The American Spectator

Melvin Leppla| 11.24.08 @ 7:30AM

Come on people, we heaped this mess onto ourselves by electing Republican politicians without an ounce of conviction on Conservative principles.
Sarah Palin had more testosterone in her body than the entire Republican political establishment who resorted to high school locker room behind the back sniping to attempt to derail Sarah's future political plans.
What the Republican Party leadership needs is one giant super heavy duty colon cleanser to flush out the moderately liberal elite parasites that have taken up residence in the Party.

Jason| 11.24.08 @ 7:51AM

The Kathleen Parker article is outrageous, as I note here: http://rightklik.blogspot.com/2008/11/giving-up-on-god.html
The circular firing squad.

malm| 11.24.08 @ 7:58AM

Conservation is dead. People like Mr. Bass are still in the shock and denial stage. You may never move on to restructuring and rebuilding in new ways. You want to dig up Reagan from his grave, and strap his corpse into a charging war horse and slay all yourfoe s(see the movie El Cid, final scene). Wanted by all sane Americans, a viable second party. Must look outside GOP.

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.24.08 @ 8:08AM

Take this quick poll.
Do you care if anyone outside your own family has an abortion?
Do you want to pay for someone else’s abortion?
Do you care if Bob fornicates with Bill?
Do you care if Jill fornicates with Jane?
Do you think matrimony produces monogamous relationships?
Do you think toilet seats transmit STD’s?
Do you fail to find humor in “Church Lady” skits?
Do you deny that abortions diminish the ranks of liberals, welfare recipients and democrats?
Do you believe the vitriolic hate, sanctimonious blathering, and journalistic hypocrisy, leveled at Kathleen Parker is due to: (a) confusion about the First Amendment, or (b) a simple failure to place the fate of the Nation and its citizens as a primary concern?
Last Question. Do you think that by becoming a pollster and simply placing a series of questions in the public domain obscures opinion.

sara| 11.24.08 @ 8:37AM

There are two factions that neither party wants to embrace. The rabid left, with its in your face pro-gay marriage protests and the coat hanger rallies. The right has its rabid players too, and they aren't pretty, let's face it. But, come on, the "wingers" (far right and far left), balance each other out. They had little to do with determining the outcome of the election. The candidates did. Period.

www.saraforamerica.com

Agent Orange Peel| 11.24.08 @ 9:25AM

Mitt Romney has the right approach to party cohesion: unite the fiscal, social, and foreign policy conservatives. Reagan did it masterfully. He earned the support of Bible-believing Christians, marijuana-legalizing libertarians, union-card-carrying blue-collar workers, small-town families, and even a few liberals who were scared of being the only ones in their state to vote for Mondale.

In principle I agree with you. However, there are in my view some things wrong with the Republican party. I call myself a social and fiscal conservative and endorsed McCain/Palin for President and Vice President. But I think that the Republican party has for decades been only paying lip service to fiscal conservatism and if the party doesn't change that attitude shortly America is going to be in even bigger trouble than it is now.

But Republicans don't seem to want to hear that message. For example, I got "posting privileges revoked" a couple of hours earlier this morning at Free Republic for daring to question the fiscal conservatism of Ronald Reagan, George Bush 41, and George Bush 43 by linking to my article that dealt with that theme:
http://agentorangepeel.blogspot.com/

RJ| 11.24.08 @ 9:28AM

Romney is no Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan, while a pragmatist when necessary, had convictions. Romney has wet his finger to see which way he believes the GOP winds are blowing, and tacked wherever he best thought votes for him would be. He was the least effective GOP Governor of MA of recent vintage (he couldn't hold a candle to Weld and Cellucci, and he barely eclipsed Swift.)

Mitt doesn't happen.

Captain America| 11.24.08 @ 10:53AM

I'm in favor of giving Parker, Frum, et al all the attention and consideration they deserve: none.

Historical recreationism and recrimination is an unfortunate and unworthy consequence of election defeat. Where each faction of the losing party points to the other factions and casts blame for the loss.

The less attention we give to these fringe players the better. Let's commit to starving them of the attention they so demand.

Agent Orange Peel| 11.24.08 @ 11:39AM

I'm in favor of giving Parker, Frum, et al all the attention and consideration they deserve: none. (Captain America 3:18)

I agree. (Agent Orange Peel 3:19)

P.S.
If I remember correctly, I don't always, you were a 3:17 after a 3:16 at this site.

Franklin Barfield| 11.24.08 @ 12:27PM

The notion that social conservatives are extreme would be laughable except that since the nation is now so fallen and accepting of every unnatural and morally relativistic thing in the current culture, 'normal' has become abnormal.

A young man snuffed out his life live online just the other day. No one is stunned or surprised. The story hasn't gotten alot of media play.

The circumstances surrounding his death are telling. Of course the biased news media want none of that discussion. More of this is sure to follow.

I for one believe that social conservatives (who are also overwhelmingly fiscal conservatives btw) should begin to make a grass roots effort to restore our values on the nation and forget about the Republican party.

Our problem are the elites in the GOP are no different than the elites in the Democrat party. They are as much socialists as are the Dems.

Power hungry and driven to be kings.

They think they know whats best for the rest of us and we had just better shut up about it and do what they say.

I don't think so.

The problem is almost all the institutions that made this country great are now controlled by socialist elements. Even the Christian Church is falling to the sin of self aggrandizement cloaked in piety. The anti-Christ spirit.

We need to start at the PTA, school boards and town councils. Then we can attack the larger segments of government bureaucracy infested with career socialist entitlement ideologues.

It took a long time for us to get in this position. The socialist have taken a long term view and have been committed to a process that would turn American exceptional ism on its head... in due time. They have succeeded.

We live in a nation that accepts good as evil and evil as good.

They now control all of public education and the federal government's bureaucracies. They control most of the state governments apparatus as well. We know they control every medium to large city in the country as well and far too many small ones.

Every one of them a wretched cesspool of crime, entitlement, violence, moral debauchery and government fraud/waste/abuse.

We let this happen by going to work everyday, going to church on Sunday, raising our families and trying to do the things that made America great while trusting that the government wasn't going to make things worse.

We were wrong to trust government instead of God. Our founders warned us not to.

It will take a long time for us to get out of this mess. But we CAN do it. We must be committed. Christian Bible-believing people are who made this nation the greatest in history to date.

That is, FAITH in the bedrock principles that have served to keep us healthy, wealthy, powerful, wise and a beacon unto all nations.

MJ Turkelson| 11.24.08 @ 1:34PM

The Franklin Barfield column above is the best piece I have read since the roof fell in on Nov 4. Every word of his comment strikes at the heart of the idiocy of the "conservative" leaders we have been trusting far too much. Of great interest as one example of dumb thinking is the fact that we all (me too) thought PJ O'Rourke, of Parliament of Whores fame was marvelous---now we find out he blames citizens of faith for our problems. Supposedly Fred Barnes is a "conservative" but in reality he is just another air headed buffoon that somehow landed on our ? side. His discussions with Kondracke on their specialty show are inane and totally without substace.

Mr Barfield hits it on the head with the core of his piece that it will be difficult but we CAN do it by being patient and working at the basics (school boards; town councils and the like.

Theoldman| 11.24.08 @ 1:36PM

See www.indytaxdollars.typepad.com for another comment on the Parker B.S. (Biased Sludge)

iamse7en| 11.24.08 @ 1:39PM

Romney/Jindal '12

Bob| 11.24.08 @ 1:47PM

The problem is that social conservatives are "conservative". They are "activist". Furthermore, they are single issue based, i.e., abortion. The religious traditions of anti-poverty, pro-environmental, and pro-health belong to the Democrats. That's why the evangelical vote split evenly between the two sides this year.

The problem with social conservatives is that they believe THEY are more moral than those they oppose. You don't win votes by evoking those types of judgments.

The real problem is not that Republicans are becoming Democrats, it's that a good portion of Republicans are so turned off by social conservatives that they are becoming independents. Once someone becomes an independent, they are much more likely to vote for the other side.

So yes, Parker, Frum, Brooks, etc., are precisely right. The intolerance of social conservatives is making the party smaller and less appealing to the middle.

Religion should be taken out of any political platform and the party should concentrate on real conservative principles.

Alan Brooks| 11.24.08 @ 2:06PM

The irony is, without religion overt or covert we're nothing but darwinist blobs.

But I do not trust libertarians; social conservatives, aye, libertarians, nyet, er, I mean no!

Bob| 11.24.08 @ 3:07PM

Alan - without Darwin we are nothing but pagan illiterates....

Religion certainly has a place in life, it just shouldn't be a part of a major political party. If that is really important to you, you should spend your time voting in and supporting pro-life Democrats like Reid and Casey. If you don't, you are not true to your beliefs.

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.24.08 @ 3:17PM

I have good news and bad news. The good news is that Parker, Frum, Brooks, O'Rourke, etc. are outstanding examples of the First Amendment; the bad news is that those who need to listen to what they have to say the most are ones least likely to listen.
I suspect that discussion occurring here will be relegated to nothing more than an asterisk in the next series of elections when all those Scoop Jackson democrats, affluent blacks, and matrimonial gays show up in the conservative ranks waving torches made out of 1040's

anonymous| 11.24.08 @ 3:18PM

Romney would not like being compared with Reagan, a man he DID NOT SUPPORT. That was just another reason not to trust Romney. He never supported Reagan, yet during the primaries you would think he had worked for his campaign the way he heaped praises on him and even had the gall to say Reagan would have voted for him. Mitt was on McCain's econonmic committee and they advised McCain to suspend his campaign and go to DC in support of the bailout. During the primaries Mitt told auto workers in MICH he would save their jobs. Now he is saying let them go bankrupt. *this AFTER Huckabee (and Gingrich) were VERY outspoken in opposition to the bailout. Romney proves that, just because you may have been good at private sector business, it DOES NOT MAKE you good at governing.

Alan Brooks| 11.24.08 @ 3:24PM

Bob,
who said i'm pro-life?
And my objection is to vulgarized social darwinism, not to evolution.I like religion because it's the only refuge left to escape from a darwinistic world of creative destruction.

Alan Brooks| 11.24.08 @ 3:39PM

but never mind, between right wingers who bulldoze you and progressives who misconstrue, theres no chance of communication.

Greg| 11.24.08 @ 3:43PM

Bob,

"Furthermore, they [social conservatives] are single issue based, i.e., abortion."

What evidence do you have that social conservatives are single issue based? Just a guess, but I'll bet most who oppose abortion also oppose same gender marriage. I'll bet a whole bunch of them are extremely passionate about other issues as well, like gun control. I’ll bet that a bunch of them are bound and determined to fight the insidious creep of socialism into our society with its attendant decrease of liberty. I could go on.

In elections, people often must choose between the lesser of two evils. It seems that you lament the fact that so many of your fellow citizens view the practice of abortion as high on their list of evil.

Bob| 11.24.08 @ 4:03PM

Greg, I agree there are a handful of other religious issues which interest social conservatives. They are defined by religious belief rather than secular reason. That would certainly include same gender marriage. However, I have never seen a correlation with gun control. I'm convinced most of them don't understand socialism -- if they did, they would recognize that what they're trying to do with abortion and marriage IS socialism.

However, I must disagree that they are for true liberty. They hate libertarians. They seem to want a religious state similar to the Islamic theocracies. I'm sure if you asked most of them if this should be a "Christian Nation", they would respond in the affirmative.

I don't lament that social conservatives want to outlaw abortion. I do lament that they have tied this to the Republican party which should be fighting for true conservatism and not get hung up on social issues. I also pointed out that they do not seem to support political efforts to eradicate poverty and give health care to the most vulnerable of our society.

CSM Occupied Northern VA| 11.24.08 @ 4:12PM

Thank GOD McCain Lost!

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not enthusiastic about 2-4 years of life under the tyranny of a liberal cleptocracy.

However we now face a period of time howling in the wilderness during which we can fix our tarnished brand and build a credible alternative to Hype and Chump-change.

Had McCain won, only limited correction and no introspection would now be underway within the GOP. Our rudderless ship would have drifted farther and farther out to sea.

After eight years of compassionate conservatism it is going to be difficult to repair the Republican brand given the complete collapse of fiscal restraint and far too numerous episodes of “posture, and then runaway bravely” policy fights.

We now have an opportunity to excise our craven behavior, luke-warm support for tough policy positions and unwillingness to confront the demagogues of the left; and grow a pair.

When voters are presented with a choice between liberals (with discipline and spine), and spineless not-so-liberals, voters will choose the authentic version every time. McCain, as a populist and squishy cross-aisle appeaser would have heaped even more confusion on the manure pile that is the current GOP brand. Were we to follow the advice of the lily livered RINOs trying to craft a democrat-light party out of the GOP, we might never return from the wilderness.

As for the attacks on social conservatives and the religious right, it is important to remember that religion has a place in a nation founded on the principle that our inalienable rights derive from a creator and not from the magnanimity of a condescending state.

Admittedly, no one’s interests would be served, by throwing off the intolerance of political correctness for the intolerance of christian (small "C") bigotry. But that has not been the price requested by conservatives for their support—if anything, social conservatism tends to walk hand-in-hand with fiscal conservatism.

For myself, I prefer fiscal conservatism, principled diplomacy and a defense/security posture based on a big stick--rarely wielded, over the pseudo-social conservatism and open checkbook of the Bush years. That doesn’t mean I want to see fetus-based stem cell research, or anything-goes marriage (How about man-sheep; woman-horse, or legal polygamy?—Puh-leeze No!).

There is a basic litmus test built into holding “these truths to be self evident….” I do not see that precluding an LDS member or a Jew from being a Republican Presidential candidate. However, I don’t see the GOP in our lifetimes running an avowed atheist or agnostic for President.

There is plenty of room in the Republican tent and we don’t need to expel the country club patricians and RINOs. But we need to offer them the same choice they gave us in McCain: if not the GOP then whom?

Paul E. Chadek| 11.24.08 @ 5:36PM

CSM Occupied Northern VA - "fiscal conservatism, principled diplomacy and a defense/security posture based on a big stick". Sounds like the plank from the Constitution Party. We don't need to expel the RINOs, when we can just abandon them.

Tim Pruse| 11.24.08 @ 5:36PM

Romney just blew any chance he had of remaining as significant politician with his hypocritical aboutface on the loans for the Big 3. I voted for him in the '08 primary, but he has now clearly demonstrated his willingness to pander for foolish short-term political gain over the long-term interests of America. I will have trouble ever voting for him again.

Crusader| 11.24.08 @ 6:15PM

Greg, Bob blames everything on social conservatives. In another post he was blaming social conservatives for the mortgage problems of the folks who bought more house than they could afford. It is best to ignore him. For someone who laments social cons are "single-minded" he sure is blissfully ignorant of his single-minded posts here on AmSpec. Comparing Christians to islamists is beyond the pale and is indicative of Bob's ignorance of the people whom he is so quick to blame and demonize.

Bob| 11.24.08 @ 6:39PM

Crusader, if you truly believed in religious freedom, you would see Islam as Christianity's equal and not demean another religion.

CSM -- so would you back a Muslim for the GOP nominee?????? Why not?????

Greg| 11.24.08 @ 6:45PM

Bob,

I have to disagree with you further, and I really don’t think either one of us will convince the other. I think most social conservatives understand very clearly, what socialism is. You however seem to have a unique definition. A pro-life position is not a socialist position any more than a position against murder, larceny, or littering is. For the person who doesn’t believe that abortion is a crime against the defenseless, i.e. a victimless act, but still advocates a ban on abortion, you might have a case. I don’t think very many pro-lifers fall into this category.

There is a very good editorial at NR Online today entitled “Legislating Immorality” that sums up the same gender marriage conflict with social conservatives nicely. It’s not about legislating morality – quite the opposite.

I disagree that social conservatives “hate” libertarians and your characterization of “true liberty”, and your comparison to an Islamic state.

A position that a socialist government is not the optimal way to eradicate poverty and provide healthcare is far from being incompatible with Christian teachings and values. Most Christians give very generously to their neighbors and bring about much good among the less privileged - freely and without a government mandate. This goes a long way to proving the case that they are not interested in legislating morality.

By the way, I’m an Independent, not a Republican. So far, whenever the Republicans lost my vote, it hasn’t been to a Democrat.

C. Benson| 11.24.08 @ 7:19PM

The fear of conservative Christians is absurd. For how many hundreds of years has this nation been considered a Christian nation. When have Christians every tried to thwart the constitution or take over this country. The fear of Christian thoughts or ideas as meaning they want to take over America is laughable. If this is a free country they can think what they want express how they believe and support whomever they want for public office. I'm not a Christian but I have many, many Christian friends and if anything they are now castigating themselves for not standing up more for what they believe in. In my opinion anyone who berates Christians for wanting the same rights every other American wants have must be a liberal at heart. Take over by Christians has been part of the liberal fear mongering for a very long time, after all to be Christian there are some things that are right and somethings that are wrong. Liberals know there is no right or wrong only... if it feels good do it.

Thomas| 11.24.08 @ 9:33PM

I am beginning to think that self-styled libertarians are as terrified of true Conservatives as are liberals, and for the same reason. They are afraid that they and their values may be wrong and it terrifies them that someone may tell them so. It terrifies them so much that they would rather side with liberals, who never tell anyone that they are wrong, they simply make any other practice other than the ones that they agree with illegal. Very often the right thing is not necessarily the most appealing thing or the most convenient thing. When people become responsible adults, they realize this.

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.25.08 @ 8:06AM

Enough already. Time to read the parable about the trees squabbling over their place in the sun. The woodmen cometh; be they IRS agents measuring up your house of worship, civil rights attorneys, or the titular head of the newly revamped Clinton/Gore administration.

CSM-Occupied Northern Virginia| 11.25.08 @ 8:39AM

RE: Tim Pruse:
“Romney just blew any chance he had of remaining as significant politician with his hypocritical about-face on the loans for the Big 3. “
------
I could not disagree with you more Tim. Mitt took a big chance and made a very principled statement staking a position as a fiscal conservative and advocate for the job and wealth producers of our society. I applaud the change from his centrist days as governor of Mass-a-useless.

The only way these corporations can survive is to go Chapter 11 and free themselves from the parasitic death grip of the UAW. Zealots and Gore-bots in Congress like Henry Waxman will still try and force them to make green vehicles no one wants to drive. The cost of compliance will be crushing if the big three still have to carry the rotting vampire flesh of past UAW collective racketeering (shake-downs).

What do you want? $25B to keep the UAW leeches fed for another six months and then another and another. The leaders of the UAW, aided and abetted by liberal politicians and the craven capitulations of past generations of Big-3 leadership has, through greed and selfish extortion, killed the goose that laid their golden eggs.

Sure there will be a bill to Fedzilla to guarantee their ridiculous pension plan and health care (cheap compared to the Wall Street Bailout), but Detroit's Big 3 will a a brief window of time to increase their competitiveness by shedding the rotting corpse of big labor weighing it down (i.e reset wages to wher they should be in a right to work state). An auto worker in the rust belt should be paid the same fair wage as one in the Sun Belt. It’s is ironic for me that the President-elect and Socialist Politcal Party that big labor bought is about to come into one-party rule of the United Socialist States of America, just as the consequences of unionized thuggery are finally coming home to roost.

Romney just went up in my estimation.

CSM-Occupied Northern Virginia| 11.25.08 @ 9:00AM

RE: Bob | 11.24.08 @ 5:39PM

"CSM -- so would you back a Muslim for the GOP nominee?????? Why not????? "
------------
Bob,
Don't be ridiculous. Islam does not hold the fundamentals espoused in our Declaration of Independence or our Constitution to be self evident.

Islam holds that non-believers in Islam are sub-human and should be subjugated (enslaved, or placed in Dhimitude). More poignantly, Islam holds women to be chattel (that’s property for you Bob, like furniture or household goods). If 50% of the human race is held to be unequal, how could a believer in such a faith ever be raised to higher office in this country?

Last time I checked our founding principals are that we were all given certain inalienable rights by our creator: all of us, even non-believers.

So, to answer your inane question Bob, I would not support a Muslim for President.

Certainly not until such time as Islam has undergone the equivalent of the Christian Reformation and acknowledges the inherent right of all people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then, once Islam truly approached being a religion of peace--which today it very much is not--I might, and only if the remainder of core conservative values were addressed, consider voting for a Muslim as GOP presidential candidate.

Schools out Bob, take your crayons and go color in the corner.

Crusader| 11.25.08 @ 9:24AM

Bob, you lose ALL credibility with the asinine statement that islam is Christianity's equal. It proves you are anti-intellectual WRT islam. You have NEVER read the quran, hadiths, or any biography on muhammed. For that matter you have probably never read the Bible either. Anyone intellectually honest enough to do an objective assessment of Christianity vs islam would not come to the conclusion that they are equal.

Nice try though, dhimmi.

Rob Andrus| 11.25.08 @ 12:29PM

Does anyone else notice that anytime Romney is mentioned there are a hundred times more responses? The man has built a following and an opposition. You have to give him that much.

Also, the Romney article did say that the big 3 should go into bankruptcy and restructuring. He did not say they should go out of business.

When you look at our national debt, our complete irresponsibility as a party on fiscal issues and the near collapse of our currency. How can we say we are conservatives? Clinton may not be responsible for the balanced budget during his administration, but at least he didn't make it worse by finding ways to spend the money on other things.

I am sincerely worried that our nation is on the brink of complete collapse. My wife is feeling that the second coming of Christ is immenant. I feel that we are on the brink of a socialist revolution, whose conditions were setup while we enjoyed a Republican majority in both houses and the white house. Yet the government seems determined to worsen its own mistakes and seems determined to destroy our currency........

Romney is not the enemy. We have proven that we are our own enemy.....by not being conservative....

Lastly, we live in an age when darkness is called light and light is called dark. It has become illegal for teachers to mention God in class but required to teach homosexuality as a virtue.

I hope we see the error of our ways before the nation collapses.

Tripp| 11.25.08 @ 3:48PM

God help our party if Mitt or the Huckster get the nomination in 2012- two abysmal pseudo conservatives who will throw taxpayer money away faster than used profilactics. I'll move to England faster than let those two screw up the party more. I say Mark Sanford in 2012- let's just quit pretending we care about fiscal responsibility and actually practice it, dimwits. No more grandstanding about the sanctity of marriage, saying you'll cut taxes but increase deficit spending, and funding pet projects dressed in pretty "compassionate conservative" gowns. That tactic doesn't work anymore, and the dimwits and numbskulls trying to vindicate Bush 1 and 2's brands of Republicanism need to shut up and actually read PJ O'Rourke for once and take the reality into heart- low taxes, less government, and for God's sake more freedom!

David| 11.26.08 @ 10:22AM

Romney is hardly the unifier. He has spilled so much GOP blood that he will wrack any marriage. I think his conservative political life is over. He meaningful role is to be a Obama cabinet. Mark my word.

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.26.08 @ 3:45PM

What part of "beaten by both McCain and Huckabee" don't you understand? That said, get ready gang, here comes the "If "Grandma had wheels she would be a trolly car" rant.

Rob| 11.27.08 @ 10:00PM

We got snookered this time around. We allowed the Democrats to pick our candidate in the primaries. The very first reform the republicans need to make is to standardize the primary system. Open it only to registered republicans who have been registered for more than a year in advance. Second, make the system either proportionate or absolute as far as electoral votes. Not a combination of both.

We would not have ended up with McCain if we had a unified system, Romney was hurt because he seemed to win the states that were proportionate while McCain picked up the lumpsum victories. We opened up our system to people who only wished to do us harm.

The argument that Huckabee beat Romney is while technically true is ridiculous. When Romney dropped out he was within a 5-600,000 votes. He supported the apparent winner (McCain) in an effort to give him a boost and strengthen our party. Huckabee selfishly stayed in with no real hope of victory. Not to mention the fact that Huckabee seemed to only be campaigning for McCain's VP slot, never taking shots at McCain......EVER.... Only piling on Romney all along the way.

Huckabee is dishonest and a true politician.

Romney has some issues to work on, but if you listened to his speech on religion he will not back away from his faith, nor should he have to.

I am Mormon and have been my whole life. In the past year we've been called everything (on this site too) from a dangerous evil cult, to non christian, non americans. People need to get over it. How many Mormons do you know? We are good people living our beliefs which are Christian principles. Kindness, service, love and respect for others. We are taught specifically to not preach against other religions but to respect their beliefs......I wish we were given the same courtesy. The vast majority of Mormons are conservatives that believe in small government, self reliance and citizenship. We serve in the military, we serve in public office. We hold 4th of July flag raising ceremonies at our churches and pledge allegiance to the flag.

Name some famous Mormons: Steve Young, Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch, and Harry Reid.....3 out of 4 Republicans ain't bad.

So for all of you who will "Never vote for a Mormon"....Just get over it. We're not gonna force anybody to come to our church. Stop trying to destroy us. There are people actively trying to destroy both Christianity, freedom of religion and the United States and it isn't the Mormons. (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.)

-(I'm not a representative of the church, just a member.)

Ms. Know| 11.29.08 @ 2:44PM

That's where the left-wing illuminati have the advantage, the GOP are still finger pointing, instead of working on what can be done to ensure a victory next time.

Baseballguy2001| 11.30.08 @ 7:20PM

The first thing to do is figure out what went wrong then correct it. Admit it: The Bush years have been a disaster for low tax, smaller, less intrusive government, strong defense types. I emphasize the less intrusive govt part. By any reasonable accounting, the Bush years have increased the size, scope, and intrusive nature of the federal govt. For example, should parents have control of their kids education or should the feds in D.C.? The Bush years gave us the "No Child Left Behind" law that transfers your tax dollars from your local economy to another hundreds or even thousands of miles away at the the direction of the powers in D.C.. How about not a single veto on any spending bill in the entire first four years in office. That inaction expanded the size of govt at levels not seen since the 1960's. How about the federal govt stepping in on a family dispute that had been up and down the Florida courts? Talk about infringing on states rights! Another killer issue has to be the years of foreign nation building that is costing the country billions of dollars. The ultimate govt intrusion has to be the nationalizing of the banking, insurance, and the manufacturing sectors. All done with the blessing of this Republican president who wants to be remembered by history as a 'Liberator'. Someone please explain to me how a freedom loving American can liberate foreign peoples but take away freedoms of his own countrymen? The fix? That's easy. Any politician who says the govt knows better than me doesn't get my vote. A Government that can do everything for you, can easily take everything away.