For most of the voting public, the term "conservative" has as much appeal as the term "liberal". The only way America is going to survive is they must get away from the extremes and get back to basics. We all agree that once upon a time there were sane Democrats like Scoop Jackson and even John Kennedy who understood the evil of communism and how the Dems have gone far to the Left. Well the GOP has also gone the extreme Libertarian route, making most of their candidates unelectable and stupidly (yep, stupid is the word) attacking strong and viable members who has a track record of winning.

Actually, what the GOP is anxious about is getting back to winning because it ain't rocket science: you can't change anything if you don't get into office. Here's some really solid, SANE advice. GET RID OF THE LOSERTARIANS pretending to be the base of the Republican party. You can tell who they are, they attack EVERYONE that doesn't march lock step into their view. They demand following policies that clearly the rest of the voting public doesn't agree with and there is a reason that they can only get 3% of the vote. Listen real carefully when they talk about revamping the GOP. What they mean is they want the GOP to die and out of the ashes come a "real" conservative party aka the Losertarian.

In Ann Coulter's book "bullies", she said that the Dixiecrats (Dems) had to finally decide: either get on board with civil rights or forever lose elections. The GOP has to face the same truth: the Hispanic bashing (known as illegal immigration) is a LOSING issue. Just how many elections do they have to lose before they get this one fact: you cannot win if your team doesn't even get into the game. They will NEVER get into the game as long as "illegal immigration" actually means Mexican.

This is NOT rocket science; honest. To change the anti-immigration image, you have to: 1-Secure the borders meaning BOTH borders not just the Mexican one. 2- Saying that a fine being paid is Amnesty should mean the same for any breaking of the law, INCLUDING SPEEDING; and if you aren't for that type of payment "amnesty", then you should want any law breaker to be thrown into jail right? And no, not being able to afford to jail ALL law breakers shouldn't be an excuse not to do so. It's either amnesty or it isn't. 3-Understand that for most minorities, caring about Hispanics 4 months before an election don't cut it. And yeah, minorities listen to the vile rhetoric and identify. Such talk makes conservatives look racist and ugly.

The real blame is simple: every time conservatives joined the liberal Bush bashers, they gave no reason for great candidates to join Republicans nor voters to vote them in. I mean really, why would anyone want to be a part of a group that won't have their back when the going got rough? There is a reason that Clinton and company are still loved by the public and people run for office with a "D" in front of their name instead of the sanctimonious "R" that demands perfection and multiple apologies. Both sides have their media, but only one attracts enough people to make a difference--and they understand that there can be no success without loyalty.

And does anyone actually believe that an employer who wants to make as much profit as possible will pay a good wage and benefits if there is no penalty to not doing so, and no union to keep out? A good lesson to learn is from those who ran to states with cheap gas, shelter and food--only to find that wages were also cheap. A major rule in business is to charge whatever the market will bear. That also goes with wages, you pay the least of what the work market will accept.

Did you ever wonder why most of Europe and China and Cuba went either communism or socialist and America did not? Freedom gave people the idea that they should share in the fruits of their labor. America watched as the high and mighty fell--and decided to give the people a small portion in the hopes of keeping a part of their world. The sharing yet allowing people to dream of one day becoming one of the rich is what kept America from going the entire socialist / communist route. If you take away that small portion, it will be a matter of time before the employer will go back to the way it was--and the worker WILL revolt.

Of course you don't. You can't seem to get it that it is human nature for a business person to make as much profit. If they can pay less and get more work, they will. And for most business people, working 72 hour weeks with little or no other benefits is norm. Which is why most didn't see any reason to pay those who didn't own the company more money for working more than 40 hours a week. Many did not take vacations or sick days, so why should their employees? All that non owners (workers) take for granted today happened because some guy walked the picket line and joined together to back union supporting politicians who made time and a half and paid holidays a right. In order to have a clue, you have to first learn to be grateful.

Actually no, the right to unionize came in 1935; and primarily it was to stop full fledge communism. And the women really becoming part of the work force and two wage earning families didn't happen until some 2 decades after the war. Prices do increase according to people's wages; but the same is when products are cheaper. I know of a family member who moved to Texas because food and shelter was so much less; unfortunately, she confided that so is the pay.

pt3 The problem isn't unions--and people should be very careful in trying to destroy the one entity that gives workers some bargaining power. It's unions in the PUBLIC sector. The trade off in public "service" of lower wages was secured employment and good benefits; the very issue most union members in the private sector face. And there is one other factor that keeps workers in the private sector in check: if they don't produce the company goes bust. Public workers because of their unions continue to produce substandardly. It is the public unions that need to be busted, not those in the private sector.

Pt2. I'd even go so far as to say that strangely unions SAVED capitalism because prior to forcing employers to share a part of the pot; only a handful of people could affored "luxury" items. When the ordinary person had decent wages, a whole "free market" opened up as instead of 100 people "needing" washing machines, now there was hundreds of thousands. A whole new class of people, the "middle class" evolved and the rich actually got richer as more products needed to be made.