Sadly, Ms. Chavez would add, "except for private property owners." Her commentary reveals how inadequate her thinking has, apparently, always been. I thought she had a more thorough understanding of the Constitution and about the concept of "rights." I thought she knew that private property rights are the foundation upon which all individual liberty rests. I thought she knew that just because a private business owner deals with the public, his property is not public property. I thought she knew that one man's right to pursue his own happiness is temporarily thwarted at the point where his pursuit violates the rights of another man. I know that my desire to avail myself of the products or service of another man does not obligate...

You have an unusual way (well, not so unusual these days) of engaging in dialogue -- with someone who likely agrees with you on many significant issues.

What kind of American speaks that way to another American, Frank? I'm wondering why you have such a low tolerance for frustration. With such a meager inventory of coping resources, you must be an exceptionally vulnerable individual.

Excellent idea, Barbara. Or is it?

The Republicans would have to be able and prepared to defend their position, using rational, consistent, philosophic principles.

Ayn Rand said that in a conflict where the opponents actually hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins. Historically, Republicans have shown that they hold the same basic philosophic premises as the Democrats (e.g., corporations require more, not less, regulation; gov't must protect the environment from the citizens; everyone has a right to some level of subsidized healthcare, etc.), and only disagree on the superficial, non-substantive aspects of "degree" and "implementation." And, alas, Democrats have proven themselves to be...