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, November 14, 2008
John Hawkins :: Townhall.com Columnist
Fifteen Questions For People Who Say the GOP Should Become More Moderate
by John Hawkins
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



After a second crushing defeat in a row, it's not surprising that there is a debate in the GOP about whether the party should move to the right or even further towards center.

Like many conservatives, I'm of the opinion that we should move back to the right and try to formulate some new ideas and messaging using conservative principles. However, some people disagree. For the people who do, I have some pertinent questions for which no convincing answers have yet been offered.

If you're going to argue that the party needs to move even further away from conservatism, especially on issues like fiscal conservatism and illegal immigration, I'd suggest that these are questions that need to be answered first.

#1) If both the GOP and the Democrats support bigger government, how does the country survive long term given the size of the debt we already have and the deficits we're running right now? In other words, how can running massive deficits possibly be sustainable over the long haul?

#2) If the GOP were to officially become a big government party, wouldn't there be a real danger of having a large third party spring up that would represent the considerable number (I'd say a majority, at least in the abstract) of Americans who do want smaller government and less spending?

#3) If the GOP becomes a big government party, how do you see us differentiating ourselves from the Democratic Party? Do we spend almost as much as they do, but not quite as much? Do we spend even more? Do we favor deficit spending, but just on different things? Isn't there a real danger that Democrats -- since their base tends to generally be OK with excessive spending -- could simply outbid us on anything we offered to the American people?

#4) Since the majority of the GOP's core supporters don't agree with "moderate" positions like big spending or amnesty, feel very strongly about it, and feel those positions harm the party politically, how can the party continue to hew to those positions over the long term without being permanently at odds with the people who should be their strongest supporters?

#5) Let's do the math on amnesty: there are roughly 12-20 million illegal immigrants, most of whom are Hispanics. Hispanics broke 70/30 for the Democrats in 2006 and 69/31 for the Dems in 2008 according to the latest exit poll data. If the split stayed at 70/30 and 12-20 million new illegals were made citizens, that would mean the Democrats would add another 4.8 to 8 million potential new voters as a result of amnesty. The top end of that scale is a larger margin than what Barack Obama won by in 2008.

Additionally, even if the GOP improved our numbers with Hispanics -- which we certainly need to do -- we've never come close to getting 50% of the Hispanic vote. With all that in mind, isn't amnesty political suicide for the GOP?

#6) Some people tend to assume that Hispanics vote almost entirely on the illegal immigration issue, but I would assert that there is very little objective evidence for that. George Bush and John McCain are the two biggest proponents of amnesty in the Republican Party and neither of them is particularly popular with Hispanics today. In fact, according to exit polls, against a candidate who was thought to be weak with Hispanics, John McCain only got 31% of the Hispanic vote. So, what objective evidence convinces you that Hispanics vote largely on illegal immigration and that if the GOP supports amnesty, it will get us over the 50% threshold with Hispanics?

#7) Given that the mainstream media overwhelmingly supports the Democrats, it's extremely important for the GOP to have the support of conservative talk radio hosts, magazines, and the RightRoots. Since the new media is overwhelmingly comprised of conservatives, how does a moderate GOP gain their genuine support over the long haul?

#8) Follow-up question to #7: If the GOP can't get the new media back enthusiastically on its side -- which is likely to be the case unless there are changes on spending and illegal immigration policies -- how does the GOP get the base fired up? In other words, if Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, etc., etc., are telling everyone who'll listen that the Republicans stink, how does the Republican Party work around that?

#9) Setting aside the conservative media, obviously the conservative movement is lacking energy and passion right now. Many people, myself included, would say that this has a lot to do with the position that the GOP has been taking on immigration and spending issues. How does the GOP get conservatives supporting the GOP again, instead of just opposing the Democrats, if the party continues to pursue big government policies and amnesty?

#10) If amnesty, big government, and deficit spending are winning issues for the Republican Party, why did we take such a huge beating in 2006 and 2008 despite pursuing those very policies?

#11) Over the last two elections, moderate Republicans haven't quite been wiped out, but percentage wise, they've suffered much higher losses than conservative Republicans. If moderate Republicans can't even win elections in moderate districts now, why would we want to adopt that losing philosophy across our whole party when conservatives are winning at a much, much higher clip across the country?

#12) As moderate columnist David Brooks has said,

There is not yet an effective Republican Leadership Council to nurture modernizing conservative ideas. There is no moderate Club for Growth, supporting centrist Republicans. The Public Interest, which used to publish an array of public policy ideas, has closed. Reformist Republican donors don't seem to exist. Any publication or think tank that headed in an explicitly reformist direction would be pummeled by its financial backers. National candidates who begin with reformist records -- Giuliani, Romney or McCain -- immediately tack right to be acceptable to the power base.

So, there are no moderate think tanks, no moderate donors, the new media is overwhelmingly conservative, the Republican base and activists are overwhelmingly conservative -- shouldn't that tell people something about whether the idea of a moderate GOP is workable?

#13) Follow-up question to #12: If a moderate Republican Party is workable, how do you make it work without the new media, think tanks, money, or an excited base on your side?

#14) John McCain was the most moderate candidate the GOP has run since Richard Nixon. In fact, he's the standard bearer of the "moderate Republican" wing of the party and yet the media trashed him, he had trouble raising money -- and other moderates, including prominent moderate Republicans like Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley, voted for Obama. In the end, McCain received almost 4 million less votes than Bush did in 2006. Doesn't that suggest that moderate Republican candidates may have trouble raising money, retaining moderates, and generating the enthusiasm from the Republican base that will be needed to win?

#15) When the Democratic Party was out of power, the party moved to the left, not to the center. They obstructed the GOP at every opportunity, put hard-core left-wingers in charge of everything, and ran an extremely liberal candidate in 2008. Granted, they also had moderate Democrats that they ran in states and districts that leaned red, but those people are almost completely locked out of power and their agenda is largely ignored. Since that strategy worked so well for the Democrats, doesn't it make more sense for the GOP to pursue the same strategy instead of continuing the move to the center that has done so much damage to the party over the last two elections?

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.
Great idea
McCain lost because he gave up his moderate roots and moved right. Republican moderates lost because their districts moved left and Democrats ran moderate candidates. Overall, Republicans lost Congress because they weren't acting like Republicans, and because of perceived corruption.

So go for it, give the Dems a permanent majority by moving further right.

Demand Obama PROVE US born citizenship
Act NOW: Demand Obama PROVE He's A US Natural Born Citizen!

Isn't arguing about "Obama's horrendous policies and cabinet picks" a little PREMATURE & PRESUMPTUOUS?

He's simply NOT QUALIFIED to be president because he is not a natural US born citizen; and if the GOP were SMART they'd focus on this and ONLY THIS NOW UNTIL IT IS RESOLVED LEGITIMATELY!

worldnetdaily.com — Subject: the time for CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS is NOW This may be the most important thing we can do in the next four years. Fight for freedom while we still have it. Please spread this message far and wide. Paste links below on TownHall.com, GretaWire, and anywhere else you visit while blogging. Contact radio & TV stations... And remember, David WON and Goliath LOST.

Get the latest updates on the Obama fake birth certificate cases:
http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/%E2%80%A2-la test-update-on-obama-birth-certificate-case/

View Obama’s fake birth certificate:
http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/obama-proof-he-was-born -in-kenya-fake-birth-certificate/

Moderates are Cowards
Who wait until the wind blows in their favor, and move that way... I have NO USE for a moderate, it really means a lib with no stones. There are only two sides to an issue, not a "middle" side.

pro - Succumbing to despair...
--
...ain't gonna help.

While I don't dispute the truth in any of your three observations (above), there's nothing that implies solutions.

Consider how "The left has demonstrated they will lie, cheat, steal, intimidate or threaten to win an election."

Does that imply that those of us opposing "The left" should do the same?

Nah.

Think about it this way.

National Socialists like the Mocha Messiah, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Hillary "America's Ex-Wife" Clinton, and Charlie Schumer all have had to run for election to keep their Senate and House seats.

Ever look at the Republican Party candidates put up against 'em?

At best, the "challenges" faced by these festering incumbents are posed by moderate Republicans, some of them no more genuine candidates than the people nominated by the Libertarian Party.

People like Hillary and Dodd and Frank manage to avoid confronting their festering rottenness on the floors of the House and the Senate, and the MSM (also known as the National Socialist Press Agency) will not allow these pampered bastiches to be hit with any sort of genuinely radical opposition.

So what happens if the GOP drops its "gentlemanly" facade and starts putting up real attack-dog candidates who will go after these screaming socialists on their home turf?

Quit trying to "realistically" defeat them, and instead go over to pure, uncompromising, "Goddamn you!" assault on every point in which these people are doing damage to the nation as a whole.

Enough vehemence and the MSM will *have* to report on these attacks.

The soundbites can be made irresistable.

And the MSM exists primarily to sell commercial airtime.

Controversy sells. Let's get *REALLY* controversial.

--

3 reasons why the country will.....
..decay starting with obama's rule.

1. The left has demonstrated they will lie, cheat, steal, intimidate or threaten to win an election. The msm hasn't called them on any of their outrageous behaviors in this latest one so they now know they have a free ride for future pathological expression.

2. Blanket amnesty for tens of millions of illegals who don't have a problem with parasitic living will be loyal to the left from cradle to grave. This will cinch future elections for the Dems.

3. The kool-aid drinkers who vote Dem truly believe that money from the government will be plentiful and never ending. Just throw the laws of economics out the window when talking with them. They truly believe in government "from whom all blessings flow".

The damage may be permanent.


Answering the questions (5 of 5)
- More -

Given that perception (largely correct), there is no emotional appeal *TO* Hispanics in the Republican messaging.

No "Welcome!" Just a "We need these dumb animals to do our donkey work."

Hell, no wonder they're identifying their political benefit with a party symbolized by a burro.

What is going on in Mexico that we can explictly identify with the National Socialist Party's policies here in America?

We need to draw parallels between the horrors that the Chilangos have inflicted upon their countrymen ("Haz patria - mata un Chilango!" is painted on overpasses and walls throughout the nation outside of lo Distrito Federale, especially in the northern tier of Mexican states) and what the Democrat Party is trying to do here in los Estados Unidos.

To draw the Hispanics to a party dediated to the defense of individual rights and the freedoms they were denied in Mexico and the rest of Central and South America, we need to understand them better.

Can we do this?


6) See above. Remember that the Republican Party *ORIGINATED* as a coalition that included the rabidly nativist American Party - better known as the "Know-Nothings" because of their secretism. (When a member was asked about its activities, he or she was supposed to reply, "I know nothing.")

They were a natural fit for the Republican Party of the 1850s.

They're baggage that today's GOP simply cannot afford.

- 30 (for now) -

Answering the questions (4 of 5)
- More -

Other areas in which the GOP can - and should - be driven to radical positions in order to contrast itself against the National Socialist Party *and* succeed in energizing a true America conservative political base can be found in the advocacy positions of Rep. Ron Paul, the 2008 platform of the Constitution Party, and similar sources.


5) On the subject of amnesty, has *ANYBODY* in the Republican Party looked at (or thought about) what these millions of border-crossing spics are "voting with their feet" *AGAINST*?

Note that we share a much longer (and far more porous) border with Canada, and we have precisely *NO* problem with a floodtide of these mock-European socialists sneaking into these United States.

Something in Mexico and points south is so godawful that these swarthy aliens are pulling up roots and running to El Norte even if they know they have to live in constant dread of La Migra's knock in the night, working at filthy, rotten, backbreaking, mind-numbing jobs Americans won't deign to take, and living in below-poverty-level conditions.

What the hell are they running from?

Answering this question - both analytically and in political messaging - can give the GOP the key to this growing portion of the American electorate.

The National Socialist Party's *default* appeal (which is no genuine appeal at all) to the Hispanic minority is simply that the Republicans are established as the "nativist" party of rabid xenophobes.

Even when amnesty measures are proposed by GOP leaders like Dubbya and Crash Test Johnnie, they're perceived more as means whereby their corporate "fat cat" donors can secure more cheap labor.

- More -

Answering the questions (3 of 5)
- More -

Almost certainly because the present leadership of the GOP sees its corporate controllers *BENEFITTING* from the Kelo v New London status quo.

Again, we have to get beyond this fundamentally and shamelessly corrupt dereliction of duty on the part of the Republican "fat cat" party leadership.

In this and in manifold other ways, the GOP is correctly perceived as the *ENEMY* of the average citizen and his right to go unmolested by civil government in his life, his liberty, and his property.

Here is not only an opportunity missed but a glaring example of where the average Republican should be utterly ashamed of his party.

Other ways in which the GOP can and should become more explicitly radical in defense of the U.S. Constitutin - especially the Bill of Rights - is opposition to "gun control."

The firm and uncompromising support of the private citizen's right to keep and bear arms - including "Saturday Night Specials" and sawed-off shotguns and every other kind of firearm suited for use in both personal self-defense and violent resistance against government tyranny - would differentiate the Republicans from the National Socialists like no other measure.

Remember that the earliest "Radical Republicans" in the years following negro emancipation in the South worked explicitly and successfully in support of the right of these freed slaves to own and use the firearms necessary for their own self-protection.

If the present Republican Party leadership can't see sense in the restoration of that policy - in the vehement protection of the Second Amendment not as a matter of allowing NRA members to keep their hunting rifles and skeet guns but as a means whereby the average American should remain an armed and dangerous citizen who is not to be lightly trifled with - then I suggest that we drag them out behind the Watergate and shoot them to death by musketry.

- More -

Answering the questions (2 of 5)
- More -

Although "third party" efforts are helpful in keeping up discussion of new ideas and in the recruitment of American conservative (read: "libertarian") political activists, they cannot provide a path to real power in government.

For this, we need to get into the Republican Party, purge it of "Rockefeller Republicans," and change it from what Clyde Wilson has aptly characterized as our nation's "court party" into a genuinely American conservative political vehicle.

We need to get in there and kill off Christie Todd Whitman. Drive them out, bump them off, shove them out the airlock, boil them in oil, fry them in their own fat, ring the bell, close the book, snuff out the candle.

They gotta go.


3) We don't. We can't "out-Democrat" the National Socialist Party. Trying to do so is suicidal.


4) It can't. The Republican Party needs to quite "moderation" and look at ways to become more explicitly, vehemently radical without succumbing to the religious right.

Think of what the National Socialist Party has abandoned, and where it actually gives offense to the average American in ways that raise the hackles and hatreds of Americans who do *NOT* consciously identify themselves as conservative.

Kelo v. New London is a *GREAT* example. The preservation of the average citizen's right to private property was *raped* in that SCOTUS decision. In this and in the rest of our governments' aggressive violations of private property rights - look to the "Takings" movement - we have an opportunity to engage genuine grass-roots rage at the National Socialist Party.

Why hasn't the GOP leadership fixed upon this?

- More -

Answering the questions (1 of 5)
--
Okay, let's get back to Mr. Hawkins article itself.

1) Without a genuine political alternative to socialism, the nation *DOESN'T* survive. Remember Goldwater's disgusted description of the Eisenhower Administration's "Dime Store New Deal" in the '50s.

Call them "moderates" or "Liberals" or "Rockefeller Republicans," a GOP leadership bent upon policies and practices that can only be described as "socialist lite" is both a disaster for the nation and a completely non-viable political option.

The Democrats can always "out-socialist" anybody else. That's why they've become America's own National Socialist Party.

There is no purpose in appealing to the core Democrat constituencies. Anyone willing to vote into office scumbuckets like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton is by definition *DEAD* to any appeal made to reason, morality, patriotism, or common sense.

Trying to get these people to vote for conservatism is like trying to revive the mummy of King Tutankhamun.

Ain't gonna happen.


2) No. The way the federal and state governments work - on a "spoils system" that treats every election "as a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods" - there is no possibility of a genuine counterweight arising against the functionally unified "bipartisan" Boot On Your Neck Party under which we presently suffer.

As McCain-Feingold proved in 2002, the National Socialists and the Nominally Republican incumbents unite consistently in the suppression of insurgents from within and without their own parties.

It is their incumbency - and the power, perquisites, and pork they can gain thereby - that truly animates the "collegial" spirit in Congress and in the rest of the federal government.

- More -

what would happen if...?
Several people, all of whom have now probably drawn the attention of the Secret Service, have asked about events subsequent to the death or determination of ineligibility of a president-elect. The answers given have, for the most part, been inaccurate.

I won't belabor them here, but instead refer you to one of the premier websites for presidential election history, presidentelect.org, which contains, among a host of other things, the article linked below. Though the subject of the article revolves around the death of a president-elect, the same rules can be expected to be applied should a president-elect be ruled ineligible as a result of his Kenyan birth. Enjoy.

http://presidentelect.org/art_deathpresidentelect.html

By the way, when you get to the various Electoral scenarios outlined toward the end of the article, bear in mind that there are none this year that will result in anything other than a Democrat being elected president.


===

The Answer.....
Only my opinion, but the Republican Party should go hard conservative on fiscal and foreign matters, and let people live their own lives by going Libertarian on social issues. I left the Republican party 22 years ago because of Falwell and his ilk telling Americans how they should think and live. It was also hard to support a party that promises smaller government, when in my 44 years of life, I've never seen a Republican reduce the size of government one iota. (I was extremely proud of Reagan though when he told the air traffic controllers to go pound salt up their as@#s.) Bush doubled the size of the gov. in eight years as well as doubling the size of government( I will allow for some of that with what was needed to be done after 9/11). He tripled educational spending while leaving teachers' unions in place. And I supported the guy twice!!!(Better of two evils both times with ManBearPig and FrankenKerry)As Neal Boortz wrote in one of his books, "50% of the nation is Libertarian and don't know it."(Maybe I'm paraphrasing???")Tap into the Libertarian thing, push the FairTax(death of the IRS), and remain hawkish on National issues, along with being real on the economy, and maybe I'd come back home. It's a drag not being able to vote in the primaries as an independent. My two cents.

Gestell MA, Nov 15, 2008 - 8:53 PM EST

OK, if I understand what you are saying, we will have big government as long as we can afford it.

It would seem logical then that all we have to do to get government smaller and more controllable is for the People to stop paying taxes and for the governments (federal and state) to declare Chapter 11 and then renegotiate their contracts with the People.

On a smaller scale, the airlines have done this, and it seemed to work well for them.


Moderates
They don't inspire.

gestell.....you are right!
your comments about conservatives and big gvmnt.
unfortunately are probably accurate!
I was thinkong the other day....almost on the same thing that you quoted! People will not
stand for a cut even if the item is better for the nation! But when the storm hits hard enough
all this stuff you and are saying will flush down the toilet! You are going to see real soon what I mean! When a person HAS TO SACRIFICE
THEY WILL OR DIE! Now this statement is going to make a lot of people mad..but it is true!
Having a righteous king with local authorities
to represent our feelings to take to the king
I SAID A RIGHTEOUS KING(better?). We have a democratic republic which has taken us a long way ...but now with the illegals and all the people will vote themselves pork ,pork,etc! Out of control population is somtimes a disaster ! Hitler was voted in by the germans! After all it is a lot easier to eliminate a bad king...lot of guns in this land, but to elimainate all of congress is a much tougher chore!
elvis

No option except big government
Time for another lesson from Political Realism 101: Conservatives/Republicans who fantasize about a "small government" party are perfectly free to do so--but they insure that they will neither get nor hold onto national public office. Realistically, there is no option for a major party except to be a "big government" party. The reason for this is simple, but both leftist and rightist ideological dreamers never get it. Elected officials who want their paty to get into and stay in public office need to provide benefits to their supporters. Some of these benefits are material, others are not. Action on some favored policy preference can be a benefit. The basic relationship is this: constituents/supporters (individuals, organizations, businesses, unions, etc.) exchange support for benefits. If they lik the benefits, they will want to keep the party in office. This process explains why "big government" is necessary for either the left or the right. What differs between the two is the composition of the constituent/supporters.

"Small government" as a battle-cry is itself simply an ideological cover; it sounds attractive to people who know little about the real world of politics and government. It can be wrapped up in a pretty rhetorical package, but at the end of the day, only 'big government' conservatism can work for the right.

The quickest way for conservatives/Republicans to marginalize themselves is to become truly a party of "small government." Voters only SAY they want small government; they will not stand for any program that benefits THEM to be cut. Cuts are for the other guy. This is human nature, and understanding it is the beginning of political realism.

liberal Repubs.
I'm reserving comment till after rhe first book burnins start.

aniko
and - if the republican party "just gives up" the first three months of a child's life - they will give up a lot more

There are a lot of people who are not Christian, but are prolife
If the republican party actually took a stand and did something it would awaken consciences

WHY DID OBAMA HAVE TO BE PRESENTED AS MORE PROLIFE THAN JOHN MCCAIN BY MISLEADING WEBSITES? I don't mean that loudly, just for emphasis

anjko
the culture of abortion is pretty darn ugly




elvis CA, Nov 15, 2008 - 11:33 AM EST

I can't add to what you have said. Good points.

Re: Moderation...
If the Republican Party just gives up on reversing Roe v. Wade, instead amend it to abolish abortion after the first trimester, I guarantee you that a lot more voters will become Republican leaning. The fiscal conservatism has to be spelled out better so it will make sense even to the mathematically challenged fundamentalists! The war against jhadism being waged in Iraq rather than Afghanistan is another concept that has to be justified comprehensibly. This nation has to be more educated about the entire history of Marxism and Communism: how it came about, what brought it on and how it stayed in power for 70 years in the USSR and 40+ years in the satellite countries. If the American voter does not understand the vigilance needed to keep Marxist ideology at bay, we will end up as the newest Communist dictatorship in the Western hemisphere.
I am happy that you write your columns, but you and the other conservative pundits are merely preaching to the choir.
Sarah Palin, God bless her, is way out to the right for the social conservatism idea, and she is living proof that it is possible to live your faith. But not every woman has a husband, family, and friends like hers, and many women, if not most, are frightened by her relentless advocacy of "no abortion" even in cases of incest, rape, or retarded offspring. Medical technology allows us to exercise our God given free will more than ever. No man, woman, government, or religious institution should interfere with that freedom of making choices for our own, and our family’s welfare.

take back gvmnt.----
Your commrnts are good but what really
amazes me is the concept that Reagan was a strictly coservative person !
I really liked the man and have 3 books about him..he was great but the matter of fact is
the extreme conservatives often criticized
him! He was once a pro lifer, and was involved in tax hikes during his political career! But
....here is the key,he was conservative enough!
elvis

You Can't Unsink a Sinking Ship
The GOP is utterly clueless. Even if they happen to put some real Conservatives in their leadership what does that do to the Moderates who are still in the GOP in the Congress and Senate in very large numbers???? THEY ARE STILL THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It doesn't change oneMN thing! 27 GOP Senators, the majority within the GOP supported Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac bailout. 19 GOP Senators supported the 830 billion dollar Wall Street bailout. FOLKS, THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE. The GOP IS a Moderate party. DC itself is a heavily Democratic city. Democrats are in every echelon of government bureaucracy from the top on down. If we had elected an ultra-Conservative like Jesse Helms, we still would have to deal with Democratic Party Socialist Bureaucracy to get anything enforced or done. That's why with either ofthese two parties that haven' the balls to do what is needed, we will continue to watch our country fall off the cliff of Socialism into an abyss we will never get out of. If you idiots don't wake up and get behind the Constitution Party, the party Ron Paul endorsed for the Presidency, you will not have a country! The definition of Insanity asdefined by Einstein is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The GOp has ran NOTHING BUT MODERATES for the Presidency since Reagan, and you fools have not been able to discern this. Let's do the GOP idiot drill again:


After Reagan, the GOP ran...

1.) George Bush Ist
2.) Bob Dole
3.) George Bush IInd
4.) John McShamnesty

Geeeee, do we see a pattern here??? GET A FREAKING CLUE, SHEEPLE!!! The GOP is NOT a Conservative party, and it never will be.

highlander juan......good comments your
We used to say the 3 R'S -READING ,WRITING.
AND ARITHMETIC WAS THE KEY TO SUCCESS!
It still is...you betcha..wink.Oooops don't want you to think Iam strong fan of Sarah..
Iam not!
As for the idea of GOP going BIG GVMNT.,
WHERE HAS THIS WRITER BEEN ON MARS!?
If this is not BIG GVMNT...God help us!
elvis

W'hat?
"If the GOP becomes a big government party"

What do you mean "if"?! There's no hope in the Republican party. They proved what they believe with Bush. They won't even get rid of their leadership - Boehner and McConnell. They are hopelessly corrupt.

A couple of late responses

Wayne FL, Nov 14, 2008 - 11:28 PM EST

I agree with you completely about Fred Thompson. He was my choice also. As a benefit, I believe that Fred Thompson is taller than Barack Obama, and since about 80% of elected American presidents are taller than their opponents, he would have had a much better chance of winning.

Vindex MI, Nov 15, 2008 - 1:55 AM EST

I agree with your comments also, and this is the time we need to get the government OUT of our education system since it obviously isn't getting the job done properly. Our children grow up largely ignorant about finance and the economy, law, American history, American government, and business, and unless they take these courses in college, stay ignorant.

Good posts, both of you.

Have to agree with you..
I have to agree with John. The scary thing is the demographics do not favor conservatives as John has indicated. He cited just the immigration factor, but there are others also such as a decline in marriage that favors the democrats and liberals. Somehow we need to really educate the people on what being an American means. That it does not mean living off of the government. Whatever happened to the JFK democrats. "Ask not what your country can do for you but for what you can do for your country..." We need to take back the universities and the schools. It may take a long time. But if America is to continue as a great nation we need to maintain the principles of our founding fathers and the constitution. Otherwise we will just be another country in history that rotted from within

John Hawkins: Fifteen Questions
Hawkins' questions elucidate, for the most part, the reasons why the moderate "me two" Republicans had no real power for 40 years. It took the 1994 Contract With America, a definitive conservative agenda, to gain power.

Libertarians
Are people like Science Avenger that advocate Ron Paul and have absolutely no clue where Ron Paul stands on the issues. They were apparently under the influence of mind-altering drugs and didn't really listen to Ron Paul.

How on earth, without the aid of mind-altering drugs, could someone think Ron Paul actually represented the views of Science Avenger?

No wonder Ron Paul not only left the Libertarian party, but refused to endorse their candidate.

Further
Every time the Republican party moves further to the left, the center just becomes more left. More and more people become "Radical Purists" that seem to be hated by both parties.

So, I say to anyone that calls themselves a moderate conservative: point your fingers at us "purists" now, but watch your back once they throw YOU behind the fence with us, too.

Charley
The problem is that the Libertarian party has turned into a bunch of Anarchists and drug users. They don't care any more about the constitution than the reps or dems.

Nearly every libertarian that I know just wants to do drugs and believes in communism (just not as a form of government.) All they know about the LP is that they support Marijuana legalization and they get nowhere because they are too lazy from the drugs.

I agree with them that they should be able to kill themselves with drugs if they want to, but I don't want to join a party with people like that actually running things.

I attended a few meetings. No thank you.

I read threads like this
and it is immediately apparent what the problem is: A complete misunderstanding of how America is supposed to work.

I see lots of people with "ideas" and "it should be this way..." The problem is that our government was designed over 200 years ago and they created a wonderful document that outlines EXACTLY how our government is supposed to work.

Right or left, all I see are bunch of pawns in the assassination of our republic.

If the American people simply demanded that the constitution be followed, Democrat or Republican wouldn't really matter. The problem is that both parties want to fundamentally change the way our government was designed. Both want to ignore the constitution as an anachronistic relic.

I see alot of very ignorant people. Just read the constitution and demand that it is followed to the letter. That's it. We don't need 'ideas', we need enforcement of the supreme law of the land.

There is very little difference...
between the two major parties these days.
Hence the lackluster support of the GOP candidate. Both parties are beholding to special interests and lobbyists. Both candidates support amnesty for Illegals in one form or another. Even on the morality issues where the GOP is suppposed to be the party of Traditional judeo-Christian values established by the founders, there seems to be more lip service than actual practice.
The Dems of course garner all of the adherents of radical change and secularism/moral relativism, such as the "abortion rights" crowd, Gay activists, feminists, socialists, race baiters and of course those seeking handouts through entitlement programs.
Then there is the perception(Justifiable in many cases)of the working class that the GOP is more concerned with enriching the Big Conglomerates and CEOs at their expense.
"Free Trade" policies that are non-competitive and lopsided favoring foreign nations able to take advantage of their country's virtual slave labor, lax environmental restrictions or non-existent work place laws. Those Republican candidates that remain loyal to true American ideals never make it through the primaries.

Littlest Political Quiz
A survey was done on it and found.

17% of republicans were libertarians.
17% of the democrats were libertarians.

Excellent start for a voter base.

What About a NATIONAL PRIMARY????
McShamnesty came about in part because we still for some STUPID reason have Blue States like Iowa and New Hampshire deciding our candidates. In these States numerous Dems could afford to mess up the GOP slate. There is no reason whatsoever why we can't have a National Primary for the Presidency of the United States. The candidates for President should be allowed by law at the very least a 30 minute infomercial to be shown to the American People during the week before the National Primary in which they state what they stand for; why you should vote for me; their vision for the country; their party platform; what other parties are doing wrong; and why you shouldn't vote for more Socialism; and whatnot. The National Primary should be held on a SATURDAY just as the National Election should be held on a SATURDAY to facilitate voting. All college football games should be suspended on voting weekend.

United we stand divided we fall
I believe we not only had the wrong candidate running for the office of President, we were not
100% behind our chosen man. John McCain is a
good man, and certainly would have been a better
choice than what we got in Barack Obama. The one
candidate that had in my opinion that holds the conservative ideals the repulican party is about
is Fred Thompson. It is amazing to me that we when we had the chance, we did not get behind him when he got in the race. I am not the smartest cookie in the box and maybe I am missing something that Fred did wrong. I think maybe getting in late was a small problem, but I felt Fred said it in a way that made me feel proud to be a Repulican, to be an American, and that we had a strong man in the running. I am worried about the next four years, and I know if we are going to have any say so in the near future, we must unite in the next two years, to get back congressional and senate seats, so we can atleast have a voice in Washington.

Bankers & Federal Reserve
Are Americans be set up for the elimination of the middle class by those behind the veil of secrecy? The Bankers Manifest of 1892 as quoted from the book, Economic Pinch, by Charles Lindberg, Sr. says, "When through the process of law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed. People without homes will be quarrel with the leaders." Sounds like the New World Order to me. Call your Congressmen and Senators today and demand that Obama produce a valid U.S. Live Birth Certificate asap and tell your friends to call & take back your country - Call 800-828-0498 or 866-220-0040 or 202-224-3121 and go to http://www.obamacrimes.com and http://www.rallycongress.com and http://www.rightsidenews.com

Pancho's point is interesting
It is good to see that people can see the de-stabilizing impact of open immigration and low wages (on this point, if you really want low paid workers why not bring in people from India, China or most of Africa -- they might work for $1 per hour and be happy). Immigration is fine as long as you have a few things (1) no preferential treatment for immigrants; (2) efforts to assimilate immigrants; and (3) stopping groups from coming into this country who do not respect basic values (people who believe in female genital "surgery" would fit in this). Unfortunately, we fail on all 3 counts. Also, if you started and really support preferential treatment programs (the Democrats deserve most of the credit - but not all) it would be hard for a group not to want to vote for such a party. The Republican party has too many (perhaps 50% who simply do not agree with "preference" programs). If those people joined the Democrats (probably about 25% are against those programs) they might actually have a chance of fixing our policies.

I get Kaishaza
But, I wish people cared more about history than being p.c. (they do not). The SAT test was pushed mostly by Jewish students and parents because many great academic schools had "Jewish Quotas" so they did not get admitted based upon objective qualifications. Eventually, in the 1960s, schools began to use the SAT heavily (since it objectively tests knowledge on key subjects needed for Universities). Now, the test is "racist." Perhaps worse, there are government mandated contracting and scholarship programs which favor "minorities" (many cases you could be Spanish royalty or an African Prince and take advantage of such programs). These programs are so entrenched that we will never get rid of them (at least in my life time). The rationale seems to be "you people discriminated, so you can't complain about being discriminated against." That is such a beautiful airtight argument that I really wish those who state such a point would be sent to County Mayo circa 1847 or Drogheda (or any place in Ireland) under Cromwell.

I will never support "diversity"
Diversity has come to mean "special" better treatment for the "oppressed" minorities. Spain and Portugal conquered most of the New World (enslaved more and killed more American Indians than other European groups). Yet, we have preferential treatment programs for all "Hispanics." Obama is able to discuss his struggles and the "oppression" he felt despite being a Columbia/Harvard grad. Unlike Obama, I have no slaveholding ancestors. I refuse to apologize for non-existent crimes of my ancestors (who mostly lived in Western Ireland). 200 years ago, literally well over 90 percent of my ancestors were harshly treated and discriminated against. Obama and many "minorities" do not have such history. Yet, schools teach that all whites are oppressors and only whites can be guilty of racism (I do not like the term "white" since I am not in the least related to Russians, Bulgarians, Italians, Turks or Germans -- now "white" has a very negative connotation as well). Of course, if you complain you are a "racist."

Hey O.
You said,


"GOP in Trouble
We need the Libertarian platform proposed by Ron Paul or we'll all be enslaved by big government.

Conservatism has taken a body blow, no doubt, but we are not out for the count! You can bet that the liberal left, all flush with “victory”, will overplay their hand in very short order and with hubris typical to their kind (different and inferior species) they will hoist themselves up by their own petards and disgrace themselves royally. Hopefully, they don’t take the Nation down with them!

Conservatism, at least the unadulterated kind, recognizes as an axiom that nothing in life is free, you have to work for it; be it a house or your liberty. It’s an individual responsibility. This axiom requires that if excesses occur in any direction then a “correcting force” has to restore equilibrium; such as losing your house if you can’t make payments and losing your liberty if you violate someone else’s. This self-regulating mechanism in olden times kept people prudent and they did not live beyond their means as they knew the consequences. In this day and age of “liberalism/socialism”, caution has been thrown to the wind, people indulge in excesses of every kind, they think it is their due, and, in fact, seek perpetual indulgence from others (government usually but not exclusively), which is nothing more than living at the expense of others. Historically, this has been a recipe for weakening a Nation and its people to the point of collapse and then being subjugated by outside forces, usually physically by other more robust Nations but it can be by economic fiat, such as China collecting on our current multi-billion dollar debt. We then become a sort of slaves to these new forces and, of course, all indulgence stops completely and/or is dictated directly by the brutal reality of the forces themselves."

Excellent post! Thank you!!

Rellac is right
These are my points (though I still do not want to totally give up). Really, I place the blame on the Republican party who controlled the Presidency and Congress from 2001-2006 and they did not address this issue (giving away the future for the sake of what "business" and p.c. people want). Most Hispanics who are illegals (soon to be legal, or parents of citizens) are poor and will always be Democrats. There is no way Republicans will get more than 40% of that vote. Because of "W" -- I sincerely believe there might be a chance for conservatives if they joined the Democratic party (leaving Neocons and Chris Shays - Olympia Snow types in the remaining party). The Republicans are going to go where the Federalists and the Whigs go -- they will be extinct. Historians will note the irony that it was the fault of the Republicans.

"There is...
...not yet an effective Republican Leadership Council to nurture modernizing conservative ideas." Translation: A think tank is needed to transform those ideas into socialist ones. We conservatives are more than capable of bringing our ideas to the marketplace of public opinion without having "moderate" media talking heads "modernize" them for us. The first step is build up the conservative media. That is the real task.

Redlac
That was a great post. I'm a Democrat interested in seeing what the other side is saying. A bit disheartened by some of the nasty stuff on this board regarding minorities and the president elect. Is this putting country first ? Wow.
Luckily, I think the majority of Republicans will see the light and come together to save the party of Lincoln. There are many ways to do this, and one is by actually putting forward conservative solutions to pressing social problems, rather than demonizing the other side and doing one's best to alienate minority groups who will be half of the population in 2050.

Fifteen Questions
Great article John.

We should stop taking Comrade Newsfraud's advice about what's good for us.

To anyone who is worried about the GOP becoming "extremist", do you think the opposition is really going to give you advice that will help you defeat them?

We now are going to be subjected to the SECOND (Moscow Bill and Evita were the first) bunch that is headed by a guy who sought out Marxists and revolutionaries - for ADVICE!

I wonder what any disabled Vietnam veteran must be thinking about now. McCain is finished and Charlie is in the White House.

Jack

Thoughts.
The right is correct on immigration, but it has also lost the battle. No GOP candidate will support deporting illegals, and even if they were, the demographics of the issue are indisputable as within 25 years, 1/2 the US population will be non-Europeon, and 1/2 of those will be hispanic. That battle has been lost, because it should have been fought 20 years ago - and wasn't. And, as the defeat of three state initiatives on banning abortion have demonstrated, even when exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother were included, the likelihood of a political solution pertaining to banning abortions is increasingly far away, not closer. And this conforms to the fact that 56% of women voted for Obama, and only 43% for McCain. Further, younger women voted 70% to 29%.

Conservative economic issues, smaller government, and the like, are core conservative principals. However, if the GOP does not find its way through the social issues, one of which is no longer relevant, and the second which is unlikely to be resolved politically, it will continue to find itself having great difficulty in building a winning coalition. The GOP must find a way to appeal to those that within 25 years will make up 1/2 the population, just as it must find a way to appeal to younger people and women. This is not to say that the GOP cannot get presidential candidates elected, but to regain control of Congress, is a much longer process. And that requires a shift it tactics. One of which may be to accept the reality that the US is becoming a multi-cultural society, and it is too late to do anything about it. It either accomodates the change, or it will find itself increasingly in the minority.

Re Point #5
When jobs were plentiful, especially in the construction trades, illegal workers were welcomed by contractors because hey worked hard for less and the pool of workers in many places demanded the need for labor.

Since the housing bubble burst and jobs in other sectors are disappearing, the flow of illegals has ebbed, and many here who can't find work are heading home. The floew of money from here to Mexico is at the lowest levels in over a decade.

As jobs become more scarce, there will be more and more Americans who will(sometimes violently)object to seeing illegals take jobs that they now need. Contractors who used to use illegals freely will be exposed and forced to use local workers.

Even domestic Hispanics(like myself) will become adamantly opposed to illegal Hispanics as they find themselves competing for a shrinking number of jobs.

So don't be too certain about amnesty and a growing illegal population which will forever alter the demographics of the country. It may be one good thing that comes from the recession.

Hispanic Vote
Despite the pandering of McCain and the moderate Repubs. to illegal aliens, Hispanics went overwelmingly for Obama anyway.
They will go for the party that gives them something for nothing every time.
And lets face it, no one panders and throws money at malcontents better than the Democrats.
They are experts at giving tax dollars to those that contribute nothing and despise this country.

BIG GOVERNMENT
is how the GOP lost!!! Wow...is this actually still lost on people? Amazing.

Science Avenger
"All you have to do is show me how the so-called "consensus" on global warming can be proven through disciplined application of the Scientific Method. Once you can do that, there is no longer consensus, there is irrefutable proof."

We are actually in nearly a full decade of a real cooling cycle.

check and mate

Point #5
Is probably why America will be, effectively, a one party country. Amnesty is going to be granted. The numbers of people allowed from Mexico will continue to grow.

There are many good reasons for them to support Democrats: (1) more generous social programs (which help these mostly poor people; (2) more favorable for immigration (that is why they are here -- and why they may be able to bring family here); (3) more rigid and more pro Affirmative Action quotas (scholarships, government contracting benefits, as well as hiring preferences are worth a good deal).

This is George Bush and the fault of the Congress of 2001 to 2006. Instead of passing good enforcement policies -- so many of them were pro-amnesty and pro low wages that they sealed the death of the party.

John your 15 are more like 7 Questions..
And to be centered is not akin to being a LIBERAL or moderate.
Conservatives and the Right winged Religious are both cut from the same cloth only the FR tend to rend theirs a bit more.
The GOP needs to relook at its message and how we got away from it. Instead of crying out for the reversal of Roe vs Wade, we need to show that the decission is nothing more than a license to murder unborn children by the thousands. So those that wish and atone to promiscuity can continue to do so without the concequences of Mother hood.
What is good for industry is good for America, for with these foreign controlled Corperations it is all about profits and not what is good for America.
See the Dems come crawling out of the wood work not looking for hand outs and AIG is a farking joke. Close the doors and let it fold then sue the CEO's and Board Members.
We coservatives need to go back to our nations roots and the true context of the Constitution, not the maligned version the Dems have created.

Drinking the Koolaide I see Hal.........
Dems increase spending and the size of Government, Bush/Cheney!
Start wrong war at wrong time, Bush/Cheney following in Kennedy/Johnson foot steps.
Dems deny Veteran benefits if your not litterally shredded to bits, unless your of a certain colour or branch of Service, then it is okay.
Dems like to claim credit for settling the Deby, but we the Tax Payers did that not any Dem leadership, your too busy spending my money to do that.
Right wing Religious conservatives had their say under Reagan, thought they would get the same out of Bush, and Lil Bush, but only partially.
Conservatives got the back seat, well enough of you and your onesided debates and enough with the Radical Right.
Conservatives are and always will be God, which according to CNN Dems know little about, Family and again Dems work over time destroying this core of Americanism, then Country and Party.
Dems it Cash, cash, cash, cash. Give me your Cash now. Well spread your wealth then Dufus, not mine.

Hal Donahue PA, Nov 14, 2008 - 5:37 PM E

Why Bush is safe from Dem criminal proceedings.

Waterboarding and Torture:

Only the “Gang of Eight” were “fully” briefed as follows, according to someone who actually sat in the briefings.

“Probably because at least Nancy Pelosi, along with both Republican and Democrat Senators and Congressmen, was given extensive briefings on foreign-located covert rendition/confinement sites, including detailed briefings of how “enhanced” interrogation techniques worked, as early as 2002-2003. She, and all of the members of Congress who received such briefings, agreed with the methodology. There are witnesses to that effect that attended the briefings, and these witnesses could be surfaced if Pelosi gets too far up on a high horse. This isn’t just an administration thing. The oversight committees were fully aware and complicit.

“Because of the highly classifies nature of these briefings they are restricted by law from discussing what they were briefed on. Also remember that at the time congress was in republican hands. If any of these dem’s had gone public they would have been crucified by the right with the full support of the media."

As I said earlier, you will be unsuccessful. IMHO.

Standshisground
"Date: Nov 14, 2008 - 6:18 PM EST Hal Donahue
... But I definitely don't agree that the "blue-dog" Democrats - not the vast majority of them, anyway - would back the Obama Administration in doing to George Bush what you advocate. "

Nothing has to be done. Bush the torturer is extremely unpopular and when he is called to trial Congress has to do nothing. No action required. That is the beauty of the Hague. The Secret Service turns the accused over for trial as required by US law

"...As I posted before, Republicans found out the hard way in the 1998 mid-term elections that THEIR interpretation of what constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" vis-a-vis Bill Clinton wasn't necessarily always shared by a majority in their congressional districts...."

Not even an issue it is a courts matter. bush is a common criminal not being tried as a hformer head of state

"...But good going back and forth with you on the matter - and I mean this sincerely, not sarcastically - however much we differ on it. Have a great weekend!"

You too and thank you

Butcher
"Date: Nov 14, 2008 - 5:51 PM EST Subject: Hal Donahue is an idiot................
Dems of a feather stink together.
Bush is a criminal, a Dem in RINO clothing cause the end of America. Bush/Cheney have done more Dem thinking in 8 years than GOP, So I'd say they are the true Manchurian Candidates."

Oh no little fella Bush/Cheney are exactly what you get from fundamentalist conservatives - hooray for me to heck with everyone else. They are true and real fundamentalist conservatives and all yours

"...Go to Huff&Puff where you might be a bigot in a small cesspool..."

I believe if you check Huff is far bigger and more read than TH

Hal Donahue
All right, you DID give me a direct answer when I asked for it, so I'll give you kudos for that. Many (I'm not saying ALL, because Mod Mark has also been giving me direct answers, just MANY) of the posters on this board on your side of the political spectrum, as you've openly identified yourself as a Democrat on this board, WOULDN’T have given me a direct answer.

But I definitely don't agree that the "blue-dog" Democrats - not the vast majority of them, anyway - would back the Obama Administration in doing to George Bush what you advocate. I doubt that the typical blue-dog Democrat’s electoral district has a majority of people who would see the issues of "rule of law" and the Constitution in regards to the Bush Administration's anti-terrorism policies the same way YOU do - and in the next election, would demonstrate their difference with you on this loud and clear. Fact is, I very definitely think that in the matter we’re debating, the typical blue-dog Dem would be committing political suicide in his state not only to support such a policy but probably to even remain in the Democratic Party altogether after that. I just can’t see, for example, Heath Shuler being able to retain his North Carolina Congressional seat, if he assented to such an action, come the next election.

As I posted before, Republicans found out the hard way in the 1998 mid-term elections that THEIR interpretation of what constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" vis-a-vis Bill Clinton wasn't necessarily always shared by a majority in their congressional districts.

So, this is what I think on this, for whatever it's worth. I think I've pretty well fully mined by now my thoughts on this matter for this board, so I really have no more to add on the subject, so I'll leave it at this.

But good going back and forth with you on the matter - and I mean this sincerely, not sarcastically - however much we differ on it. Have a great weekend!

Hal Donahue is an idiot................
Dems of a feather stink together.
Bush is a criminal, a Dem in RINO clothing cause the end of America. Bush/Cheney have done more Dem thinking in 8 years than GOP, So I'd say they are the true Manchurian Candidates.
Obamalamdingdong, is the Anti-Christ and the Democrats are his evil vile stinky Minions of non Intellect.
Go to Huff&Puff where you might be a bigot in a small cesspool.

Moving into the 21st Century
Perhaps a more productive way to discuss a portion of the center vs. rightward dillemma is to ask this question: Does the GOP hurt itself by being too "faith-based," as opposed to "fact-based"?

At present the party is the bastion for extreme elements who, when confronted with the findings of mainstream science concerning human descent, climate change, and a host of environmental challenges, dismiss them out of hand because they are in conflict with rigid faith-based religious, economic, and political positions. Even in the face of overwhelming factual evidence, such people will do their "three monkeys" routine, hurling back accusations that such evidence is only "junk science" or the ravings of "Hollywood liberals," "enviromental extremists," and (shudder) "socialists." In other words, they move the GOP outside the bounds of intellectually respectable fact-based adult problem-solving.

So, if the GOP wishes to be taken seriously rather than wither away as more and more people flee the intellectual bankruptcy at its base, it should consider purging itself of such elements and focusing instead on adapting traditional Republican principles to the factual realities of the 21st century.

If that means Rush, Sean, et al have to find other employment, so be it.

Standshisground
"Date: Nov 14, 2008 - 5:11 PM EST Subject: Hal Donahue
...Care to try it again? More correctly, DARE to try it again?"

The Democratic members of Congress to include blue dogs would approve - yes. They are not doing a thing. the Hague is under normal and customary law practices Bush is not a head of state but a common criminal

Science Avenger
I assume that you consider yourself to be a scientist, or at least to know about science.

I would like some help on your little tirade as it pertains to your assertion that it is stupid to deny global warming.

Well, Avenger, I truly believe that the human-generated impact to our planet's environment (throughout the sum of our existence, including our time as monkeys, as you assert) is significantly smaller than the correlation between logical thought and the liberal brain (i.e., infinitesmal). The next time you talk to Robert Byrd or Ted Kennedy, ask them what their fellow dinosaurs thought about a couple of those volcano eruptions. Now, that was what I call impact to the environment!

But, with that said, I will promise you that I can be persuaded to change my mind. All you have to do is show me how the so-called "consensus" on global warming can be proven through disciplined application of the Scientific Method. Once you can do that, there is no longer consensus, there is irrefutable proof.

Surely, as a "scientist," you are familiar with the Scientific Method.

Or, maybe not!

Hal Donahue
Nice try, but you STILL haven't answered my question: what you gave me was a non-answer answer, because you've assumed that the typical blue-dog Democrat has the exact same interpretation of "the rule of law" and the Constitution as YOU.

I'll try it once more: "If the Democrats followed the course of action you desire with George Bush, are you seriously suggesting that a "blue dog" Democrat like Heath Shuler could support such a move and still expect to keep his House seat come the next election?"

All I want from you in response to the question above is a straight "Yes" or "No" - because this is the same crucible a blue-dog Democrat who still wanted to retain elected office following the next election involving that office would be using to weigh the issue on whether to support such an action on the part of the Democratic Party.

Care to try it again? More correctly, DARE to try it again?

Har De Har Har
"If the GOP were to officially become a big government party,"

tell me another one!

Standshisground
"Date: Nov 14, 2008 - 3:31 PM EST Subject: ...Hal Donahue:

You STILL haven't answered my question, so I'll submit it to you again: "If the Democrats followed the course of action you desire with George Bush, are you seriously suggesting that a "blue dog" Democrat like Heath Shuler could support such a move and still expect to keep his House seat come the next election?"

Only if they believe in the rule of law and the Constitution. Bush the torturer broke common law.

HighlanderJuan
"Date: Nov 14, 2008 - 3:35 PM EST Hal Donahue PA, Nov 14, 2008 - 3:26 PM E

Bush the torturer??? Where does this come from?

You will be unsuccessful. IMHO."

I may be but warrents will trail him throughout history. Bush said that he personally ordered the waterboarding of three individuals. Waterboarding is recognised worldwide and in pre Bush US as torturer

TIME FOR A CLEAN SWEEP

.....It is time for Conservative bloggers who want to exchange ideas to unite to clean out the Liberal Trolls who come to this site to pollute and disrupt ...

.....Trolls are encouraged to post when their nonsense is acknowledged and responded to ...so the best method to get rid of this vermin is to flag and move on ...don't even bother to read their posts so as not to be tempted to respond ...

.....We know who the trolls are so just ignore them and they will eventually go away .....COLOSSUS

TIME FOR SOME HOUSE CLEANING

.....It is time for Conservative bloggers who want to exchange ideas to unite to clean out the Liberal Trolls who come to this site to pollute and disrupt ...

.....Trolls are encouraged to post when their nonsense is acknowledged and responded to ...so the best method to get rid of this vermin is to flag and move on ...don't even bother to read their posts so as not to be tempted to respond ...

.....We know who the trolls are so just ignore them and they will eventually go away .....COLOSSUS

We need Fox National News Hour
Quote
#7) Given that the mainstream media overwhelmingly supports the Democrats, it's extremely important for the GOP to have the support of conservative talk radio hosts, magazines, and the RightRoots
End Quote

I may be totally off the wall.

It's happened before :)

There is a Fox News Channel, which I consider to be mostly Conservative News,

Then there are lots of Fox Local TV Stations.

I assume the two are owned by the same people.

Why doesn't FNC put a one hour Fair and Balanced news show on the Fox Local TV Channels to GET SOME CONSERVATIVE INFO INTO THE MILLIONS OF HOMES THAT watch that channel?

Come on FNC let's balance the Alphabet soup of liberal brain washing with a little bit of Right Wing Brain info.

Just a thought.


Hal Donahue PA, Nov 14, 2008 - 3:26 PM E

Bush the torturer??? Where does this come from?

You will be unsuccessful. IMHO.

Highlander Juan and Hal Donahue
Highlander Juan:

You said, "And, in fact, I would submit that only nations can declare war and only nations can declare peace. Individuals can't declare war on nations and expect to be covered by the Geneva Convention. They're not signers of the agreement.

Terrorists are not protected. IMHO."

MY understanding of the Geneva Conventions causes me to totally agree with you that terrorists such as the Gitmo detainees don't qualify for its protections. And an awful lot of Americans also agree - which is why I said to Don Juan that there is NOT universal agreement in this country about whether these people are covered by the Conventions.

Of course, the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party, since they'll be in control in Washington DC come January 20th, is free to disagree and to put this disagreement to the test by doing what Hal Donahue and Don Juan and others like them want and forcibly send George Bush and/or members of his administration to an extra-national jurisdiction for trial. And we'll see how the American people weigh in on that in future elections. But I have no doubt what their reaction would be.


Hal Donahue:

You STILL haven't answered my question, so I'll submit it to you again: "If the Democrats followed the course of action you desire with George Bush, are you seriously suggesting that a "blue dog" Democrat like Heath Shuler could support such a move and still expect to keep his House seat come the next election?"

HighlanderJuan/Don Juan
"Date: Nov 14, 2008 - 3:17 PM EST ...Terrorists are not protected. IMHO."

There may indeed be enough wiggle room here for non Taliban forces that is why keeping it simple: crimes against humanity, causing torture and death of individuals keeps it clean, simple and just. Bush the torturer was not king and most certainly not above basic laws like murder and torture

Mod Mark
You said, "I really am cheering on the GOP for a comeback, it is vital for this nation to have two political parties in power".

Funny, I remember seeing a Wall Street Journal editorial several years ago, I think just before the 2004 election, in editorializing about what it saw as a drift by the Democrats so far to the left that the WSJ feared it would cause the Democrats to cease to be a relevant player on the national stage, express the very same hope about the DEMOCRATS. The Journal opined that it didn't serve America well in a two-party system if one of those parties runs itself into the ditch.

And as far as the gay marriage issue in California: I've said all along that I'll believe Proposition 8 will actually amend the California constitution when I see it. All the court challenges it is facing now is exactly what I predicted. I think ultimately SCOTUS will be deciding this, so it will be interesting how they rule on it. The far more fascinating angle on this issue to me has been seeing the reaction it prompted - not all of which has stayed lawful or peaceful, and which I fear more of in the future won't, either.

I agree, though, that the Obama Administration and the Democrats as a whole would be best served by putting the prior administration behind it and addressing the issues we have NOW. As much bitterness as there will be left over toward the Bush Administration after January 20th, I think the American people ALSO wants to move on - and is not going to take kindly to it if the Democrats spend the next few years focusing on exacting vengeance against the departed Bush Administration instead of on the immediate issues of the present and future.

Standshisground MO, Nov 14, 2008 - 3:02

FYI. From here: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

==============

So, it would seem that the Geneva Convention only applies to nations that sign the agreement.

And, in fact, I would submit that only nations can declare war and only nations can declare peace. Individuals can't declare war on nations and expect to be covered by the Geneva Convention. They're not signers of the agreement.

Terrorists are not protected. IMHO.

Mod Mark
"Date: Nov 14, 2008 - 2:49 PM EST Subject: ... We need to put the Bush days behind us and move forward, no special prosecutor, no investigations, etc. I believe the downfall of the GOP started with the impeachment of Clinton, it will be the same for the Democrats..."

That is why let it to the hague to decide. Bush the torturer is simply another common criminal unworthy of further consideration

Don Juan
There's hardly universal agreement in this nation about whether the Guantanamo detainees, and others who have found themselves in the orbit of the Bush Administrations' effort against terrorism, even QUALIFY for the protections of the Geneva Conventions (my position is that they do NOT). And I have yet to see a universally accepted definition among the people of THIS country as to just what measures constitute "torture" vs. mere interrogation techniques.

So again, any attempt by the Obama Administration to send George Bush against his will to The Hague or try him in the U.S. for murder or other "crimes" supposedly arising from the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns and the effort against terrorism is ultimately a POLITICAL decision far more than a LEGAL one.

In fact, the exact same thing can be said of any U.S. presidential impeachment effort. I'm sure most people who are self-identified Democrats/liberals do NOT agree with the position of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1998 that, by sending impeachment articles against Bill Clinton to a Senate trial, sufficient evidence existed, at least so said the House, that Bill Clinton had committed "high crimes and misdemeanors". Just like this judgment was made pretty much by one side of the political spectrum (and as Republicans found out later in the 1998 mid-term elections, not as much of America as they had expected agreed with them), so it would be with the judgment of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party as a whole on whether George Bush's actions in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns and the effort against terrorism warrant a trial under U.S. or non-U.S. jurisprudence.

The Obama Administration and the Democratic Party, as I've said all along, is free to try to pursue this. But as I also said before, if it does, it better know the risks it runs.

Is this moderate or conservative?
Maybe Holy Hal and UnKoolmoose the musician specializing with a skinflute can answer:

The #1 issue to deliver us from the exile is school choice. When OBummer puts his 2 "punishments" in Sidwell Friends, we will have another opportunity to expose a hypocrite talking out of both sides of his mouth. The question is, who will take the issue, run with it and sell it?

Thomas Sowell's Inside American Education is at least 20 years old but if you read it now, you will not even believe what we all knew was coming and have just seen. The results of of this election could have never happened with school choice in place 10-15 years ago. I remember when the GOP thought that the NEA needed to be nixed. But instead of real reform, we get the Bush version. No child left behind. What a crock! More like no child with a tanned behind. You reap that which you sow. Until we teach our future voters what is at stake and what we may be losing, no other issue is of any real consequence. At the age of this country, we are overdue for a revolution or disintigration. I have joined freedommarch and I urge everyone to do something on this, the most pressing issue.

No more Bush's, no more Chris Shays, no more Lindsey Gramnesty's

wiffleballrick@aol.com

Mod Mark
Looks like we're in agreement on the issue of what would happen in America if the Obama Administration forcibly extradited George Bush to The Hague. Gee, lately, it seems, you and I have been finding common ground - or, at least, COMMONER ground - on several things. Maybe Obama's election really IS having a uniting effect on the people of America AFTER all, ya think?

I totally agree with you, which is what I've been trying to tell Don Juan and Hal Donahue, when you said "middle America would be p!ssed" and "talk about a revolt in the making".

Also, I notice Hal Donahue has not answered my question about where such a move would leave blue-dog Democrats when I asked, "are you seriously suggesting that a "blue dog" Democrat like Heath Shuler could support such a move and still expect to keep his House seat come the next election?"".

Although the one element of your post I DO disagree with is, regarding the Europeans, "I doubt they would support putting Bush on trial". I believe an awful lot of Europeans - not ALL, maybe not even MOST, but certainly a substantial number - WOULD support this. It would be a way to help mollify, or so they'd probably believe, the increasingly restless and anti-American Muslim faction of their populations. And in any case, many Europeans hate George Bush as much or more than many Americans on the left in this country, so such a move would be perfectly fine with THEM.

But in any case, like I told Hal Donahue, if they want to fantasize about seeing George Bush in the dock in The Hague, well, whatever floats their boats - but that's the ONLY place they'll be seeing such a scene.

UnKoolMuse and Hal Donahue
2 boring hippy holdovers. Answereing their critiques is like watching Phil Donahue and Joy Behar.

Why bother?

Science Avenger
I dearly love name-callers, especially those for whom the name chosen is an apt description. Or would ignorance be better?
Evolution is a theory - and while there is myriad scientific evidnece of adaptation within a species, there is no existing evidence that Darwin's theory is true across anything beyond species. As with any theory, after a hundred years or so of trying, a scientist would begin to question its soundness.
On global warming, the consensus of science has and will continue to shift - man has little direct impact on climate, and what little he has is dwarfed by cosmic rays.
Supply side and free market economics have proven themselves time and again - how do you think revenue always increases after a tax reduction? What has been plainly proven as a flawed method - by von Hayek, Lucas, Friedman, etc. - is Keynesian economics, where those with "fatal conceit" think they can centrally manage billions of price decisions a day.
But heck, I only have three advanced degrees and thousands of hours reading scientific articles and data, so I guess I am just stupid. Did you actually attend an accredited school? Would they admit you were a student?

Obama not even a natural born US citizen
Hey folks don't you think arguing about "obama policies" is a bit presumptuous? HE'S NOT EVEN PROVED THAT HE'S A NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN. And the truth is HE CAN'T because he was BORN IN KENYA and he doesn't have a certificate of LIVE BIRTH for the State of Hawaii, only a "certification" for FILE purposes only [basically a note from his mother] and of which would not even allow a person to get a drivers license.

2012 Conservative Resistance Movement:

#1 We do not acknowledge Barack Husein Obama as President of the United States. [Never refer to him as president because he is not fit to serve this great nation. He is not even a natural born U.S. Citizen, as is required to hold office of the presidency.]
http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/%E2%80%A2-20 12-conservative-resistance-movement-1-we-do-not-acknowledge -barack-husein-obama-as-president/

The latest on the fake Obama birth certificate cases:

http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/wp-admin/page.php?actio n=edit&post=420

-An Independent

2 parthian shots
Don Jewan (after the manner of Lord Byron) is typical of commiqrs who only regard Constitutional Matters as Judicially Settled when they don't wish them challenged. All others are fair game for Review of course.
What a crock!

I continue to marvel how the prohomo mythical "moderate" commiqrs can claim any kind of pseudolibertinearian status on Individual Rights while continuing to want to dump the ONLY other "Social" Conservative issue (unless you count wanting to FIGHT the War Against the Reconquista as "Social" rather than economic quisling-ness.) I speak, of course, to their knee jerk reaction to opposition to killing babies. How you can claim a love for individual rights and DENY even the right to LIVE to the most helpless members of society SOLEY on the basis of SPACIAL LOCATION is simply a cognitive dissonance that defies any other definition but rank hypocritical bigotry.
"When a man talks loudly against religion, always assume it is his passions and not his intellect that has got the better of his creed."
Tristram Shandy.

The big mick

Republican Values
The GOP has to recognize that there is a vast difference between Republican values and conservative values. Republicans have discredited not just themselves but all conservatives these past 8 years. Republicans have a credibility problem not a right/left problem. There are many reasons for this, most of which Americans are aware of. Republicans say they are in favor of reducing the size of government but their actions say otherwise.

If you keep making promises but never deliver sooner or later people won't believe you anymore. Republicans are now confronting that circumstance. Their first order of business needs to be how to regain their credibility. Moving more right or left doesn't matter if voters don't believe what you are saying.

A growing number of conservatives, myself include, do not see anything conservative about the Republican Party. In many ways it directly contradicts conservatism. Talk is cheap but actions have consequences.

Highlander Juan
I certainly have my suspicions of amnesty as a cure. That was true back during Reagan's amnesty as well. It is obviously an encouragement to future illegal immigrants if they see passed immigrants getting periodic amnesty.

That said all of the proposals I have seen on immigration are bad ones, so we are in a position of chosen the best among bad choices.

But the real problem for Republicans is not so much their position on immigration as the fact that they can't seem to defend their position without letting anti-hispanic attitudes seep out. If they could convince hispanics that their opposition to polish immigration was as strong as their opposition to mexican immigration (except perhaps for the greater numbers involved) they would probably do fine, or at least it would be a simple manner of whose other policies they prefer.

But when the arguments drip with nonsense about how hispanics are not becoming real americans, it is not surprising that hispanics respond by deciding that republicans are not worthy of getting their votes.

Note to "moderates"
Guess they missed Coulter's telling slam dunk that THE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE AGENDA--ie BAN HOMOMARRIAGE--WON IN EVERY STATE, EVEN COMMIEQR KALIFORINICATEYA!

That's all (save for one other important thing)
this has ever been about for the Rocky Feeler Robber Barons of the Gilt Bird Cabin Conservative Free GOP.

All this Moronic Mythical "Moderate" crap is simply a smoke screen for the homoagenda.

Note it is always SOCIAL Conservatism they wish to dump. Like I say a smoke screen.

Of course the OTHER big thing for the Robber Barons was to make sure Anti-Amnesty was dead.
70% of America was against Shamnesty and they and the "moderates" (read, I say, prohomos) got in bed together to foist MISTER SHAMNESTY on us.

That's all this has ever been about, Marginalizing Reaganism to extinction, protecting the Slave Labor supply and norming homosex--That's your "moderate" agenda.

And a word to the pseudolibertinearians, and the Flat(ulent) Pat Earther Isolationist Paul Potters--if you guys don't LIKE the Socialism you've conspired to make us swallow in your blind bigotry toward Christians, then you'd better back burner your kiddieporn and pot agenda and FORM ALLIANCES with your NATURAL SMALL GOVERNMENT ALLIES--the CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES--your call dodo-lemmings.

mick

Obama not even a natural born US citizen
Hey folks don't you think arguing about "obama policies" is a bit presumptuous? HE'S NOT EVEN PROVED THAT HE'S A NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN. And the truth is: HE CAN'T because he doesn't have a certificate of LIVE BIRTH for the State of Hawaii, only a "certification" for FILE purposes only [basically a note from his mother] and of which would not even allow a person to get a drivers license.

2012 Conservative Resistance Movement:

#1 We do not acknowledge Barack Husein Obama as President of the United States. [Never refer to him as president because he is not fit to serve this great nation. He is not even a natural born U.S. Citizen, as is required to hold office of the presidency.]
http://atlah.org/lists/?p=subscribe&id=15<

The latest on the fake Obama birth certificate cases:

http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/wp-admin/page.php?actio n=edit&post=420

Money From Overseas Is What Talks!
Forget all of the analyzing how the McCain-Palin organizers failed! They failed at what? No one with only American connections and who was lied to after Obama broke his first promise which shows his character and got unprecedented funds to buy up the media and still is on the internet and TV and radio - except for a very few - could compete with unprecedented unaccounted for campaign funds that the U.S. Justice Department allegedly doesn't care to investigate - even though there are allegations that it came from anti-American terrorist and communist sources - So, McCain and Palin get trashed by everyone in the country and the media because they stood for honesty, integrity, and followed the law? Good grief, has America lost its mind because its about to lose its way after 1/20/09 and many of its freedoms such as blogging and talk radio!

REPUBLICAN -- FREEDOM PARTY!
The monkier "conservative" no longer works for republicans, as we are the party with innovative ideas, desire to empower citizens (not enslave through financial control) ... desire to get big government and high taxes out of our lives and keep us safe!

Most Americans agree with our philosophy, it's just that most democrats are unaware of the issues at stake. They hear "tax the rich guy" and they are sold on the liberal!

Sad ...

Mr. Hawkins, You make joke...haha
"If the GOP becomes a big government party"

Where have you been? That's a done deal already. Why read any more of your questions if you don't even get that?

Wake TF up!

Don Juan
Remember, not EVERY currently sovereign nation-state has necessarily bound itself to EVERY convention of international law that's out there. Not every currently sovereign nation-state, for example, is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Not EVERY nation has ratified the Kyoto accords. Not EVERY nation is a signatory to the Law Of The Sea treaty. Not EVERY nation has ratified the Convention Ending Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Find me ONE treaty of body of law that EVERY government presently extant on this earth has agreed to abide by. I say you can't do it.

In any case, again, this isn't the issue: the issue for the Obama administration, once it takes office, isn't LEGAL but POLITICAL. The Obama Administration in particular and the Democratic Party in general can take whatever position they want to on the actions of the Bush Administration in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the fight against terrorism. And if Obama and his party want to extradite George Bush and/or his people to The Hague or put them on trial here for murder for their actions in these areas, that is their prerogative; they'll be the ones calling the shots in Washington DC come January 20th. They'll be in power, so they can decide what the "law" is regarding the prior administration's conduct.

Since obviously you (with Hal Donahue) and I disagree on whether Bush is a murderer and/or war criminal, whether by OUR law or The Hague's or whoever's, I see no point debating this with you, since we'll never come to a consensus.

My point all along in this discussion has simply been this: if the Democrats choose to go down the road you and Hal want them to with George Bush, they'd better be DARN sure they know EXACTLY where that road ultimately ends.

Obama and his Muslim "call to prayer"
Obama SAYS he is a Christian? Oh Really? Obama says "the Muslim Call to Prayer is one of the prettiest sounds on earth." Really? To a true Christian it's BLASPHEMY, especially in Islamic context summed up in the Arabic inscription at the top of the Dome of the Rock “GOD HAS NO SON, HE DOESN’T NEED A SON…”

“Allah" is not just another name for YWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. “Allah” is the moon god since ancient history, a demon known in many cultures by different names, always depicted with a CRESCENT MOON, but the spirit remains the same. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm

The words of the Muslim prayer [said 5 times a day]:
Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest.
Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest.
I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah
I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah.
I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah
I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah
Hasten to the Prayer, hasten to the Prayer.
Hasten to real success, hasten to real success
Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest.
There is none worthy of worship but Allah
LISTEN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YimTMC-L17k

Now, let’s look at Jesus’ definition of “antichrist,” so we don’t have to guess:

1 John 2:22: "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son."
http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/%E2%80%A2-no -prayers-for-obama/

Don Jewan after the manner of Lord Byron
Yeah and you're confusing Deism with modern Atheism or agnosticism. Once you're talking "Nature's God" who is "their creator" and "endows" you are more in step with Christianity than modern Anti-Christian agendas.

Take your own advice, read Washington's prayers.

You can call them Deists all you want and spin their writings anyway that suits your modernist fancy, but plop em down in Modern America and it is the commieqrs, Socialists, Sandnazis, even the Moronic Mythical Middle "Moderates" they would be horrified at and not Christians.
My money says they'd shoot most Kiddie Porn and Pot pseudolibertinearians on sight as too perverted to be allowed to live.
Don't forget your Plymouth Colony, the Mayflower Compact and the "City set on a hill" either. Your attempt to marginalize Christian influence on the Revolution is a modernist revisiionist fantasy. Among other things they were influenced by men who were influenced by the Writings of the English Reformation.
See "Separation of Church and State" by Stephen Strehle; Huntington House 2001

The Big Mick

Proud American
I wouldn't be so proud if I were you.

Any adult who does not know the difference between “there” and “their” will not have much influence with anyone who knows better.

You sound really ignorant.

Marching to Oblivion
It is clear to me, conservatism, as a political philosophy needs to wither away. In listening to your rant you solutions to the immigration vote is the “we need more white voters defense. Hispanics are a fastest growing segment of our citizen population Conservatives need to accept this new reality or die. The problem is conservatism is more about protecting intuitions by big government than getting government off our backs and there is no greater issue than right of each individual, regardless or national origin, to engage in trade, property rights and free speech all are infringe by conservative immigration and social policies.


Goody bye and conservatism can go to hell as far as I am concern.

General Agreement, but ...
I certainly agree that the party should not become more centrist or move left. There are some social issues I would leave to individual discretion or to state law, which in a limited government/individual rights democracy is where they should be. I am not sure, other than your excellent but self-serving explanation of how they vote, why immigration is one of the two key issues in this article? I support legal immigration, and wish to see it expanded. I would never support a stricter immigration stand based solely on how they might vote, as I consider that, at best, anti-American, even though I do want secure borders. The Declaration said, in listing the foibles of the King:
"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither ..."
Is it simply too tiresome to reach out and engage with new Americans, rather than use security as a facade for a closed door policy?
On fiscal responsibility and all other issues, we used to have bona fides - Bush changed that, and this election was a referendum on a Bush/GOP of fiscal irresponsibility, the authors of huge increases in the size of government, along with unprecedented incursions into free markets, private business, industry, and the social welfare state. There is no question that going there was a mistake, and doing it again, or even more, will neither distinguish us from Democrats nor provide a legitimate choice for the electorate. If the choice in this election was, quoting a friend, "the choice between a sprint to socialism or a fast trot", I don't see much to motivate conservatives to participate.

Don Juan
You asked, "What do you have against the rule of law, SHG?".

The issue here is: WHOSE law?

To the best of my knowledge, there is not one SINGULAR body of law that has been codified and universally accepted in this world, ever.

Why don't we have the law that prevailed in the old Soviet Union, which allowed the state to send to mental institutes - or execute - people merely for the "crime" of dissenting from that government's policies? Or even better yet, why not let Sharia law govern here in the U.S. - and that way, it would go a long way toward ameliorating our relations with the Islamic world? Why don't we just start chopping off people's hands for merely stealing a loaf of bread? Would you like THAT kind of law?

And has it ever occurred to you that maybe some of us in America don't accept that The Hague should be the ultimate arbiter of malfeasance in this world? I don't ever remember voting to make it so.

Your examples of the Nazis and Saddam to Bush are an apples-and-oranges comparison. Both the Nazis and Saddam were the losers in wars. When you're on the losing side in a war, whether what you've done was criminal is a determination the winners decide by whatever criteria they like, and if the losers don't like it, well, that's part of the fortunes of war. The world has always been this way and always will be - until Jesus returns, that is.

ModMark
1. You just proved my point.

2. You took a RADICAL position, not a MODERATE one.

3. Since when is it all about you?

New "flag"
After reading the maunderings of "koolmuse," I again ask those who run this site if, in addition to the "flag as offensive" option, can we please have one that reads, "flag as totally ridiculous?"

Don Juan IL, Nov 14, 2008 - 11:39 AM EST

You must have been educated in the government schools and missed the part in American history about the Founders belief system.

Regarding the definition of the word marriage, you didn't define it, and I didn't define it. Marriage has been defined before either of us.

Ignoring the Bible definition, marriage as defined in Bouvier's 1870 version Law Dictionary is:

Marriage: A contract made in due form of law, by which a man and a woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives... etc. for another 14 paragraphs of description.

There is no mention of man and man, or of woman and woman. It is man and woman. That's all there is.

So, if we are at a point of changing both the religious and legal definitions of marriage, then homosexuals have a chance. Barring the change of the legal definition of marriage, the whole topic is a Non Sequitur.




I Agree
If the GOP goes to the middle it will wind up in the minority for decades.

Screw the GOP
I'd say let the GOP go into oblivion...they should be wiped off the political map. I think it's time we usher in the age of Libertarianism: a political party that allows people to take care of themselves...

Don Juan
You said, "I have a marked preference for trying Bush for murder on our own shores. However, if that becomes legally impossible...."

Strictly speaking, it isn't LEGALLY impossible: if The Hague issues indictments for George Bush and/or members of his administration, the Democrats, since they'll be the ones holding the levers of power in the federal government, could elect to placate them and turn Bush and his administration over to it. Or to arrest and try him for murder here within the U.S.

It's a matter of whether this is POLITICALLY impossible - at least, in practical terms.

The Democrats could elect this course of action and please the far left of their party. But I think the Democrats have absolutely no idea what kind of a hornet's nest they'll be stirring up if they do so.

We're screwed all around!!!
If Talk Radio continues to assault lefist moronic politicians they'll try to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. If they also attack the blue blood Rockefeller country club wing THEY'LL help bring it back!!!

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

Don Juan IL, Nov 14, 2008 - 11:30 AM EST

You said:
"Look in the mirror, HJ
Highlander: "BTW, your negative distortion of my handle is a classic example of what I said earlier about libs taking first blood."

You took first blood in accusing me of fraud."

==============

Wrong. What I said was:
"You stand corrected. Anyone who comes here and tries to defraud us, is likely to get slammed."

Defraud is defined as 'deprive of by deceit.'

I would assume by your feeling affronted by my comment that it applies to you. I did not name you or accuse you of fraud.

But you have come across as a little thin skinned on the subject.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Republican Party
I'm hoping that the Republican Party will go back to it's core values and cease and desist from trying to appease the left! I thought that McCain continuously ranting that he would "reach across the aisle" would cause him to lose the election. That may not be the only reason he lost, but it's a big part of it. When you are willing to reach across the aisle to people like Pelosi and Reid you can only succeed in having your hand cut off at the wrist!

If the Republican party should decide to go moderate, then it will no longer be my party. What will true conservatives do, form a new party? Perhaps it's time we did!

Don Juan and Hal Donahue
Don Juan:

The "law" you refer to that Hal Donahue and I have been kicking back and forth on the issue of the Democrats arresting George Bush and extraditing him to The Hague for trial is in this case FOREIGN law, not AMERICAN law. I think that even a lot of Americans who don't care much for George Bush would vehemently oppose a current U.S. president arresting and extraditing his predecessor to a foreign jurisdiction - because if the Democrats established such a precedent with George Bush, presumably they could arrest and extradite ANY U.S. citizen who happened to catch the interest of the whim of a foreign court. Such as members of the military carrying out orders from their superiors on the battlefield that some namby-pambyish foreign nations or courts decided are war crimes.


Hal Donahue:

If the Democrats followed the course of action you desire with George Bush, are you seriously suggesting that a "blue dog" Democrat like Heath Shuler could support such a move and still expect to keep his House seat come the next election?

By the way, if Bush were forcibly extradited to The Hague by Obama and that jurisdiction decided it ALSO wanted to put on trial some of the top commanders of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq because it decided that their actions constituted war crimes - a Ricardo Sanchez or a Tommy Franks, say - and the Obama Administration obligingly handed them over, since you claim you served in the Air Force, how do you think the U.S. military would react to the Obama Administration THEN?

The Big Mick
"REAGANISM IS the American Center!"

You are also correct!

baseballdoc

"THE GOP BECAME THE "ME TOO" PARTY

.....Instead of defending Conservative values the GOP, starting with GHWB (a kinder gentler America), his son GW (a compassionate Conservative) then McCain (a self proclaimed "Maverick) ...the GOP lost its way and jumped the rails ...

.....When Sarah Palin came on the scene and energized the Conservative Base, elements within the GOP immediately saw her as a threat to their DC power base and tried to sabotage her ...

.....The GOP is divided between Reagan Conservatives (Palin) and DC elites (McCain) who are struggling for control of the Party ...

.....The Conservative Wing wants to move right ...the Moderates want to move to the Center ...the winner will decide the fate of the Party .....COLOSSUS"

You are absolutely correct!

koolmuse
"How many people did Ayers kill?
How many people did Tim McVeigh kill?"

So let me get this straight...you measure evil by the number of people killed? Not only are you dumb but you are dangerously stupid as well.

BTW...show me some evidence that McVeigh comes from the right.

Oh and once again please show me your vow of poverty! Tell us how much time and money also you give to charity.

Moderates
Moderates are Gutless Libertines who stand for nothing, therefore they fall for ANYTHING! All straddling a fence will ever get you is SPLINTERS!

Standshisground
Date: Nov 14, 2008 - 11:29 AM EST Subject: Hal Donahue ... Also, I think that if the Democratic Party ever did this action, it would immediately lose all of its "blue dogs", who would surely bolt the party, as they come from parts of the country where the rage against the Democrats for such an action would be ENORMOUS."

Know some they think it is doable if the facts are let out. Bush personally ordered the torture of individuals and then intensived interrogations where according to our own data over 30 individuals died was not selfdefense it was cowardly and criminal

"...Texas, whose rage at seeing their First Citizen forcibly dragged off to foreign jurisprudence would hit fever pitch. "

Bring it on they tried this before - the results will be the same. I am so tired of psuedo patriots talking big and I bet they are all NRA members LOL geesh

Highlander Juan
True regarding Franken, although the fact that it was close enough for recount says that a lot of people simply voted party line or blindly. Should never have been that close. He obviously got lots of free media coverage.

Counter that with the Hoogendyk/Levin in Mighigan. Hoogendyk's campaign vehicle was his own 1998?ish Dodge caravan with over 250,000 miles on it, driving across the state campaigning and had only $252000 to work with. Couldn't even put together a tv commercial to compete with Levin. He got no help from GOP to counter Levin. Levin is the longest US senator in Michigan's history. He will be 80 when he goes up for reelection. Perfect example of term limits.

Hal Donahue
If fantasizing about George Bush sitting in the dock at The Hague is what it takes to get you through the night, well, then, knock yourself out!

Because your fantasies are the ONLY place where you're going to be seeing THAT scene!

Not, I'm sure, that there aren't plenty of Democrats, even in Congress, who share your wish. But translating it from DESIRE to ACTUALITY would be an extremely risky place for the Democratic Party to go. And I think that if any serious groundswell seemed to be developing within the Democratic Party to actually arrest and extradite George Bush to The Hague, cooler heads within the Democratic Party would prevail - as these heads would realize that the Democratic Party would be establishing a precedent that one day could just as easily be used against an outgoing Democratic president who had fallen into disfavor with the American people. Just the same way that the Democratic Party found out the hard way that the independent prosecutor statute they passed in the 1970's to harass Republican presidents was a knife that cut BOTH ways.

Also, I think that if the Democratic Party ever did this action, it would immediately lose all of its "blue dogs", who would surely bolt the party, as they come from parts of the country where the rage against the Democrats for such an action would be ENORMOUS.

And the rumbles of secession you've heard on this site since the election? Let the Democrats do as you suggest, and I think they'll become much more than rumbles: I think you would then see a very serious secession movement, spearheaded by the state of Texas, whose rage at seeing their First Citizen forcibly dragged off to foreign jurisprudence would hit fever pitch.

Do the Honorable thing
We already have so many liberals and Dem operatives within the GOP party they should do the honorable.

Become as much like the Dems as possible to split the vote.

Meanwhile, us conservatives can run too the CONSTITUTION PARTY, already occupied by committed conservatives.

In short, I have discoverd a few termintes in the RNC, if there's a few, there's many. Self edstruct and fall on your own sword for the sake of the Country.

HighlanderJuan/Don Juan
"Date: Nov 14, 2008 - 11:04 AM EST Don Juan IL, Nov 14, 2008 - 10:54 AM EST

I agree with your four points about republicans, and would add a fifth point: Republicans are advocates of traditional Judeo/Christian values."

Your fifth point "advocates of traditional Judeo/Christian values" has destroyed the other four legs. This is where the rot set in that destroyed the Republican Party

Don Juan IL, Nov 14, 2008 - 10:52 AM EST

BTW, your negative distortion of my handle is a classic example of what I said earlier about libs taking first blood.

I don't believe that I have distorted your handle at any time.

Be nice and you can play.


Don Juan IL, Nov 14, 2008 - 10:52 EST

You said:
"Defraud?" A strange and curious choice of words. I disagree with your takes openly, and from a classical Republican perspective. I am almost as sure that your real name isn't HighlanderJuan as mine isn't don Juan; unlike you, I have explained why I chose that handle."

What's that all about? Do you think I am pretending to be someone or something I am not?

I chose my handle HighlanderJuan because it was available, and the handle I actually wanted was not available.

I was actually trying to get "The One" but it was already taken.


If the GOP becomes more moderate
it is going to lose a lot of conservatives who have supported the party for generations. If we want liberal illuminati ideals, we'll just vote Democrat. Just because the Republicans lost the election, it doesn't mean it's time to scrap the party.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

.....JASON, MI ...

.....Between a "moderate" Republican and a Democrat? ...

...A. none! ...

.....What social values do you oppose? .....COLOSSUS

Don Juan IL, Nov 14, 2008 - 10:54 AM EST

I agree with your four points about republicans, and would add a fifth point: Republicans are advocates of traditional Judeo/Christian values.

And I agree the current leadership is a disaster. I think that thought is now a consensus.

angrywhiteman OR, Nov 14, 2008 - 10:19 A

You said:
"Move right?
The problem with the Republican party is that to move closer to center, it has to move to the right. Why do you think we abandoned them?"

That's a very pithy and very accurate observation on your part.

Well stated.

THE GOP BECAME THE "ME TOO" PARTY

.....Instead of defending Conservative values the GOP, starting with GHWB (a kinder gentler America), his son GW (a compassionate Conservative) then McCain (a self proclaimed "Maverick) ...the GOP lost its way and jumped the rails ...

.....When Sarah Palin came on the scene and energized the Conservative Base, elements within the GOP immediately saw her as a threat to their DC power base and tried to sabotage her ...

.....The GOP is divided between Reagan Conservatives (Palin) and DC elites (McCain) who are struggling for control of the Party ...

.....The Conservative Wing wants to move right ...the Moderates want to move to the Center ...the winner will decide the fate of the Party .....COLOSSUS

Good Points
MR Hawkins raises good points however he is flat wrong when he states that the GOP might be turning into a big government party. Its here and the poster boys are Mitch McConnell and Ted Stevens. Also, Imagine how strong the GOP would be if social conservatives had not taken over the party. Moderate voters would be flocking to vote for Republicans if they weren't so holier then thou(Libby Dole), and I would to.

Don Juan IL, Nov 14, 2008 - 10:27 AM EST

You stand corrected. Anyone who comes here and tries to defraud us, is likely to get slammed.

But, you know, if you think we're bad on TownHall, you should go onto Military.com and try to pull your same shenanigans there. Those guys will eat you alive.

Why don't you libbers just treat each subject seriously, and be polite to other bloggers. It has seemed to me in months past that it is the libs who draw first blood, and then whine when we provide a suitable response.

Be nice and you can play with us.


western bondbeam MI, Nov 14, 2008 - 10:1

Good comments. Thanks.

The Franken deal may also be a huge red flag about improper vote counting by the Democratic leadership in MN.

I often wish that public office was not so profitable for these politicians and political parties. The money breeds huge amounts of dishonesty and blatant law breaking by people who are supposed to represent us.

Nice example they set for us, eh?

Don Juan
"Date: Nov 14, 2008 - 10:27 EST Subject: Get real!
Highlander: "Hal, if you get the impression that you are not well liked here on TownHall blogs, it is because you come across as an aggressive jerk."

Anyone who dissents from orthodoxy here is berated, belittled, and set upon, no matter how politely the points themselves are made. "

Amen to that. And I was very polite at first and I still try to be BUT I will not sit quietly by while these folks rabbit on about nonsense or treason

moderation of republican party
The reason I am against a moderate republican party is because the American people need a choice not an echo.

Pistol
Nothing wrong with scratching the occasional itch. Well done with integrity.

Forget All The Questions
For those Republican's that think that the party needs to be more like the Democrats, I would like to invite you to change your party affiliation and become a Democrat. Really. If the Republican party doesn't stand for conservative principles, then it's nothing but the Democrat party.

For those Democrat's and liberals that have commented about how the Republican party needs to move more towards the center, or more to the left, why do you feel like you need to worry about what the Republican's are doing? You already have an outlet for your positions, you don't need two parties to represent you.

Lon PA, Nov 14, 2008 - 10:11 AM EST

Interesting comments on immigration. I've lived for many years in southern California and have mixed feeling about our Mexican immigrants.

My observations are that people of Mexican ancestry are usually conservative, very religious, and are family oriented. On the dark side, as all immigrants have been, they are paranoid about this new culture they are trying to adopt. What's even worse for them is that their own Mexican nationalist movement that just wants to make California into Mexifornia, keeps them illiterate and out of the mainstream American culture.

The Mexican immigrants that become involved with the American way of life are invariably wonderful citizens. The Mexican gang folks aren't such great citizens, but they are using aggression to make up for a lack of education and a dysfunctional connection with their own community. Kind of like the Gangs of New York.

I don't think we want to issue amnesty for illegals. Amnesty rewards bad behavior. The U.S. has the basic problem that everyone wants to come here (opposed to Russia where there is no immigrant problem because no one wants to go there).

I think we can accommodate most of our immigrant needs, but my belief is that, as a nation based on law, we need to follow our own laws. Foreigners wanting to enter the USA also need to follow our immigration laws.

It's simple.


Standshisground
"Date: Nov 14, 2008 - 10:04 AM EST Subject: ... The only way then to get him out of the country is for the Obama Administration to arrest and extradite him - and if Obama did THAT, he'd better just simply plan on turning the U.S. government into a dictatorship, because it would be the only way he or the Democrats would stay in power after 2012...."

Not true at all. When the facts are presented Congress will vote to turn him over and that duty will fall to the Secret Service. Crimes against Humanity are recognized by the US thru the Hague.

Time for a new party?
You can put "lipstick on a pig," or icing on a mud pie, but that don't change anything.
We need to go back to fundamental conservative values. They were lost and we need to find them real quick.
"The American Conservative Party," is a good start now we need to fill in the blanks and charge this train up.

GOP in Trouble
We need the Libertarian platform proposed by Ron Paul or we'll all be enslaved by big government.

Conservatism has taken a body blow, no doubt, but we are not out for the count! You can bet that the liberal left, all flush with “victory”, will overplay their hand in very short order and with hubris typical to their kind (different and inferior species) they will hoist themselves up by their own petards and disgrace themselves royally. Hopefully, they don’t take the Nation down with them!

Conservatism, at least the unadulterated kind, recognizes as an axiom that nothing in life is free, you have to work for it; be it a house or your liberty. It’s an individual responsibility. This axiom requires that if excesses occur in any direction then a “correcting force” has to restore equilibrium; such as losing your house if you can’t make payments and losing your liberty if you violate someone else’s. This self-regulating mechanism in olden times kept people prudent and they did not live beyond their means as they knew the consequences. In this day and age of “liberalism/socialism”, caution has been thrown to the wind, people indulge in excesses of every kind, they think it is their due, and, in fact, seek perpetual indulgence from others (government usually but not exclusively), which is nothing more than living at the expense of others. Historically, this has been a recipe for weakening a Nation and its people to the point of collapse and then being subjugated by outside forces, usually physically by other more robust Nations but it can be by economic fiat, such as China collecting on our current multi-billion dollar debt. We then become a sort of slaves to these new forces and, of course, all indulgence stops completely and/or is dictated directly by the brutal reality of the forces themselves.

Move right?
The problem with the Republican party is that to move closer to center, it has to move to the right. Why do you think we abandoned them?

Chris
"Date: Nov 14, 2008 - 9:56 AM EST Hal Donasnivel
Why don't we meet up and we'll talk about it?? "

I am thinking of heading to GA maybe there?

Highlander Juan
The number of terms for US senators is a state function through it's voters, but the parties are still afraid to flush money down the toilet to support candidates that have little chance of winning. Where to spend it and where not to spend it.

Nothing is more frustrating than to see an obvious better man for the job lose because of party lines and the amount of money spent on advertising.

Also, too many blind voters. Al Franken is a good example of too many blind voters.


Hawkins still clueless
Reason Democrats won in 2006 and 2008 was primarily due to American electorate repudiation of Bush and his policies.

In 2006, Bush was not on the ballot, so voters did the next best thing, which was to punish the party that he headed.

He got the message, and publicly admitted as much.

Iraq war was the issue in 2006.

Economy, along with perception of general incompetence within the administration, was the issue in 2008.

GOP needs to rein in the excesses of the social conservatives if it is again to become a major party. Independents and the youth are not receptive to alot of the agenda of social conservatives(and nor is a significant number of republicans either).

It may take another couple of electoral disasters for this to sink in...but the party cannot survive many more disasters like '06 and '08.

Hopefully, some GOP governor, not wedded to social conservatives, will emerge. And Palin is not that person.

Bush, Rove, Gingrich, Delay, all are identified with an angry base that is being increasingly marginalized.

Regarding talk show hosts, most of them preach to the frustrated and angry choir...to those who are in sych with the hosts.

Limbaugh was loath to criticize Bush on Iraq at a time when a clear majority of Americans concluded the war was a mistake. To that extent he helped perpetuate a false perception of reality, shilling for Bush at a time when most Americans were turning against the president over Iraq.

So you could argue radio talk shows actually contributed to GOP recent electoral disasters by failing to comprehend where the public stood.

At any rate, I think the future of the party is with the governors, who have their finger on the pulse of the voters in their states.

Whether GOP should move to the right or
GOP should move to the right and restore their
original roots and intentions. Trying to be
too liberal cost us the elections. We need to
let everyone know how we stand on the issues.
Sarah Palin was an example of that. Everyone
except the liberal media loved her.
FGL
OHIO

because it won't be accepted
I am not someone who thinks the Republicans should move to the middle, I think they should pursue their enthusiastic 35% of solidly conservative voters.

But presumably those people who do because they want the republicans to win elections do not see the issues in as simple minded a way as is expressed above.

Some conservatives, for example, think that conservative ideas can be used to develop policies that would help people better than do policies developed by those on the left. I am not convinced they are right, but certainly if they are it would not present the problem of simply being democratic lite. It is true that the Bush approach of incompetent governance did not make republican ideas look good, but some think that it is possible to be both republican and competent.

The immigration issue is a different matter. Anti-immigrant bashing has at times been a short term boon for republicans, but it has consistently been a long term boon for the democrats. (States like California, Illinois, and New Jersey went from swing states to solid blue states after demogoguing on the issues by Pete Wilson in California).

If Republicans could convince hispanics that they were not demagoguing in the issue then they would seem to have a good shot at the hispanic vote which is, after all, somewhat socially conservative. But there doesn't seem to be much danger in that happening.

McCain could only get support from the Republicans by disowning his amnesty idea. And then Hawkins wonders why hispanic voters didn't side with him when he decided to abandon them to get Rush back.

Obviously I hope and expect the points in this comment to be ignored on the right.

Hal Donahue PA, Nov 14, 2008 - 9:52 AM E

Hal, if you get the impression that you are not well liked here on TownHall blogs, it is because you come across as an aggressive jerk.

I have read enough of your comments to recognize that you have a valid point of view on many topics, but your method of presentation sucks.

Many folks here are mature conservatives, and we think our thoughts out carefully before we comment. Treating our comments as valid, staying on point, and responding in a polite manner would go a long way to increasing your effectiveness as a blogger herein.

On the other hand, if you're here just to harass conservatives, we don't need your comments, and you can just get lost.

Your call.

Hal Donahue
Still hung up on getting Bush before The Hague, huh?

Suppose George Bush decides after January 20th simply to never leave the shores of the United States? The only way then to get him out of the country is for the Obama Administration to arrest and extradite him - and if Obama did THAT, he'd better just simply plan on turning the U.S. government into a dictatorship, because it would be the only way he or the Democrats would stay in power after 2012. And THEN he'd better plan on full-blown civil war.

Oh, but I forget, don't I, there IS one other option to try to get him out of the country forcibly if the U.S. government or Bush himself won't oblige: a PRIVATE CITIZEN could always try to forcibly grab him and send him on his way to justice, a la Dog the Bounty Hunter. And if this is what you and maybe some of your like-minded buddies have in mind, a lot of us here passionately encourage you to go ahead with such a plan. We'll even promise you a nice funeral in Scranton after the Secret Service sends what's left of you back home.

David
"Date: Nov 14, 2008 - 9:35 AM EST Subject: Hal obviously disagrees
with this article. Why do liberals insist on trying to look like Republicans? Moderate my rear end - you are a liberal, just like McCain!"

LMAO if you think McCain is a liberal you really are WAY out there

Western Bondbeam
Your supportive words are appreciated. I cruise by to pick up some good ideas, provocative thoughts, sometimes even a little humor. The driveby trolls who are here just to start fights don't contribute much, so i rarely respond. koolmuse seems like a newbie. As usual, i regretted wasting time with him/her. It will keep me inoculated for a while anyway. Your point that others may be reading is some consolation.

Hal Donasnivel
Why don't we meet up and we'll talk about it??

Hal
Have you been paying attention to what Murtha claimed and what was proven, or not proven, in court?

"All those folks you mention have one thing in common all wanted to destroy the rule of law for whatever reason."

Gee, guess what? That was what my point was based on. The Left supported them then, and some that never grew up (like Ayers) still support that type.

I was a Maoist out in California, back during 'Nam (until I got my hands on a Little Red Book and actually read the thing). Obama is a rat fink and con artist.

LD35
"Date: Nov 14, 2008 - 9:34 AM EST Hal
First, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid etc. committed an act of treason and should go to prison."

If true convict them! meanwhile, I will work to get Bush the torturer before the Hague. Bet I have more success than you do

"...Second, your name doesn't sound Hispanic or Muslim. ... In less than 25yrs muslims & hispanics can elect the President? Where will you and i be? "

If I am still alive, most likely I will be right where I am now. I have no problem whatsoever with Muslims and Hispanics electing a president if they can. Heck my gran dkids are Latinos and I am proud of them

Pancho UT, Nov 14, 2008 - 9:26 AM EST

Hi Pancho. So, we once again agree to disagree.

1. You said:
"Part of the problem is that many who identify themselves as conservatives have gone off the deep end in their characterizations of Obama, obsessing over Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, ACORN and even his citizenship."

My response:
That is your opinion only, and in reality has no basis in fact.

People ARE judged by their background and their associates. This is a judgmental part of human psyche that helps us to survive when confronted with bad guys. If we DIDN'T pre-judge others by there history and their associates, half of us would be dead.

If Obama had a list of honorable associates to go along with the thugs he throws under the bus when exposed, we would be more considerate of him as a person.

But he doesn't have any good guys. Only bad guys. What is a reasonable man supposed to think? You can't have something as important as this only go one way without scrutiny and criticism.

Lousy argument.

2. You said:
"The tactic of exerting fear about Obama was and has been forefront, so to deny that
>we have no way of exerting fear on Obama<

is simply ludicrous. Those who have applied these tactics tend to look hysterical to the average American, as evidenced by the results of the recent election."

My response:
You have successfully diverted my point to coincide with your own agenda.

Off point. Lousy argument.

David
"Date: Nov 14, 2008 - 9:32 AM EST Subject: Hal
As a member of the Democrat party, what are you doing here (other than trashing Republicans for fighting the war on terror)?"

Making certain you folks don't forget that you are a minority in the nation.

Obama's move RIGHT!
If people are not conservative why did Obama make a 90 degree right turn after the primaries. Does any one in thier right mind believe he supports gun owners? He started back tracking on troop withdrawal. He RAN AS A CONSERVATIVE, not a moderate. He hid from the abortion question. Wkae up Republicans and smell the coffee, become a party of principles and ideas like in '94.

Pistol
Good post to koolmuse. I say that because even though koolmuse won't respond or probably understand or even care, others read it too and do understand your point. Don't want you to feel like you wasted typing space on koolmuse.

Anyway, I like your point about painting with a broad brush. We can all fall into that category at times and it's always good to be reminded that not all Democrats or Republicans are as bad as made out to be at times.