Hello Republicans:

You're in trouble. Let me see if I can help. You're looking for a solidly conservative message, and a solidly conservative messenger. But, you don't have to be a Democrat to get the love. You've got Ron Paul!

In 1989, I fell in love with Rush Limbaugh. I thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. As long as he was talking libertarian stuff, he had me...

Then he started on his lock 'em up, and bomb 'em hate talk, and it hasn't stopped. Being a libertarian, I couldn't wait till he to around to some of the social issues I was concerned about. I absolutely KNEW Rush would be for an end to the drug war... I was wrong. I absolutely KNEW that he'd change his tune when he, himself got popped for drugs... But, nooooo.

On the other hand, you've got this guy who DOES exhibit solid compassionate conservative values... He just doesn't believe in bombing people or putting 'em in jail if they smoke pot.

His message resonates. Wassa matter you?

excon

OK, buckle your seat belt. I could live with Ron Paul as Prez, he'd darn sure beat another 4 years of Obama. How do you get him past his crazy uncle image? Can he overcome the "newsletter" controversy? Talk about the "party of no" now, how badly is he going to be crucified by the left as the GOP nominee?

Hello Steve:

The fact of the matter, it doesn't have to be him. The problem you've got is he's the ONLY one singing that tune. He can't reform the party from the top. It has to reform itself from the bottom. And, you've got NO young Ron Pauls. I don't know why.

Yes, I do. The coalition with the Religious Right, has twisted Republican policies toward God, guns and gay's and away from smaller government and limited spending.

Back to basics, they say.

excon

My only problem with him is he is weak on national defense and naïve about foreign policy in general . His isolationism and the libertarian take on that is what keeps them from moving beyond the fringe


Edit... there are also unresolved and unsatisfactory answers about possible antisemitism .

Ron Paul was my first pick but he got destroyed by McCain so Obama was second on the list. Actually I know a lot of people who would have voted for Ron Paul.

Hello again,

I guess my point to Steve was, why is Ron Paul the only one? Yes, he has weakness's, but not in his message. It's because he looks like your Uncle. That's why he didn't win. But, his MESSAGE is solid, state of the Art, Republican. Tom doesn't like him because it doesn't exhibit the bomb 'em out of existence mentality that is crippling the Republicans today.

Look, I know you Republicans aren't going to take my advice. But, you need somebody to counter the Limp one. You really are looking silly with HIM at the head of the table.

excon

Yeah and now Rush is ripping apart Colin Powell. Even encouraging Powell to switch to the D.

Powell says the country wants more taxes and bigger government . That sounds Democrat to me.

Yep, Powell's comment tom is referring to is definite Democratic sound. And coming from a guy who endorsed Obama he may as well make the switch.

Hello again:

Yup. And, the Republicans get purer and purer, and smaller, and smaller. But, I was talking about going the other way. Guess that's not happening.

excon

Tom doesn't like him because it doesn't exhibit the bomb 'em out of existence mentality that is crippling the Republicans today.


Wrong . He has a quaint 19th century view of America's role in the world. He thinks we can retreat to fortress America and pull up the draw bridge. It isn't happening . We tried that twice last century and got dragged into world affairs .

And, the Republicans get purer and purer, and smaller, and smaller

Where have the lefty's retreated from their core principles ? Why isn't anyone asking them to moderate ? They are the flavor dujur right now so they have attracted a few more people. That too will change when the inevidible disaffection with their policies in action plays out.

What is the core principle of a moderate Republican ? Um for a good example see Benedict Arlen . He has switched parties twice for expediency .

Where have the lefty's retreated from their core principles ?Hello tom:

Since the Democrats comprise lots of people who DON'T subscribe to their core principles, I'd say they did it yesterday, and lots of yesterdays.

The big tent principle is a principle lost on you. It's not on the Dems. Your loss. Too bad.

excon

Ron Paul is an isolationist loon. He cannot win as long as that is his position.

The funny thing is that he KNOWS that, and he still isn't changing that position. That's because he's standing on PRINCIPALS. His principals are, to him, more important than winning the election.

THAT is what the Republican party needs to see. We don't need a larger tent. Our tent is plenty big, and anyone can enter than tent if they so desire. But the supports for that tent are the principals upon which Conservatism stands. Eliminate the tent posts, and the tent collapses.

McCain ran as a "big tent" inclusive Republican and lost.

Obama ran as a tax-cutting Conservative and WON.

In fact, if you look at the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, Republicans who triangulated toward the center generally lost against Dem candidates that ran to right of the Reps.

People keep talking about Reagan's "Big Tent" as if Reagan was a centrist. Reagan didn't win by being a centrist and compromising on Conservative values. He ran as a hard-right candidate.

Reagan's "big tent" was not about moving to the left of his conservative values to make the party more attractive. It was about explaining to the man in the street why those Conservative values were good for him and his family.

Our big tent hasn't gotten smaller because we've moved to the right. It's gotten smaller because we haven't been able to explain why our positions are good for main street. Once it is explained in a way that the man on the street can understand, they generally end up inside the big tent. That was Reagan's great gift... he was the Great Communicator.

The positions themselves are fine. It's the lack of decent message-carriers that is hurting us.

Elliot

The positions themselves are fine. It's the lack of decent message-carriers that is hurting us.

Yep.

I know the latest mantra is the GOP is dead but the reports of our premature death are somewhat exaggerated (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/05/07/dawn-of-the-dead-party/).

It's gotten smaller because we haven't been able to explain why our positions are good for main street. Once it is explained in a way that the man on the street can understand, they generally end up inside the big tent.Hello:

You don't have to explain it. You have to demonstrate it. And, you did - with distasterous results.

I know, I know. You'll say the dufus didn't really represent the conservative view - but that even makes it worse...

Fool the man on the street once, shame on him... But, you ain't going to fool him twice. The more you try, the further away from the levers of power you become. We could be seeing the beginning of a 50 year Democratic reign.

excon

Yeah that's what Carville's new book says... the same type of stuff Rove was saying about the Republicans once.

Republicans ruled from around 1900 to 1932 except Wilson . The Dems ruled from 1932 to 1968 except for Ike. Then the Republicans ruled 28 out of the next 40 years . These type of things are cyclical .

I think buyers remorse woll come sooner than later... about the time the bills come due for the Democrat excesses.

The electorate punished the Republicans for acting like Dems. Now they get to see real fiscal irreponsibility in action . The Republican would be wise to take their beating now rather than fall into the trap of being Dem lite again.

I think buyers remorse woll come sooner than later .......about the time the bills come due for the Democrat excesses. Hello again, tom:

Your stuff has been repudiated... You expect the Democrats stuff to be repudiated in short order.

Then, not having changed one stripe, you think America will forget how badly you screwed the pooch...

Do you really? More right wing dreams.

excon

Hello again, tom:

Your stuff has been repudiated... You expect the Democrats stuff to be repudiated in short order.

Then, not having changed one stripe, you think America will forget how badly you screwed the pooch....

Do you really? More right wing dreams.

excon

The way you do go on!

From what you say, Obama must have won by a landslide. Well, that just wasn't so. McCain was the second weakest possible Rep to put up, and Ron Paul would have been better than McCain if not for his isolationist stance.

The Republican leadership has been hearing from the grassroots about that! I called my senator and complained about the way the primaries are run, I didn't even get to help choose the Rep candidate. You know, even though I am not anybody important, I got a phone call about the subject. Seems a lot of us were saying the same thing.

I think any one of several possible candidates we could have nominated would have beaten Obama.

Our big tent hasn't gotten smaller because we've moved to the right. It's gotten smaller because we haven't been able to explain why our positions are good for main street. Once it is explained in a way that the man on the street can understand, they generally end up inside the big tent. That was Reagan's great gift... he was the Great Communicator.

The positions themselves are fine. It's the lack of decent message-carriers that is hurting us.

Elliot

Psst, Elliot.. Isn't that what your doing here? You do a great job spruiking the republican message but it isn't winning anyone over here. Maybe, just maybe it's the wrong message?

Psst, Elliot.. Isnt that what your doing here? You do a great job spruiking the republican message but it isnt winning anyone over here. Maybe, just maybe its the wrong message??

It's not the Republican message that needs to be spread, it is the conservative message. There is a difference.

What message do you think conservatives should spread? Like the Democrats spread? Then we can have tweedle dumb or tweedle dumber.

When enough people wake up to how badly they have been deceived, they will wish they had not got all the change they voted for. Like Obama's recent lie about cutting th budget. Everything that was in the original is in the current one.

I would have voted for Ron Paul if he ran for Pres.
Homeland security and the Obama lovers say you have to be suspecious of anybody with a Ron Paul sticker. So I wonder why they feel so threatened by him?

I would have voted for Ron Paul if he ran for Pres.
Homeland security and the Obama lovers say you have to be suspecious of anybody with a Ron Paul sticker. So I wonder why they feel so threatened by him?

If we can judge by the unending vicious attacks, Sarah Palin is their biggest fear.

I say Sara Palin is to politics
What Paula Dean is to cooking.

Psst, Elliot.. Isnt that what your doing here? You do a great job spruiking the republican message but it isnt winning anyone over here. Maybe, just maybe its the wrong message??

First of all, why the "psst"? Are you a broken steam pipe?

Secondly, it would seem that the message IS getting out quite nicely, thank you. Because while Obama has a 65%+ approval rating, his POLICIES have an approval rating in the 30% range and the most recent polls all show that 50%+ of those polled believe that the country is on the wrong track.

Here's the latest polls (Since April):
Poll Date Right Direction Wrong Track Spread
Ipsos/McClatchy 04/30 - 05/03 55 38 +17
Daily Kos/R2000 04/27 - 04/30 46 49 -3
Quinnipiac 04/21 - 04/27 36 63 -27
Diageo/Hotline 04/23 - 04/26 42 47 -5
NBC /WallSt.Jrnl 04/23 - 04/26 43 43 Tie
Democracy Corps(D) 04/22 - 04/26 43 46 -3
CBS News/NY Times 04/22 - 04/26 41 50 -9
ABC /Wash Post 04/21 - 04/24 50 48 +2
Daily Kos/R2000 04/20 - 04/23 43 53 -10
POS (R) 04/19 - 04/21 40 56 -16
Associated Press 04/16 - 04/20 48 44 +4
Rasmussen Reports 04/13 - 04/19 37 57 -20
Ayres McHenry (R) 04/13 - 04/16 40 50 -10
National Journal/FD 04/08 - 04/14 47 41 +6
Daily Kos/R2000 04/05 - 04/09 43 55 -12
Ipsos/McClatchy 04/02 - 04/06 45 48 -3
Pew Research 03/31 - 04/06 23 70 -47
CBS News/NYTimes 04/01 - 04/05 39 53 -14
Newsweek 04/01 - 04/02 22 69 -47
Daily Kos/R2000 03/30 - 04/02 42 56 -14


Seems to me that word is getting out just fine.

Hello Republicans:

You're in trouble. Lemme see if I can help. You're looking for a solidly conservative message, and a solidly conservative messenger. But, you don't have to be a Democrat to get the love. You've got Ron Paul!!

In 1989, I fell in love with Rush Limbaugh. I thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. As long as he was talking libertarian stuff, he had me...

Then he started on his lock 'em up, and bomb 'em hate talk, and it hasn't stopped. Being a libertarian, I couldn't wait till he to around to some of the social issues I was concerned about. I absolutely KNEW Rush would be for an end to the drug war.... I was wrong. I absolutely KNEW that he'd change his tune when he, himself got popped for drugs.... But, nooooo.

On the other hand, you've got this guy who DOES exhibit solid compassionate conservative values.... He just doesn't believe in bombing people or putting 'em in jail if they smoke pot.

His message resonates. Wassa matter you?

excon

I Agree, the conservative message appeals to me (a muslim immigrant ), but it's the extreme right wingers on the republican side that scares me.Ron paul if he would have ran for president would have had my vote.I am though still a little waery on his stance on immigration

i Agree, the conservative message appeals to me (a muslim immigrant ), but its the extreme right wingers on the republican side that scares me.Ron paul if he would have ran for president would have had my vote.I am though still a lil waery on his stance on immigration

What part of his message appeals to you, Dare?

I say Sara Palin is to politics
what Paula Dean is to cooking.Hello N0:

You're right. Paula Dean is not classically trained in the culinary delights. So, she smiles and winks and uses a lot of butter to cover it up.

Sarah Palin is not classically trained in world affairs. So, she smiles and winks and uses a lot of butter to cover it up.

excon

And what is Ron Paul's "classical training" in? And he isn't even good at adding butter to the mix to make his ideas taste good.

Hello Elliot:

Ron Paul was not really the focus of my post. I was just trying to help you guys rebuild your party. But, you ain't having it. You just want to get purer and purer, and you are. All of you, to a man, believe the same stuff.

All I was suggesting, was that even though Ron Paul doesn't think exactly like you do, much of what he says is the MAIN Republican mantra - lower taxes and limited government. He's just not a bomber and a jailer... I was thinking that there must be some YOUNG Republican who is about smaller government & isn't about bullying the world...

But, I guess if there was, you'd hound him out of the party too... You'd rather have Rush Limprod in the fold than a war hero ex secretary of state..

I can't help you any more... You're beyond it... You actually believe that you don't have to CHANGE your message. You just have to SELL it better... As, though you really think we're going to forget about the last eight stinking years...

excon

I find it interesting that you refer to "bullying the world" in your post.

Who is it that the world calls when some country attacks another without cause?

Who is it that the world calls when some terrorist group kills a few hundred people with a car bomb and they want it stopped?

Who is it that the world looks to every time there is a crisis of any kind anywhere in the world?

YOU call in bullying... and when it is the other guy who we are lending assistance to, yeah, the rest of the world calls it bullying too. But when it is their butts we're saving from some rogue dictator, terrorists, or earthquake, suddenly we're the heroes... until they feel like they don't need us anymore (even if they actually do).

YOU refer to this as bullying.

I think of it as our responsibility as the last superpower.

Obama is starting to learn that lesson. The world is starting to see Obama's interest in coming to some sort of "agreement" with Iran regarding their nuclear program as a failure of foreign policy. They are starting to see that the only ones they have to rely on are themselves, and the result is going to be open hostilities between Iran and its neighbors... because the USA is not "bullying" (as you put it) Iran into dropping its nuclear program. And I'm not just talking about Israel. Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and a whole bunch of other countries have expressed their worry over Obama's "nice guy" approach. They want the USA to have a strong presence... though BULLY Iran into dropping its nuclear program.

So what you call "bullying" they call "helping".

As to Rush Limbaugh, yes, I would rather follow him than Ron Paul, because as Thomas Jefferson said, the most important responsibility of any citizen is the survival of the nation... and Ron Paul doesn't get that. Rush does.

Finally, on the topic of the last 8 "stinking years"... let's see:

No terrorist attacks since 9/11/01. That's 2,799 days.

The freeing of 50 million Muslims from oppressive rogue regimes.

More money spent on AIDS research than ever in history.

More medical and food assistance to foreign countries than ever in history.

More land donated to wildlife preservation than ever in history.

The running of two wars with, despite what the left would like us to believe, minimal US casualties, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the number of troops involved.

Whatever you might think, the last 8 years were NOT bad. They were rather good years, with quite a bit of financial growth (until the real estate crisis hit... and Bush WARNED about it years before it occurred but the Dems ignored him). You just don't want to see it.

That's fine. If you don't see the Bush years in their own light, you will see them in comparison to what we get now.

Regarding the message of the Republican party, the same message was the one the founders used, the same one Lincoln used, the same one Reagan used. The only difference is that the people putting out the message lack the elloquence of the Founders, Lincoln, and Reagan. The message hasn't changed, just the messangers. Reagan was able to take a "brand" (I hate that term) that had been hurting for years, and that everyone thought was "done" after Goldwater lost, and COMMUNICATE the message in a way that touched the general public. It also helped that Carter was such a friggin' tool that he made Reagan's job easier.

The stage is set. We have our Carter in office, and he's already wrecking the economy for decades to come. And it's taken less than 4 months to accomplish it. All we need is someone to step forward and put out the message.

Now... who do you think that should be? The guy who can't even get enough votes to beat the probability of error in the polls? Or guys who have 50 million+ regular listeners or watchers every day, like Rush, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, etc. Who do you think is the right person to carry the message?

If Rush were to run against Paul for any office in the land today, who do you think would win? Why? Be honest.

It's the fact that the message and the messenger are BOTH attractive to the people that makes elections winable. Rush has that over Paul any day. He has that over just about anyone in either party right now. HE is the Great Communicator right now, and he's got a huge built-in voting block who will listen to what he says.

So, which do I want to be my message carrier?

It ought to be a simple answer, even for you, Excon.

Elliot

Don't worry Gary "Lt. Dan" Sinise is being touted as the savior of the republican party in 2012 according to Nicole Wallace of the daily beast. And they called Obama the Hollywood type. I guess Stupid is as stupid does.

I'll take Gary "Lt. Dan" Sinise


You can have Al 'Stuart Smalley' Franken

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:nVEqhTKIBZCBzM:http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/bridget/smalley.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/bridget/smalley.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/bridget/archives/morning-briefings/&usg=__lLgBhrf_G9wtrqJkzSGGoaJtdIU=&h=500&w=339&sz=40&hl=en&start=13&um=1&tbnid=nVEqhTKIBZCBzM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=88&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2527Stuart%2BSmalley%2527%26hl%3Den% 26sa%3DN%26um%3D1)

Yes the Dems. Won elections by inviting into the tent a bunch of Trojan horse candidates . That coalition will not last long because the moderate Dems have absolutely zero influence on policy. The only thing the blue dogs can do is work with the Republican to construct road blocks at the Pelosi Reid Obama agenda .

Meanwhile the base of the Dem. Party is braying at the moon threatening to primary anyone who doesn't fall in line.


The Dems were down for the count in 2004... the Republicans were down for the count in 1992 . These zombies always find a way to come back from the dead because the fickle moderates prefer the flavor of the month.

First of all, why the "psst"? Are you a broken steam pipe?

Secondly, it would seem that the message IS getting out quite nicely, thank you. Because while Obama has a 65%+ approval rating, his POLICIES have an approval rating in the 30% range and the most recent polls all show that 50%+ of those polled believe that the country is on the wrong track.

Here's the latest polls (Since April):
Poll Date Right Direction Wrong Track Spread
Ipsos/McClatchy 04/30 - 05/03 55 38 +17
Daily Kos/R2000 04/27 - 04/30 46 49 -3
Quinnipiac 04/21 - 04/27 36 63 -27
Diageo/Hotline 04/23 - 04/26 42 47 -5
NBC /WallSt.Jrnl 04/23 - 04/26 43 43 Tie
Democracy Corps(D) 04/22 - 04/26 43 46 -3
CBS News/NY Times 04/22 - 04/26 41 50 -9
ABC /Wash Post 04/21 - 04/24 50 48 +2
Daily Kos/R2000 04/20 - 04/23 43 53 -10
POS (R) 04/19 - 04/21 40 56 -16
Associated Press 04/16 - 04/20 48 44 +4
Rasmussen Reports 04/13 - 04/19 37 57 -20
Ayres McHenry (R) 04/13 - 04/16 40 50 -10
National Journal/FD 04/08 - 04/14 47 41 +6
Daily Kos/R2000 04/05 - 04/09 43 55 -12
Ipsos/McClatchy 04/02 - 04/06 45 48 -3
Pew Research 03/31 - 04/06 23 70 -47
CBS News/NYTimes 04/01 - 04/05 39 53 -14
Newsweek 04/01 - 04/02 22 69 -47
Daily Kos/R2000 03/30 - 04/02 42 56 -14


Seems to me that word is getting out just fine.

We make a good pair then. I'm a broken steam pipe and you're a broken record!!

I find it interesting that you refer to "bullying the world" in your post.

Who is it that the world calls when some country attacks another without cause?

Who is it that the world calls when some terrorist group kills a few hundred people with a car bomb and they want it stopped?

Who is it that the world looks to every time there is a crisis of any kind anywhere in the world?

YOU call in bullying... and when it is the other guy who we are lending assistance to, yeah, the rest of the world calls it bullying too. But when it is their butts we're saving from some rogue dictator, terrorists, or earthquake, suddenly we're the heros... until they feel like they don't need us anymore (even if they actually do).

YOU refer to this as bullying.

I think of it as our responsibility as the last superpower.
Elliot

Was it not our responsibility as the last super power to not deal with the dictator in Pakistan, who is worse than saddam? Why did the bush administration support a dictator in Pakistan who was killing thousand of people while liberating the people in iraq from a dictator who was doing the same thing in Iraq.That seems a little strange





Obama is starting to learn that lesson. The world is starting to see Obama's interest in coming to some sort of "agreement" with Iran regarding their nuclear program as a failure of foreign policy. They are starting to see that the only ones they have to rely on are themselves, and the result is going to be open hostilities between Iran and its neighbors... because the USA is not "bullying" (as you put it) Iran into dropping its nuclear program. And I'm not just talking about Israel. Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and a whole bunch of other countries have expressed their worry over Obama's "nice guy" approach. They want the USA to have a strong presence... tho BULLY Iran into dropping its nuclear program.

So what you call "bullying" they call "helping".
Elliot

The Bush administration did try bullying Iran into stopping its nuclear program, they tried the same thing in Korea.What did that achieve?





Regarding the message of the Republican party, the same message was the one the founders used, the same one Lincoln used, the same one Reagan used. The only difference is that the people putting out the message lack the elloquence of the Founders, Lincoln, and Reagan. The message hasn't changed, just the messangers. Reagan was able to take a "brand" (I hate that term) that had been hurting for years, and that everyone thought was "done" after Goldwater lost, and COMMUNICATE the message in a way that touched the general public. It also helped that Carter was such a friggin' tool that he made Reagan's job easier.

The stage is set. We have our Carter in office, and he's already wrecking the economy for decades to come. And it's taken less than 4 months to accomplish it. All we need is someone to step forward and put out the message.

Now... who do you think that should be? The guy who can't even get enough votes to beat the probability of error in the polls? Or guys who have 50 million+ regular listeners or watchers every day, like Rush, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, etc.? Who do you think is the right person to carry the message?

If Rush were to run against Paul for any office in the land today, who do you think would win? Why? Be honest.

It's the fact that the message and the messenger are BOTH attractive to the people that makes elections winable. Rush has that over Paul any day. He has that over just about anyone in either party right now. HE is the Great Communicator right now, and he's got a huge built-in voting block who will listen to what he says.

So, which do I want to be my message carrier?

It ought to be a simple answer, even for you, Excon.

Elliot

Last time I checked obama won the election , so sadly you have to deal with that probably for the next 8 years, I know that kills you inside but as long you have rush representing your party you can forget about winning any elections

Dare81

It's working out so well with the current civilian government in Pakistan ? It won't be long before General Ashfaq Kayani is President Kayani.

For years the Dems demanded that we stop supporting Musharraf .So Pakistan finally gets their civilian government and the Dems are doing everything they can to undermine President Asif Ali Zardari who is weak, has questionable control of the military ,and seemingly does not have the ability to control the country.

He came to Washington with his hands out ,and met with members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. They came out of the meeting threatening to defund the efforts in Pakistan. Rep. Howard Berman ; chairman of the committee, remarked that Zardari "did not present a coherent strategy for the defeat of this insurgency."

So soon it will do Pakistan a lot of good to say they had a democracy but now they have jihadists Taliban with hundreds of nukes in their hands.

Musharraf wasn't great, and in many ways it was a deal with the devil to support him .But he was on the right side in the fight against jihadistan and the Taliban wasn't contesting the suburbs of Islamibad under his leadership .

Dare81

it's working out so well with the current civilian government in Pakistan ? It won't be long before General Ashfaq Kayani is President Kayani.

Democracy takes time, especially in a country like Pakistan.What we have now is Pakistan is called progress, it will take time but they will get there.

I do not believe the civilian government will last the year. However ;I'm willing to reserve final opinion on the matter until this new offensive into Taliban controlled Swat and other Taliban strong-holds plays out.

Also if the civilian gvt is to survive ;it is my bet that Nawaz Sharif will be heading it.

Back to the subject . There are GOPers like Eric Cantor under the guise of a National Council for a New America; trying to come up with a moderate Republican agenda to retake the nation. John McCain;who pinned his whole campaign on his record as a crusader against earmarks (before he rushed back to Washingon to support the mother of all earmarks... TARP) is among the group lending his winning formula for the future GOP to mimic.

There are others in this group that I have better hope for but the question remains... What are they trying to achieve ? The "progressive "sound of their name itself ("New America")suggests that they are intent on jumping on the Obama bandwagon if you ask me. They don't like being the party of No . They'd rather be the party of creeping socialism instead of a rapid move towards socialism.

If they can't give an ideological justification for the party that is clearly different than the path the Democrats have taken they deserve to reside in the ash heap of history.

Not only that ;but they are trying in my opinion to co-opt or subvert the 'tea party' movement where the Republican party will be reborn from the grass roots.

You should be thanking Franken for that character he gave you the new republican mantra:

We're good Enough, We're smart enough, and doggonit people like Us.

Plus no one is saying he is a savior of a party.

The trouble is that some idiot like Peter Hamby of CNN labels Sinise as a Republican savior and the rest of the lap dogs in the press run with it. Ibet no one ever bothered to ask Sinise what he thinks.

That is also what is happening with Rush . No one in the Conservative ranks are calling him or anyone else our leader .

Nicole Wallace from thedailybeast.com the first one to suggest Sinise.

Waiting for Reagan - Page 1 - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-10/waiting-for-reagan/)

Oh I get it ;the star-struck senior advisor of the failed McCain campaign writes a blog editorial that gets picked up and reported as "news "by a CNN hack .

Not that I have anything against Sinise .But I suspect he is happy acting ;doing USO tours, and helping his very worthy effort Operation Iraqi Children.

I didn't even now they mentioned this on CNN. I like to go to the daily beast and laugh at Megan McCains blog.

Edit: I mean laugh in a good way not at her. I like her.

I do not believe the civilian government will last the year. However ;I'm willing to reserve final opinion on the matter until this new offensive into Taliban controlled Swat and other Taliban strong-holds plays out.

Also if the civilian gvt is to survive ;it is my bet that Nawaz Sharif will be heading it.

If you had any idea about politics in Pakistan you would know that nawaz sharif's party PML-N for year had aligned itself with the right wing religious parties, so for you to say that nawaz sharif now suddenly is going to go on an offensives againt's friends show your lack of knowledge.Nawaz sharif was an ardent supporter of mr zia-ul-haq and was also the chief minister of punjab when mr zia was in power, and we all know Mr zia-ul-haq was the one that stared this mess.

I do not write this without a lack of knowledge .Last polling data I saw was that Nawaz Sharif has a 75% approval rating as opposed to a dismal 19% for Zardari .The poll also shows that about 81 percent of the people believe their country is headed in the wrong direction, and blamed Zardari for the chaos.
This is not a new devolpment ,his fortunes have been rising there since he forced Zardari to restore Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary as chief justice of the Supreme Court in March. He is now speaking of joining a unity government... which both Sec State Evita Clintoon and special envoy Richard Holbrooke have urged. .

Don't think for one minute that the US has not noticed the eroding support. Richard Holbrooke is a skunk and knows damn well that the US is prepared to support whoever emerges in Pakistan and can take on the Taliban. Zardari is a joke and is only President because of his wife's murder. The Swat Deal with the Taliban may be his downfall.

I assure you that President Obama will have no qualms about throwing Zardari under the bus .Backing Sharif would mean that he is still backing a civilian government.. but one who would wage the battle against the Taliban a little more competently .

Don't forget ;Obama thinks he can reach out to so called moderate Islamists;and Sharif's ties with them may be something Obama thinks he can exploit . General Petraeus has told him that Zardari is weak ;although I will reserve judgement until I see how effective this latest military offensive into Swat is.

I agree, Rush Limbaugh started being reasonable with sensible opinions in his early books, but has now become a nutbar. I also like Ron Paul's views and he would be a great candidate for the Republican nomination in 2012, with Mitt Romney as his running mate.

I do not write this without a lack of knowlege.

So what your saying is that you're writing it with a lack of knowledge? You know better than to do that Tom.. :D

Ron Paul is an isolationist loon. He cannot win as long as that is his position.

The funny thing is that he KNOWS that, and he still isn't changing that position. That's because he's standing on PRINCIPALS. His principals are, to him, more important than winning the election.
Elliot

I too would have voted Ron Paul.

In light of 6 plus years in Iraq and near 8 years in Afghanistan, why are we still there?
Saddam is gone.
What was the PRE WAR goal of going into Afghanistan?
What has or has not been achieved?
If the goal has not been achieved, can it be achieved? Does it make sense to continue if the goal is not achievable?

I appreciate the sacrifice the men and women of the armed forces have made, and the fact that they have kept the country safe.


Ron Paul on the Issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm)

Are these really bad foreign policy stances?

Personally I agree with them, but would add the addendum that should any country or terrorist group or cell attacks America then:

I am in favor of assasinating the responsible parties using special ops, drones, smart bombs or any other means necessary.











G&P

In
I have asked everyone I know ,including some officers ,what our strategic interests are in Afghanistan are . I have yet to hear a compelling reason for our continued large scale engagement .

That being said... Obama's selection of Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal as Theater Commander is an excellent choice and it shows he is listening to Gen.Petraeus' suggestions.

Psssst, again, Republicans:

Now you got Rand Paul, Ron Paul's son. He's running for the Senate in Ky. Here's a good looking, articulate, conservative guy. He COULD be your leader. But, you'll probably throw him under the bus because he's not a torturer or a war monger.

I don't know why you attach yourself to such loser positions.

excon

Depends . If he challenges Bunning in a primary I would support Bunning(although my position that Senators should be subject to term limits still holds ) . If Bunning is not running or if Paul beat Bunning in a primary I could probably support him . As a national leader ? I would have course have to see him in action to decide if I could support him.

Sen. Jim Bunning of KY was one of the lowest rated senators and barely won even in a very red state. I would like to see him replaced by a more competent republican.

Lowest rated by whom ? The Conservative Union gave him an 88 % rating so I assume he is low rated by liberal groups. The National Tax payers union gave him an A .

I don't know anything about Rand Paul. I will reserve judgement until I know more.

However, if he is as isolationist as his father, then yes, I will reject him the same way that I have rejected his pappy.

It's called consistancy, excon. You should try it.

depends . If he challenges Bunning in a primary I would support Bunning(although my position that Senators should be subject to term limits still holds ) . If Bunning is not running or if Paul beat Bunning in a primary I could probably support him . As a national leader ? I would of course have to see him in action to decide if I could support him.

In April 2006, Time magazine called him one of "America's Five Worst Senators] The magazine dubbed him The Underperformer for his "lackluster performance", saying he "shows little interest in policy unless it involves baseball",during his 2004 campaign.[12]
On December 6, 2006, only Bunning and Rick Santorum voted against the confirmation of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, with Bunning saying that

“ Mr. Gates has repeatedly criticized our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan without providing any viable solutions to the problems our troops currently face. We need a secretary of defense to think forward with solutions and not backward on history we cannot change. ”
Jim Bunning reportedly has blocked[13] the move to restore public access to the records of past United States Presidents which had been removed under Executive Order 13233.

In February 2009, at the Hardin County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, while discussing conservative judges, Bunning predicted that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would likely be dead from pancreatic cancer within nine months.[16]

depends . If he challenges Bunning in a primary I would support Bunning(although my position that Senators should be subject to term limits still holds ) . If Bunning is not running or if Paul beat Bunning in a primary I could probably support him . As a national leader ? I would of course have to see him in action to decide if I could support him.

In April 2006, Time magazine called him one of "America's Five Worst Senators] The magazine dubbed him The Underperformer for his "lackluster performance", saying he "shows little interest in policy unless it involves baseball",during his 2004 campaign.[12]
On December 6, 2006, only Bunning and Rick Santorum voted against the confirmation of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, with Bunning saying that

“ Mr. Gates has repeatedly criticized our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan without providing any viable solutions to the problems our troops currently face. We need a secretary of defense to think forward with solutions and not backward on history we cannot change. ”
Jim Bunning reportedly has blocked[13] the move to restore public access to the records of past United States Presidents which had been removed under Executive Order 13233.

In February 2009, at the Hardin County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, while discussing conservative judges, Bunning predicted that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would likely be dead from pancreatic cancer within nine months.[16]

On top of that he is a racist too

During his reelection bid, controversy erupted when Bunning described Mongiardo as looking "like one of Saddam Hussein's sons."[5] Public pressure compelled him to apologize.
Source=wikepedia

Mr tom here has habit of supporting racist and bigots.

Tom, or ANYONE would be hard pressed to equal the bigotry being exhibited by leaders on the left of the political and media spectrum!

Tom, or ANYONE would be hard pressed to equal the bigotry being exhibited by leaders on the left of the political and media spectrum!

?? A bigot is a bigot, I don't care if he is from the republican , democratic or the green party..

Lol I bet Dare supports Joe Biden .
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."


And Evita Clintoon said Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis."
Or this gem by Evita
She also said
"You f~ing Jew b@stard." -- Hillary Clinton to political operative Paul Fray. This was revealed in "State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton" and has been verified by Paul Fray and three witnesses.

I bet Dare supports Donna Brazille ;former campaign chair for the Goracle's 2000 election
(I) "will not let the white boys win in this election."

Or Al Sharpton who said "White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it."

Or Sen Chris Dodd who praised Sen White Sheets Byrd a former grand poobah or kleagle of the KKK
By saying "he would have been a great senator at any moment.... He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation."

Dare ;I could spend all night pulling out racists comments from the left... but you get the idea. Note I did not even mention the racism displayed by the President of the people he hung out with for 20 years.

In April 2006, Time magazine called him one of "America's Five Worst Senators] The magazine dubbed him The Underperformer for his "lackluster performance", saying he "shows little interest in policy unless it involves baseball",during his 2004 campaign.[12]
On December 6, 2006, only Bunning and Rick Santorum voted against the confirmation of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, with Bunning saying that

“ Mr. Gates has repeatedly criticized our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan without providing any viable solutions to the problems our troops currently face. We need a secretary of defense to think forward with solutions and not backward on history we cannot change. ”
Jim Bunning reportedly has blocked[13] the move to restore public access to the records of past United States Presidents which had been removed under Executive Order 13233.

In February 2009, at the Hardin County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, while discussing conservative judges, Bunning predicted that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would likely be dead from pancreatic cancer within nine months.[16]

On top of that he is a racist too

During his reelection bid, controversy erupted when Bunning described Mongiardo as looking "like one of Saddam Hussein's sons."[5] Public pressure compelled him to apologize.
Source=wikepedia

Mr tom here has habit of supporting racist and bigots.

Sen. Jim Bunning: The Bailout Is Un-American - The Home Front (usnews.com) (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-home-front/2008/09/23/sen-jim-bunning-the-bailout-is-un-american.html)

He may not be popular because of the stances he takes: conservative ones.

The News and Tribune - Bailey, Paul talk about interest in U.S. Senate race (http://www.newsandtribune.com/statenews/kentuckystatehouse_story_127165832.html)



Paul has said he isn’t likely to run if Bunning stays in the race – something Bunning has said over and over he will do. Paul agrees with Bunning’s criticism of the Federal Reserve and votes against the federal stimulus and corporate bailouts




Pancreatic cancer has one of the grimest prognosis there is -
Prognosis of Pancreatic Cancer - Pancreatic Cancer (http://www.pancreatic.org/site/c.htJYJ8MPIwE/b.891917/k.5123/Prognosis_of_Pancreatic_Cancer.htm) -
Is the truth, sad as it may be. I don't know why you would think that necessarily makes him a "bad" senator.


Speaking of Mongiardo - Dem / KY

Barefoot and Progressive: ANTI-HOPE: Dan Mongiardo is a Mountaintop Removing Homophobe (http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/03/anti-hope-dan-mongiardo-is-mountaintop.html)

What do you libs think of his stance ?







G&P

lol I bet Dare supports Joe Biden .
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."


And Evita Clintoon said Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis."
or this gem by Evita
She also said
"You f~ing Jew b@stard." -- Hillary Clinton to political operative Paul Fray. This was revealed in "State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton" and has been verified by Paul Fray and three witnesses.

I bet Dare supports Donna Brazille ;former campaign chair for the Goracle's 2000 election
(I) "will not let the white boys win in this election."

or Al Sharpton who said "White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it."

or Sen Chris Dodd who praised Sen White Sheets Byrd a former grand poobah or kleagle of the KKK
by saying "he would have been a great senator at any moment.... He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation."

Dare ;I could spend all night pulling out racists comments from the left ...but you get the idea. Note I did not even mention the racism displayed by the President of the people he hung out with for 20 years.

Maybe you didn't hear me a bigot is a bigot doesn't matter what party he is from, and you make a lot of assumptions here you bet I support this you bet I support that, how do you know I support joe and hillary?? You have some kind of sixth sense, your inner self is telling you all this garbage.

Just because we have racist in the democratic party it doesn't justify the racist in the republican party.Your argument here is its okay to be racist as long as the other side is racist too.Really. I am sure you can do better then that

DARE

Prove that Senator Bunning is racist?

Does saying Mogiardo looks like one of Hussein's sons really racist?




G&P

DARE

Prove that Senator Bunning is racist?

Does saying Mogiardo looks like one of Hussein's sons really racist?




G&P


During his reelection bid, controversy erupted when Bunning described Mongiardo as looking "like one of Saddam Hussein's sons."[5] Public pressure compelled him to apologize

If its not racist why would he apologize??

Dare do you support the President ?

Dare do you support the President ?

On most issues no.

So in other words you hang here without identifying your beliefs but take pot shots from the cheap seats at others.

so in other words you hang here without identifying your beliefs but take pot shots from the cheap seats at others.

Am I required to identify my beliefs in order to participate in this discusiions? If you had been reading my anwers which I am pretty sure you are not you would know that I donot follow any political ideology blindly.