I remember Ann Coulter and Michaelle Malkin and others complaining about the airport screenings during the Bush years. Liberterians like this author throw up a strawman that we equate our support for a strong national defense with patriotism. THat's a HIllary Clinton talking point. Conservatives have never thought everybody should be subjected to the same type of screening at airports. We do support profiling young Arab/ Muslim men at airports, not something most civil liberterians support. They rather us all die in a plot than have any security measures at all. Your precious liberteries won't matter if you are dead.

The easy answer to this is how come Obama could not solve our problems when he didn't need Republican support? Democrats controlled Congress the last two years, and all we got was runaway spending and more unemploymnet. You want to try to pin this on Republicans? Obama wanted to be president. Now he's going to own it.

You mean the RIchard Clarke that nobody believed and not even Democrats would vote for in the primary in 2004?

They didn't implement the wall, Democrats did. You can try to blame Republicans for a Democrat idea and policy if you want, but that seems to backfire on you. It's you leftists that thought it was a good idea to have the wall.

This is who Townhall promotes as a conservative thinker: A former senior Bush aide, chief speechwriter Michael Gerson, told POLITICO last night that he supports Obama's decision. "An enormously complex and emotional issue -- but ultimately the right thing to do," Gerson said. "A president is president for every citizen, including every Muslim citizen. Obama is correct that the way to marginalize radicalism is to respect the best traditions of Islam and protect the religious liberty of Muslim Americans. It is radicals who imagine an American war on Islam. But our conflict is with the radicals alone."

Ask yourself a simple question: Was Gerson all that disappointed when Obama won? I think the answer is clearly no, if you read his past articles and understand where he is on the issues.

I think he thinks the role of the government is to play Jesus, when it comes to t he environment or healthcare or taking care of the elderly. He may occasionanlly criticize the level of spending by Obama, but is he really opposed to spending? He was part of the Bush team that implenment all sorts of entitlement programs. And he's the biggest amnesty shill around, and he accuses conservatives against amensty as being bigots and nativists. It's hard to take such a hack seriously. He claims to be a religios man, but he seems to be an arrogant jerk in need of some humility. I do know that if the GOP is to listen to him and others like Jeb Bush, we will be an irrelevant party. It annoys me when I see him positing columns about how...

I dont' think he's all that pro-life. I know he hates Palin with a passion. He didn't like Reagan, and he often sneers at social conservatives in general. Everybody will tell you they are pro-life but don't tthink they have the right to "force" their opinion on others. I think that's where he more or less stands. I never seen him come out and blast Obama on abortion, and he had no problem with Notre Dame hosting Obama despite Obama's radical views on abortion.

I fail to see how carbon taxes would make younger voters and independents more likely to vote Republican. Do most Americans want to pay a higher electric bill every month in the name of saving the planet? I don't think so. Gerson acts like climate change is settled science but of course he knows that is not true. He's either smarmy or he's ignorant on the issue.

This Gerson guy isn't my ally. It was people like him in the Bush admistartion that destroyed it with their shilling for amnesty and entitlements. We cannot right the Republican party without cutting these politically confused liberals like Gerson loose. He's stated that he preferered Bush to Reagan.