to whine and snarl about how she's running the country, I will remind you each and every to that YOU made it happen."

Ohhhh wow the thought police LMAO why doesn't that surprize me

Look on the brightside
I must take issue with some of Hawkins' article.

Bush and Karl Rove ginned up this scheme to garner more hispanics into the GOP tent by trying to ram amnesty down the throats of the American people. I am not denying that Kennedy/McCain, most democrats, the GOP senate, and most elites are as guilty as are Rove and Bush on this issue. But that fact does not absolve THEIR guilt.

This "reaching out to new constituencies" kind of went over like a lead balloon with the base. So much for "solidifying the base"...though it did...in a negative and hostile way.

And just where are these great masses of "moderate" muslim GOP voters who embrace tolerance, respect for dissent(including the freedom to criticize the Prophet Mohammad(may Allah bless and protect Him)?

Maybe they got ensnared in a shariah web of Islamic law.

Bush's reckless and interventionist foreign policy, with its radical vision of transforming the mideast, is anything but conservative. It is more consistent with utopian, leftist schemes of Woodrow Wilson in his insistence of making the world safe for democracy.

GOP corruption in congress, earmarks, Abramoff, "bridge to nowhere", Foley, etc., did not necessarily result in an outpouring of support and creation of new voters for the GOP.

And of course the administration's record on spending is not noted for its adherence to traditional conservative fiscal policy.

But, hey, on the brightside, it is football season and I do have high def big screen television.


Let's Let Hillary Win?!
I've seen this comment before from many people who would rather lose the election to Hillary, simply because their GoP candidates aren't the mirror image of what they consider as perfection. They would rather have Hillary win so we conservatives after 8 years will get "really angry" and then out of the mud will bloom the Divine GoP Candidate to take over and lead us down the primrose path.

Snap out of it.

Do you know what absolute damage can occur to this country with 8 years of that shrew?! Can you afford 8 years of consistent tax hikes? Do you want your paycheck whittled down to the nub to pay for every irresponsible human being that has two feet plant in this country? Do you want your freedom of choice to be taken away from you, little by little, until you need to ask permission from the government on what toilet paper is best for your arse?

Get real. Vote for the GoP you think is best to win the primaries, even if he isn't perfect. There are no child molesters, no closet homosexuals up on the stage trying to win our votes. We've got a handful of decent guys who want to win us over, so make your demands of them now. Don't just snicker, whine, be a troll and gripe about what you won't do. Do it!

If it turns out someone else won the primaries, tell him what you want! Don't just sit at home and do nothing, as if being passive like this is also being aggressive, because it's not. Vote.

I am taking mental notes of who is choosing to not vote against Hillary. And if she wins, and you happen to whine and snarl about how she's running the country, I will remind you each and every to that YOU made it happen.

Sgt Relic
"George Bush is a moderate and I submit that he could never have been counted upon to veto the many pieces of bad legislation that the moderate controlled congress sent up."

OH, NO! He is pure fundamentalist conservative. I love watching you folks try and disown him but oh, no he is ALL yours.

Take Back the Government
"When you have a federal government that no longer represents your interests or your culture or your acceptable laws, customs, and mores, it's time to separate for good."

You tried that once. Want to again? There is zero doubt the results will be the same

Ron paul
What good is ron paul if he won't seal the borders? All the good intentions in the world won't do any good if the economy is ruined by a tidal wave of illegals!!


HUNTER/TANCREDO "08"

I just want the borders closed.
And the GOP-powers-that-be (FOXnews, Sean Hannity, the Bush Family, Will, Novak, the Beltway men, the WSJ, Murdoch, et al) DON'T!

Who do they NOT want to be the nominee-Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter. Shoot- now they're even pushin' CONSERVATIVE Huckabee on us. BECAUSE HE'S PRO-AMNESTY OPEN-BORDERS!

Folks, If we end up fightin' the same anti-amnesty battle again for the next four years-It'll be our own fault for listenin' to all the horsesh*t about Fred not bein' energetic enough! Or by lettin' the media IGNORE DUNCAN HUNTER.

Geez folks wake up- we don't want a President because he's fun at a party- we want him to DO WHAT'S BEST FOR AMERICA!

Git over thinkin' the POTUS (or First Lady) is gonna be your new best friend! I don't care if you think the candidates HAVE ENOUGH PERSONALITY!

Shoot- Grow Up will ya.
LOOK at the positions they've held (Guiliani was for McCain-Fiengold too) Decide what's REALLY IMPORTANT TO YOU. And git out there.

Funny
I saw my first Presidential poster today, actually two and to my surprise it was for Ron Paul. One in a place where they probably didn't have permission to have it, but that is done, for the most traffic. The other on the front yard down the road, I suspect it was the same people.

If I have it right, and I usually don't. Ron Paul is an isolationist. That is he thinks we should stay home put a pair of good blinders on and hope that a situation doesn’t develop to upset our serenity. A lot of people thought that about WWI and WWII but you have to do what you have to do. If the isolationist had there way back then, we would probably be speaking some combination of Japanese and German. The world is a harsh place and sometimes you just have to stand up and do what is right even if it isn’t comfortable.

If I am wrong, email me barrym@tds.net. I doubt I will check here again.

One More NEOCON Sell Out!
Lawmakers blast DHS for building border fence with Chinese steel

Bush avoids protecting our borders and when he finally does something he use steal from a sweatshop in CHINA. And Bush wonders why he could fit his supporters in a mini! Am I missing anything?

THEHILL-House members allied with the domestic steel industry blasted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Thursday for building a fence on the Mexican border with Chinese steel.

“This is outrageous, it’s offensive and it’s unacceptable,” charged Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.).

English displayed photos of a portion of the border fence from San Luis, Ariz., that shows pipes marked “China” holding the border fence in place. He said DHS’s Office of Congressional Affairs had indicated it had waived the so-called Buy American rules in order to use the Chinese pipe and tube. The rules normally require the use of U.S. steel in such projects.

The Office of Public Affairs referred questions to Customs Border Protection, which did not respond by press time.

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/lawmakers-blast-dh s-for-building-border-fence-with-chinese-steel

Conservatism Movement is fine...
it's the Republican Party that's in trouble. Hawkin's reasons seem reasonable enough, but I just don't understand why people confuse conservative movement with party.

Nice job as usual John
I am as guilty as anyone. I almost wrote a check for Thompson's campaign but something told me to wait, now I doubt I will even vote for him. I am guess this is natural in the politics as usual. The problem is we don't want politics as usual we want an ideology. We don’t want another Reagan as such, although that would be nice. But beyond the myth, Reagan came to office because he had such strong beliefs and tried very hard to make policy from his ideology. But the truth is that no POTUS can get it all done in 8 years and what they do get done is with compromise. I suspect it would take 50 years of good conservative government to fix all the things that most of us think is broken.

The question is do we have that kind of time, probably not, so we had better get our act together and at least get the important ones addressed. What we seem to have are people that think it would be very cool to be POTUS, a job you couldn’t pay me enough money to fill. For better or worse although you can’t convince Rush that Hillary will be the actually Nominee, they sure have a strong front runner and people of that ideology are sure pulling their wallets and checkbooks out. I suspect if we had a very strong front runner, meaning I guess a true conservative ideologue the stashes of money would be more equal. For all his imperfections Thompson has done well over the last month in fundraising in Texas, which I consider for better or worse a Southern state, any Republican candidate will have to carry the south. Which bodes well for his candidacy, I guess he would be better than nothing if elected. I don’t think he will have the energy necessary to win a hard fought campaign, right now I am thinking his nomination would be a mistake. A little bit of advice for Thompson do a little studying and loose the kids.

There is a sea of comments here, so if you want to talk email barrym@tds.net
You may find my last blog post interesting, maybe even a little controversial.

Ron Paul is right
As was Ben Franklin,

One must never give up liberty for the sake of security.

You forget that the Airport is a private institution not public. Sure in essence it may have some public funding, but it is private in nature. You have to admit if Pilots were allowed to have guns, and be trained to use those guns in self defense, 9/11 may have never happened. Sure I'll give up liberty to fly on somebody else's plane, but I'll be damned if I'm put in some damn free speech zone!

It is your liberty that provides you with security, never forget that! That is what America and the 2nd amendment is all about!

Oh and Ron Paul is still the last real republican running with a chance at winning.

How strange can you be?
for pushing Ron Paul to the table?

Well, I know there are always many strange people out there.

But this one is just too much:

Ron Paul's dictum is that you must never surrender liberty a bit for security.

Ok...if he and his supporters have their way, that means there would be no tight security at the airports.

When you worship liberty, you basically have no liberty.

But well, even the most naive politician like Kucinich has many supporters.

There you go. American voters. Perhaps they are not as smart as people may think.




The Consequences of Staying the Course
The corruption of DC is too far gone; only drastic efforts such as Secession can bring respectability to American government again. We must start anew and clean the slate. The next time around we have to create a Constitution that is modernized that addresses Special Interests, Corporate America, the abuses of lawyers, and the funding of campaigns. We are closer to Socialism and our own annihilation than we realize. The Lord God said in the Bible, "I am as far from evil as the East is from the West." Jesus said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." We are living in that house right now, America; it's time for a national divorce to guarantee our survival and to retain the Lord's blessing on our land. The polluted morality and treasonous politics of the Northeast, the Upper Midwest, and the West Coast is putting us in grave peril in these trying times.

DC: a Perpetual Llawyers' Welfare State
Conservative Americans have no one and no party to believe in. The GOP has embraced Northeastern Beltway values and abandoned conservatism altogether by their behavior. In Georgia, we were utterly SHOCKED that our 2 Senators were compromising on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION with TEDDY KENNEDY. We just about ran these guys out of town - booing them everywhere they went. THEY KNEW THE WRATH OF GEORGIANS! We were not amused, but at the same time, we knew that a SERIOUS DISCONNECT is occurring with the GOP and the People back home. These guys are BOUGHT OFF by Corporate America, just like the DEMS. THE PEOPLE REALLY HAVE NO DOG IN THE FIGHT ANYMORE. The entire process of getting elected is rigged from the get-go to be only possible with Big Money Corporate bucks. The little man campaign contributions can never compete with Corporate big bucks, so as usual, Corporate America gets to select the candidates we vote for - not WE THE PEOPLE! That's exactly why we've got 2 New Yorkers that are winning the popularity contest -Corporate Access!!! The corrupt politicians in both parties long ago biased campaigns toward incumbency by giving special taxpayer funds for INCUMBENTS - another fast one pulled overthe People's eyes by the corrupt lawyers we continue to elect to represent us. These lawyers are mostly just looking for the world's best retirement plan - a nice government retirement pension; it's really that simple! DC has become a PERPETUAL welfare system for LAWYERS in BOTH PARTIES; that's the hidden secret that is wellkept from the American People. Where else, too, can a lawyer jsut go ahead and vote himself a raise after ripping off the American taxpayers?

I hate to say it, but...
... I am going to vote for the conservative. I like Giuliani. He's not really a conservative, but he's also not a socialist, so he is definately the lesser of two evils.

I find Romney to slick for my tastes, but he is a successful businessman, that counts for a lot. He did good in his home state as govenor. That counts too.

I really dispise Mccain, but he has no chance anyway.

I prefer Thompson, Hunter and some of the other second tier guys. Do they have a chance, I don't know. Heck, even the libertarian Ron Paul isn't that bad.

In the primaries I'll vote my preference. In the general election I'll vote republican. I hope everyone else follows suit. Let's face it, Hillary is going to be the dims nominee. More than likely she will choose Obama as her running mate. Those two socialist will crush all hope and goodness and light for the years they are in office. Even if it is only one term, they can do a lot of damage in four years. Also, we all know that once a government program is started, no matter how useless, costly and damaging it may be to the country, it will never be stopped. If we let Hillary begin to socailize healthcare or let Obama start some kind of illegal alien help society, we're stuck with it forever.

Having the moral high ground is well and good, staying true to your beliefs is a grand idea, but in the long run, you can't eat your moral high ground or pay your bills with your pure and untainted beliefs.

Liberal, Northeastern Family Values
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE know there is a disconnect between the heartland and DC because they do not relate to Northeastern family values like ABORTION ON DEMAND, GAY MARRIAGE, and ACLU lawsuits(by mostly paranoid, Liberal-Beyond-Human-Comprehension, Jewish lawyers) against anything related to Almighty God - especially anything CHRISTIAN. We long for the day when the politicians in Red State legislatures wake up and pass Articles of Secession against the apostate government in DC which has abandoned its duty to protect the American People by securing our borders. The conservative State legislatures all across America have wisely passed laws to challenge the federal governments TREASONOUS disregard of our protection, but even this will not be enough. It is unconscionable that many of us actually believe we can remain in this untenable situation which is threatening to thrust Socialism upon the American People and put us in grave danger of nuclear attack from Iran and emboldened terrorists who easily recognize a divided nation when they turn on al Jazeera. We are convincing ourselves that we are relaxed and comfortable with a black mamba hiding in the room waiting to strike us with its lethal blow.

The Hopelessness of Remaining in DC
The GOP is a part of the Northeastern Beltway Establishment. How else can you explain Romney and Guiliani, two Northeastern, floppy, waffling politicians, taking the forefront in donations???The system of government in DC is too far gone with corruption to be reclaimed. It doesn't matter if the GOP takes both Houses of Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme Court; they still will get nothing done in DC without legions upon legions upon legions of Liberals in the numerous bureaucracies and Departments like the CIA and the State Department that are overrun with Northeastern Ivy League graduates who actually MAJOR in government. DC has become nothing but a JOB BANK for Liberal Ivy League lawyers. They are typically Ivy League frat boys and sorority girls who have friends in high places in DC bureaucracies that help them keep Liberalism alive and well into perpetuity. The NYC media in cooperation with the big money of Wall Street(Corporate America) is shaping this election to get the two candidates both of them desire for the Presidency: 2 New Yorkers - Giuliani and Clinton. Why do we believe we can get the Conservative message out when the mouthpiece for America is in NYC, where the media is consistently 89% Liberal; the town itself is 80% Liberal. This is mindless insanity to think you can ever get a fair handshake in such an environment.

Secession is America's Only Hope
It is the only solution to the social and political pollution. We have become two nations: Red State America and Blue State America - the saved and the damned - good and evil - pro-God and anti-God - Capitalist and Socialist. It is long past time for a national divorce when America cannot even defend herself without half of the nation opposing America herself. This is suicidal insanity to remain in this shattered marriage. It is time for a national divorce. Thomas Jefferson once addressed Secession early on in his career and believed that every state had the right to self-determination and independence if they so desired. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE IN THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION WHERE SECESSION IS NOT ALLOWED. IT IS AN IMPLIED RIGHT OF EVERY STATE IN THE UNION. When you have a federal government that no longer represents your interests or your culture or your acceptable laws, customs, and mores, it's time to separate for good.

jtb-in-texas

"I would rather the Republicans lost and the country grew angry and wanted a change than we elect more RINOs, more leftists in elephant suits..."

I do understand where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. I just can't buy the "well, let's just let things REALLY go to he!l so everyone can see how bad it can get."

Yes, Rudy's vision IS better than Hillary's. Yes, Rudy is pro-choice, but unless he is lying, he would appoint constructionists to the SCOTUS. This is a good thing. Imagine who Hillary would appoint.

No, Rudy did not respect the 2nd Amendment rights of New Yorkers, but unless he's lying, he would not try to degrade them for the citizens of the nation as a whole. Hillary, on the other hand would join hands with the likes of Rebecca Peters (google her) and take a big squat over the 2nd Amendment.

I have no doubt that Rudy will fight terrorists, his deficiencies on the borders notwithstanding. But Hillary? The most she will do is issue subpoenas, if that.

Fight for your choice for the Republican nomination. But if Rudy gets it, it would be immoral for you to stay home on election night.

Rudy's not my top choice, but if he gets the nod, I WILL go to the polls and vote for him over Hillary. As has been aptly pointed out here, I do not intend to cut off my nose to spite my face.

Just my $0.02


The Liberal Movement
We've voted for a republican president and a republican house and senate. In return, we got big government packaged as "compassionate" conservatism, sexual deviants, unmitigated corruption, open borders and proposals for amnesty, and political correctness in the face of Islamic violence and hatred. Gee, what could possibly be wrong with the conservative movement?

"Practicality vs. Purity". Yeah. Right.
So I guess voting straight "R" and getting pedophiles like Mark Foley is a "necessary evil". After all, wide-stanced toe-tappers like Larry Craig haven't hurt anyone, eh? And just because Ted Stevens is a crook is no reason to kick him to the curb--because the Democrats have crooks, too? And what about Tom Delay? How many seats in Congress and various state legislatures did we lose because of his misdeeds?

When we look at Rudy Giuliani, we're supposed to think his version of federally funded healthcare, abortions, embryonic stem cell research, his version of gun-control, his version of amnesty for illegals is somehow better than Hillary Clinton's versions of the same?

I would rather the Republicans lost and the country grew angry and wanted a change than we elect more RINOs, more leftists in elephant suits...

We need to show a clear choice. Being the majority party is not worth losing our values. And if you think otherwise, may I just ask two questions?

What's the status of illegal immigration? And why, even after 9/11, hasn't the problem been given more than lip service?

How to treat American Muslims
"some conservatives have started talking about all Muslims as if they're the enemy"

All Muslims aren't necessarily the enemy.

But all Muslims are to be treated with suspicion until we have proof of their peacefulness and loyalty.

Because:
No Muslim sect--not the Shia, not the Sunni, not even the Sufi--has ever formally renounced armed violent jihad as a means of advancing their religion.
That's a problem.

Around these parts, I'm known as a Rudy supporter, a social moderate, live-and-let-live, on issues like abortion and stuff.

But my live-and-let-live attitude doesn't extend to Muslims. Not with their track record.

There are more than eight problems
Fat white guys are a huge part of the problem. Who wants to fight for them or defend their rights when the only muscles they have left in their body type crap and talk poop. Is this how they got fat in the first place? Fat people's opinions are too many. It's like watching Jabba the Hut whine. If America's best hope is fat white guys, Lord help us. Maybe god is a fat white guy. True Conservatives have always traditionally been lean and mean. That all ended with Taft. Taft ushered in the Hawkins style Conservative, the neo-con also know as the Robber Baron. The fatass that sits around acting tough and hiding behind the first amendment when it comes to backing up their smartassed opinions about what's wrong with their movement.
Their bowels is what's wrong with their movement. They have the same stuff coming out both ends of their alimentary canal. They lost their base because they can't see their feet and if they could they'd see why they stink so bad.
They are wading in their own legacy.
I have a little sympathy for them, it must be hard to eat an entire cow in one sitting, I couldn't do it, so I gotta hand it to them in that respect.

Hawkins covers much ground...
...in this short space. Its hard to find any fault in what he says. Recognition and Pursuit of specific voting blocks. It seem so obvious but not one of the GOP candidates seems to get it. Which means that Hillary will waltz right into the White House w/43% of the vote. Just like Bill. The GOP will put her there.
The GOP is on a "Lisa Nowak" style course of self-destruction. Complete w/adult diapers. As I observe it I'm awed and fascinated. How could so many brilliant people make so many stupid moves.

Way to go Hawk. Keep up the pressure. Glad you're on our side. Or do we have a side anymore? DD

and they all involve "stupidity"!
Are there eight ways to be stupid? Seems so.