Who are the Democrat strategists? They are brilliant! They saw this possibility and planned for it. It makes you wonder...can Republican strategists read a calendar? Could they not see what the Dems were doing when they punted on the budget? And now...they have this Tar Baby. Disgusting.

1) Talk about selective memory! The ENTIRE Obama Health Care bill was done behind closed doors...Democrats ONLY. Republicans begged to be allowed to debate. Nancy said, "We'll find out what's in the bill after we pass the bill." The Republicans didn't block anything...they COULDN'T, the Democrats had a 2/3 majority. 2) Speaking of whiny bratty behavior and getting everything they want without compromise, look at Dingy Harry's behavior over this budget. 3) You obviously have NO clue as to what "caused" the housing bubble. Think in terms of 2nd and 3rd lever derivatives that banks and investors paid billions for only to find they were worthless from the beginning. Not to mention Fannie & Freddy backing worthless loans because...

How can you call this a defeat? It can only be a defeat if there was a way to win. Colin Powell was right, "If you break it you own it." There is no way we could "own" this situation. Just like there is no way we can "own" Darfur, Somalia, or any other 3rd world mud hole where they are hell-bent on killing each other. There are 3 rules for projecting US power into a situation. These are ALL mandatory. This is not an "OR" situation. 1) There is an overriding U.S. SECURITY interest at stake. (Europe and Japan in WW2) 2) We have the CAPACITY and WILL to fight to a known and identifiable MORAL goal. (None of this, "We're fighting these people because they are friends of those people.") 3) We get out immediately after...

Why did 2 rockets that could prove man-made global warming is a hoax crash? Just asking.

To be "Fair", we need to provide Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck with the same funding as NPR/CPB. Not acceptable? Then get the government out of broadcating.

Lindsay Graham is creating a distraction (deliberately) to the main issue of illegal immigration. He favors immigration amnesty so he trots out a straw man ammendment idea and all you ADD debilitated squirrel watchers automatically fall allover yourselves debating the ammendment process. The big fact overriding all others is that if the borders are controlled correctly, WE can decide who gets in and who has to stay home until their baby is born. To make it simple: No illegal aliens...No anchor baby problem. FOCUS PEOPLE! FOCUS.

Homosexuality IS a choice. As a male, I have complete control over where I stick myself whether it is into my pants or into a light socket. How I get my sexual jollies does not entitle me to any form of special consideration nor should I expect it. Whether something is banned in the Bible or banned in Boston ( or Baton Rouge or Berkeley), must not be a cause for punishing someone for speaking (preaching?) their beliefs. We have no problem accomodating Imams who preach the overthrow of the entire world (and providing them with degrees.) Why do we have a problem with someone advocating beliefs about homosexuality?

Only 2 things will indicate a true U-turn: A repeal of the Obamanation bills passed since he took office and the passage of a term limits law. By the way, if term limits are good for the President, they ought to be good for Congress.

Every election we hear the same old line ( from either side.) Vote for our guy because if you don't their guy will win. Each party says, "At least our guy is the lesser of 2 evils so vote for him."

This is what caused the Tea Parties! The straw poll at CPAC gave Ron Paul a majority of votes for president. If that doesn't tell you something about the mood of conservatives, you are denial.

Enough is enough. Give us candidates worth voting FOR not a Hobson's choice of who to vote against. We don't need people who have been in office for umpteen years and are part of the problem.

Give us candidates that have good morals and strong character. Give us candidates that are willing to step aside after 2 terms and come...

Why do we need another Federal rule telling the states what they can't do? Isn't that the problem now? A federal government grown too large and powerful?

It's the states that are mandating what insurance is available to their residents. If the residents of a state want more insurance choice, they are a whole lot closer to their state representatives and senators and a whole lot more likely to get changes made at the state level. Let them vote for more choices.

Besides, with a few notable exceptions (CA) the states are pretty much the same now. Would it not be a good thing for the states to experiment a bit? At least then you could move if you didn't like what was going on in your state.