The American Spectator

Gazinya| 10.23.09 @ 7:06AM

I can only say I wish I had been as succient in my verbage, yesterday. I was hot and didn't care to be civil but this article states the point. We are not interested in giving up our principles so that RINOs and left wing extrimists, who may call themselves conservative, can sit at the table in our name and then slit our throats.

Eric Cartman| 10.23.09 @ 11:44AM

Ditto, here, Gazinya! I start off meaning to write a calm, sober reply and by the time the first sentence is out, I'm in full rant! I erase everything and start with the high dudgeon! I can't help it! How marvelously stupid can a party be. The fact the left can get away with this is that Republicans spent like drunken Democrats ( I refuse to associate honorable drunken sailors with this crowd) and really never told Bush, "sorry, no!" They better "Change" - that's all I have to say.

E. Moran| 10.23.09 @ 3:20PM

Tritto here. These acts of self-immolation must stop if the GOP is to regain any credibility. Republicans have bought in on the 'bread and circus' earmarks, abandonment of social principles that make them virtually indistinguishable from Democrats. See how Crist has 'morphed' in FLorida as he tries to regain conservative credibility. RINOs should be gored by their shameful behavior and just give it up and become Democrats like Spector did.

Devil| 10.23.09 @ 11:11PM

Madam needs to be corected and supplied with coffee to sober up: Republicans spending like Republicans.

Devil| 10.23.09 @ 11:13PM

Madam needs to be corected and supplied with coffee to sober up:Republicans acting like Republicans.

Devil| 10.23.09 @ 11:24PM

Madam needs to be corected and supplied with coffee to sober up:Republicans spending like Republicans.

Juno| 10.24.09 @ 1:29AM

Dumbass Devil--good job! Your moronic post in triplicate. Thanks so much.

Uh, I think 'Eric' is a Mr. not a Madam.

Keith| 10.23.09 @ 1:42PM

I sent this yesterday to the RNC:

Dear Republican National Committee,

It is with great pain that I have to inform you that for the foreseeable future I am discontinuing my contributions to the RNC. I am making this decision with much regret, so I think it is important that you understand my reasons.

I am a strong American, Christian, Conservative, and in 99% of cases I vote Republican and regardless of whether they are ‘moderate’ or even ‘liberal’ Republicans. I understand the balance that we face in promoting candidates to run for political office and that we try to get the most winnable conservative Republican we possibly can for any given district. Some districts will support a more conservative candidate; sometimes a more moderate one would be better. This is the fine balance that a major party must face. But there is a dire consequence: In things that matter most – crunch time – these moderates have a tendency to vote/support for extremely liberal democrat bills (ie Snowe, Collins, Spector, Chaffee, Crist). This hurts. Especially when the RNC is promoting candidates like these.

I now understand the RNC is advocating Charlie Crist ( Fla ) and Scozzafava (NY) – both liberal Republicans with dubious Conservative, let alone, Republican positions. How did it come to pass that the RNC has anointed these candidates over winnable conservative ones? If a mistake was made, why won’t the RNC retract their selections to allow a more conservative candidate win?

In lieu of sending the RNC any more contributions, I am instead sending these funds directly to conservative candidates (Rubio-FLA, Hoffman-NY). So now, I am faced with sending more of my money to conservative candidates to offset the RNC money that is sent to liberal ones.

I am willing to listen to any feedback that you have, please contact me thru e-mail below.

Respectfully,

Keith A. Mussey

Eric Cartman| 10.23.09 @ 3:22PM

Eric,
My letter wasn't so pleasant, so I never got a reply. Would love to know if you ever get a reply from these weasels faced toads!

Mark Adair| 10.23.09 @ 5:21PM

I have been an independant voter since I turned 18. I became a Republican voter (though keeping my independant status) since Newt Gingrinch and his Contract With America.

The Republican Party promised me all sorts of librertarian/conservative, small-government things... and then turned around and gave me the finger with No Child Left Behind, Medicare Drug Coverage and ... remember this?... $100 million to promote marriage counseling for low income families!

Turns out, George HW Bush and George W Bush were nothing more than RINOs. They destroyed the Republican Party TWICE.

So, Mr. Steele... You and your colleagues can go hang for all I care. You and your Democrat Lite BS artists damaged all trust I had in you.

Never again will I vote for a Liberal Republican. I will stay home instead of caste my vote with the lot of you and your den of thieves.

You bastards pass these #$@*%&ing; bailouts of companies that have sunk the economy and damaged my business. You use MY tax dollars to bail out your friends in banking, auto and other such industries.

Meanwhile, here in NY State, everyone on welfare got a $#@*%@ing raise!

As I said... a den of thieves. Go hang.

I hope you all die.

Oh, by the way, I listen to Rush every day. And Rush is right. You RINOs suck. Go join the Liberal Democrats you traitors.

MiltonF Admirer| 10.23.09 @ 6:09PM

Always vote. In elections where there is no candidate with whom I can find enough common ground to cast my vote, I write in myself or a conservative or libertarian friend. At least then I've exercised my civic duty and voted my conscience.

Cheers!

Juno| 10.24.09 @ 1:31AM

Milton, you're most likely the best candidate on the ballot!

rc| 10.23.09 @ 5:44PM

As a lifelong democrat, i support your efforts to completely kill the republcian party! Your type of conservatism represents a small and shrinking minority!!! Go Palin!!

victor| 10.23.09 @ 8:11PM

You betcha, rc. Bet you think it stands for "really cool", eh?
Go here and see just how "small and shrinking" the Conservatives are little man:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bests....._dp_ts_b_1
If Sarahcuda was "small and shrinking", the dems wouldn't be spending all their free time coming to place such as this to badmouth, now would you?

rc| 10.24.09 @ 2:26PM

You are proving my point! Keep it up. Pailin is a bad joke and i pray that you all put your support behind her!!!
Gettting smaller and smaller. Pretty soon, you guys will be the equivilent of two nerds stnading in a corner at the big dance.

victor| 10.24.09 @ 3:59PM

Yo, really cool dude, not, apparently you are trying to disprove a negative, in that you deny that Sarah has the No. 2 book on Amazon, and it hasn't been released yet.
When she sells 2 MILLION copies, are you going to tell me that the White House bought them all?
I don't think so dude.
The only woman that is hated as much as Sarah is Michele Bachman.
You're really showing everybody that you're sweatin', eh dude?

rc| 10.24.09 @ 4:48PM

Book sales are a great measure! By that standard, i guess Stephen King could be president! She is not even a 1 term goverrnor!!

Getting smaller and smaller! Keep going guys! Bachman & Pailin! The intellectual powerhouse party!!!

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 7:59PM

Hey rc~~ Could you please tell me, I'd like to know. Why did you vote for Obama?

Also, are you a Libertarian?
I'll wait for your answer.

victor| 10.25.09 @ 2:26PM

Yaeh Dude, that's why you liberalterriers are yapping like mad at the mere mention of:
Palin / Bachman 2012

Tom| 10.23.09 @ 9:42PM

Yea go palin... Who would vote for her???..... watch and learn... it will be fun... Thanks for letting us know who you are afraid of... lovin it!!

John M| 10.24.09 @ 9:30AM

Conservatives don't want to kill the Republican party, far from it; we just want to take it over. In order to do that we plan to get an overwhelmingly large number of registered Republicans who vote conservative into the voting booths in the next set of primaries in every congressional district. The days of the Republican party being run by unprincipled RINOs who continue to throw their support to other unprincipled Democrat-lite RINOs, as stunningly exemplified by the races in New York and Florida are about to come to an end.

Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 10.25.09 @ 11:47PM

...we just want to take it over.

Correction: we want it to get back to what it stood for at one time, before mushy "moderates" began to screw it up.

victor| 10.23.09 @ 8:20PM

If I may, I'd like to suggest all digruntled Conservatives do the same and send those thoughts to the RNC and your state RC as well.
Send the money directly to all Conservative candidates. Any time you hear of one just starting to run, bring his or her name to the fore and make their names known.
Drudge has been puttin up such people at the top of his page recently.
I've talked to demoralized employees for the RNC who have told me that they feel the same as I do, but all they can do is pass on what I told them about not sending any money.
I told off the Christie campaign early this year and have not heard from them since.
I got him to admit that it was deliberate that the RINO's stabbed Bret Schundler in the back in 2001.
Hit'em where it hurts and let them know often.
NO MORE SPINELESS RINO'S!

jd| 10.24.09 @ 1:33AM

I agree -

We need a bumper sticker as well -
Something like

Do Not Feed the RINOs!

jd

victor| 10.24.09 @ 4:01PM

Quick, send that off to the Patriot Post and all other Conservative websites.
Coming soon to a bumper near you!

Palin/Jindal 2012

Robert C. Touchston| 10.23.09 @ 10:40PM

Mr. Mussey, thank you for your erodite comments, which were spot on. As a conservative native Floridian, to take a quote from the Quayle--Benson debates; "I know Jeb Bush and you're no Jeb Bush." Charlie Crist is no conservative, yet he is running a series of radio ads here in conservative Brevard County, Florida. I too have stopped sending money to the RNC long ago. I now support my candidates directly, i.e., Marco Rubio. Charlie Crist and the state's chairman of the republican party are also doing similar tactics to the county republican chairman who dare buck them. Thank you for your letter. It should serve as a great template for others to send to the RNC. God bless you sir, and God bless the United States.

Devil| 10.23.09 @ 11:16PM

Madam needs to be corected and supplied with coffee to sober up:Republicans spending like Republicans.

Juno| 10.24.09 @ 1:33AM

Put your bong away, moron, you're tedious.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 7:23PM

Hey Juno,
Are you a Libertarian?
I'll wait for your answer.

Juno| 10.25.09 @ 3:58AM

Hey Margie,
Are you a RINO?
I don't have to wait for your answer-you're a moron.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:23PM

I'm a conservative, but I see you didn't answer my question, idiot.

victor| 10.25.09 @ 2:28PM

Either you're not smart enough to answer that question or you're just a devious lib.

Alan Brooks| 10.24.09 @ 2:54AM

best piece in AS I've seen, which is saying a whole lot-- because now that NR has lost WFB, AS is the biggest 'organized' voice of conservatism. But we are trapped, because libertarianism, the essence of the free market, fails in terms of personal morality.

No escaping the constraints of human nature at this time.

Anyway, Mr. Antle, you have the conservative Right Stuff.

victor| 10.24.09 @ 12:56PM

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Big J| 10.23.09 @ 7:43AM

"When taxpayers and conservative activists began holding tea parties to protest an out-of-control federal government's unsustainable growth, it was not entirely unreasonable to ask: Where were these people for the last eight years?"

This is a common argument put forth by the left. While conservatives were screaming bloody murder at the Bush administration over Medicare Part D, Immigration and TARP, many were not listening (much the same way many are not listening today, in spite of the TEA parties, town halls, letters, emails, withdrawal of campaign funding, etc.

I say everyone has a threshold. Mine was October 19th, 2008 when the $850 billion bailout passed both houses of Congress (most people forget that extra $150 billion in pork barrel projects that got slammed into the final bill). I called it the day capitalism died, and became more active and vocal than I ever had been.

Fast forward to April 15th, 2009. Hundreds of thousands of regular Americans (the majority of which had never attended a protest in their lives) showed up ON A WEEKDAY to express their displeasure with reckless spending and usurpation of our freedoms. Is Big Brother listening? No.

How about the town halls in August? I didn't see Nazis, angry mobs or AstroTurf protesters (except the SEIU and ACORN organizers, many of whom became violent). I saw regular Americans begging their representatives to represent them. Is Big Brother listening? Absolutely not.

What about the march on Washington D.C. on September 12th? Well over a million people showed up to try to get their message heard, and right across the street, no less. Judging by the current "behind closed door" health care takeover, the answer is NO.

Our so-called representatives better go down and buy a clue. Democrat, Republican or Independent - all irrelevant affiliations. We need CONSERVATIVE representatives in Washington. They must stop the frivolous spending, support our military, and absolutely HALT this ridiculous march to Socialism.

Many Americans are almost at the next threshold, and that's not going to be pretty.

WRTolkas| 10.23.09 @ 8:05AM

Dear Big J,

Amen to your words brother. I will not vote for an incumbent - PERIOD. I will not fund a broken Republican Party - PERIOD. Mr. Steele has to make the decision to have the RINO rot cast off and so restore the Reagan Republican foundation.

Rmm| 10.25.09 @ 10:32AM

Here,here, Brother!
If you didn't hit the nail squarley on the head. This sums up my angst in toto. I did not abandon the Republican Party, THEY abandoned me. The day Bush decided to keep Chaney, Mr. Lightening Rod, in 04, I said "to hell with you crooks".

Son Of Sam| 10.23.09 @ 8:08AM

"Where were the conservatives?" Are these people KIDDING??? WE fought this nonsense tooth and nail! The reason the dinosaur media and the so-called "mainstream" press never noticed is because in their eyes, a Republican is only a "maverick" when he attacks the GOP from the left, the way McCain did. Protests from the conservative base against the damned RINOs doing their usual sellout routine gets barely a mention.

I keep hearing from people I admire like Rush and Hannity that we should do what Reagan did and revitalize the Republican party. I'm all in favor of that, and I only wish that I lived in a state that had an actual GOP. However, we must consider the source of fuel for this operation: is it too much to ask that we burn RINOs to get the energy we need? I promise, Scout's honor, that it won't harm the ozone layer or the polar bears

stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/

S.L. Toddard| 10.23.09 @ 9:25AM

"WE fought this nonsense tooth and nail!"

Really? "You" voted against Bush's re-election? I don't recall any mass conservative migration away from the GOP to fight their "nonsense tooth and nail".

JP| 10.23.09 @ 9:59AM

No SL. Asking Conservatives to vote for John Kerry in 2004 was akin to asking the KozKidz to vote for Pat Buchanan in 1992 (hypothetical of course) because they thought Clinton wasn't liberal enough. Conservatives for 20 years have been told to vote for RINOS for the following reasons:

1)the alternative is much worse (Gore, Kerry)
2)There's a war going on
3)The nation is becoming more conservative and the RINOs will drift to the Right.

No more. At least in local elections, many conservatives are standing thier ground. How the national elections in 2012 go is still up in the air. Conservatives (or at least conservative-libertarians) are perhaps 20% of the electorate. However, they can form up with fiscal conservatives, and other libertarians as well as independents and be a real force. Reagan was able to expand this to conservative Catholics who voted Democratic.

What conservatives must realize however is that certain areas of this nation will produce Republicans who are Pro Choice, Pro Gays, but are fiscal conservatives and defense hawks (New England, portions of the Far West and some Prairie States). These regions will never produce a Jessie Helms or a B1 Bob.

S.L. Toddard| 10.23.09 @ 10:12AM

I understand, and I'm with you, though I don't think one can characterize voting George W Bush back into power as fighting his nonsense "tooth and nail."

During the Bush years, nothing characterized the right more than their undying fealty to and near religious reverence for the Commander In Chief. Some quibbling about No Child Left Behind and amnesty aside, the vast majority of the right stood solidly with Bush up to the bitter, disgraceful end, which left the field open for Obama and rendered the "small government", "fiscal responsibility" opposition from the right a bankrupt, cynical joke.

Mark Adair| 10.23.09 @ 5:31PM

George W Bush was a joke... So was his father... They claimed to be from Texas but their heart-and-souls were New England RINO mush...

"Undying Fealty"? What freakin' choice did we have? John F'ing Kerry?

As you can tell, I am enraged about the last 16 years. For the last 16 years I have been taking up the wazoo from BOTH parties. It just depends on which party held the Presidency and which party held the Congress as to who was giving it to me when.

As an earlier poster said... everybody has a breaking point. Mine was the Bailout Bullsh...

I have absolutely HAD it with Washington DC and every f'ing thief who lives there, works there and makes policy there... ESPECIALLY those that make policy and laws.

You crapsters have NO CLUE what your meddling does to the rest of the country. And you DON'T CARE... as long as your campaign donations remain high...

Lowlifes...

Hitler| 10.23.09 @ 11:37PM

Kill them all:Rinos, Cinos, and Republicans spending like Democrats. Stand under the banner for purity. Any ideas regarding the gays and athiests? Maybe pennies from heaven would do the trick.

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 5:33PM

JP,
You ought to ask Toddard if he'd vote Republican in any way, shape, or form.

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 1:39AM

Margie, all you do is vote republican in any way, shape or form. You are part of the problem if you don't hold RINOs accountable.

Forget Toddard--we know he's a jerk--what are YOU doing to fix our party?

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 1:16PM

Maybe I should vote Libertarian. Think that's help? Now shoo off little germ!

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 4:01AM

Hold RNC leadership accountable--like a REAL CONSERVATIVE-- and you won't have to vote Libertarian. It ain't Rocket Science, Dumbo.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:24PM

Hey little twerp, I do just that. Why are you so bent on your harassing me? You who voted for McCain? What's up with the hypocrisy? Hmm?

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 1:31PM

Oh, and by the way... I don't EVER have to vote Libertarian, lowlife.
But do you?

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 2:31PM

"Forget Toddard--we know he's a jerk--what are YOU doing to fix our party?"
~OUR party, SoCon? Tell me, which party do you belong to?
Are you a Republican?

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 8:02PM

Still no answer. The silence is deafening...

SoCon| 10.26.09 @ 12:22AM

So is your tedious stupidity.

You still gonna get a "Refraining Order" (your words) against me?

Nelson H| 10.23.09 @ 8:35AM

Republican, Democrat, RINO, Conservative....just labels. What we need is economic freedom. That means privatizing or eliminating very large swathes of the federal government and letting the states figure out how to manage their affairs.

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 6:25PM

Nelson that would be true reform, but unpopular with many who are complaining the loudest in this forum.

If Obama Democrat's pass their medial seizure legislation states should nullify it and fight it out in the Supreme Court . . .

Eric R| 10.23.09 @ 8:39AM

You are wrong to criticize Medicare Advantage (i.e. prescription drug benefit plus optional medical coverage) as unconservative. It may be the one profoundly conservative thing Bush did. Using prescription coverage as the carrot, he created a successful program to replace badly-run government healthcare with a free-market option for comprehensive coverage (drug and medical). Now millions of seniors, freed from medical socialism, are enjoying the real-world benefits of freedom.
You can’t just whine about Medicare insolvency and talk about canceling it or slashing benefits; that’s political suicide that lets the socialists win. You have to offer a real-world way out, based on free market principles. You have to provide a bridge back from socialism. That’s what Bush did with Medicare Advantage.
Medicare Advantage provides better coverage, better service, and better disease management at a cost that came in under forecast. For the first time in history a government health program came in under budget instead of way over budget, because it replaced socialism with the free market choice and competition. Conservatives should be trumpeting that success and using setting it as the bar against which to measure the failure of the Democrats current healthcare socialism.
Moreover Medicare Advantage provides comprehensive coverage so seniors can skip cobbling together their coverage with a confusing and expensive Medigap policy (hello AARP). And it provides better disease management because one payor entity can integrate all the medical payment information into the medical record for use by doctors and case managers. (Democrats falsely claim government-run Medicare is cheaper because they fail to include the additional cost required to cover its coverage holes with a Medigap policy).
Conservatives are stupidly missing the chance to highlight the success of free market principles in walking us back from socialist disaster. But shrewd Democrats get it, which is why their first priority is to gut Medicare Advantage before a majority of seniors discover they prefer the free market solution, and before the country at large notices that the only government health program in history that succeeded was based on free market principles. While Democrats shout “Medicare for All!”, conservatives should be shouting “Medicare Advantage for all!” Seriously, Medicare Advantage is a template for a free market alternative to healthcare socialism, with one huge benefit: it is not on the drawing board or buried in 1,500 pages of wishful thinking; it is proving successful in the real world.
Moreover Medicare Advantage has a political constituency: the millions of seniors who are currently enrolled. For the first time in history, there is a political constituency with a vested interest in a free-market-oriented program. Democrats know how to leverage constituencies into political clout; conservatives seem somewhat clueless about it.

S.L. Toddard| 10.23.09 @ 9:43AM

"You can’t just whine about Medicare insolvency and talk about canceling it or slashing benefits; that’s political suicide that lets the socialists win"

In other words, "We must accept and expand socialism, or else the socialists will win."

Insane.

Eric R.| 10.23.09 @ 10:41AM

You put false words in my mouth. I did not say "accept and expand socialism", I said "build a bridge back from socialism". Did you actually read my post? Do you actually know anything about Medicare Advantage?

Democrats had long-range plans to expand Medicare socialism to include drug funding. Bush hijacked their socialism by putting that funding into privatizing Medicare, i.e. "Medicare Advantage".

Hello?! Are you paying attention? The first major entitlement to be privatized (for about 20% of recipients) and you seem unaware of this significant conservative victory.

You should be trumpeting the success of free market choice applied to Medicare, instead of making half-baked uninformed comments.

rdmac| 10.23.09 @ 11:52AM

Most people do not realize that medicare does not cover vision ware, hearing aides, dental even when you have the medigap coverage(which is government controlled but provided by private insurers). Medicare advantage has all this coverage included which makes it affordable for more lower income seniors who cannot afford all the cost not included with regular medicare even when you have a medigap policy. Those who have not had dealings with medicare do not understand that it only covers 80% of the cost associated with your medical treatment and the medigap or you has to pay the other 20%. And only part A(hospitalization) is covered with SS to have part B(doctor visits, test, etc.) one has to pay a minimum of approximately 100.00 a month plus a medigap policy which is around 300.00 a month. So think about what a senior is paying for the so called government medicare plan. This is all too complicated for people who are not informed to voice opionions. But Eric you are correct about MedicareAdvantage low income seniors will suffer when it is eliminated. Boycott AARP.

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 5:23PM

"You put false words in my mouth."
~Toddard does that for a living.

Mean N Green | 10.23.09 @ 5:35PM

To late dude... I am WAAAAYYYYY past Bridge Building. I am ready for bridge burning.

I am THAT angry...

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 6:26PM

Eric Toddard is an Obama/Democrat apologist masquerading as something he isn't a conservative.

victor| 10.23.09 @ 8:32PM

Slo Todd is a pointy headed intellectual who is tenured somewhere most likely in New England and has nothing to worry about. Certainly not the thing us normal walking around Americans have to worry about.
He'll retire on a nice cushy pension and continue to look down his nose at us. At the same time he walks around with his snoot up in the air.
Must give such a crick in his neck, eh?

Tom| 10.23.09 @ 9:52PM

Hello... the two worst presidents in creating national dept were Bush 41 then Bush 43!! They were both great at SPENDING!!! SPENDING and MORE SPENDING!!! Obama is just worse and a socialist/facist. Wake the hell up, Bailouts began under Bush... It's not about anything BUT SPENDING!!! The conservatives have began to take the country back, jump on board or get the hell out of the way... Defending the second biggest spender in history isn't conservative, it's nuts!!

Kelly Staples| 10.23.09 @ 8:52AM

The Stupid Party is headed for the same fate as the Whigs. The time is ripe for a center/right party based on integrity, principle and courage. Are you listening Sarah Palin?

victor| 10.23.09 @ 8:43PM

I suggest we do what happened the last time;
Declare ourselves the Radical Republicans and jettison the moderate RINO'S, exploit the differences between the Blue dog and the Yellow Dog democrats and let them fight amongst each other, implode and then march through Georgia to the sea.
We only have on word, and that is Victory!
Onward to 2012!

Crusader| 10.23.09 @ 8:54AM

We've been here all along. I myself have been called a troll and a liberal on this very board for disagreeing with GWB on any number of topics. Even was called a (gasp!) "Social Conservative" who was ruining the GOP.

So yeah, we're been here, but the right-wing Republican zombies have been trying to muzzle us with the same Alinsky-ite efforts the Left uses. I'd say that time is quickly coming to an end though.

Tim| 10.23.09 @ 8:57AM

Crusader
Why it was only a few short months ago that this board was full of scolds (BOB ARE YOU READING THIS?) nagging about how we had to jettison all conservative issues.

ds80| 10.23.09 @ 11:29AM

Crusader: "I'd say that time is quickly coming to an end though."

Yep. You're marginalizing yourself quite nicely.

Crusader| 10.23.09 @ 1:25PM

ds80: Jeez dude you'd think the playbook would be changed by now. Is calling me "marginalized" supposed to frighten me into voting for libtards/RINOs? Ooooh no, I might be called "marginalized" if I vote for Doug Hoffman, however will I survive? Here's a clue 'tard, the conservatives in this country have been "marginalized" all right, but it was not self-inflicted. No we're pushing back, and you and your libtard friends and RINO co-conspirators are scared. Scared little girlie men (and I use that term lightly--more like feminized p*ssies is what you are) and the only thing, the ONLY thing you can do is call names. Wow.

What makes you so afraid of people who can be successful without the gubmint's help? What makes it so hard for you to understand that if I work for my money I should be able to keep my money? Why are you afraid of American success stories like Sarah Palin who's message resonates with millions of Americans? Because that's what it comes down to doesn't it? Libtards projecting their own fears, inadequacies, and self-doubt on the rest of us.

Tom| 10.23.09 @ 9:54PM

Watch and learn.... You can't even see what's going on.... silly me for thinking you can....

Tim| 10.23.09 @ 8:54AM

I'd like to see Hoffman hoist the Jolly Roger as over on the RNC ship the ladies feint and the gentleman drop their snuff boxes.

victor| 10.24.09 @ 1:07PM

With Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Fred Thompson and others coming "aboard", The RINO's will only have one choice: Join or Jump!

bluecollarbytes| 10.23.09 @ 9:04AM

article excerpt: "Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats," Bruce Bartlett complained earlier this year, "they will have no credibility and deserve no respect."

It's going to be a long haul. It would be easy to rely on Obama failure, hoping for the best as Republicans try to fill in the missing pieces in their incoherent messaging. It would also insure Republicans stay irrelevant. We need the new blood whose ideas on conservatism haven't been corrupted by careers, media pressures, or a carefully-cultured public personae.

We don't need to run another hair-splitter in 2012. We need someone who can say 'No More'.

re: the bailout boondoggle - should be a warning anytime politicians cry fire.

victor| 10.23.09 @ 9:12PM

Why are we even listening to Bartlett?
He belongs in the same crowd as Smerconish, Brooks, Parker, Frum and all the other Obamoids.
He's even criticized the Fair Tax unfairly.
Put him on the ice floe with the other RINO's.

Robert Rosencrans| 10.23.09 @ 9:22AM

The Republicans should consider renaming themselves the "Dollar" party. They've proven they know how to spend it and destroy it's value.

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 2:48PM

Robert, something Antle fails to note is the Democrats, including his beloved Obama blue lapdogs, have dominated Congress since 2007 when they began creating the nation's highest deficits (under the Constitution the House holds the national purse strings). He also fails to note that Barack Obama with blue dog support quadrupled the 2008 deficit and those same Democrats plan to increase the national debt ceiling from $10 trillion to $13 trillion this year alone. All this while revenues are declining, the dollar is collapsing and more Americans are unemployed than at any time in our history, because of Democrat policies. Under Bush and Republicans while spending was up as a portion of GDP it was lower than the Reagan years, unemployment was below 6% and the economy was booming. For all his warts I'd take Bush and a Republican Congress over our current neo-fascists.

Something most conservatives ignore is that like amnesty for illegals the model for profligate Republicans spending was Ronald Reagan. That only changed, for a brief period, when a Republican Congress balanced the budget for Democrat Bill Clinton who said it couldn't be done, but took credit for it all the same.

Sadly Antle like the Obama supporting sycophant and toady Brue Bartlett (Bartlett before championing Obama was a Hillary supporter) would rather dwell on past missteps of Republicans than deal with the realities of today's Democrat nightmare. Time to start looking forward to replacing the current incompetent Congress and vaginal President.

Frankly, Democrats are in charge today, because of the conservative crack up of 2005 and if the movement allows itself to be hijacked again by pundits doing the Democrat's dirty work for them Obama and company will stay in charge for a generation or more despite their destructive policies.

Some self-described conservatives would rather bitch and moan than govern. Like Reagan I believe to incrementally move the country to the right and forward we need to govern and that sometimes means make decisions that do not make conservative pundits happy.

victor| 10.23.09 @ 9:15PM

PS Michael, they are self-described conservatives as they know the words, but have no heart when they say them.
Who cares if they are not happy?

Johnno| 10.24.09 @ 1:50AM

If anyone is "VAGINAL" here, Tomlinson, it's you.

Stop kissing W's ass; his weakness gave us Obama's Marxism. You must be on his payroll for all the sucking up you do for him. Yuck.

You have no right to invoke Reagan's name, you dishonor the great man.

I used to respect you, too, but that has changed for sure.

Robert Rosencrans| 10.24.09 @ 9:39AM

It's rather idiotic to state that you must give up your principles to govern. That's not governing, that's capitulation.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 8:03PM

Isn't it rather idiotic and unprincipled to give up your principles to vote for a party which has none? For example, the Libertarian party?

Johnno| 10.25.09 @ 4:06AM

It's idiotic to pretend you're a Conservative when you're not. Disingenuous, too.

Capitulation is the perfect word for republican weakness.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:27PM

How many screen names do you take to harass one person? You're a liar. I understand quite well you are trying to run me off this site. The truth is, you all despise conservatives because you are Libertarians. I asked the question. Why can't you answer it, Hmm?

victor| 10.25.09 @ 2:31PM

Hey Johnno, or whatever your "real" name is, go back to either HuffPo or AmCon.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 12:26AM

Margie = Victor. Two sides of the same boneheaded coin.

S.L. Toddard| 10.23.09 @ 9:28AM

Bruce Bartlett couldn't have been more correct when he stated that "until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect."

This contest in New York is a perfect microcosm for what should be happening in the rest of these United States. Conservatives should withold their votes from the GOP when they run a candidate who is not conservative, or who has a history of supporting un-conservative measures. If that costs the GOP the election and the Democrats win instead then GOOD. It needs to be demonstrated to the GOP that until they adopt a conservative agenda they will be deprived of power and the wealth that comes with it - which are truly the only things they value or understand.

Bravo, Mr. Antle.

Al Adab| 10.23.09 @ 11:53AM

Toddard old friend,
When you avoid getting into those little personal snips with other bloggers you often make sense. Simply electing accomodationist candidates does nothing to improve the country. Unless the Conservative wing (the minority of GOP) flexes its muscle little will happen. It is no longer GOP v. Dem. It is now Constitutional government v. tyranny. Better to be Cato, dead but remembered for devotion to liberty, than to be without principle, alive perhaps, but on our knees.

S.L. Toddard| 10.23.09 @ 12:00PM

"When you avoid getting into those little personal snips with other bloggers you often make sense"

Well, thanks. I think if you go back and review any of those snips, you'll find that the vast majority of the time it was my detractors rather than myself who brought the discussion some place spiteful and nasty.

Al Adab| 10.23.09 @ 12:31PM

My point was not to assign blame but to suggest that you do yourself a disservice and should just ignore most riposts.

S.L. Toddard| 10.23.09 @ 1:15PM

I understand. Thanks.

John II| 10.23.09 @ 2:31PM

Except for this riposte: The term "majority" properly governs a count noun, not a mass noun, in post modifying phrases. Wrong: The majority of his time was wasted. Right: The majority of his comments were unsubstantive.

There. Try to get out of THAT one. One of these days I'm going to get some respect around here.

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 9:28PM

John II,
While I wouldn't argue with you about Theology.. or perhaps I may if you were to venture to ask me to again. But after the last time well, best we didn't anyway. But I would like to just say that since that time I read most of your posts and enjoy them very much. It is especially great to hear a once liberal professor wax conservative, as you never really hear that at all. At least not so much in my lifetime. But David Horowitz comes to mind as someone who was a leftist but as you know I'm sure is thoroughly conservative. He is also an Englsh major.
~Anyway just wanted to say that.

John II| 10.26.09 @ 12:58AM

Hi Marge. Just passing by. Thanks for your nice remarks. I hope, though, that I didn't leave the impression in some distant posting that I waxed conservative as a professor. I did the waxing long before I got into the delivery end of academia.

As I recall, I got interested in politics when I was about 15. I fancied myself liberal. I kept reading and thinking, and I was conservative by the time I was 19, particularly after a lengthy bout with the writings of such seemingly disparate folks as Russell Kirk, C.S. Lewis, and Joseph Conrad.

I mention all this only partly to set an insignificant record straight. I do it mostly to boast. In retrospect, it seems to me that age 19 is about as old as one can be before the pose of left-liberalism becomes evidence of infantilism. I had kept reading and thinking, and so I grew out of it, that's all.

Of course, theologically speaking, we have to be like little children if we hope to find eternal life. But that's different. As a grandfather in awe of several little ones who effortlessly exhibit a purity of mind and heart in their knowing looks and manners, I am certain that, for chronological adults, becoming again like little children is an achievement of the highest order, impossible without grace and utterly unlike lowly infantilism.

For all that, I just can't resist teasing the one called Toddard. He can usually overwhelm me with his stubbornness, but now and then I get the upper hand by going after his grammar.

Margie| 11.7.09 @ 4:06PM

John II,
I so appreciated your response. After this original day in here I didn't come back for a little while. At this late date I again came by and saw your post to me, and also that a troll used my name to make comments to others. (See below to Toddard's). Though he angers the daylights out of me and has also insulted the same out of me. That wasn't my post.
~Anyhow, I'm glad you were a conservative thinking guy early on otherwise we wouldn't have you here as a gift! I used to be a top student in English from a very young child and used to even compete with the top children in Jr. High. It was great because I had difficulties in most other subjects and dropped out of high school twice. I have memory problems now and can't retain as easily. I have forgotten even the most basic of the language usages. Coming here and reading and posting is a good help. When I read your fantastic way with with it it brings it back because I had that same talent as you still have!
Anyway, as usual I am posting too much info. personally. But I really enjoy the communication.
As for becoming like a child. That is my biggest worry because I know Jesus says that, and I've gotten tough. I only pray He softens my heart because I know I'm not worthy of Him. I hope in His mercy.
I'm also a big reader. I love C.S. Lewis too. I also love John Bunyan's writings. His closet represents my own way of thinking. I also loved reading everything I could get my hands on by Tolstoy. What a talent! There are still things I haven't read by him sitting on my shelf.
I'm going too long her, so bye for now.
See ya around,
~M.

S.L. Toddard| 10.26.09 @ 8:23AM

While I may show frustration from time to time, I try not to ever show you disrespect. When I do please let me know.

Margie| 10.27.09 @ 5:55PM

Brown noser, you disgust me.

Margie| 11.7.09 @ 3:50PM

I came back to this post today and saw that some troll again used my name to post the above^^ comment. I did not say this to you Toddard, and wouldn't have. You were talking to John II.
It seems a have a cyberspace "stalker". What a royal pain!

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 2:50PM

Bartlett a supporter of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has no credibility. He is the epitome of the Quisling Obamacon and self-respecting conservatives should know better than quoting such a sellout.

Johnno| 10.24.09 @ 1:52AM

You should know about being a conservative sellout, fool.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 4:39PM

Just how many names do you use to harass people, SoCon?

Johnno| 10.25.09 @ 4:08AM

I thought RINOs like you, Margie, know it all. At least you act like it.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:29PM

Keep lying little creep. It will take you to a place I'm sure you will enjoy!

victor| 10.23.09 @ 9:22PM

Only a Toddard would rejoice at the thought of a dem winning the race.
If a RINO does get in, at least we can hound them into doing the right thing, try that with a dem.
That's how we lost 2006 and 2008, by people staying home or writing in a t'ird party, eh Toddy?
Yeah, that'll show em.
Now we're stuck with the dam dems till next year.
Hope you're enjoying that cigar and brandy.

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 2:04AM

What's with you folks who quote scripture, Victor?

You and Margie refuse to see you're wrong when you don't hold REPUBLICAN candidates accountable for their betrayal of Conservative ideals.

We sucked it up and nominated RINO John McCain in 2008--and who did we get for our passivity? As long as you give RINOs a pass you're assuring our defeat and America's destruction.

Stop making excuses for weakness. NO MORE RINOS!!

loulou| 10.24.09 @ 12:50PM

They just don't get it.

No more RINOs.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 7:26PM

Hey Loulou,
Are you a Libertarian? I'll wait for your answer.

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 4:16AM

Thanks, loulou; seems some of our less intelligent repubs just don't get it.

If some conservatives bolt the GOP and form a third party it's because we are sick and tired of dim-witted RINO lovers like Margie.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:31PM

You're the disgusting dimwit. You are a liar and a hypocrite. You voted for McCain yourself and are hell bent on harassing me. Wonder why? Too conservative for you, hmm? So, are you a Libertarian, then? Still haven't answered there, how come?

victor| 10.25.09 @ 8:23PM

Hey SoCalled,
Third parties never work and all they do is get dems elected.
Enjoying that brandy and cigar Toddy?
BTW "we" didn't nominate McCain, it was the "moderates" and the open primary democrats that gave us McCain.
Stop talking and listen, you might learn something.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 12:28AM

Margie = Victor. Two sides of the same boneheaded coin.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 2:18PM

For the non-dim witted reading here. This individual and I had this conversation. He/she/it is lying. I do not back RINO's. I haven't ever backed a RINO. nor have I ever contributed to one. However, I will vote (as this individual did) vote for the Republican candidate in a final race, rather than allow my vote to go to a Democrat Socialist. A Republican administration is far better for the country than a Dem/Soc one. If you do not agree with that, that is your choice. We will have Obama II if you throw your vote away.

darcy| 10.24.09 @ 3:56PM

And as long as RINOs know they get our vote based on reasoning such as yours, Margie, they win the day -- because they know that ultimately conservatives will cave when confronted with hell or double-hell: We'll take the former over the latter any day of the week.

Phooey with that. If there's no SPINE in our political convictions, this nation is headed for either the slow torture of RINO government or the speeded-up variety of "progressive" government on the path to destruction.

Don't you know that conservatives represent the very last barrier to death for our Republic? If we fail to stand firm against Republican APPEASERS, we lose our SALT.

No -- instead, be the irritant that's needed: "RINOs, you will never be in a majority party if you diss your base; so get used to it."

Conservatives are not enablers.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 4:06PM

darcy~ What do you want from me? I'm with Rush on this issue. I will not allow my vote to go to the Democrat party by either
1. Not voting ~or
2.Voting third party.
This is in a final race. I have always backed conservatives that run and have not contributed money to RINO's. You are jumping on a phony bandwagon here. It is really sad that you are fighting against one of your own.

darcy| 10.24.09 @ 4:36PM

This is no fight, Margie, but rather exhortation to you and to all of us, really, that we MUST make RINOs understand that they will LOSE when they diss their base.

Think of it this way: These people are very strategic-minded in their approach to campaigning; They go into the game KNOWING that they can discount us and our principles because in the final analysis we will cave when push comes to shove -- if they've fielded an appeaser. Yet it's self-defeating for them because the only way they can win (and remain true to their RINO character) is if they field a pseudo-conservative, ala Bush II.

So, on the one hand they diss us, but on the other hand they recognize they need us -- but only to the extent that they CAN USE US, as when they snuck W in (certainly a decent man, but NOT one committed to limited government).

This is getting long, but bear with me. When RINOs succeed in getting one of their own in the number one spot on the ticket and then conservatives cave and vote for him then we become guilty of making the very same "survival" calculations that we rightly deplore in the decisions made daily by RINOs in gov't.

Look at it another way. If liberals had any doubt that RINOs operated on the basis of exediency and pragmatism, they wouldn't be so confident in hatching their plot to destroy America.

Let us not be to the RINOs what the RINOs are to the progressives.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 4:53PM

darcy,
First of all, SoCon is a phony who is taking many screen names to harass me. Second of all, I'm going to continue doing as I always have all of my conservative life. Not sure how many times I need to repeat it. I will always back conservatives. I've been outraged for decades by the lying Leftists. We need to fund conservatives so they have a chance. People are waking up to the fact that they need to get involved~NOW! Good. I've already been doing it for years. I voted for McCain in the end. If others would rather see another Obama admin. then when it comes time to vote for either a Republican or to not vote, it is your choice. I say it is the wrong one.

darcy| 10.24.09 @ 5:19PM

SoCon, nor his comments, have entered into my thoughts in my replies to you.

RINOs will be happy to know they can count on you regardless of whom they succeed in nominating.

THEY WILL NEED IT TO OFFSET my write-in candidate. And both of us will be the sorrier for it; yet I will have the comfort of standing on principle while you'll merely join the ranks of Neville Chamberlain.

That's how I see it.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 5:31PM

Obama II here we come.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 7:28PM

Hey darcy,
Are you a Libertarian? I'll wait for your answer.

darcy| 10.24.09 @ 9:25PM

I am not a Libertarian, not by a long shot.

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 4:28AM

See what I mean, Darcy? With fools like Margie who needs enemies?

She's stubborn or stupid, I don't know which--most likely both.

She's right about one thing, though; if we don't get our act together and tell the sniveling GOP leadership we mean business this time, we're going to get Obama II.

It's too bad, but I'll be d@mned if I'll support repubs who betray our Conservative principles again! IT'S DISHONORABLE!! We got Obama because of our weakness!

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:33PM

Keep up the lying, good luck with that.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 2:37PM

Hey SoCon,
1. Are you a manly man that hides behind a name attacking women? How conservative of you!
2. What are your views on the following, Mr. Conservative:
1. The legalization of drugs
2. The legalization of prostitution
3. Abortion
4. War
5.Gambling
6. Same sex Marriage
7. Israel
Do let me know, as I'm sure we all want to see your true conservative leanings.

Margie| 10.26.09 @ 12:15AM

Waiting still for your views on the above, SoCon the "conservative."

victor| 10.25.09 @ 2:34PM

The only reason you are stealing my lines is that you libbers want the republican party for your self and not have to do any of the work for it.
You're nothing but a libber troll and should be treated as such.
Call you out and show you the door!

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 12:31AM

Margie = Victor. Two sides of the same boneheaded coin. Notice how their posts are ALWAYS together?

Not too subtle, trolls.

Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 10.26.09 @ 12:06AM

If a RINO does get in, at least we can hound them into doing the right thing,....

Don't count on it.

belle| 10.23.09 @ 9:28AM

I do sense it is time for the Republican establishment to poop or get off the pot. As they say talk is cheap, and that is all those of us that have done our duty and supported moderates have got, talk and disappointment. I am certain that I have had enough and didn't even attend a tea party.

Tim| 10.23.09 @ 9:31AM

How does Olympia Snow feel about this race?

victor| 10.23.09 @ 9:23PM

If she's paying attention, she's regretting her vote on National Socialist Health Care.
She's next.

Louis Jenkins| 10.23.09 @ 9:33AM

The pleas for contributions that I receive from Steele are thrown in the trash. Maybe the requests should be returned with a promise to send money, but for now I’m a little strapped. Gotta pay those taxes, pay the mortgage that I acquired without the aid of Fanny Mac, or Freddie May, pay those increased insurance premiums, and put petro in the car. Maybe next month I’ll send something, depending on how the RINOs vote for the next bill that will require more of my hard earned cash. It’s hard to trust this 1 and ½ party system that our country has. Or maybe it’s a one party system. I noted that most of the Tea Party attendees were common everyday people and I felt at ease. Those attendees value life, show reverence during the opening prayer, have a love of family and community, and realize that the GOP and the Democratic parties are not serving their beliefs or needs. They’re not even making a pitiful effort to keep this nation financially sound, or free, even during the Bush era, or now during the current administration. The attendees also had another common cause: they’re pissed. Yes, there’s a party revolt in the making, and Steele needs to lead a reformation, or he will be a leader without a party. To thine on-self be true, and the GOP has been anything but that.

Bram| 10.23.09 @ 10:56AM

The last mailing I received from the GOP was return (in their pre-paid envelope) with a promise to start contributing again as soon as I am no longer paying the AMT. Seven years and still waiting.

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 3:11PM

One of the posters here said how they sent Monopoly play money along with a note.

We live in one of thee most Democrat run states. My husband had such a conversation on the phone with our local Repub party that they will not be calling us back. We have great conservatives that try and run and the despicable moderates ignore them, or lie about them. I feel our state is lost, but maybe if enough are as mad as we are things will change.

Bydand76| 10.23.09 @ 10:48PM

Sounds like my state Margie.
Kinda sad really

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 2:09AM

See, Margie? Don't give republicans a pass if they betray conservative ideals; never excuse their disgusting, feckless behavior.

We must hold them accountable or we are lost.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 7:29PM

Hold them accountable, SoCon? How's that? By voting Libertarian?

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 4:29AM

No, by having integrity instead of just talking about it.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:35PM

Integrity? You would know an awful lot about that, wouldn't you? Lying about and continual harassment is one of your high standards?

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 12:35AM

Margie, your obsession with SoCon is unflattering to you. You sound like a lonely old woman desperate for attention.

You really need to get out more, hon.

owyheewine| 10.23.09 @ 9:43AM

Goldwater and Reagan transformed the squishy go along Republican party of Nixon and Ford into the party that gave us a quarter of a century of unprecidented economic growth and technoligical progress. When Dick Armey and John Kasick returned to private life, we were left with a congress led by Denny Hastert and the feckless Senate leadership. That fall from grace has given us the current party.
The Republican Party is the home of individual freedom and economic growth. We just need to chase out the rascals. A third party would guarantee another decade or more of Socialist rule. We need to reignite the party from inside, not from the wilderness.

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 2:47PM

I agree. I heard Rush talking about this issue recently. He said something about fixing it or replacing it, but nothing about a third party. I think it would be a huge mistake. I think that by doing what we're doing, that of not contributing financially, but sending the dough to real conservatives will send the message loud and clear. and... GO SARAH PALIN!!

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 6:29PM

One wonders if many of those advocating for a third party or puffing up the blue lapdogs are in fact left Obama Democrat schills? Let us not forget, Ross Perot who made his money fleecing government programs, helped elect Bill Clinton.

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 2:22AM

A third party wouldn't even be an issue if we'd had a stronger standard-bearer the last 8 years. No one said anything about a third party after Reagan finished his eight years in office, true? Of course, George H W Bush had his problems with a third party, too. Maybe it's because Americans punished him for his "Read my lips" lie.

I'm grateful to George W for his leadership after 9/11, but his domestic policies were a disaster. Please don't sugarcoat the bitter truth, that's why our party is in such a world of hurt.

NO MORE BUSH PRESIDENTS EVER!! NO MORE RINOS!!

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 4:12PM

Who in their right minds would prefer a Democrat President to a Bush Presidency right now? Get ready folks. Today the Fascist in Cheif declared a state of emergency concerning the swine flu. Get ready to be shipped to your location if you refuse to take the flu shot, for quarantining. Gee, I think I won't won't vote for the Republican candidate next time around if he isn't 100% to my liking so we can have a second Obama dictatorship.
You cannot even see how asinine your thinking is?

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 4:37AM

Margie, your opinion is in the minority around here, have you noticed? Who's the real asinine thinker?

Did it ever occur to you if we held our leadership accountable for their actions we wouldn't need a third party? Did it? Why are you so afraid of the GOP? WE ARE THE GOP--we just have to make leadership do the right thing. I'm not as fatalistic as you, I believe we can turn the republican party around.

Isn't that what you want, too, Margie?

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:41PM

You are ridiculous and despicable. I have been saying what you just said and you treat me like a piece of dirt. You are out of your mind. I will say it once again but I know it matters not. I have never backed a RINO. You yourself voted for McCain. Yet you continue to harass me. I'm the axelrod astro-turfer? Really? You take several names to harass me and run me off of here. You are a very sick individual.

victor| 10.25.09 @ 2:43PM

"real asinine thinking"
SoCon denied that she.he.it voted for McCain before she.he.it admitted to voting for McCain.
But who even knows if she.he.it is telling the truth now or at any other time.
For all we know this is Slo Todd in a dress.

"turn the republican party around"
or turn the republican party over to the Liberalterriers?
Back to AmCon, you fake fony fraud!

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 12:40AM

Margie = Victor. It's so embarrassingly obvious that you are the same moron.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 7:31PM

A third party, SoCon? Oh you mean like Libertarian?

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 4:43AM

I think you're just a crappy Axelrod astroturf troll trying to stir up trouble. You've failed.

We are going to hold the GOP accountable this time, regardless of your naysaying rants.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:45PM

You're a complete imbecile. I nay say against you, because you are a lying little creep who continually harasses me. Wonder just exactly what your purpose is? Drive off the conservatives because this is a site for Libertarians only? Still havent answered my question.. wonder why?

victor| 10.25.09 @ 2:46PM

It is YOU SoConner, who is going to fail.
Once people get to know what liberalterriers stand for, they will turn the other way.

Libs and libbers are byrds of a feather and they flock together.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 12:41AM

Margie = Victor. Ha ha ha!

Tom| 10.23.09 @ 9:59PM

Either the republican makes a very strong right turn or they won't have a party. The people won't be fooled by simple talk, only actions will speak. We aren't listening anymore and for that matter giving them any money... look at Palin, Santorm ect...

louis tully| 10.23.09 @ 10:13AM

"When taxpayers and conservative activists began holding tea parties to protest an out-of-control federal government's unsustainable growth, it was not entirely unreasonable to ask: Where were these people for the last eight years?"

Only someone who spent the last 8 years in Washington could even pose that Question. For our Beltway Republicans, conservatives complained noisily about the Prescription Drugs and Sarb-Ox; they abandoned the President en masse over the Amnesty budget buster; and they went into full rebellion mode (where they remain today) over TARP, which only a few days ago Beltway Republican Mush McConnell proclaimed a "success."

You are right about one thing, conservatives did not complain about spending money to give our troops *everything they need* to win the missions in the middle east. And we never will pinch pennies here.

btw Mr. Antlee, that quote attributed to Bush with which you end your piece--I'm convinced Bush did say that or something very similar. It perfectly summarizes the GOP under Bush. That, and this one: "I chucked my principles." Have to give the guy credit for candor.

JimP| 10.23.09 @ 10:45AM

"Where were these people for the last eight years?"

We were hoping against hope the GOP would come to its senses. We were complaining loud and long about deficits, amnesty, TARP, etc. In sum, many of us refused to enable our abusers in '06 & '08. Where was the GOP? They were living inside their bubble completely out of touch, acting like our lords and masters.

Once team Obama made the '01-'06 GOP look like skinflints, and ultra Libertarians, the last straw had been added. Now we are in open revolt against the Dems and our Fifth Columnists in the GOP.

Yesterdays article in Politico wherein Eric Cantor is quoted spouting the same old nonsense about the GOP needs to be more inclusive blah, blah, in order to win in 2010 and 2012 is proof, if more were needed, that the RINO/Inside the Beltway bunch will never/don't want to, get it or change. They must be defeated too. It amazes me still that they don't want to recall that Reagan won in landslides (meaning 'inclusive' vote getter) twice. How corrupt/stupid must these GOP jerks be?

To he!! with them. Long live the revolution.

Bram| 10.23.09 @ 10:51AM

This Conservative was home with his check-book closed. I stopped contributing to the GOP in 2003 when I realized how little they were going to do despite controlling Congress and the White House.

I'm all for a 3rd party. Republicans are certainly welcome to apply for "Conservative" certification. Lindsey Graham and the Maine sisters need not apply.

Tom| 10.23.09 @ 10:02PM

We the people are the republican party, with our actions and money, we can just take it back. We did it in 1980 after carter and obama is just 1000% as bad, Carter was a baffoon, Obama is a socialist/facist bent on destroying the country.

FJ Harris| 10.23.09 @ 11:27AM

Conservatives voiced their displeasure at the rate of spending under Bush. However, he was a wartime President who ran against an astonishing creature (only the Democrats could have birthed) who would surely have destroyed our Country as certainly as has Obama.
It would seem we have been doomed all along. It will be of little solace that Conservatives saw it coming.

Angelo Zenga| 10.23.09 @ 11:37AM

In Canada pseudo liberal policies of the "conservative" prime minister Brian Mulroney, destroyed the Progressive Conservative party, when the true conservative members of the party walked out to form the Reform party of Canada. It split the right and guaranteed a mediocre Liberal prime minister Jean Chertien three terms in office, and lead to one of the worst political scandal in its history.. The same sees to be happening to the Republican party, whit conservatives having had enough of the "Republican lite" attitude of the GOP, and may be on the verge of bolting the party. It may be the moral thing to do for conservatives, but could it lead to years of Democratic lead congress and White House. They are sort of in a catch 22 situation.

Al Adab| 10.23.09 @ 11:41AM

Most of the comments above are right on point. If only Mr. Steele were listening. Just like NY-23 the election of accomodationist RINO GOP candidates does nothing to alter the statist mindset in Washington.

The conservative movement brought the GOP its only success in 1980 and 1994. What a lost opportunity. Keep your checkbooks home and consider the Conservative candidates around the country for individual contributions.

Sadly, the third party alternative is not viable. A replacement is perhaps possible, but by far the better straegy is a Conservative rebuilding of the GOP. Get rid of the Maine sisters and the others like them and stand for principle. There may be lost battles but without a restoration of Constitutional government it will matter not at all.

JBobs| 10.23.09 @ 1:05PM

Add Lindsey Graham and John McCain to your list with the Maine sisters.

Al Adab| 10.23.09 @ 1:41PM

Believe me no disagreement there, or here. Sadly that list is far longer than the I support... one.

Keep an eye on NY-23. It may just be the beginning.

Bydand76| 10.23.09 @ 10:55PM

AND Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota!!
Charlie Crist in Florida!

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 1:54PM

I fully agree that we ought to fight to restore the GOP, and that a third party is not viable. Why should we be the ones to leave, we ought to purge it of the RINO'S instead. I hope this is still possible!

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 2:25AM

Exactly! PURGE THE RINOS!! Hold them accountable.

Palin 2012!

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.23.09 @ 1:56PM

Al Adab
Great point!

As you may know, T.E.A.M. AMERICA suggests contributing to particular conservative candidates, even if across district lines or even State lines. By the way now folks can join the team without an up front charge.
http://judgeroy.wordpress.com

Fledermaus| 10.23.09 @ 5:42PM

Al Adab, just "getting rid of" some won't work if we can't vote against them. What needs to happen is a conservative takeover of the leadership that can punish these RINO's with lousy offices, cuts in staff, and no committee assignements.

They might get the message or, even better, leave the party on their own.

But the GOP has no leaders like this. Boehner is weak. McConell is weak and a fool.

Al Adab| 10.23.09 @ 6:17PM

All very true. Rudderless the GOP will drift in its well trod RINO direction. It will take a resurgence of the Conservative movement and strong leaders (not tyrants) to make it happen. We can make our presence felt through our dollars (such as they are.Trillion has 12 zeros) which should only go toward proper candidates not to the RNC et al.

Good to have you with us.
BTW Love "Die Fliedermaus".

Bob Miller| 10.23.09 @ 11:56AM

If I were a Democratic strategist, I'd do my best to push the third party or stay-at-home thing to rule out any chance of a Republican revival under conservative leadership.

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 1:21PM

I also find it very odd that this article doesn't say a thing about the fact that Sarah Palin endorsed Hoffman last night. There is a Conservative party in N.Y., not in all states. Sarah endorsed Hoffman saying that he most represented the Republican party's values, which is correct.

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 1:42PM

Sorry. Got that wrong. Here's what she said "Doug Hoffman stands for the principles that all Republicans should share: smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and a commitment to individual liberty."

W. James Antle III| 10.23.09 @ 1:51PM

I filed before Sarah Palin endorsed Hoffman.

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 1:57PM

Thank you, sir. I retract my statement!

victor| 10.25.09 @ 2:51PM

You should write an article on how Doug Hoffman
http://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/
PS did you see Ken Blackwell's column in the Patriot Post?
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/.....h-country/
Hoffman is being endorsed by the top Conservatives and being interviewed on talk radio from coast to coast.
Betcha you get an interview with him, eh Mr. Antle?

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 12:42AM

Margie = Victor.

JimP| 10.23.09 @ 12:12PM

Assuming the 'split the conservative/GOP RINO vote thus getting the Dems elected' example holds true, the ones to blame would be the GOP establishment/RINOs.

Reaganism wins. Even under an ideal Reagan/Libertarian scenario, the pols in DC will still have plenty of sychophants, lots of graft and corruption and payoffs available. The MSM will still be there and go to the cocktail parties and stroke their egos. Where else will they go even if the Fed government is being run by 'lobotomized Reaganauts'? They are all a bunch of sychophantic insiders too. In addition, the conservatives who bring about such a change will be BELOVED by their countrymen and lauded in the history books alongside other genuine American heroes who stood for liberty.

If it's power that turns you on, remember, you don't really have control of anything in the big government we've got now. You don't even know what's in the bills you pass. You have to have staffers write the darn things. That's not power, that's delusions of power/control. You are a captive of underlings, a dependant. Real power is KISS (keeping it simple stupid) where you personally make the decisions/write the bills. So decide to turn us loose and reduce the government. Then you can be powerful by starting your own businesses. Think Bill Gates doesn't have power? How about Rupert Murdoch? He sure has people inside DC jumping around these days. Even the President of the U.S. is sweating bullets about FOX; not that he's losing sleep though. Ha. Thanks Rupert and Roger for starting FOX and then hiring Bill, Sean, Greta, Glenn et al.

If it's the socialcons that make you uncomfortable, no problem. Reaganism turns those social decisions back to the states (Federalism, remember). You'll still get to abort babies in NY, CA etc and have atheists ascendant etc. None of you RINO's really want to live in places where socialcons predominate anyway. Admit it.

There you go RINOs. At least what I've said is a starting point for you guys. Try it, you'll like it.

Al Adab| 10.23.09 @ 12:36PM

Start watching NY-23. Like the man at Concord bridge said, "If they mean to have a war, let it begin here."

The restoration has to start somewhere. Conservatives might choose to flock to support Hoffman and force Scozzafaza (sic) out. Here is perhaps, an opportunity where there is, as we once said, " A Choice not an Echo."

Yes, we can purge the GOP and restore Conservatism and Constitutional government together. Be not afraid. If, like Cato, we die opposing tyranny then Liberty gains. Do we really wish to go on living on our knees?

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.23.09 @ 2:01PM

Al
Team America contributed to both Mr. Hoffman and Bob Mcdonnell in Virginia yesterday.

IO was delighted when Sarah endorsed him this morning. This lady is coming out of the chute, folks. Give-'em heck, Sarah!

Walter| 10.23.09 @ 2:34PM

Al (may I call you Al),

If anybody is a conservative, they should vote for a conservative candidate. If anybody is a libertarian, they should vote for a libertarian candidate. And let the chips fall where they may!

Al Adab| 10.23.09 @ 2:51PM

Please do, Walter:
Think we can raise 250K for Hoffman in NY-23?

darcy| 10.23.09 @ 12:54PM

Amen, Amen, and Amen to BigJ at 7:43am.

RINOs have tuned us out, or in their disdain dropped us a crumb here and there to keep us in line and off their scent: think Roberts and Alito.

Meanwhile, they're making back-room deals based on what's best for them and the name they want to make for themselves, the power they hope to wield, and the warm glow of PC praise for which they yearn.

What about what's best for the country? What about staying true to Founding principles? that Constitution and the Declaration of Independance on which it stands? What about FREEDOM? Not that mealy-mouthed freedom from want and freedom from responsibility -- both the tag-lines of progressivism -- but TRUE FREEDOM TO BE RESPONSIBLE: to be responsible and self-reliant, and each individual to reap the rewards or pay the price for his successes or his failures.

I'm telling you people, this unrelenting drive to emasculate and subjugate our citizens is of the devil. And as long as the Republican party cronies continue to sway in the wind of the current of the times rather than to stand in the ranks of this America's Founding Fathers, then we're doomed.

The line is drawn.

Count conservatives out, RINOS, today we cease to be your enablers.

Al Adab| 10.23.09 @ 1:01PM

Darcy,
Right you are. You sound like a Darcy I know out in AZ.
Possible?

darcy| 10.23.09 @ 2:32PM

Indeed so, Al Adab, southern Arizona, in fact. But how did you know??

Al Adab| 10.23.09 @ 2:35PM

Goldwater Institute?

darcy| 10.23.09 @ 3:54PM

Oh shucks. But no.

I created my darcy handle three years ago, long before I knew of the GIs Darcy Olsen. If my thoughts mirror hers to some degree, then I consider myself in very fine company.

Since I consistently use my nom d'plume darcy on MANY blogs, I thought it might have been on one of those where I had let slip the fact of my AZ residence.

best regards.

Al Adab| 10.23.09 @ 4:27PM

Oh well,
Darcy Olsen and I are 0ld friends so thought maybe. In any event it's good to have you on board. Look forward to following your posts. All the best.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 6:37PM

The Republican party is the party that best represents the Founder's ideals and principles. That's the reality. It's far from perfect but then so are you and I. If you want to jump ship then get ready for Obama II. Third parties are a proven failure.

JBobs| 10.23.09 @ 12:58PM

Let the whupping begin. Boo-yah!

Sheila| 10.23.09 @ 1:04PM

All this talk about strategy and parties is the usual worthless drivel I see on most "conservative" websites. No one is ready to truly stand on principles. Did the Founders really weigh their chances, their popular standing, or did they pledge their money, honor and lives? What about the elephant in the room that absolutely NO ONE wants to discuss - White Christians and immigration? Even Mr. Doug Hoffman, the great conservative hope, is a total sellout on immigration - he takes the WSJ line like so many here. What about the nature of the American people? Is it still that strong, unsung middle American hero, or has it been diluted/replaced beyond recognition by Black Panthers, corrupt Indian technocrats, Chinese loyal to their homeland, Somalis, and other wonderful additions to our simmering pot of diversity? Please spare me the crap about your Russian immigrant grandparents - I had them too, and the only smart thing they ever did in their lives was get to America. Had I been around back then, I would have denied most of them entrance to this country for what they and their descendants have done to it (for those with any honesty and courage, see a letter from part-Jewish Takuan Seiyo at VDare.com). Yes, I'm one of those: a true conservative, a race realist, a Christian, and lover of Western Civilization. I also feel this country is beyond restoration. One needs only to read the comments here to know that almost no one has any integrity or courage or honor left - they're far too concerned about strategy and coalitions and don't even realize that the 2008 election was the last semi-free one we'll ever have. Feel free with your "you must really hate yourself" comments - because you know that I don't give a damn what any of you thinks - as a race realist, I'm obviously impervious to the usual slurs. I'm genuinely curious if this comment will be posted or if it will get me banned, as similar comments have kept me from American Thinker and other mainline sites. I dare you all to burrow under your PC mental walls and be honest for once.

Crusader| 10.23.09 @ 1:32PM

Haha! I got banned from American Thinker too, but it was because of my comments on the poor, misunderstood, "moderate" (cough cough) muslims.

Anyway a hearty AMEN to your post. America as we know it (knew it?) is dead.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.23.09 @ 2:09PM

Welcome Sheila.
I certainly appreciate your frustration and your fears. Girl, if you don't already live in Texas, get on down here! You are going to find a lot of friends with similar thoughts and frustrations.

We are going to win our country back, lady. Please vote conservative Republicans, as I mentioned above.

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 2:52PM

Ken,
You might want to ask her what a "race realist" is. And, sorry. My husband's Parents waited on a waiting list FOR 10 YEARS legally to come to the U.S. after escaping the Communists in Russia and spending time in prison camps. She would have sent them back? I won't even respond to this creep.

Crusader| 10.23.09 @ 3:30PM

A race realist might eb someone who realizes there are fundamental differences--physical, intellectual--between the races. For instance, the average Asian IQ is 106, the average for Whites is 100. Physical differences between the races also probably explains why the NBA is not dominated by Asian men.

Race realists also realize the overwhelming majority (90%+) of interracial crime is committed by minorities against Whites.

Daisy| 10.24.09 @ 2:45AM

I understand what Sheila is saying and may agree with her in some respects, but her words sound so hateful.

She's probably just afraid of what she sees is coming in America's future: So am I, Sheila.

victor| 10.25.09 @ 2:53PM

You agree with some of her racist and hateful thoughts?
Do Tell.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 12:44AM

Margie, is that you again? It must be, no one else could be that stupid.

shoey| 10.24.09 @ 12:12AM

i see this is another site where the RINO's dwell, i thought it reeked of "Daily Beast" in here, but i am greatly heartned by the freedom-loving "rabble" that seem to be invading.

something goin' on around here...

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 8:08PM

You're a fraud shoey the shoe-in. Quit picking on us conservatives. If its Libertarianism who want, you won't get it from me!

Bob| 10.23.09 @ 1:13PM

Well, Tim et. al., I'm back from my vacation in the sun over the past three weeks -- playing with the right wing extremists here was not a priority.

Remember that the Democrats became the majority by putting up local candidates who were centrists -- many of them even anti-abortion. It has created problems as the Blue Dogs often don't agree with the progressives. However, the point most of you seem to miss is that they won. You cannot change the course of governance by being ideologically pure -- you must have the votes to pass legislation. Perhaps many of you can't count....

I find Antle's article a bit humorous. A few months back he supported running more centrist candidates in areas where right wing ideologues cannot win. I guess he is just playing to the AmSpec base at present.

And by the way, BigJ, there were only 60,000-70,000 people at the Washington D.C. rally in September according to the official estimates of the D.C. Fire Department. Fox News, as usual, doesn't care about facts and used a blogger's estimate who attributed the 1-2 million number to ABC News who has since said that was a falsehood. Pictures were from a previous rally and used just like "stock footage".

The truth is that the latest survey of party affiliation shows only 20% of voters call themselves Republicans with 33% Democrats and 41% Independents. Only 6% were affiliated with minor parties. And, that 20% includes RINO's like Colin Powell and me who remain Republicans to push the party to the center.

I have to admire the blind ambition of the "true believers", but there is a reason the national politicians want the Republican party to be more centrist -- they know how to count.

W. James Antle III| 10.23.09 @ 1:58PM

My position hasn't changed at all. I'll back the best candidate I can get in any given race, and sometimes support imperfect candidates who can win depending on what is at stake in a particular election. But I am not going to support a candidate just because they have an "R" next to their name.

Yes, Democrats have won a majority in part by recruiting centrist candidates to run in conservative districts. But look at how that has impacted their ability to govern: they have three-fifths majorities in both houses of Congress and can't get their two biggest legislative items passed without watering them down considerably. Just having a majority isn't worth much if you can't do anything with it.

Ronald Reagan was elected at a time of low Republican party ID. In several high-profile races going on right now, the independents are trending Republican again after favoring the Democrats in 2006 and 2008.

Al Adab| 10.23.09 @ 2:16PM

Can we trust then that all can take a stand in NY-23? It has to start somewhere.

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 2:53PM

You betcha!

kery| 10.23.09 @ 2:00PM

I was at the 9/12 protest. Way more than 70,000. DC fire dept. estimate was off, and you don't think there may be an agenda there? Me thinks more in line w/2-300,000. There were panoramic photos taken as well as time elapsed cameras in place on Penn. Ave which prove this. And if you don't believe them, I was there, I saw the crowds, how they extended around the capital, reflecting pool and down the mall. I got there late and was turned away from Freedom plaza. They made us march early because of the crowds. Once at the Capital, I saw the continuation of people marching down Penn, for atleast 2 hours after the start of the event. Seriously, way more than 70,000.
Democrats became majority because of the hate Bush mantra by the main stream media and by some of his own doings of course,plus the wall street crash, which the MSM lay at his feet, although it was democrat policies w/the mortgage industry that set us up for this. People are basically conservative. The democrats could have acted so differently since Jan.20th. They have chosen to mock the people by name calling and by shoving bills through under the cover of darkness and "urgency". I believe that we will see a back lash in this upcoming election and next year. You are counting chickens before they hatch. Americans are very eager for a strong leader with courage and conviction. Obama is losing the trust of most Americans except the diehards, who will follow him over the proverbial cliff. Pelosi disgusts people, they see her for what she is, an elitist arrogant power hungry sociopath out to destroy our country.

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 2:57PM

I find your post very encouraging! I am hoping you are correct and I'm hoping that Sarah Palin will run either as the Presidential candidate, or as Veep.

Fledermaus| 10.23.09 @ 5:47PM

Why do we continue to play this stupid game of "guessing" how many people show up at these rallies?

Why hasn't someone by now figure out a way (booths, tickets, etc.) that can give people a way to show they were there even if it's just coming to an official place somewhere and taking a numbered ticket. Or signing a register. Or having a picture taken at the place?

Why do we let those opposing us drive the debate about numbers?

kerry| 10.24.09 @ 12:07AM

you are right, not really important. I shouldn't have bothered! oh, well. carry on soldiers!

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 2:24PM

Kerry,
I disagree! You have every right to be glad about the number of people there, and I really appreciated your testimonial. We need more people like you. You were there. You were sharing with us how great it was. Never stop doing that. Don't let the turkeys get you down.
Onward!

Jesse| 10.24.09 @ 1:03AM

I strongly agree with your post and everything you said. Fox's opinion based news may keep the Libertarian leaning repub's energized but the majority of voting Americans consider Fox faithful Pols loony toons with a foil hat.
We must return to facts based news and truly distance ourselves from from conspiracy nuts and out right liars, (beck comes to mind).
If Republicans are advocating voting against Republicans in the name of conservatism they need to join the Libertarian party.
Look how that worked this past election,are we better off with Obama then McCain?
The stupid childish name calling makes many look like extremist nut cases,come on this is not middle school,we are supposed to be intelligent people that can run a Country better then the Democrat party but how in the he!! can we convince anyone who doesn't know us we are nut a bunch of immature back woods inbred idiots.

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 2:35AM

Nice try, troll. Give me ONE Beck lie. Back up your spurious and false allegation, moron.

Thank God for Beck, Rush, Coulter, Hannity and all of those on the Right who fearlessly speak out on behalf of the truth.

Daisy| 10.24.09 @ 2:49AM

Snort! Still proud of the Obama vote you cast in 2008, moron Bob?

The only one more incompetent than the idiot Obama is you, troll!

Al Adab| 10.23.09 @ 2:22PM

Gang,
Hoffman is hoping to raise about 125K in the next couple days. Can we Conservatives make it 25oK? Lets give it a try and put our money where our mouths are. Web sit is Hoffman for Congress.

Thanks Ken and Margie for the kind words and thank you Mr. Atle for giving rise to something here.

Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 10.24.09 @ 9:26AM

I just donated $200 the other day, after watching that funny video with Dede.

Bob| 10.23.09 @ 2:36PM

Antle, mid-term elections, in general, go to the party out of the White House -- and I think you know this.

And yes, it makes governing more difficult to have a broad base, but that is far better than to be a permanent minority as is the current trend with the Republican party.

Reagan did win with a low party ID, but as the following chart shows, the big winner over the past 30 years has been Independents. The biggest growth in independents has come from Republicans, not Democrats, over the past 8 years. Hard right neocons are pushing more moderate Republicans out of the party.

http://people-press.org/party-.....ion-trend/

Again, by the 2012 elections the economy should be growing again and the Dems will have the advantage. Remember that Reagan's approval ratings were even lower than Obama's during the first few years of his administration and he won election with only 50.7% of the vote.

The issue is whether a hard right ideological party can garner the vote of independents, many of whom are "retired" Republicans. Another issue is the changing demographics which are moving away from the mostly white, Southern, Republican party. Without blacks and Hispanics, Republicans will be a permanent minority. The recent moves of hard right ideologues have further alienated blacks and Hispanics -- and even women. Hispanics, especially, will remember Sotomayor just as conservatives remember Bork. However, Sotomayor is more important to the vote count.

And Kery, please quote me a non-ideological source for your crowd estimates. 60,000 people are a lot of people. If each person took up 4 square feet, then 60,000 people took up about 5.5 acres. If you had a march of 20 people across, that would generally amount to a length of more than two miles assuming no gaps and average strides.

And yes, Pelosi disgusts people on the right. But Palin disgusts people on the left even more.

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 3:20PM

Obama had the highest and fattest drop in poll numbers for any modern President. One can surmise if the polls weren't stilted towards Democrats his approval numbers would be even lower.

If Obama continues on his present course he'll be a one term President unless the American people rise up in disgust and demand his impeachment and removal first. In an administration this corrupt it won't take a Herculean effort to find illegal activity that warrants impeachment.

As for the economy growing with Democrats in control of Congress BS. The new mantra from Democrats is that massive unemployment is the new norm. Any party that embraces the philosophy that millions of Americans not having jobs, losing their homes and going to bed hungry every night is a new "norm" deserves a swift kick in the ass and out of power.

The only thing that will keep Democrats in power, other than an outright dictatorship (not likely with the 2d Amendment still alive) is conservatives swallowing the Chuck Schumer inspired message of Obama Quislings like Bruce Bartlett.

Doctor Right| 10.23.09 @ 2:38PM

I am a Conservative who happens to belong to the Republican Party because that's the only Party that allows Conservatism a voice.

But if the Republicans try to snub us...Again...This time, they can go to hell.

And that means all of them...Including the biggest jackass in the Senate, John McCain.

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 3:08PM

Doc:
Like the real straight-ticket and moderate supporting Ronald Reagan I'm a Republican who is a conservative, because I know ultimately with Republicans in charge the majority of the social, economic, tax and national security positions I support will prevail. With Democrats we get exactly what we're seeing now.

If the majority of conservatives do what you suggest then we've turned the country over to Obama and the neo-fascist Democrats. Better to work from within for change by supporting candidates like Hoffman and Rubio than handing the country over to Democrats lock, stock and barrel.

As frustrating as McCain is he'd be better than Obama, but that's not saying much I know.

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 3:32PM

Mr. Tomlinson,
I so agree with you. This is a HUGE problem in our party now. I truly fear we are going to lose again to Obama II because so many of us are going to jump ship and vote third party. It is overwhelming to see the anger directed at myself and others who try to say what you have just said. I join with you in WARNING others. If you vote third party WE WILL HAVE OBAMA II!
The Left is wanting us to do just that. We need to restore our party from within.

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 3:46PM

Margie:
Like Reagan I believe in the Big Tent and believe sensible conservatives will prevail. Antle was a big supporter of blue dogs like Jim Webb so his political "wisdom" is dubious and quoting a Hillary/Obama apologist like Bruce "Obamacon" Bartlett is proof he's still being duped by Democrats.

The GOP needs to continue fighting Obama and for real reform/change. It would also be wise for Congressional leaders to stay out of state politics. Trying to anoint Crist was a mistake. If Floridians chose him in the primary over the better candidate Rubio then we'd have been forced to back him, but that would have been a much wiser course. As for the election in NY I hope Hoffman wins, but if Republicans in NY reject him then better to swallow and vote for the lesser of two evils, because it will undercut Democrat control of Congress.

So-called principled conservatives gave Congress and the White House to Democrats without a fight. I never will be one who sells out my country, because I'm not 100% with a candidate. Reagan was right about the 80% choice and we should follow his lead and 11th Commandment or at least scale down the vitriol towards Republicans. That is if we don't want Democrats to control our country and ruin it.

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 4:18PM

"So-called principled conservatives gave Congress and the White House to Democrats without a fight. I never will be one who sells out my country, because I'm not 100% with a candidate."
~Same here, Michael. The same spirit of goodness and honor and country that Ronald Reagan had, lives on!

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 2:54AM

You idiotic RINO apologists are the reason we have the Marxist Obama! I'm so damn sick and tired of weak weenie republicans like you!

Keep it up, losers--your bowing and scraping to any scoundrel with an R before his/her name will assure a third party! Let's see how that works out for you.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 1:27PM

I voted for McCain as you know, nasty one. We already had this conversation where you continued your relentless attack. Only to find out that you also voted for McCain as well. Did you also for vote him in the Primaries? You never answered that one. You need to grow up. If you want to be attacking someone, attack yourself for your own foolish behavior!

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 4:49AM

Begone, troll!! Return to the darkness inwhich your fellow godless liberals reside--where you belong.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:50PM

Getting paid overtime, there to harass me? I'd say you ought to return to the darkenss, but you're already there.
You're a phony little creep trying to run me out because you can't abide the fact that I'm a true conservative. NOT a Libertarian, like yourself, right? STILL haven't answered the question, little harasser. Why not?

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 12:46AM

Margie, where's Victor? Getting tired of your silly charade?

Rick| 10.23.09 @ 4:58PM

I agree, third party is not the way to go. What we need to do is first, not participate in the phony charade of voting, because there is no real choice, and 2, we need to put all of our effots toward destropying the GOP once and for all. After the biggest impediment to conservatism is finally gone, we can build a real conservative party, and let all the gutless "moderates" go to hell/the Democrats (interchangeable)

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 6:35PM

Rick, that kind of logic just thrills the Democrats. In 2005 many conservatives bought into Chuck Schumer's anti-Republican propaganda and look where that got us. If you're not really a Democrat you should be focused on destroying the Democrat party the real impediment to not just a conservative, but free America.

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 2:56AM

Tomlinson, you've got to be a troll. No real conservative could be as stupid as you.

victor| 10.25.09 @ 2:56PM

Hey SoConner, you must be a lib troll, because you are using the Alinsky tactic of accusing your opponent of doing exactly what YOU are doing.
In other words, you're not areal conservative and you aren't that smart.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 12:47AM

Oh, there you are, Victor/Margie.

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 4:16AM

Margie, it's your weakness that's going to create a third party. Many of us on the Right are tired of republicans like you and Tomlinson aiding and abetting the GOP by not holding them accountable. How can you "Restore our party from within" if you won't hold our leadership responsible for their feckless behavior?

If our party had been strong Obama wouldn't have won the election.

Consider this a warning to YOU and other GOP apologists.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 1:30PM

I suggest you knock off the fake phony fraudulent behavior there, whoever you are.

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 4:52AM

The frauds on this thread are the trolls, Margie and Tomlinson. Concern trolls from HELL!

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:51PM

You expose yourself quite clearly for those who can see. Keep up the lying, it will get you somewhere real fine.

victor| 10.25.09 @ 2:58PM

Hey SoConner, you must be a lib troll, because you are using the Alinsky tactic of accusing your opponent of doing exactly what YOU are doing.
In other words, you're not areal conservative and you aren't that smart.
Attacking Margie and Tomlinson for being what you are not and never will be.
An Honest to God Upright Standing Conservative!

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 12:48AM

Margie = Victor.

shoey| 10.24.09 @ 12:28AM

No, he wouldn't, he would spend almost as much money, and be doing all the takeovers and bailouts just like the progs.

the one and only thing that would be better is our postition in Afghanistan.

by the way, why should we go to the effort of building Party infastructure when the GOP already has one they aren't using, we will go to your primaries and install our canidates, over the next few election cycles we will assimilate or spit out the David Brooks types

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 6:40PM

"We?" Libertarians? Fat chance.

Cris Worth| 10.23.09 @ 8:24PM

Guaranteed, the GOP has failed every time except Reagan. Conservatives made a mistake with Bush I but repeated the mistake with W. Fool me twice shame on us conservatives. It's interesting and paradoxical supposed conservative icon Rush admonished conservatives in 1994 to hold newly elected republicans feet to the fire then went AWOL when W. became President. God what next? Willard Romney?

Joe| 10.23.09 @ 2:49PM

Let us correct several ommisions you made in your article Mr. Antle. First, Bush claim to be a conservative when he was running for President in 2000. I knew he was a moderate but others put him up against Gore. To have Gore in there would have been a big big mistake (Cap and Tax).
Second, No child left behind was to include charters and vouchers. But being the moderate whip that he was, he let Ted Kennedy walk all over him. Sarbanes/Oxley was a dumb mistake. I can't say anything to defend that.
Third, congress did get out of hand with spending, although your note that it when from a surplus to deficit is a little misleading since most of the surplus was guesses of the future that did not include a recession from Gore/Clinton and the wars.
Forth, He tried to fix Social Security and Medicare but being the moderate whip he was, he caved under pressure. And the prescription bill was suppose to be open to private enterprise. However, being the moderate whip he was, he failed again.
Fifth, as to the wars, we will have to agree to disagree here. I agreed with both and thought he should never have reduced the troops early on in the war in Iraq to appease the other side. Then 2 years later he had to send more back to finish things up. By that time people were worn down with the liberals pounding about the lenght of the war.
Finally, the bailout, most people including me were angry and it showed in the ballot box. Paulson/Genter was most to blaime (not Republican). But Bush was stupid to listen. However, and this is important, the Republican Congress did not vote for this and most of the Senators did not as well.

So just some clarity on the past 8 years.

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 3:31PM

Joe:
Bush is a conservative in the Reagan mold. From taxes to immigration his administration built on the Reagan legacy, but didn't pay lip service to conservatism. It wasn't until Democrats took over Congress in 2007, thanks to the conservative crackup, that the economy went south.

His attempts to fix Social Security, medicare and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed, because (1) conservatives spent more time parroting Democrats attacking Republicans than backing reform and (2) he lacked the votes in Congress to overcome Democrat roadblocks. Had his 3 demands for reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac been implemented the Democrat inspired meltdown of our economy would have been avoided and Barack Obama would be a footnote in history.

As for the wars and troop reductions Bush listened to his Generals and followed their recommendations. Unlike the "armchair commandos" that populate the conservative movement he did the right thing. That's why he won the war in Iraq with slightly over 4,000 deaths and Afghanistan would be won if his policies were implemented now.

Finally, he was absolutely wrong on the bailout, but it wouldn't have been necessary if conservatives hadn't swallowed the Democrat Kool-aid and helped reinvigorate and re-empower Democrats in 2006.

darcy| 10.23.09 @ 5:13PM

On your third point:

Thaddeus McCotter, in his interview with NROs Uncommon Knowledge host Peter Robinson, stated that (excuse my paraphrase) Bush needed congressional support for his Iraq policies (War) and so he bought it by withholding his veto to porculus spending.

Makes perfect sense to me that because Bush's legacy was made on the success or failure of his Iraq strategy/democracy project, that he would move heaven and earth, in this case the earthly temptations of congress, to achieve consensus.

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 6:39PM

Darcy:
Exactly! On the war President Bush was right, but he should have took the revenue gains his tax cuts produced to balance the budget. Then he would have been successful where Reagan failed -- fighting terrorism and balancing the budget. That would have been a legacy that would have left the GOP in control of the White House and Congress and the US safe from the domestic terrorists in the current White House administration.

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 3:05AM

Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot, was responsible for the election of George H W Bush and left the Republican party in a stronger position than he found it.

George Bush I gave us Pervert-in-Chief Clinton, George II gave us the Marxist, Obama--think about it, Tomlinson.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 7:41PM

Quit rewriting history. Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton. By taking votes away from George H.W. Bush in '92. And did the same in '96 with Bob Dole.
Learn something if you wish to here: Vote third party again or better yet don't vote at all, and we'll have Obama II. Judging from your utter unreasonableness, and perhaps your affiliation with a third party already, I can see you won't be interested in reality.

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 4:59AM

WHO gave us Ross Perot, moron? Bill Clinton? George HW Bush's weakness (and yours!) gave us a third party. And you'll probably do it again in 2012.

You really are an idiot--or a clever concern troll; not sure which.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:55PM

Right. I'm a moron. According to you. The harasser in chief! Who did you vote for little liar? Hmm? And what party will give us Obama II? The third party voters, and you know it.
Still haven't answered the question... are you a Libertarian? Folks, why doesn't it answer the question? Keep up your lying and harassing. You will pay for it within your own soul.

victor| 10.25.09 @ 3:08PM

Obviously reading comprehension and history were not your strong suits, eh?
For The Record!
Clinton 44,909,000 43.0%
G. Bush 39,104,000 37.4%
Perot 19,743,000 18.9%

Ross Perot took votes away from George H.W. Bush.
Bush would not have won if you and yours did not vote for Perot!
Third parties on screw things up.
Get Real!
Get Right!

victor| 10.25.09 @ 3:10PM

Hey SoConner,
Forgot to say that not only is history and reading comp. not your best, but I am sure that you are an idiot and a concern troll.
Now go back to the DailyKossack or HuffPo, they miis you something terrible.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 12:50AM

Margie = Victor. It's becoming nauseating.

Fooled Me Once ...| 10.23.09 @ 3:06PM

The "BIG TENT" isn't big enough for "moderates" and (true) Republicans.

It's them or us, for our positions on most issues are fundamentally incompatible and irreconcilable. They support creeping statism instead of the Democrats' full-throttle travel to that same destination.

Republicans support the letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States of America, the destination of which is 180 degrees from statism.

McCain, Graham etc. are out actively soliciting "moderates" to consummate the final execution of control of the GOP.

DO NOT donate to the RNC or any other party apparatus - donate to individual conservative candidates.

DO NOT vote for any "moderate" as the lesser of two evils. Consider that while McCain's policies would not have been as bad as Comrade Obama's, consider that as President he would have completed the castration of the GOP. At least now conservatives are starting to rally and begin the long slog toward the restoration of America post-Obama, whereas under a McCain America would still have "bipartisaned" into the same direction, and in 2012 would continue down that path as the post-castration GOP of McCain would be an enabler, not a counter-force, to statism.

Voting "lesser of two evils" has proven to be penny-wise and pound foolish.

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 3:37PM

Reagan created the Big Tent you so despise and he was right. If the pro-Democrat agenda you espouse is followed then Obama and the Democrats will easily create their oligarchy and implement their neo-fascist agenda. It is this type of thinking that gave us our current Congress and President. The DNC should be paying guys like you.

Fooled Me Once ...| 10.23.09 @ 8:07PM

Yes, but his big tent was with a conservative agenda at the podium, not out back by the port-o-johns. The moderates want that, but in reverse.

Moderates are appeasers to statism. Somewhat like the Italian army in WWII - they irrelevant to the final outcome, but inarguably aiding and abetting the wrong side.

I prefer that the GOP and its candidates be fighting on the right side, even though it means some Bataans along the way.

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 3:06AM

You're right, Fooled. Ignore the fool, Tomlinson.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.23.09 @ 3:06PM

Joe
Excellent counterpoint to a darned good essay.

Thanks for provoking that thought Mr. Antle

Bob| 10.23.09 @ 3:44PM

Michael -- let's get this approval ratings notion right. Of the modern Presidents, average approval ratings were as follows:

Kennedy - 70
Eisenhower - 65
Bush 41 - 61
Obama - 59
Clinton - 55
Johnson - 55
Reagan - 53
Bush 43 - 49
Nixon - 49
Ford - 47
Carter - 46
Truman - 45

Reagan's high was 68 and his low was 35. So far, Obama's high was 69 and his low was 50. It is about 54 right now.

As for drops, Reagan dropped from 68 in 1981 to 35 in 1983 -- the second largest drop in the first few years for modern Presidents next to Truman who dropped from 87 to 33 in his first year.

So, Michael, please get your facts straight. (You probably got your data from Fox News, right?)

Here's a good summary of approval rating history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.....val_rating

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 4:11PM

Who cares about what Bob has to say?

Obama is behaving like a fascist dictator and is destroying America.

It's a shame that he and his ilk don't mind it.

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 6:56PM

Margie, Bob is right Obama's personal approval is 52.9% at Gallup. I guesstimated and should have checked Gallup to be exact knowing the Obama defenders are more concerned with his poll numbers than things like Americans working.

Here is what Gallup said, "Barack Obama averaged 52.9% approval in his third quarter in office, down sharply from a 62% average in his second. That is the largest drop between those quarters for an elected president since 1953, and one of the largest quarter-to-quarter drops for any first-year president."

Bob is an Obama apologist so he's going to protect his guy I respect that. The real stat that is frightening is that real unemployment is around 17% and the Obama administration is fine with that calling it the "new norm." I guess that more Americans going homeless and hungry is just hunky dory with Obama, Democrats, Kossaks and Bob as long as Obama and his media stooges can manufacture poll numbers that make him look "popular."

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 3:20AM

Gallup surveys adults and over-samples democrats, Rasmussen surveys likely voters and doesn't over-sample democrats--Rasmussen shows Obama's favorables at 47%. (Another negative for Obama is his highly negative ratings are rising, too).

Rasmussen has been shown to be the more accurate pollster.

Obama only got about 52% of the vote in 2008, it's highly unlikely his approvals have actually risen 2%, especially after his disastrous presidential performance so far and the large numbers of pro-Obama independents who have bolted to the Right over ObamaCare. Ridiculous!

Obama's in a world of hurt right now, so is the Democrat party.

Cris Worth| 10.23.09 @ 8:40PM

I will give you some polling facts. In his first ever general election Reagan beat incumbent governnor Pat Brown by almost 1 million votes. Reagan then won two presidential elections winning 93 states and 1014 electoral votes combined. In fact if Nixon had contested the 1960 election evidence shows he would have won both the electoral college and the popular vote. So shove your polling data up your ass Bob.

R Stevens| 10.23.09 @ 3:45PM

Yes, this is a time to make a clear distinction between partisan politics of any stripe and the principles of America - limited government, individual freedom and responsibility. We need to throw out politicians of any party who seek to expand government. There's only one way to stop this behavior: Make it absolutely clear to our representatives that THEY WILL BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE IF THEY SUPPORT IT. There is a website where you can pledge to vote against politicians supporting the healthcare bill and all other government encroachment. Representatives will then be informed of how many votes they are losing. It is called http://www.PledgeOfLiberty.com

Seattle Weatherman| 10.23.09 @ 4:20PM

HA HA HA. The GOP has sold its soul to the right wing loonies, now the loonies are jumping ship to form the "Conservative Party".

Will the last Republican to leave the GOP please turn out the lights?

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 7:02PM

Lets wait and see what the Virginia's referendum on Obama tells us in a couple of weeks. Then lets see who's laughing.

Even better if Corzine and election stealing Democrats get the boot in New Jersey it speaks volumes about Democrat's popularity and the real feeling about Obama.

Some of these folks may be loonies, but their still better people than Barack Obama or the scum from MoveOn.org will ever be. They love their country and want the best for it. All Obama wants is to drag it down into chaos while he parties with Michelle at taxpayers expense.

Every night more Americans go to bed homeless and hungry thanks to Barack Obama. Laugh all you want. Hopefully, you'll soon be homeless and hungry thanks to your boy.

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 3:22AM

What would you know about a soul, liberal moron Weatherman?

victor| 10.25.09 @ 3:12PM

Nice touch, pretending to be one of us and indignamt at the same time.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 12:52AM

Knock it off, Margie. Stop harassing SoCon.

It's not very 'Christian' of you to be a bully.

What would Jesus say?

FL Republican| 10.23.09 @ 4:35PM

I think it's amazing how often Charlie Crist gets lumped in with the others on these lists. Crist is Pro-Life, has won countless awards from gun rights organizations, received the Cato Institute's Most Fiscally Conservative Governor ranking, supported a victorious amendment to ban gay marriage in Florida, enacted the largest tax decrease in FL history, got legislation passed to make criminals serve 85% of their sentences, etc. But he appears with Obama at an event and the right freaks out. Charlie Crist is no Arlen Specter nor an Olympia Snowe. If we scare the Charlie Crist's out of our party, I'm afraid we will spend a long time in the wilderness.

SeattleWeatherman| 10.23.09 @ 4:38PM

Don't feed the bears!

John Yuma| 10.23.09 @ 6:33PM

Supporting a more philosophically conservative with more backbone such as Rubio in the Republican primary is not the same as throwing Crist out of the party. It is merely choosing to support the better of two candidates. Either one of these candidates will win the general election against Meeks, so why not get behind the more conservative of the two?

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 7:06PM

FL Republican thanks for the insights. This is just one more reason a Republican, even one the far right doesn't like, is better than any and all Democrats.

I think Crist's apparent support for the stimulus hurt his standing. It also didn't look good when the Senate leadership endorsed him so quickly to avoid a primary fight. The best thing to have done was stay out and let Florida Republican voters choose their candidate for the Senate. Either one will be better than the Democrat.

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 7:49PM

'This is just one more reason a Republican, even one the far right doesn't like, is better than any and all Democrats."
~You better believe it. Even if you held a gun to my head I wouldn't vote Democrat. Just as I would not allow my precious vote go to one by not voting, or by voting for a third party.
Michael,
What do you think of Sarah Palin?

Rick| 10.23.09 @ 4:53PM

The GOP is a sham party whose pnly purpose is to provide the illusion of choice. The GOP is the biggest impediment to conservativism/libertarianism. Stop contributing to the GOP if you want to support conservative/libertarian values.

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 3:29AM

Correction, Rick: Weak willy republicans who won't hold the RINO GOP accountable are the biggest impediments to Conservatism. They are blind to their own folly.

We won't have a conservative party until these fools wise up, and they may very well be responsible for the formation of a third party.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 2:44PM

I'd say you're doing quite a good job of creating just that, yourself.

Libertarian, are you?

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 5:01AM

Astroturf concern troll, are you?

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:58PM

Very ingenious. The troll calling me a troll!
Better do some soul searching little one. Unless you want to be standing before your Maker as a liar.

victor| 10.25.09 @ 3:13PM

Hey SoConner,
Saul Alinsky would be so proud of you right now, that is, if he weren't burning in Hell right now.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 12:54AM

Margie = Victor. How old are you, anyway? About 13? lol

jr| 10.23.09 @ 5:03PM

"Where were these people for the last eight years?" I was just about where I am right now and I was not blind to the Jorge Bush liberal streak that ran rampant among the Republican wizards engaging in the lib-to-left activities. One of Jorge's first piece of pork-a-lation was the sucking up the the Lion - Chappaquiddick Teddy - along with the TV suckup McCain. So the Americans were fat, dumb and happy and living off the fruits of housing and Wall Street profits. We are lazy. It requires a bomb blast to require our eyes to open. I believe that it is here now but we are still sitting in our EZ-Boys doing very little. Do you think that Obama and the Demos are afraid we will start WW III with them the victims? No, we are being lulled into leftism and will allow it to happen. Do you think Obama will stop whatever he can to kill America even if Republicans can get control of Congress in 2010? No, I believe that such an event is in his strategy and will only slow it down. Do you think his healthcare will be overturned by a Congress controlled by Republicans? No. The Republicans have rolled over again and again since FDR.

Clawhammer Jake| 10.23.09 @ 5:07PM

What a bunch of whiners. It's no wonder you're losers, too.

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 5:13PM

Hey bud,
What's the Libertarian stance on abortion?
How about drugs?
How about prostitution?
How about gambling?
How about "Gay" Marriage?
How about Israel?
How about anti-war?

Al Adab| 10.23.09 @ 5:31PM

Margie,
Nice job pointing out the Libertarian error. Without a moral compass and recognition that there exists such in the universe and that government must honor (not impose) it, the Libertarian movement will fail. Liberty in Law not the libertine alternative is the goal.

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 6:10PM

Thank you, Al.
"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
John Adams, 1775.

Freedom doesn't mean freedom from laws. Without them you have utter chaos, which is the opposite of freedom.

"That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangements of the powers of society, or, in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the laws, is the best of republics."
John Adams, 1776.

Al Adab| 10.23.09 @ 6:22PM

Margie,
..and there is our fear, that in fact it is too late and all is lost. We must not go quietly into the night. Future generations will curse our name if we fail to shine the light of Liberty now that they may someday rediscover it by our example. Better that we "die on our feet, than go on living on our knees" beneath this impending tyranny.

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 7:11PM

The fight for freedom isn't over until your six feet under!

They're "liberalterians." Conservative wimps unwilling to take a stand for fear of the disfavor of Democrats, the media and other ignorant folks who actually think Obama is personally giving them welfare checks, buying them housing and providing them with medical care.

They might even be the vaunted blue lapdogs who are ashamed of being Democrats, because they know how evil their party really is thanks to the "transparency" of Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 7:52PM

..or as my husband refers to them- LiberalTerriers. Nipping at our heels.

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 3:31AM

What good is all your Bible thumping fervor if you're too weak to hold the GOP accountable for pushing RINOs at us?

You're a BIG part of the problem.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 1:34PM

I would quit the lying there, whoever you are. Not a good thing for your soul, is it?

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 7:07PM

Hey SoCon,
Are you a Libertarian? I'll wait for your answer.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:59PM

Still no answer. Still waiting.
Are you a Libertarian? Wouldn't happen to be the reason you are trying to run me off of this website, now would it?

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 3:45PM

...Still waiting.
Libertarian hating conservative?

Margie| 10.26.09 @ 12:09AM

The silence is deafening.

Happy Liberal| 10.23.09 @ 5:19PM

It appears that the Democrats could set the Washington Monument on fire, douse Lincoln's statute in green paint , spill toxic waste into the Potomac and dynamite it, enact a 100% tax on people named Wilfred, and still get re-elected, except in the South, which would probably secede....

In other words, things are right on track. Keep up the great work, comrades!

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 7:14PM

Happy liberal you're obviously very scared. Wait till next months elections that will really get your goat.

If the South were to secede (along with much of the West) there wouldn't be many real Americans, real men or real women left in your "country." Who's going to protect you from the Canadians then?

Happy Liberal| 10.23.09 @ 5:31PM

"Jorge Bush"?

Well, that's a nice racist touch. At this rate, not only will the South secede, but its Hispanic populations will migrate north, and most Mexican states will join the U.S., except the drug-war infested ones, who will continue to do business with the seceded white South, a huge consumer of its drugs.

Yes, a new day is dawning in post-Republican America. Keep it coming, Rush!

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 7:18PM

You must be from Chicago and a member of Jeremiah Wright's congregation. That or you're a white Democrat academician.

Sounds like your an imperialist too wanting to take over Mexico. What motivates such hate?

Hey, while your disparaging your betters you might want to take a swipe at Israel and the Jews too.

eugene| 10.23.09 @ 5:41PM

The RINO's have always been Democrats at heart. Expediency caused them to choose the Republican label in the wake of Reagan's winning ways. When that becomes an obstacle to getting elected they simply switch parties, like Specter did. It's not a matter of political principle for them, its being on a winning team. Big business is the same way. Why else would they contribute to both parties? There simply hedging their bets so that they will not be viewed as pariah if the party that they did not support wins. Yes, a vote for a third party vote is a vote for a Democrat, but so is a vote for a RINO, but the RNC will keep putting them on the tickets as long as they can get away with it. Politically it makes no sense if the country really is right of center. Put up at least moderately conservative Republicans and they will get elected, especially after a good dose of Obama/Reid/Polosi/Rangel/Dobs/Frank et al.

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 7:32PM

Eugene, many of those labeled RINO are moderately conservative. John McCain is one. He got beat, because he ran a terrible campaign. Still he was Nancy Reagan's choice in 2000, because he must have been the most like Reagan in her mind and she knew Reagan a hell of lot better than the so-called Reagan conservatives.

Ronald Reagan was the man who helped get Specter into the Senate was he a RINO for helping the turncoat? Very few Republicans switch sides and the ones who did under Reagan were the last of the conservative Democrats like Jean Kirkpatrick, Senator Shelby and Bill Bennett.

Some of those who yell RINO the loudest if they knew the real Reagan record would be shocked. If people who supported blue lapdogs in 2006 can wear the conservative mantle without challenge then why not others who've never bowed the knee to Democrat demagogues? What about an Obamacon like Bruce Bartlett is he a conservative? How about Peggy Noonan who gushed praise for Obama? Personally, I'd prefer a RINO over those two any day. What really makes a conservative?

Based on the Reagan model it has a lot to do with attitudes towards the Federal bureaucracy, taxes, national defense, social issues and love of country. Based on the real Reagan record it has less to do with what is actually accomplished.

victor| 10.23.09 @ 10:02PM

Speaking of Bruce Bartlett, oh, do we have to, yes we do, but only for a minute or two.
I was looking for citations of Liberaltarian as I thought I had coined it, but who knows, maybe I stole it.
Anyway I found this from last May:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/.....tlett.html
and this from 2006:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6800
Seems that the Libertarians are sweet on Liberals and think they are a natural together.
Hmm I always thought so as they have a lot of things in common:
gay "marriage", anti-war, legal drugs, no God in schools, Abortion, prostitution, gun control.
He even has a name for them: Metro-Libertarians or Economic Metro-Sexuals.
Let's wish them well and send them off on a honeymoon.
While they are gone, we can change the locks and the phone number.
It should be: 1-800-RonReagan

Nick| 10.23.09 @ 10:45PM

Right, because sentimentalization will do wonders for your political popularity...

How can anyone complain about the Democrats taking away our freedoms while at the same time advocating for the government taking away the freedoms of various non-violent groups that you don't like? What is so difficult about the concept of "live and let live" that both conservatives and liberals find repulsive?

By the way, Ronald Reagan grew government by 7% during his time in office. But good luck in your confused, impractical, ignorant and isolated political echo chamber.

victor| 10.23.09 @ 11:57PM

If would be nice if you provided some citations to buttress your allegations.
What "non-violent groups" are we talking about, eh?
I never said anything about taking away anyone's rights to do legal activities. Immoral, unethical and perverted are another thing.
What does that 7% refer to?
Spending, bureaucracy, regulations, budget?
What exactly are you talking about Littletarian?

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 4:03AM

Nick, I would reply to your post but it's so incredibly stupid I won't bother. Public School Education on display.

No wonder our country is such a mess.

victor| 10.25.09 @ 3:15PM

Nick, I would reply to your post but I'm so incredibly stupid I cant be bothered. My Public School Education on display.

No wonder our country I'm such a mess.

victor| 10.25.09 @ 3:17PM

Forgot to say that this is what SoConned really meant to say:
Nick, I would reply to your post but I'm so incredibly stupid I cant be bothered. My Public School Education on display.

No wonder our I'm such a mess.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 12:57AM

Margie, look at your terrible grammar. I understand you had to drop out of school at 12 years of age to care for your drunken mother, but that's just pathetic.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 12:59AM

Margie/Victor, it's the first post you've written that's made any sense. Poor fool, I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 1:01AM

How embarrassing for you, Margie.

shoey| 10.24.09 @ 12:52AM

Beck and many of the TEA partiers are somewhere in bewteen conservative and libertarian, but there is room in the Movement for anyone but collectivists. They must love the Constitution and the Founders though

SoConf| 10.24.09 @ 3:33AM

McCain got beat because he's a RINO like both Bush men and you, Tomlinson. You're weak.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 1:00PM

You say you voted for McCain, little liar. So if he's weak~what does that make you?

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 1:02AM

I'm sure SoCon will never be as stupid as you, Margie/Victor.

Bob| 10.23.09 @ 7:27PM

Michael,

Knowing something about economics is important if you are going to talk about unemployment. There is a reason unemployment is a lagging indicator -- business must rebuild sales volume and lower inventories prior to rehiring people. As I said at the beginning of this year, I expect nominal unemployment to reach even higher at 11-12% before it levels. The recovery will be slow because we don't manufacture much anymore. We are already technically out of recession.

I disagree with Obama on many things, but I could not stomach what the extreme right is doing to the Republican party so I voted for him. When Palin was chosen as VP, that was it. I was supporting Romney prior to that point.

The party has become an arm of religious zealots rather than a non-religious political party. I believe in personal responsibility and thus want the government out of our lives -- and our bedrooms. I don't care if gays marry because it won't affect my marriage or my children. Abortion is one of our individual liberties and I want people to make their own decisions. True libertarians don't want the government in our lives.

You, on the other hand, want the government to legislate what you believe -- and the liberals have the same problem. I want the government to stay out of our lives as much as possible. There is a big difference. Thus, I am pro-choice on practically everything.

I also want us to start talking about facts, rather than the fantasies we see on Fox News and the overstatements of MSNBC. But it seems that core Republicans are a rather uneducated lot believing the world is only 6,000 years old and intelligent design is a scientific theory. Perhaps you even rode a dinosaur.

People vote their pocketbooks -- and the economy will get better prior to the 2012 elections. Nothing proved that more than Reagan's fall during the first few years of his reign and his rise when the economy got better. Presidents have little to do with the economy -- it is private enterprise that makes our country go.

So, in the end, the only reason you don't like we RINO's is religious in nature. Most of us RINO's were against the bailout and thought the stimulus plan was needed, but not as effective as it could have been.

We need to get rid of lobbyists and professional politicians because their primary goal is to get reelected. No one on either side is watching out for their constituents -- not even so-called conservative Republicans. Why don't I hear more people talk about term limits?

So you, and people like Eugene, have no comprehension of we RINO's. If you did, you'd want us for our fundamental beliefs that are more aligned with you than the Dems -- unless you are a religious zealot, that is....

Fooled Me Once ...| 10.23.09 @ 8:18PM

>>The party has become an arm of religious zealots rather than a non-religious political party. I believe in personal responsibility and thus want the government out of our lives -- and our bedrooms. I don't care if gays marry because it won't affect my marriage or my children. Abortion is one of our individual liberties and I want people to make their own decisions. True libertarians don't want the government in our lives.

And the Democrat Party has not been taken over by religious zealots?

Theirs is the religion of secularism, which in contradiction to libertarian principles the Democrats seek to use government to impose upon others.

Just ask anyone with a child in a public school, where (without parents' knowledge or consent) the children are being indoctrinated with, inter alia, the religion of environmentalism and its "climate change" dogma; homosexuality and moral relativism.

While you may not be opposed to homosexual marriage, consider that heretofore no civilization in recorded history has embraced it, and in fact it is but an effort to create a societal and political pretense that something that is inherently abnormal is "normal" just like heterosexuality.

Abortion is infanticide. And if it were really a matter of personal liberty and government getting out of our lives, please explain why if one party to the "encounter" - the woman - decides not to have an abortion, government will pursue the man for 18-21 years to incur the financial obligation of supporting the child, yet the woman can choose to have an abortion without even informing the male.

And if the abortion doesn't kill a child, then legally it really isn't the man's child is it? So why should the male have any financial obligation imposed upon him by government?

I haven't heard any Democrats supporting THAT "choice!"

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 8:23PM

Exactly. Good ol' Bob's definition of religious zealotry is having a law. period.

Ran| 10.25.09 @ 9:49AM

Fooled Me... Our pal "Bob" is an infamous, zealous anti-religious bigot. His neurosis about individuals of faith is the cause of the obvious LIE that "the party has been taken over by right wing religious zealots who don't care about winning elections." I say LIE and mean it: He has no fact to make such a charge.

To his discredit, he has made a number of embarrassingly adolescent porkies in these very columns. I'd be happy to acquaint new Speckie readers with a few of Bob's more hilarious Walter Mitty antics where he was caught-out pants-down.

Any claim he makes to being a "moderate" is subject to the credibility of his other claims, which on this website, are worthless.

I stand by my accusations: Bob is both an infamous proven LIAR and a zealous anti-religious bigot. Caveat emptor.

victor| 10.23.09 @ 10:11PM

We do know what you are "Bob", a Liberal in a three piece suit.
I could drop kick you with a John Adams quote or hammer you with Founders Quotes where they believe that morlaity and governance are intertwined and that immoral people cannot govern themselves properly, but yoyu already know that, but you "choose" not to admit it.
As a liberaltarian you have more in common with liberals than with us.
PS the proper usage is "us RINO'S".
BTW term limits worked great, but the one's who meant it, left after 6 years or so and left the professional politicians behind to get more entrenched.

Bydand76| 10.23.09 @ 10:12PM

Bob the moderate RINO,
Careful Bob, your hypocrite meter is pegged and your logic engine is about to blow a header here.
You need some common sense oil to help you out buddy! Let me help you man!

Bob starts out by saying this humdinger!

"I disagree with Obama on many things, but I could not stomach what the extreme right is doing to the Republican party so I voted for him."

What?? Say that again?

Is this a joke? Seriously?

You could not stomach what the extreme right was doing.... so .....you....voted for the extreme LEFT? How does this even make sense Bob? This has to be a joke, right?

Bob then follows up his lunacy by saying this:
"When Palin was chosen as VP, that was it. I was supporting Romney prior to that point."

Ummm Bob?
McCain already had the nomination wrapped up. He chose Sarah Palin after Romney was numerically out of the race, dude! How could you have decided to switch from Romney to McCain to Obama? Because of Sarah Palin? Ummm, something isn't hitting on all cylinders here! Looks like you got roped in by the teleprompters Bob.

But it gets worse with you Bob,
"You, on the other hand, want the government to legislate what you believe -- and the liberals have the same problem. I want the government to stay out of our lives as much as possible."

Yes, I am sure Obama was a much better choice in that regard. You can consol yourself with the knowledge that Jeremiah Wright surely agree's with you. He also believes in Intelligent Design as scientific theory and dinosaurs! I wonder what Mitt Romney believes? Oh wait, Yeah. Thats right. Intelligent Design and Dinosaurs. WOW! The irony of it all is staggering!

This is my favorite though, Bob says:
"Knowing something about economics is important "

Then later in his post he throws this ball out there:

"Most of us RINO's were against the bailout and thought the stimulus plan was needed, but not as effective as it could have been."

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!

Bob? Your killing me man, stop it! This is to funny! Oh Man! Whew!
RINO's , what comedians you guys are!

victor| 10.23.09 @ 10:26PM

Comedians, did you say? I thought you meant "Canadians", because that is where they should go, since their brains are frozen much of the year.

shoey| 10.24.09 @ 12:58AM

Dude!
that was a smackdown with bells on it, lol

victor| 10.23.09 @ 10:16PM

"Presidents have little to do with the economy -- it is private enterprise that makes our country go. "
False, good presidents create the conditions that encourage growth: Reagan lowered the tax rates and doubled the revenues from 83-89.
Bad ones inhibit or deter that growth with pro-government or anti-business climates such as the Current Occupant is doing.

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 3:35AM

Bob, the 'RINO' turd is back. I thought I recognized that stench! You voted for a Marxist, moron--you're no republican. What a joke, troll.

victor| 10.25.09 @ 3:28PM

Give it up SoConner, Bob's no RINO and neither are you, in fact he could be you or you him.
You are a joke and troll.
Why did the troll cross the road?
Suicide attempt, trolls don't get much respect.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 1:04AM

Margie/Victor, take your meds, STAT!

Bob Clitherow| 10.23.09 @ 7:54PM

You know folks there is an alternative to staying home on voting day. I often leave a RINO's vote empty on the ballot and vote for no one. I vote on the other issues and candidates I can support. I live in California and voted for the Democrat who ran against the RINO Arnold Schwarzenegger. I figure let the Democrat get the blame not Republicans!
I also quit the Republican Party and am now "Decline to State." I am a conservative first.

victor| 10.23.09 @ 10:24PM

And look at the mess your state is in, much like Michigan, New Jersey, New York and North Carolina and Ohio. All Dem Controlled States.
I sense a pattern.
Don't stay home, don't vote for *blank* and don't vote for minors.

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 3:39AM

Victor, you and I voted for McCain and look at the mess our country is in!! I sense a pattern, too--insist on giving RINOs a pass and you get a Marxist. Stop apologizing for the GOP.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 7:09PM

Hey SoCon,
Are you a Libertarian?
Waiting for your answer.

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 5:04AM

Margie, are you a liberal concern troll?

If not, you are a RINO bonehead, for sure.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 1:04PM

Keep lying. One more nail in your coffin. Keep harassing. More nails.
The question is, why are YOU harassing me? it. Wonder why?
Can't answer the question, can you?
Libertarian?

victor| 10.25.09 @ 3:30PM

Hey SoCalled conservative,
I never apologize, I try to fix the situation.
What's your excuse?
We only have your word that you voted for McCain.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 1:05AM

Margie = Victor. Pathetic troll.

CopyKatnj| 10.23.09 @ 8:21PM

In New Jersey the RINO candidate received the backing and blessing of the NJGOP, while the conservative candidate received no support or recognition. The big guns from New York were brought into the state to campaign for the RINO. The conservative, who had a financial plan as opposed to the three current candidates that don't, lost in the primary due to lack of public knowledge of his plan and downright mis-representation from the RINO.

I too wrote to my state GOP laughing at their gloating of having held 5 out of 15 congressional seats last election. My question to them .. why don't we have 15? Answer ... still waiting for a reply.

When voting this November, I will write in the conservative candidate I supported since I can not cast a vote for none of the three candidates running for governor. My conscience will be as clear as my sinuses ... without pinch marks.

CopyKatnj| 10.23.09 @ 8:41PM

Revise and extend: "vote for none of the three candidates" should be "vote for any of the three candidates".

Michael Tomlinson| 10.23.09 @ 8:43PM

Bob:
It is team Obama and his defenders who are predicting massive unemployment as the "new norm" not just as a lagging indicator. (They're trying to inoculate him from the reality that his policies are making more Americans homeless and hungry.) While some believe we’re technically out of the recession the showings in the railroads portend a potential double dip recession. With 70% of the US economy consumer driven the technical end of the recession is bogus and at best short lived (hopefully I’m wrong, but the future doesn’t look bright). This is a stock market that has jettisoned the fundamentals in favor of illusion thanks to the abuses of Obama, Geithner, Bernake and the unconstitutional czars. It is day trading run amuck at best or Bernie Madoff times a thousand.

Private enterprise is taking a hell of beating from your guy Obama and it may well not recover or real recovery will be in the distant future. His policies like Carter's are wreaking havoc on the economy and they will continue to do so until he's defeated in 2012. Democrats have to accept Clinton was a fluke saved by a Republican Congress and their natural place in Presidential history is one term failed Presidencies. That is just the way it is in a free America once the voters wake up to the reality that Democrat promises of a panacea of goodies means higher taxes and a lower standard of living (note the word free, because team Obama would prefer to have a Hugo Chavez type "democracy and freedom" in the US).

For the economy to get better before 2012 Republicans must sweep Congress in 2010 and reverse all of Obama's policies (fat chance Obama will accept that), reign in out of control Democrat spending, cut pork and soak up the swill of dollars being printed by this administration to finance their hair brained schemes. If that doesn’t happen watch out not only for a massive double dip recession, but a potential collapse of the US economy thanks to Obama and Democrats. We would be naïve to believe a collapse of the US and world economy is impossible. The already failed Obama foreign policy also holds unknowns that could do even more damage to the US and world. The Nobel “piss” prize aside the reality is the world is getting more dangerous and unstable thanks Barack “Insane” Obama.

Republicans saved Clinton, because he went along with their sound and sane policies. He didn't care what they did so long as he got the glory for their successes (Clinton was a pragmatic narcissist). I think that's why former conservative Dick Armey waxes so eloquently about how he admires Clinton (one wonders when Armey was under Clinton's desk?). Obama on the other hand is an extreme narcissist and will never disdain to pull a Clinton and let the GOP run the show. He'd rather keep trying to destroy the free enterprise system and remake the American economy in his twisted image of "social justice." Obama is a true believer in the radical ideology of the Democrat party.

As for RINO's if you paid attention you’d realize I defend the so-called RINO. I think a RINO is always preferable to a Democrat. Even Arlen Specter had some good points when he was a Republican. My real vitriol is saved for Obama's/Reid's/Pelosi's bitches the blue lapdog Democrats who like to cloak themselves in faux conservatism, but goosestep with the rest of the Democrat neo-fascists. The types of politicians writers like Jim Antle lauded in 2006. I may look down on typical Democrats like Reid and Pelosi, but I loathe the duplicitous blue dogs.

Be careful Bob not only is your arrogant egotism showing, but your religious bigotry and intolerance is showing too. Until FOX went on Obama’s enemies list with Rush I didn’t watch it or any news program (I read the Journal, NRO, TAS, NewsMax, etc.) I'm happy not only to be identified as a true believer in Christ, but also a Big Tent Reagan Republican and a traditional conservative vs. a conservative populist (a bit of an oxymoron) or "liberalterian." I'm a stalwart and if you knew anything about Republican political history you'd understand that and why I’ll always vote a straight ticket in the general election with pride. I learned the latter from watching Ronald Reagan who was the greatest President in the 20th century (FDR was a lightweight who’s failed Presidency was saved by capitalism and World War II).

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 9:05PM

FABULOUS POST! Thank you, Michael.

shoey| 10.24.09 @ 1:03AM

"I’ll always vote a straight ticket in the general election with pride."

if you actually do this anymore, i'm sorry to say, you sir are a blind fool.

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 3:43AM

I agree, shoey--and republicans like Tomlinson are proud of their stupidity; hence the name, The Stupid Party.

Tomlinson is a Bush acolyte--he doesn't have the stones to be a Reagan man.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 7:12PM

Hey SoCon,
A libertarian is not hard to ferret out. Folks, go look it up. They refer to the Republican Party as "The Stupid Party." No wonder the attacks. Separate and conquer. You and your friends are frauds.
Come on SoCon. Are you a Libertarian? Hmm?

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 1:06PM

Still no answer. Wonder why?
Is it because then it will expose you to why you choose to harass me? It will expose you to your intolerance for true conservatives? You claim to be one, but are a fraud. A true conservative does not harass as you do. Or lie.
Still waiting for your answer. Come on out an reveal yourself for the hypocrite that you are.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 1:06AM

Margie/Victor, stop the hate--appreciate!!

Tom| 10.23.09 @ 10:05PM

RINO is just a human with a labotomy and without a backbone...

Margie| 10.23.09 @ 10:50PM

Coward is a conservative cry baby who won't vote for the Republican because he isn't good enough, so he gives his vote away to the Democrat Socialists.

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 3:45AM

Margie, unprincipled republicans like you gave us Democrat Socialists. You're just too dimwitted to see it.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 2:01PM

Lying really IS bad for you.

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 5:06AM

Margie, the real liar here is the liberal concern troll--YOU!!

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 1:09PM

I vote conservative, liar. Always have. You voted for McCain. Hypocrite! What does that make you for your name calling and lying and harassment of me? Hmm?
Are you a Libertarian? Libertarians despise true conservatives.
Still waiting for your answer.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 1:08AM

Margie, where's Victor? I can't figure out who is the evil twin--probably both.

Richard Baker| 10.23.09 @ 10:15PM

It appears that the Whig Party has returned from the dead only to be, eventually, killed again. Liberals, the Conservatives are mad as Hell at the attempted destruction of the country and we'll just see who has the last laugh in all this. Keep your powder dry my fellow Americans.

Bydand76| 10.23.09 @ 11:05PM

And your tomahawk sharp as well?

The Creed of Rogers Rangers?

Nice!!

Delmar Jackson| 10.23.09 @ 11:57PM

Some say Clinton was the first Black president. Bush, undeniably was our first Mexican president. Obama may turn out to be the Balloon Boy President. His Balloon riveted the worlds attention but it turned out to be empty.

As much as I like Palin I don't think National elections will change much, we need to start throwing out the local Bums first. I use Numbersusa to see the immigration grade of my Senators and Rep. and vote accordingly. Are you listening Sen Bill Nelson and Rep Wasserman schultz both D minus.
2010 throw the Bums out.

shoey| 10.24.09 @ 1:08AM

i hear ya,
i think we can do both...

Karen| 10.23.09 @ 11:58PM

Nobody's perfect, but at least conservatives have the guts to go against their own party. We're tired of having the party deciding who will run, regardless of their abilities. In Texas, the party tried to make us vote for some woman nobody had ever heard of and we all wanted the mayor of Sugar Land, who's turned that city into an amazing place, to run. We voted for the Democrat instead becase we felt he was more capable. I've heard when you are a delegate to the state conventions, you're essentially a "potted plant" and told which way to vote. There either has to be a total overhaul of the Republican party, or conservatives need to start another party -- maybe the Constitutional Party? In the end, BHO may serve as the catalyst for an overhaul of both major parties. Unless he gets his socialist agenda in and we lose our right to vote.

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 3:47AM

Right on, Karen!

Stand for something or stand for nothing at all.

Bill Perney| 10.24.09 @ 12:11AM

Yes, the silence and complicity of the rightish Republicans during the Bush administration undercuts their moral authority now. Dick Armey, chief among them. As correctly pointed out in the article.

One concern though, if the Republican party is purged of anyone to the left of Dick Armey and the like, the party will be reduced to basically a party of the rump confederacy. This would truly leave the Democrats and open field to run on.

shoey| 10.24.09 @ 1:13AM

to be honest, i didn't really wake up until last September, Bush's bailout woke me up, and to be even more honest, i've been mad as a hatter ever since, Beck is the only thing that calms me down, most of the time, when i'm not busy working, i walk around with white knuckles and grinding teeth.

jd| 10.24.09 @ 1:22AM

Conservatives tried to hold Republicans feet to the fire (can you say Pat Toomey?)

We were told to Shut UP, we're governing here. When we said "Republicans deserve to loose" in 2006, we were told "Winning is more important than principle."

Now we're done 'taking it' and we're letting the Republicans know that we won't be betrayed again.

We were there for 8 years, we were complaining about the Stupid New Tone, we were complaining about McCain Feingold, we were complaining about No Child Left Behind, and we were complaining about Prescription Drugs.

All the while being told we were screwing things up would we pleas shut up.

That's where we were.

jd

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 3:57AM

I agree! That's why I have so little patience for weak republicans who STILL give RINO candidates and the GOP a pass. They just don't learn.

As long as we keep our mouths shut and do as we are told Conservatism will weaken. It's not tough to understand--at least for some of us!

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 7:14PM

So vote Libertarian then, SoCon and we'll have Obama II thanks to you and your ilk.

darcy| 10.24.09 @ 10:17PM

Meanderings:

I've been looking over the posts just now, more carefully than before, and I see a trend emerging, that was there all the time if I'd been paying closer attention.

The Revolt on the Right is either still half-baked or exists now in varying degrees of urgency.

In the early and mid-1930's, thousands of Jews recognized the handwriting on the wall for what it was: IMMINENT MORTAL DANGER. So they left their "lives" behind, their homes and friends, fled Germany and took refuge in foreign lands. Others -- and the reasons must have been myriad -- stayed behind to face an awful end. Ultimately, I think, those people who stayed couldn't believe man could be so evil.

Conservatives, I think, recognize man's potential for evil, and seek to thwart it. But some who claim the conservative mantel just don't quite get it and so aren't as willing to lose battles so that they can eventually win the war, so to speak.

There really aren't any half-way measures with sell-out politicans. They need to be exposed and sent packing.

And BTW, we already have a "big-tent," but it's not found in the support of groups that strategists identify and target. Our tent is bigger than that; it's where honor, fidelity to principle, truth, and true liberty dwell.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 11:38PM

Oh please. Get real. The Republican party is the party that best represents the Founding principles. Love it or leave it. Stay and fight for it or leave it. Are you trying for the Utopian Party (that would be Libertarianism). While your out there fantasizing about the perfect people and a perfect party some of us will be looking to back conservatives for the Republican party. We have a 2 party system and you know it. You strengthen what remains, or give up and give in.

darcy| 10.25.09 @ 1:24AM

You miss-read me, Margie. You attribute to me ideas I never conveyed, and you are quick to draw blood.

Go your way and fight as you will; in the end we seek the same things, at least it seems so.

I stand by what I've written in this thread, every single last word of it.

But I won't be abused by you or anyone. I am not "out there fantasizing . . ." I have every bit as much right to express my ideas as you do without being condescended to and made to look like some head-in-the-clouds fool. I expect better things from you.

best regards.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 2:06AM

If I draw blood it is only because I have been in a fight already.. with one who accuses me of being a Neville Chamberlain,(talk about abuse!) unprincipled, RINO's can count on me, etc. So you are no innocent! I also stand by my words. So, touche!

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 5:18AM

You do draw blood, Margie; in fact, you're quite nasty.

You're new here and have a lot of nerve to mouth off like you do-- like all of the Axelrod trolls that bedevil this site.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 1:12PM

You're a complete joke. You harass me and continually lie about me.
Libertarian are we?
Still waiting for your answer.
Oh, and nice way to welcome a newcomer, conservative.

victor| 10.25.09 @ 3:35PM

SoCalled will never admit to anything unless it feels threatened and you threaten SoCalled's superiority complex.
An acolyte of Alinsky will always call you what they are.
Liberalterriers and liberals have much in common in that they despisssssse Conservatives and will do whatever they have to to get us out of the way.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 1:10AM

Margie = Victor: Double the idiocy, double the stupidity.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:02AM

.."retreat is impossible, to surrender is as ignoble as it is foolish."
~Gen, George Patton

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 5:13AM

Darcy, the truth is obvious to those who WANT to see it! A true Conservative wouldn't go apoplectic over our cries for a strong GOP. It's nonsensical.

Margie's either crazy or a liberal troll.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 1:15PM

So you finally reveal yourself! You don't want a strong GOP. You're not a Republican at all. Now how did I know that? You couldn't answer the question as to whether you are a Libertarian. This is the REAL reason you are attacking me. YOU despise Republican conservatives.

How come you refuse to say what you really are?

victor| 10.25.09 @ 3:37PM

"A true Conservative wouldn't go apoplectic over our cries for a strong GOP"
Seems to me that you are going apoplectic and hysterical over our cries for a stronger GOP.

darcy| 10.25.09 @ 4:06PM

Point one: I agree.

Point two: Some people prefer an in-your-face style of discourse not realizing that such behavior weakens their credibility; and any respect that an honest debater might have been willing to extend to them suffers with each new insulting remark.

If they choose to play on that field, then let them play among themselves. Other players will want to seek higher ground for their games.

darcy| 10.25.09 @ 4:09PM

That last was in reply to SoCon at 5:13am on 10-25.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 1:15AM

Get over yourself, Darcy. Every argument has two sides, why hold only one side accountable?

I think you're being unfair to SoCon who only wants us to hold Republican leadership accountable. Besides, who asked you?

Are you Margie/Victor, too?

darcy| 10.26.09 @ 2:49AM

Apparently my reply to SoCon -- on point two -- was too cute by half and left my words open to unintended interpretations. I was siding with SoCon in his efforts to diffuse the tempers that flair here, it seems at the drop of a hat.

If you read my several posts, you'll realize you're mistaken in taking me for the ubiquitous Margie.

Johnno| 10.27.09 @ 6:06PM

Darcy, sorry, I misunderstood your post. I think SoCon speaks in good faith and Margie/Victor is a troll. Margie's arguments are nonsensical; we'll never have conservative candidates until we hold the RNC accountable.

She's everywhere; she must have an agenda.

groupshoes| 10.24.09 @ 2:09AM

Nice airtical, i would like to tell all of my friends about it. By the way, i would like to introduce everyone of you a very nice website, it offers cheap air max trainers for men and women. Such as Air max 1, air max 2, air max 90, nike air max 2009+, air max 2010 new, nike air max TN, nike air ltd trainers, air max 95. Dunk SB shoes, nike shox shoes. You can find almost all the nike series there, in huge collection and varies colorways. They have Latest style and classic style. Though their price are low, don't worry about it's quality. They are realll ones!!! I have bought from them for so many times, and very satisfied with the their goods and service. Come on, you'll love it.

Bob S| 10.24.09 @ 3:23AM

My pittance to the pile.
While I am glad to read the lead off paragraphs to this article, it also remains to be said that for the last eight years all we have had in this country was the Republican version of Stalinist personality cult of the fearless/great leader. Now that we have the Dem version, some Repub folks are peeved. Like it's about time?

Which is why I get a little tired of hearing Mr RadioRepublican hisself Ole Flushbo pontificate on the tyrannical regime of Obama. Where was he when the Bush regime trashed habeas corpus? And while it is nice that Palin has endorsed the Con candidate over the Repub in NY, what conservative in their right mind would have joined the ticket with Juan Syndey McMussolini in the first place? (She needs to stay home and take care of her dysfunctional family for starters.)
The only difference between the Repubs and the Dems is that the former are a little more restrained (conservative) in their socialism - i.e. they are fascists and believe in govt. control/regulation of production, as opposed to the Dem marxists or govt. ownership of production. That is to say we have not had a real free market economy since the New Deal, if not the institution of the Fed Reserve in 1913. Rather we have had a great deal of fascism, but as things morph into a more in your face version of socialism, the flagwavers and "conservatives" are upset.

So what? There's not a real dime's worth of difference between the two parties and the sooner people get outside of the D&R sandbox/playpen the better off the country just might be.

Again, if Barak Hussein's surname is not Mugabe, a case could also be made for calling him Geo. Bush's Younger - and Darker - Little Brother, who is that more active and energetic in instigating and furthering the big govt. agenda. Other than prolife and maybe healthcare - both candidates voted the Goldman Sachs ticket for the "bailout" and more than a few Repubs want more govt. "healthcare reform" - what has really changed with this admin? Along with Iraq and Afghanistan, we are now in Pakistan and Iran remains on the table. Nothing has changed abroad, just more govt. programs at home, but both are profoundly unconstitutional. We cannot afford the perpetual warfare/welfare state alone or together and now it's together. Oh joy. A pox on both their houses, I say.

SoCon| 10.24.09 @ 3:50AM

A steaming 'Pile' is a good description of your moronic post, troll. Go home to HuffPo, your fellow liberal cretins await you.

Rod| 10.24.09 @ 6:41AM

Government dictation of pay is just another sign the US now has a dictatorship. Baseball bat diplomacy is characteristic of dictatorships.

When govt forces its citizens to take the doctor and medical treatment, or no treatment, it dictates, then you have dictatorship. When govt forces every middle class citizen to give a part of his labor to another class (redistribution), then you have a dictatorship. When govt requires every middle class citizen into servitude for a period each year (redistribution), then you have a dictatorship.

What did Obama have in mind when he told followers at a rally in Colorado, “I will build a civilian security force equal in size and funding to the US military” ?

Louis Jenkins| 10.25.09 @ 2:00PM

Early on the SS's job was to protect party speakers and maintain order at political rallies (can we say ACORN and SIECU?). The SS then assumed guard duties at concentration camps and two codes of conduct for the camp guards were developed. The SS guard code of conduct established blind and absolute obedience to all orders from SS superiors, and an insistence that all prisioners be treated with fanatical hatred as an enemy of the state. It worked for 6 or so years. The SS morphed, under Theodore Eiche's leadership, into a very efficient enemy of the state killing maching and later a formidable fighting force. (Eiche also knocked off Ernst Rohm during the "night of the longknives.")

Well we're not prisoners yet, but there's a similarity here. Has there not been a recruitment effort for prison guards from the general population? Has not any one who openly disagrees with the administration been labeled for a "raining Hell" as said on Fox and Friends this morning, have they not been labeled right wing terrorist, and targeted for observation? What of the aledged FEMA camps? And of course the civilian security force statement? Yeah, I know I'm over reaching a bit here, but it kinda makes one speculate.

Richard Baker| 10.24.09 @ 7:57AM

Bydand76:
My Ranger Handbook says, " Have your musket clean as a whistle, hatchet scoured, sixty rounds powder
and ball, and be ready to march at a minute's warning." Noble sentiments from Major Rogers in 1759.

Bydand76| 10.25.09 @ 12:13AM

Aye Sir!

Words to live by!

Louis Jenkins| 10.25.09 @ 3:42PM

Mr. Baker, the manual left out the part about the knife. In order to use the hatchet as an effective weapon you also needed a good hunting knife. If you throw your hatchet then what? The two work best as a combination, redirect the opponet's first thrust with the hatched as a hook, slash or thrust with the knife toward an exposed vital part (kidney or neck), then finish with a blow by the hatchet. Brutal but effective.

Bydand76| 10.25.09 @ 6:07PM

Mr Baker, and Louis Jenkins

Here is the words verbatim from my dog-eared copy of the Ranger handbook. These words still to this day are the basis for the doctrine and foundation of the Light (Airborne) Infantry.

The standing orders issued by Major Robert Rogers to his Rangers in 1759. More than two hundred years after Major Rogers wrote them down, they are STILL relevant to this day:

1. Don't forget nothing.

2. Have your musket clean as a whistle, hatchet scoured, sixty rounds powder and ball, and be ready to march at a minute's warning.

3. When you're on the march, act the way you would if you was sneaking up on a deer. See the enemy first.

4. Tell the truth about what you see and what you do. There is an army depending on us for correct information. You can lie all you please when you tell other folks about the Rangers, but don't never lie to a Ranger or officer.

5. Don't never take a chance you don't have to.

6. When we're on the march we march single file, far enough apart so one shot can't go through two men. (Ranger File)

7. If we strike swamps, or soft ground, we spread out abreast, so it's hard to track us. (Wedge Formation)

8. When we march, we keep moving till dark, so as to give the enemy the least possible chance at us.

9. When we camp, half the party stays awake while the other half sleeps.

10. If we take prisoners, we keep 'em separate till we have had time to examine them, so they can't cook up a story between 'em.

11. Don't ever march home the same way. Take a different route so you won't be ambushed.

12. No matter whether we travel in big parties or little ones, each party has to keep a scout twenty yards ahead, twenty yards on each flank and twenty yards in the rear, so the main body can't be surprised and wiped out.

13. Every night you'll be told where to meet if surrounded by a superior force.

14. Don't sit down to eat without posting sentries.

15. Don't sleep beyond dawn. Dawn's when the French and indians attack. (Stand To)

16. Don't cross a river by a regular ford.

17. If somebody's trailing you, make a circle, come back onto your own tracks, and ambush the folks that aim to ambush you.

18. Don't stand up when the enemy's coming against you. Kneel down, lie down, hide behind a tree. (Prophetic words in the 17th century!)

19. Let the enemy come till he's almost close enough to touch. Then, let him have it and jump out and finish him with your hatchet.

Just a quick side bar
"The Knife Part" was SOP for the fighting style of the day when a Tomahawk/Hatchet was used in cunjunction with a knife or some other type of hand held weapon. The "Indian" style as it has been called is a formidibale hand to hand combat style as it leaves an opponent forced to defend himself against a double attack while negating the ability to produce an offense capable of penetrating into your opponent and simultaneously getting close enough for a killing strike into your opponent using shorter weapons other than swords.

The style (which according to some originated amongst the Scottish clans of the 16th and 17th centuries and is difficult to prove at best) was adopted by early settlers and colonists and spread amongst the Native American tribes who perfected the technique AND who in turn spread it back to the Americans.

Some form of this fighting style in one way or another has survived to this very day. It is a very LETHAL and effective form of combat, although to my knowledge no formal school exists for teaching it other than modern day variants.

Some examples of this fighting style can be seen in the movies, The Patriot, Last of the Mohicans, Master and Commander, John Adams, and pretty much anything that has fighting in it during 16th and 17th century time period.

Anyways , it is a subject which I am a little fond of and I thought I would share just in case you were interested. I think Major Roberts must have been a pretty intense person and judging by his words in 1759 he must have been a formidible opponent on the battlefield.

Have a great day.

Pro Libertate!

Steve851| 10.24.09 @ 8:32AM

Bush and the GOP Congress drove me out of their party before 2004 for many of the reasons stated in the article. Haven't voted since 2002. But the article is still buying into other defects in the GOP. For instance, same sex marriage (as weird as it may be) is not a federal issue, PERIOD! So anyone who campaigns for federal office on that issue, doesn't deserve to be elected. As a practical matter, the same goes for abortion. Roe v. Wade was a monstrosity, but it's a done deal now. It's a part of our constitutional law. There will never be 2/3's of the Congress to propose changing it, and there are, at most, only two SCt justices that would vote to overturn it. Any candidate campaigning for federal office based on social issues is a liberal to me and will never get my vote, EVER.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 7:16PM

Then vote third party, or don't vote at all and we'll have Obama II. You ready for that reality?

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 5:21AM

We already have Obama I because of gutless RINO simpletons like you, Margie.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 1:17PM

keep lying, little one.
I voted for McCain, like you did. Hypocrite! Why is it that you are harassing me? Hmm?
Still haven't answered the question.
Libertarian?

victor| 10.25.09 @ 3:40PM

SoCalled:
"We already have Obama I because of gutless RINO simpletons"
like you, who have voted for Obama because you were disgusted by McCain, but will never admit it.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 1:17AM

Margie = Victor and maybe Darcy.

sara| 10.24.09 @ 8:54AM

Dick Armey wants to be crowned the leader of the grassroots now that he sees its power.

Go away. This is a movement of the people, not former House Majority Leaders looking for interviews on Fox News, and lucrative book deals.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 7:49PM

Wrong. Dick Armey STARTED the group called Freedom Works. He's a conservative.

Hey sara, are you a Libertarian?
I'll wait for your answer.

victor| 10.25.09 @ 3:41PM

Don't hold your breath as Liberalterriers will never admit to being one, but will try and call themselves the "real" Conservatives.

Bob| 10.24.09 @ 10:12AM

Thank you, all, for proving my point that the party has been taken over by right wing religious zealots who don't care about winning elections. You can be moral without being religious. To believe otherwise is being small minded and a bigot.

For those of you who think all of our founders thought that a specific religion should be the foundation of our country, you should read more of Jefferson. Then you should recognize that your hero, Ayn Rand, was an atheist. You should see her talk about religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTmac2fs5HQ

I happen to agree with her....

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 3:04PM

Those of us who are mature enough to know, know that the Founding Fathers gave us a form of government that allowed us to practice whichever religion we wanted to, which is our God given right to do. Freedom OF religion. Not as you Leftists try and say freedom FROM religion. There hasn't been one single person in here who has said what you are charging. Your charge being that a specific religion should be the foundation of the country.

It would be interesting to ever see a Liberal speak truthfully for once. But I'm not going to count on it.

It's doubtful you're going to pick up any converts either. But that won't stop you. Haven't you heard yet? Obama Fascism is well liked for the most part.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 3:06PM

*should be isn't well liked.

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 5:23AM

Bob, you are the King of small-minded bigots. what a joke you are, troll. Go back home to HuffPo and take Margie with you.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 1:18PM

Libertarians despise both the Left, and the true conservatives.

But I do believe HuffPo is a realer place for you.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 1:19AM

You know nothing about "true" anything, Margie/Victor. You are a liar and a fake.

Bydand76| 10.25.09 @ 6:23PM

Wow Bob,
"To believe otherwise is being small minded and a bigot."
That is the same exact thing I said about you!

"Thank you, all, for proving my point that the party has been taken over by right wing religious zealots who don't care about winning elections"

No no no Bob! THANK YOU !
Thank You for voting in the biggest LIBERAL left-wing religous bigot on the Planet! Thank You So Much you fascist POS!

Ayn Rand WAS an atheist indeed but she was also a person of deep conviction that NO ONE had the right to tell her that she could'nt BE and atheist. At the same time she denied NO ONE their faith or conviction. She advocated total personal freedom Bob. Something which you need to study up on before the next election. My guess though is that you already have your mind made up and cannot wait to vote for the "Messiah, Barrack Ameoba" !

Silly little ignorant liberal scum such as yourself have no buisness what so ever lecturing people on the topic of zeolotry or bigotry! You have a monopoly on the subject Sir!

One more thing Sir,
you said this:

"For those of you who think all of our founders thought that a specific religion should be the foundation of our country"

You need to re-educate yourself because you are completely ignorant on this subject. You could not be more wrong with this statement!

Bydand76| 10.25.09 @ 6:32PM

BOB?
Look at this!

George Washington:
"“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”

Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

Alexander Hamilton:
"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests."

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

Starting to get the point Bob?

Yosemeti Sam| 10.24.09 @ 12:10PM

Bush was no 'conservative'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Witness the years of governorship of Texas
while illegals were entering and fanning out
into the lower 48 from Texas. Dishonorable mention should include Arizona - senator McGoos' state; California - the ever extant Kennedy-esque governorship state; New Mexico the 4th, and not least, facilitating illegal entry
point for 'coyote' led invaders.

Now, a claim of a revolt on the Right. Asleep way too long? Really, though, what is the motivating impetus?

The back pocket - when it hits home?

Better late than never? Time will tell all.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.24.09 @ 1:18PM

Hi So Con
God bless you, lady. You and Shoie and friends have every right to be mad as hornets. I am too.
But!
Angry hornets rarely accomplish much, and I am a witness to that literal reality. About age twelve, my cousin and I were squirrel hunting with our four-ten shotguns. We came upon our first actual hornet's nest. We backed off thirty steps or so (heh) very quietly.
My cousin had the bright idea that his shotgun's pattern would be just slightly larger than the whole nest, so before I could even caution him, he fired. OOPS!
I was standing right next to him, and watched a hornet fly straight into his forehead. Then another. I stood there like a post as he fell straight backwards...like a post. I never got touched or stung.
For the next twenty minutes or so the 20 or so surviving hornets buzzed angrily around their destroyed nest...then they just all flew away.

America is now that shot nest. We simply do not need hornets swarming around accomplishing nothing.
If you want to lash out, take dead aim on the perpetrators, and not the innocent or dumb.

...or just plain stupid lazy RINOS. Let's just vote 'em out and replace them with good (never perfect), human beings. Tantrums will not let us win the battles we all are in for over the next year.

Please, bottle up your rage, focus it, direct it positively, and let's go get our country back at the ballot box.
Failing that, I am afraid America will be in civil war, or at the very least, in a national strike that will knock out all the spokes.
It is time to quit venting now. It is time for an icy resolve, and working with flawed helpers as necessary.
Best regards

shoey| 10.24.09 @ 4:27PM

i am focusing my anger where it will do the most good. it is focused on changing the GOP so that I and others have a real choice come election day.

Shoey| 10.24.09 @ 5:09PM

one last thing, any politican, D or R, that supports the bailouts, "stimulus spending", nationalized healthcare, Cap n Tax, or Card Check, is my mortal enemy.

these include but are not limited to:
Tim Pawlenty
Mark Kirk
Charlie Crist
Lindsey Grahman
John McCain
Eric Cantor

shoey| 10.24.09 @ 5:12PM

forget:
Newt Gingrich
Mike Huckabee
and may soon include
Mitt Romney, if he doesn't get his act together

shoey| 10.24.09 @ 7:18PM

please include Amnesty for illegals on my dealbreaker list

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 5:47AM

Like Shoey, I, too, am focusing on changing the GOP, Ken--for the better!

Appreciate your concern (and your story!) but I believe it's crucial to challenge "Repub Wobblies" who try to dominate our discussion.

Same old, same old just won't cut it anymore.

shoey| 10.24.09 @ 4:37PM

"It is time to quit venting now. It is time for an icy resolve, and working with flawed helpers as necessary."

if Dede Scofflaw (NY 23) is your idea of a "flawed helper"

thanks, but no thanks

Richard Baker| 10.24.09 @ 7:07PM

Bob:
I think you "really" need to read the Founding Father's sentiments regarding the connections between religion and our system. From Jefferson to Adams to Washington, et al. Most enlightening.

Shoey| 10.24.09 @ 7:30PM

and where are Boenher and McConnell?
they both have a decision to make, not making one is the same as siding with the status quo, which i find unacceptable.

Margie| 10.24.09 @ 7:55PM

Hey Shoey, you're a real shoe-in, aren't you? Is there a single human being that you "approve" of? Be mature enough to realize you won't get perfection. BUT: If you're a Libertarian you won't be satisfied with ANY Republican. Hey~~how about Ron Paul?

shoey| 10.25.09 @ 12:28AM

lady, you don't know me.

i say what's on my mind, if you don't like it, don't read it.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:53AM

OK genius. Same here. Apply your own standards for others to yourself and your own behavior towards others while your at it.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 1:21AM

Halloween's coming soon, Margie/Victor--got your broom yet?

Paul Crowley| 10.25.09 @ 12:33AM

“how about Ron Paul?” [Margie| 10.24.09 @ 7:55PM]

One can judge about how much longer libertarianism will be needed to distract and enstupidate by looking at the faces of the aging Great Hope of the libertarians, Ron Paul, or the aging libertarian-movement creation, Pat Buchanan.

There's a sobering reality.

It’s taken 2-1/2 to 3 decades to cultivate these two.

The overwhelming majority of this country heard of Ron Paul for the VERY FIRST TIME, just last year.

Is there another Ron Paul to replace Ron Paul anytime soon? One is going to be needed.

Who’s gonna replace Buchanan?

victor| 10.25.09 @ 3:52PM

No need to replace cranky old white guys.
PB&J may be missed, but he cannot and should not be replaced.
And no need for RonPaul either.

Robert| 10.25.09 @ 12:48AM

There was never any surplus.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:49AM

You may have mistaken my comment. I meant it sarcastically to the genius above. I'm in no way a Paul supporter. I'm a conservative Republican. I'm hoping Sarah Palin will take the country by storm. We'll see.

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 5:27AM

YOU LIE!

Concern trolls always claim to be "Conservative Republicans.....Reagan Republicans. You know, the same old bilge all trolls spew on this site.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 1:20PM

Go away, punk. You're lying is getting monotonous.

victor| 10.25.09 @ 3:55PM

"I LIE!"
Are you confessing something?

"Concern trolls always claim to be "Conservative Republicans.....Reagan Republicans. You know, the same old bilge all trolls spew on this site. "
Accusing others, such as Margie, of doing the same thing that you yourself are doing will only make it worse for you.
But Saul Alinsky and the HuffPo' Boys are sure beamin' ain't they?

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 1:22AM

MargieVictor strikes again!

shoey| 10.25.09 @ 12:52AM

go ahead, believe what you want... but the young ppl are coming my way not yours, TEA parties are not just old ppl, lots of youngsters at every one i've been to, where are the "republican" rallies? and if you held one, would anyone show up?
btw, i'm a registered Republican, i will be at your primaries, we will be at your primaries, and we will win.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:56AM

What's "your way?" Libertarianism? You're not quite making sense. Please explain. Just what are you going to win?

shoey| 10.25.09 @ 12:57AM

i am a proud Palin supporter, and Rubio and Hoffman, DeMint, Santorum.
i support real conservatives, not phony a-holes like ones i mentioned earlier.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 12:59AM

They're all Republicans. If your going to vote for them, great. So what's your beef?

shoey| 10.25.09 @ 1:00AM

"my way" is smaller, less powerful central government, the farther away from the individual the governmental body is, the smaller and less powerful it should be.

because that's how the Founders said it should be.

shoey| 10.25.09 @ 1:04AM

my "beef" is with the Party Elders, their appeasment of progressivism and the canidates they are supporting,

or haven't you heard what's going on in upsate new york?

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 1:09AM

The Republican party is our best bet. It isn't perfect, and neither are you or I. It does best represent the Founders principles though. And if we keep backing conservatives and staying angry then more and more conservatives will start winning. I am hoping Sarah Palin is going to run on the Repub ticket for Pres. or V.P. at least.

shoey| 10.25.09 @ 1:11AM

Hoffman is not a republican, he's an independent, he was "unwelcomed" by the NRCC who chose a simply awful canidate that is even more liberal than the Democrat running against her.
with "friends" like Dede who needs enemies?

victor| 10.25.09 @ 4:01PM

Hoffman is indeed a Republican, a lifelong Republican.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/o.....2Wsstyd3NM
From the article in his words:
"I’m a lifelong Republican running as the nominee of the New York State Conservative Party. I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the party left me."

shoey| 10.25.09 @ 1:19AM

"The Republican party is our best bet."

i am no longer prepared to gamble in that manner.
i will seek out, research and decide for myself exactly which canidates i will support and those i won't, most will be repubs, but some may not be, some may be write-ins for canidates the GOP considers "too conservative"
Mark Kirk will be running for the Senate from my district, he voted for Cap n Tax - he's dead to me, either he will be defeated in the primaries or when i vote i will do a write-in

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 1:22AM

Actually, he's a Republican, but he's running independently, on the Conservative Party line. . There's a Conservative party in NY. (Not in all states.)

shoey| 10.25.09 @ 1:26AM

well, we agree onn more than i thought, i'm sorry i was gruff with you

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 1:30AM

That's ok. Me too. Hopefully there will be enough darn conservatives for both of us to proudly back, then. (and in the Repub. party. I'm hoping.) ~We are all angry, but on the same side, I believe.
God bless you.

SoCon| 10.25.09 @ 5:36AM

The only way we're gonna have enough of those "darn conservatives" is if we stop bowing and scraping to the feckless GOP, Margie. Appeasement is for losers, and the last time I checked, we lost ugly last November.

"There's none so blind as those who will not see."

Take your blinders off, Margie--while there's still time.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 1:21PM

You are truly getting boring. When will you grow up?
Libertarian, are we?

victor| 10.25.09 @ 4:05PM

Liberalterriers never grow up Margie,
SoCalled would rather be a Peter Pan and live in Neverland.
That is why they hold on to childish notions and not want to take responsibility.
That's why they want you to leave.
You remind them too much of parents and grown-ups.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 1:25AM

Now MargieVictor is talking to her/himself.

Sad, sad commentary on the sad state of mental health in our country today.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.25.09 @ 9:33AM

Ladies, just maybe Hoffman can be a litmus test, or a "pregnancy test" (heh). For the Republican hierarchy. I hope he blows skoflaw (look it up) out of the water. Team America is backing him.

Having said that, IF he wins he will no doubt caucus with Repubs.
(here is a short excerpt from one of our founding articles. See if it makes sense to you guys.)

"It appears that in 2010, the ACORN run census is going to gerrymander every Congressional district they can get their hands on. We know that is coming just as surely as daylight. Therefore, we must take a "unique" approach that compliments our overwhelming strength.

God bless you, some of you reside...or will reside due to gerrymandering...in a hopeless Congressional district. My thought is to look into neighboring districts where the Constitution is still important, find great candidates for those districts and throw your support behind them. You cannot vote in that district of course, but you can hit the streets with an arm full of flyers with the right candidate's picture on them and a short blurb. You can visit fellow small business people and Veterans in those districts, and get them motivated to whisper to their friends and loved ones, so as not to injure their businesses.
You can go to see new candidates quite easily early in their campaigns, (especially the nominating phase), and tell them what you expect of them if they win. Don't ask them their positions, but just watch their eyes when you tell them what you expect. If they don't pass your smell test, then tell them so, and tell them also that you must go find someone else to support"

Now that memberships are free, I hope some of you will join us. We truly do have some doable ideas to help you. Not only that, but if you want to you can identify yourself with Team America...and guarantee a hearing with just about any candidate. They know we are in touch with many teaparty groups. (heh heh...we are the "outside agitators")
http://judgeroy.wordpress.com
Check out the links and tweets there.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 3:12PM

Ken,
I have had a true learning experience by coming here. What I have learned is that this site is the home of vicious Libertarians who truly HATE conservative Republicans. I have gone to their websites and leaarned that they refer to us as "The Stupid Party", As SoCon has referred to me. SoCon refuses to come out and call itself what it is, as it is a coward. The Libertarian Party members are vitriolic haters of both the Left and the conservative Right. They are a lawless party, in that they are against moral law, are also Israel haters, and do not believe in defending America's interests overseas. At home only is their utopian cry.
I have posted here for a couple of months here and it is very clear that I am a conservative. A certain individual (or plural names) are doing their best to let me know I won't be tolerated.
I am thankful for one thing for sure. To have learned what spineless, cowardly Liberal scum Libertarians truly are. They are enemies of America since they are against the rule of law that the Founders gave us in their wisdom. They are NOT conservatives in the least, and have zero tolerance for real conservatives.
I had no idea when coming here that this was a Libertarian site. I thought it was conservative,
Guess I was wrong!

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 1:28AM

Then go back home to the liberal loonies at HuffPo where you belong, Margie/Victor.

Don't let the door hit 'ya where the Good Lord split ya, Margie!!

Oldefarte| 10.25.09 @ 12:30PM

As a lifelong Republican voter, I don't think that I'm alone in saying TO HADES WITH THE PARTY LABEL! I'll now vote for the candidate with the conservative platform/views, regardless of party affiliation. This country's welfare is at stake; and any fool that proclaims that party politics is paramount is leading the charge of lemmings right over the cliff's edge!!!!

victor| 10.25.09 @ 2:23PM

Hey OldeFarte,
OldeGeezer here to tell you that is a recipe for disaster.
"Conservative" democrats? don't make me retch.
The operative word in that case is "democrat".
They are still subject to the dem leadership and they will always be Flamin' Liberals.
We need to do what Hoffman is doing and others that are backing him are doing. Stand on the record and say "No More Spineless RINO's or any pretending to be a Republican.
Giving yp your party will not make things better, it will make things much worse and give up the party to the Liberalterriers who are salivating at the thought of hijacking a ready made party with no effort on their part.
Just remember Ross Perot.
He tried that in 92, but failed to foresee the Republicans in 94.
So go ahead and throw your vote away, but remember, you will be voting in democrats and 'Bama 2.0

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 1:27PM

I always have voted for conservatives. I always will. When it came time to choose between Obama or McCain. I chose McCain. If that is what you call being a RINO< so be it. I will never throw my vote away so that Obama could be re elected. In the meantime I will continue backing conservatives everywhere.

shoey| 10.25.09 @ 4:22PM

i would like to reform the GOP, but if that doesn't happen, i will vote third party.
better a libertarian, than socialist.
and frankly i find the all the libertarian bashing, offensive, true conservatives are philosophical brothers to libertarians in that they both believe very strongly in small, limited government. you can't call yourself a conservative and support Big Gov. policies, you can't call yourself conservative and then advocate using the power of the State to enforce your ideaology.
whether it's pnko hippies, or purtain prudes they have no right to shove their B.S. down the rest of our throats.

shoey| 10.25.09 @ 4:31PM

about half the Libertarian party is ex-Dems who left the plantation because the Dems won't come out strongly enough against religion, these are the nutjobs.
the other half are ppl who won't join or left the GOP because the GOP doesn't support limited government, these are our brothers and we should welcome them.

Bydand76| 10.25.09 @ 6:56PM

This only means that eventually, The libertarians will eventually go through a identity crisis and split.

I think that you will see a polarization of the Republican party as it draws back the more conservative grass-roots party members and attracts the conservative Libertarians back into the fold. Conservatives (Both Libertarian AND Republican) need to realize that either the GOP adapts and goes back to its foundation of fiscal conservatism or it will eventuall go the way of the Whig.

People will only tolerate being misrepresented for so long. Once the party leadership has changed and new fresh people like Michelle Bachman, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin have taken over the responsibility will be to maintain a Conservative platform.

Going the route of Newt, The Maine Sisters, McCain, Pawlenty and all of the other Rino's who are in the political game as a buisness and for reading poll numbers will only lead to disaster for the conservative movement.

It is time for the conservative Republican and the Conservative Libertarian to unite!

We have more in common and we have a greater enemy than to sit in here and snipe each other over who is more conservative.

We both are and right now we have a socialist commie pig who is on the brink of bringing our great nation to its knees. We are suckling at the breast of destruction people.

Remove the people who have enabled the Ameoba president. Enpower the new conservative, young and angry, Enable and support the brave, courageous person who will stand up to fascism and spread the agenda of Taking Our Country Back!!!

United We Stand, people! Conservatism is the meaning of unity and what one person can do against tyranny and injustice and this infection known as Liberalism.

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 8:12PM

Libertarians are not conservatives. The slime that are telling me to get lost are all Libertarians. SoCon, darcy, lou lou, Johnno, shoey, Nick, etc. All of these names are lying little creeps and Libertarians. They HATE conservatives, and especially conservative REPUBLICANS. Ask them what they stand for.
1.Abortion
2.Legalizing drugs
3.Legalizing prostitution
4.Gambling
5."Gay" Marriage
6. War
7. Israel
They are NOT pro America. They cannot tolerate true conservatives. Ask them what they stand for, specifically the above. I did. No answer! The silence is deafening. They pose as conservatives and are wolves in sheep's clothing.

shoey| 10.25.09 @ 9:01PM

two can play at this game:

so you don't support Isreal?
what are you some kind of jew-hating Nazi?

Nazi or no, you are a shrill hateful little thing aren't you?

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 10:08PM

Sorry, I will make it more clear. Ask Libertarians if they are:
1.For Abortion
2.For Legalizing drugs
3.For Legalizing prostitution
4.For Gambling
5. For"Gay" Marriage
6. Against going to war (except on our own soil.)
7.Anti-Israel
Because you will get your answers to the above. I have found that the above are the reasons I both cannot support that party, and know that that is NOT conservatism.
Hope that clears it up.

Bydand76| 10.25.09 @ 10:37PM

It has been my experiance that about the half of the Libertarians I come across would answer your questions above, in a manner consistent with being a conservative. That is just what I have experianced though. So perhaps maybe Conservatives ARE Libertarians and Libertarians are Conservative. I think that the Libertarians are really to sure of this themsleves actually.

I would suggest that certain segments of our political society indentify themselves as "Libertarians" simply because they dont like either the Democrat tag or the Republican one.
Some are a very conservative lot and some ARE very Liberal in their views. I am still not to sure how a Libertarian is considered worthy of political consideration or how they have becoame relevant other than espousing a psuedo splitting of both parties ideological base, to be honest with you I dont think the Libertarian movement knows that either.

I think that if they took the time to evaluate their stance instead of getting hung up on labels then they might discover something about themselves.

Toddard is guilty of this if I can use him as an example because he cannot stand to be called a conservative. He is a "paleo-conservative" for whatever that means. But whatever,

My point is simply this. Libertarians dont like to be called certain names but identify with one of the other two parties moer than what they might think. This is just a quick opinion though.

If it means that we are accepting more Rino's then no. I will have no part of that. I just think Libertarians need to figure themselves out. Regular conservatives should be more open to accepting someone who is more in line with there thinking than the alternative. There can be no more comprimise with Liberalism and I think we can all identify and agree with that.

I know where you stand Margie and I think you are awesome. I think the world needs more people around like you and keep on fighting the good fight sister!!!

From what I have read in here it seems like Shoey, SoCon, and some of the others are just angry about the state of the Republican party and how the Rino's have hijacked an otherwise conservative agenda. I think you all might agree on more things than it would appear.

Just my two cents....

Pro Libertate!

Margie| 10.25.09 @ 11:32PM

Thanks for the kind words. I think we all come off strongly in our opinions sometimes, well most of the time. I find that the Liberals can't stand it when conservatives speak their minds, and for them it only goes one way. They insist on their way and so do I. It's warfare! They want me out because they're the intolerant ones, and so have to try to make me look like something I'm not. Typical Liberal smear tactics.
As for the Libertarian party. Been doing some research. The actual party as represented by Ron Paul are anti-conservative, though they try and call themselves that. SoCon refuses to admit her loyalty but to me it's obvious. They are anti-war, anti-Israel, for the legalization of drugs, etc. They try to sell this as "conservative" but is actually Liberal and that's why they despise conservatives. Anyone like me who calls them out and you see what happens. They actually want to take over the Republican party. There are innocent people who don't realize what they really are and think it's a good party, but folks, do your research.
~Why is it that the harasser SoCon refuses to answer my question as to whether she is a Libertarian? Because it will expose her for the fraud she really is. Libertarians DESPISE true conservatives.

S.L. Toddard| 10.26.09 @ 8:24AM

"Toddard is guilty of this if I can use him as an example because he cannot stand to be called a conservative"

You are thinking of someone else. I refer to myself as "conservative" all the time. Its most everyone else here that I cannot stand to be mis-labeled "conservative".

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 1:33AM

Yes, Shoey, Margie is a shrill hateful thing. I think SoCon could smell Margie's meaness and wanted to out her/him (Margie/Victor).

It worked!

Whyyeseyec| 10.25.09 @ 6:53PM

Always vote! If you don`t like the candidates you can do a write in as I did for POTUS in 2008. I voted for Palin for POTUS and John Bolton for Veep. I refuse to ever again vote for republicans who act like democraps.

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 1:38AM

Whyeseyec, great post--my sentiments exactly!! I'm tired of RINO betrayal.

shoey| 10.25.09 @ 11:29PM

conservative libertarians are easy to figure out they are all about limited, small government.
i'm down with that.
liberal(god-hating) libertarians i do not understand at all.
i am not a Libertarian, because i will not associate with liberal-libertarian, God-hating fanatics.
i don't want to live in their "Brave New World"

but neither do i like puritanical republicans who would take us straight to "The Handmadiens Tale"

what part of that is not clear?

shoey| 10.25.09 @ 11:48PM

over the last year i've been doing a lot of reading and almost all of it about the Founders.
I have become convinced that as a group they would fall right in between the edge where conservatism bumps up against classic liberalism (modern libertarianism)
so that's what i am striving to be, to bring into this messed up, hypnotized, zombie-ized current age.
and due to the socialist garbage that's been going on, my work hours have been cut in half, so i have a lot of time on my hands, I don't waste it watching "So You Think the Stars Can Dance" or other drivel.

Margie| 10.26.09 @ 12:00AM

You're perfectly clear, shoey. And I'm a conservative Republican (if there were a Conservative party in my state I would be in it), who believes in small government, a strong Military Defense (God bless our Troops!), less taxation, less regulation, Pro business and free enterprise, pro life, to name a few.
~btw, that movie you mentioned, has nothing to do in reality with conservatives, even religious ones. It's a Sci-fi movie. Written by Liberals in order to present conservatism in the worst possible light.

shoey| 10.26.09 @ 12:07AM

both books I mentioned are fiction, i only used them to make a point.
the point i'm trying make is that when republicans try to enforce morality thur law, they are behaving exactly as our arch-enemies the collectivists.
that's why i am an advocate of traditional spirtiual institutions, moral law comes from God not the State.

shoey| 10.26.09 @ 12:12AM

render unto Ceaser, that which is Ceasar's, render unto God that which is God's.

that line from the Bible is the basis for the Seperation Clause.
God's Law is outside Secular Law.
that's why when you try to use Secular Law to enforce God's Law it never works.

Margie| 10.26.09 @ 12:45AM

Actually, the Constitution is based on moral law. Laws come from good morals. The Founders understood that, and said so. Check out some of their great quotes here: http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/
The Constitution IS morality through law. And it is a republican form of government. The Founders said that we couldn't keep this form of government without moral people willing to obey the laws. The Libertarian Party wants NO laws. They believe it is their "right" to be as immoral as they please without accountability. "Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws." John Adams.
As for religion: "It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship." John Adams.
~More on Laws and morality~ "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." John Adams.
More~ "The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now. They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty." John Adams.

I know I got a bit carried away there, but isn't it great to read these? I love it. So you see, we do have a government based on morality through laws. And I wouldn't want it any other way! As I'm sure you wouldn't either.

shoey| 10.26.09 @ 1:05AM

Jefferson and Adams agrued these points endlessly, when they were both still invovled in politics it even got ugly, Adams accusing Jefferson of wanting to destroy the Church, Jefferson accusing Adams of wanting to create a Theocracy, i think they were both mostly right, but also both a little wrong, each wanted to take it too far.

shoey| 10.26.09 @ 1:12AM

Adams's philosophy held for a long time, but it weaken because it became too strident and overbearing, now jefferson's philosophy clearly has the upper hand, too much so, way to much so, I would agree we could use a tall glass of Adams to balance things out, but not the whole jug

shoey| 10.26.09 @ 1:26AM

please let me clarify on Adams:
strident and overbearing were the wrong words to use, a better one is "confining" in way that was not completely healthy, and what i mean by that is before the turn of the last century, ppl routinely used religion to justify all manner of injustice (real injustice, no the "social" kind) that kept ppl down, kept them ignorant (you sound like a reader, go back and read about popular culture before 1900, if you dig deep enough with open eyes you'll find it, because it's really there.

balance is key...

Margie| 10.26.09 @ 1:28AM

shoey,
'm not too sure about those opinions, and I'll have to do some research, but if I drank, I'd definitely be happy to share the tall glass with you!

Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 1:36AM

Not only do you drink, girl, you sound drunk on your backside all of the time! (Victor, too!!)

shoey| 10.26.09 @ 1:39AM

we don't have to rip each other apart because we don't agree on every little thing.

if you and i were to compromise with each other on a few things, i'll bet those comprimises would be comprimises that a whole lot of americans could agree on.
i don't drink either, lol

Margie| 10.26.09 @ 2:53AM

Thanks for your kind understanding, Shoey. I'm sorry I've been such a horse's butt; sometimes I just can't help myself. :)

Margie| 10.26.09 @ 2:10PM

Now the trolls are taking my name as well. The above post was not mine^^

Margie| 10.27.09 @ 6:10PM

I'm still a horse's ass, though!

Sue| 10.26.09 @ 2:46PM

"Where were these people the last eight years?" Where do you think? Working our asses off sending more tax receipts to morons in Washington D.C. to spend, that's where we were. If we did complain, it was met with deafening silence.

I have finally realized that the problem with a two-term presidency is that the SOB is accountable to no one at any time of the final four years.

We will now have to endure it once again with even a more liberal nutjob than GWB and McCain. The storms are just beginning to coalesce and will come to full force the final four years of Obama's second term.

If you think GWB was bad, you've ain't seen nothing yet.

Paul Crowley| 10.26.09 @ 5:31PM

“I have finally realized that the problem with a two- term presidency is that the SOB is accountable to no one at any time of the final four years.” [Sue| 10.26.09 @ 2:46PM]

Hi Sue:

No organization works this way, never mind a country the size of the United States of America (U.S.A.), the leader nation of a bloc of nations of almost 120 countries.

The U.S.A. is not governed by an elected dictator.

It's not just two terms either. President Carter was a one-term president, and it's astonishing how much legislation was enacted into law during the term of that administration, that's been built upon, and the consequence of which continue to impact us today, from de-regulation, privatization, to the Dept. of Energy, to Dept. of Eduction to FEMA. . . .there's a great deal more in the list.

G.H.W. Bush was also a one-term president, that during his administration an astonishing amoung of legislation was enacted into law.

Anyway, too much focus is placed on the man, himself.

The titles, President of the U.S.A., Commander In Chief (which used to apply only to the president’s relationship to the armed forces, but now seems to be his relation to all of us), and the unofficial “Leader of the Free World,” for the head of the executive branch of the American federal government, are as useful, and no more meaningful, than the English formulations, of “His (Her) Majesty’s government, or the old (post-1689) “In the name of His Majesty, The King,” or “In the name of Her Majesty, The Queen.” From 1689, up through to the Edwardian era (circa 1901-36), “His (Her) Majesty’s government,” was de facto Parliament’s government (which became all too clear with the reforms of 1763-1839).

The Royal Puppet Monarch of Britain remains the de jure Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and (with varying definitions) of each of the countries in that commonwealth.

At this time, then the American president appears to be the Puppet In Chief who is presented as our de jure Head of State, all-but-de facto by the reforms and precedents set during the G.W. Bush administration (such as so-called “signing statements”), in like manner to the British monarch.

Both are efficient as rubber stamps, and as Figure Heads endowed by P.R. with a mystical aura (the queen’s a more sentimental, touch-feely, one among the Brits, at the moment).

Just the fact that the primary focus is placed upon the president demonstrates it.

We have three branches to our federal government: Executive, Legislative and Judiciary.

Our Congress has been reduced to an efficient legislation mill, with a few token dissenter-Representatives in the House of Representatives, much like the reformed (first third of the 20th century) British parliament.

Our State governments have been reduced to effectively being efficient District offices of the federal government.

The new Municipal governments of the metropolitan areas are being formed as efficient branch offices of the reformed State governments.

The Municipal governments of the small towns, that still exist along the new interstate, rail, and air networks, between the new metropolitan areas, and that haven’t been swallowed up as suburbs of the new post-1969 metropolitan areas (and renamed “small towns”), are rapidly ceasing to exist, replaced by small, informal, councils and such. The days of those dying relics are clearly numbered.

The reforms have yielded a very stream-lined and efficient system.

After the re-election of G.W. Bush, and now the election of Barack Obama, then in no way do I believe that any of these people are “accountable to no one at any time of the final four years.” (or any other time). Four years under a President Kerry (a senior Senator in our federal government), would, no doubt have been different in style (and in the kind of distracting scandals and crises), but I doubt in much else of substance, especially foreign policy (which in turn drives our domestic policy).

Domestically, then the focus is now shifting to the metropolitan areas. Not least will include de-centralizing much of our food distribution system, and re-developing some small local manufacturing and some local dairies, dairy products, and beef processing.

I do agree with your statement:

“you've ain't seen nothing yet.”

Paul Crowley| 10.26.09 @ 8:57PM

“As for the Libertarian party. Been doing some research. The actual party as represented by Ron Paul are anti-conservative, though they try and call themselves that.” [Margie| 10.25.09 @ 11:32PM]

Hi Marge:

First. One point of correction and one comment:

1.) Ron Paul is a Republican.

He hasn't been a member of the Libertarian Party since the 1990s. He is, of course, the Great Hope of the libertarians.

2.) Other than its cheer-leading for neo-Finance Capitalism, then I don't think that The American Spectator is libertarian. It looks like it's just advertising libertarianism and making use of some of its fronts.

With that said, then:

I fully agree with you that libertarianism is “anti-conservative, though they try and call themselves that.”

Or, as least until this decade, it has been anti- conservative.

The conservativism that I see that is becoming is in the literal sense of the term: A conservation of the gains of the social-revolution of the past four-and-a-half decades that libertarianism unquestionably contributed to (How does libertarianism differ from the ACLU, other than that the ACLU does not advocate an economic scheme, that I’m aware of)?

When I mentioned to my brother in January 2006 that libertarianism is now becoming conservative, he simply looked at me and replied, “there’s nothing conservative about libertarians” (Like me, he’s an exciteable type). I agreed: “that’s right, there’s not.”

He’ll turn 62 years old this year, and was 58 years old at the time. I noted, that he wasn’t paying attention to how things were changing. I also noted that the libertarians are now pro-Confederacy, and involved in the Neo-Confederate movements and themes. He was the history major of the family while in college (myself and my other brother are engineers, and my sister was the economics major).
That one did surprise him. His eyelids raised with a look of surprise, and he asked, “They are?!”

As I said, he hadn’t been paying attention.

There’s no question that libertarianism has influenced what now calls itself conservative in this country.

There’s absolutely nothing in this article that a libertarian intellectual would not enjoy and that libertarianism has not made a contribution to.

Merely the meteoric rise of such as the Cato Institute is interesting in itself.

The libertarians go well beyond merely the token Libertarian Party (which as far as I can tell has been used more as a Public Relations message for the past 38 years, advertising the theretofore unheard of term where the overwhelming majority of people in this country were concerned).

Libertarianism has added unquestioned belief in Finance Capitalism in the past 15-20 years it looks like, and has done its part in pushing the neo-Smithian laissez faire as a defining element of conservatism.

The Cato Institute, and the ethical and cultural pollution that’s been contributed to by these movements, will remain the major lasting legacies of libertarianism, well after the Hopeless Cause niche movements created by it collapse, leaving their TINY number of adherents disheartened and disenchanted.

I haven’t done what can be dignified with the term research in tracing out the connections (other than some small amounts of time spent in a nearby university library, checking things best checked in a good research library).

Libertarianism, entered the right wing back in the mid-to-late 1980s, with commentary that was anti-big government. Back then it was something that appealed to a purely TINY fringe. Pro-abortion elements and such were toned down, and most commentary that I heard was on government, including opposition to drivers licenses (which I remember for its being something so memorable). I dismissed it as strange.

Objectivism and Ayn Rand, I knew little to nothing about, other than (and only vaguely) that Frank O’Connor was married to her. Then soft-sell articles began on some of its themes began to appear in periodicals about 12-15 years ago. Then some starting showing up in interviews on FOX News about 2001-03. I've learned more about it by following the libertarian link, then I ever would have otherwise.

Like most normal human beings, once I've looked at the details, then I’ve found it repellent; not least of all, due to the Objectivists’ cant about what is and what is not “moral.” It is absurd to call Objectivism in the least conservative. It’s been another moral pollution, and purely social revolutionary where America is concerned. Until only recently (seven years), I never associated objectivism with libertarianism.

In truth, I never thought much about libertarians, one way or the other, until the past ten years, and especially the past eight.

I started to begin to wonder in the 1990s, at statements I was hearing from Republican Party politicians and articles in various periodicals. It became especially overt about 1997-98 onward.
However, I didn’t associate it, or think to, with libertarianism yet.

I never followed Pat Buchanan very closely, or those affiliated with him, but found some of what I saw of him on television, and some of his alliances, queer and surprising. Just the same, I wouldn’t have made, or suspected, the connection that he has with libertarianism ten years ago, to be sure.

Joe Sobran, I never heard of until about seven years ago. Like Ron Paul, if it weren’t for the internet, then I doubt that I ever would have. No one could have claimed himself to be a staunch Catholic and an anarchist, publicly, prior to this decade.

I used the World Wide Web to follow the links to the many libertarian fronts in their network, beginning about 6-7 years ago. Most of it I did circa 2002-04. I’ve kept links and have watched certain ones since then.

That’s when I heard of Ron Paul, for the VERY FIRST TIME in my life.

He was once a Libertarian Party presidential candidate. So my never having heard of him before is not in the least surprising.

It really is an astonishing range of fronts that what I’ll call the libertarian movement has established, each with its own, or numerous, websites, e-mail groups, and so forth:

Political (quasi-liberal, quasi-conservative and quasi-socialist), cultural, religious (including various niches of Catholic, Protestant and Jewish), historical (southern history and confederacy themes are specialties, but there are others), and even some fronts under the guise of being Pro-Life, not to mention contributions to neo-nativist movements.

It was definitely easier five to seven years ago to trace the major American and British newspapers New York, Washington, Toronto, Sydney, London, Johannesburg, especially) that frequently print essays that are then distributed by the network, than it is today.

So much has been disseminated across the World Wide Web by this point, that it’s harder for people to trace out all the elements in the network now. I know that I would not find some of them, if I were looking today. I'm quite sure that I didn't find them all, and wasn't trying to do so.

What will also make it more difficult for so many is how much they have been formed or influenced by them to date.

I can also recognize that many people have now been formed by the fronts, or in reaction to some of them, even if only elements, most especially economic, but also cultural and religious, as well.

It’s not just the libertarians and their so-called “paleo-conservatives.”

There’s plenty shared with libertarianism by the self-named “neo-conservative” (which has its own astonishing range of fronts). The cheer-leading for the return of Finance Capitalism (to a degree it never had in this country) is held completely in common.

The libertarians and the self-named neo-conservatives have been purely Strange Bedfellow relationships to this point in time.

I was surprised to see that the term anarchist had been revived again (something long gone). Again, primarily due to the World Wide Web. I saw that in about 2001 or 2002.

The WTC meeting in Seattle was one of the major events used to popularize the term anarchist and the neo-anarchist movements, all via the World Wide Web.

Shortly thereafter, I saw that the libertarian movements had also developed a bizarre synthesis of a thing called “anarcho-capitalism,” complete with an astonishing range of books, CDs, tapes and so forth.

The synthesis of Anarchism and Finance Capitalism is one of the more extreme and cynical syntheses. It's something that would have been impossible to go public with before this decade. There were too many people still alive who would have recognized the absurdity of the name “anarcho-capitalist” (or even anarchist), for such to be mentioned, never mind popularized.

And it's no more extreme a synthesis as Ron Paul sounding at times like a reincarnaton of William J. Bryan while using it to call for a return to the Gold Standard.

The same is true of the neo-isolationism. No movement that could be called isolationist has existed in this country since 1941.

The neo-anarchist movements, like militia movements, the Free-State movement, the neo-Confederate movements, the neo-isolationists, the various libertarian-Catholic and Protestant fronts, and Pro-Life fronts, and other such cultural-based movements, along with the paleo-conservative movement, are obviously movements that themselves will go absolutely nowhere. There’s absolutely nothing to indicate that they were ever intended to.

The libertarian contribution to niche fronts has been a specialty for forming movements based on Lost Causes from the past that are Hopeless Causes for the future.

One aspect of these Hopeless Cause movements is that if they didn’t exist, then they couldn’t be challenged publicly, or beaten up on, or derided. Their Strange Bedfellow opposition would have to build their own Straw Men to burn down verbally (which would be too obvious and ineffectual).

Again, there’s absolutely nothing in this article that a libertarian would not enjoy. It’s the cheer leading for the revived Finance Capitalism that is what has become most central to libertarianism in the past 15-20 years.

That and the Cato Institute will probably remain its major lasting legacy (along with its contribution to the ethical and cultural pollution of the country).

No question, that libertarianism has influenced what is now called conservative.

By pre-reformed American standards, there is nothing conservative about libertarianism.

shoey| 10.26.09 @ 11:24PM

Rand may claim libertarianism.
but i'm not buying it.

she makes some good points, but her way is ultimately without hope.

Paul Crowley| 10.26.09 @ 9:15PM

“When taxpayers and conservative activists began holding tea parties to protest an out-of-control federal government's unsustainable growth, it was not entirely unreasonable to ask: Where were these people for the last eight years? George W. Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress increased discretionary spending at twice the rate that prevailed under Bill Clinton.” [By W. James Antle, III on 10.23.09 @ 6:09AM]

Plagiarism!

The above queston is standard commentary by libertarians, libertarian “conservative” and “liberal” fronts, self-named Liberals and even of some of the new post-95 reformed Marxists.

"Revolt on the right" (dubbed a "conservative civil war") was a theme in Pat Buchanan's essays after the elections in 2004. At that time, he wrote that one would begin. Judging from the mailings I received, 2005-07, Pat must have had a crystal ball.

As to this essay itself:

Then much of this essay is exactly the commentary of the libertarian Cato Institute, libertarians and libertarian-created movements (particularly “Old Right,” and, with modifications, the “paleo-conservatives”), during the better part of seven of eight years of the G.W. Bush administration.

It was also the commentary of libertarian fronts on the left (“liberal”) during the G.W. Bush administration, but this is a “conservative” website, so I ignore the libertarianized “liberals” and only mention such as the libertarian-created “Old Right” and “paleo-conservatives.”

Paul Crowley| 10.26.09 @ 9:31PM

"(Like me, he’s an exciteable type)." [Paul Crowley| 10.26.09 @ 8:57PM]

hmmmm.
A typo and misphrased.

Like me, he's NOT an excitable type.

Paul Crowley| 10.27.09 @ 1:49AM

“Ask them what they stand for.
1.Abortion
2.Legalizing drugs
3.Legalizing prostitution
4.Gambling
5."Gay" Marriage
6. War
7. Israel” [Margie| 10.25.09 @ 8:12PM]

Hi Margie:

I’m not a self-dubbed liberal, but I’ll pick up the gauntlet.

I’m curious what the new reformed “conservatives” response to what I believe is best described as an unreformed (though not unaffected) American (who never identified himself first and foremost by a mere political label) might be?

First, as to what I stand for:

I stand for human beings, their welfare and well-being, first and foremost.

I stand for pre-reformed American principles, republicanism (not to be confused with the G.O.P.), democracy (not to be confused with the Democratic Party, or the redefined elective-democracy).

A government (regardless of physical size, or how size or efficiency are defined) that governs in a manner which puts that last, with a ‘devil take the hindmost’ ethic shield by rhetoric about Personal Responsibility, but for which it has no responsibility or accountability, and in which authority has been rendered anonymous, and it has merely a system of selection of which citizens are useful to work in the administration, is a government that owns the country, and the people in it. It is not a government of free, self-governing, citizens.

1. Abortion.

First: Abortion was not the only element of the old Pro-Life movement, which has undergone extensive reformation this deade.

The commentary of the new Democratic Party Pro-Life group is dead on, when it mocks many self-dubbed “conservatives” as only being pro-life, only until after the person is born.

I’m not defending the new Democratic Party Pro-Life group, which is not. But that commentary is dead on the money.

The new reformed “conservatives” will need to come up with a reply.

Cheer-leading for the new Finance Capitalism instituted in the past 20 years, a bipartisan effort requiring the signature of President Clinton, should make it an interesting rationalization.

Just as there has been nothing conservative about libertarianism, there is nothing Pro-Life about Finance Capitalism, and there has not been anthing Pro-Life in it, in the whole of the past 220 years, or so.

With 'man's dominion over nature,' due to uncontestable technological achievements, having been replaced by an inordinate fear of nature, over the course of the past 40 years, via such as the environmental movement, now joined with the new multi-nationals, then the technological achievements and their potential are no longer a rhetorical device for it to fall back on.

Technological advances of the past 30 years, and they have been extraordinary, hold little hope for potential in a system that always advocates the highest profit possible as the greatest good, and the cheapest solution as absolute in issues where the welfare of human beings are concerned.

With that said, then, I’ll get to the questions.

SoCon| 10.27.09 @ 6:21PM

Paul, have YOU ever done one damned thing to help the unborn in this country? Have you ever sat with a pregnant, teenage girl who had been abandoned by her family and boyfriend and listened to her cries of despair? Have you helped this same girl find lodging, food and prenatal care?? Have you?

You mouth off about pro-lifers not caring about babies after they're born--how do you know? Research your stupid, ignorant and WRONG assumptions before you spew them all over blogs.

It's arrogant stupidity like yours that further hampers the efforts of those of us who do care about babies, BORN AND UNBORN! Get off your ass and look around before you judge those who are working hard to help young mothers and their babies.

Moron.

Paul Crowley| 10.27.09 @ 2:27AM

"Ask them what they stand for.
1.Abortion” [Margie| 10.25.09 @ 8:12PM]

I stand against abortion.

Abortion is an act of murder. It’s the murder of an innocent human being. G.W. Bush was wrong, in his statements in the fall of 2001, when he did what Gore never could have, and provided federal funding to infanty embyronic stem cell research, the embyro is is not a clump of cells with potential for life, it is human a life.

Willful murder is unjust. The mother is complicit in the act of murder.

No law should ever have been enacted that allows it.

I am ashamed for my country that it has had such laws for decades, and continues to have these laws.
If Cindy McCain, and Sarah Palin, don’t like that, then tough (Actually, I don’t even give a Tinker’s dam what such political hacks like or don’t like; at a miniumum their so-called “family values” are extremely shabby).

I remain in full agreement with Ronald Reagan’s statement at the rally that I was present at in 1976:

“Abortion is murder and it should be abolished.”

That gained him one of two sustained standing ovations that day.

I don’t include that as Reagan worship, but because I agreed with the statement then, and I agree with it today. I have always, and continue to oppose all of the elements of the eugenics movements, past and present. It also gives something of a measure of the meaning of "conservative” since the last self-dubbed conservative to speak plainly against abortion as murder was G.H.W. Bush, very early in his administrsation. Since then the silence has been as you say, “deafending.”

We also found out, well into Reagan’s second term, that the Reagan “family values” seemed to have been rather shabby as well, regardless of his rhetoric.
Hollywood family values, right down to his being the first divorcee President in American history. As a neighbor rightly noted to me last year, Hollywood people were the only ones who behaved like that in this country up until just 45 years ago.

The filthy behavior, but none of the style or glamor, for sure, has been popularized since.

The laws legalizing abortion should be abolished, and laws protecting human beings re-enacted in their place.

I don’t expect this to happen, recognize that it will not, and recognize that Republican politicians of the past 30 years, and reformed “conservatism” of the present, is a big part of the reason why it will not happen. I also recognize why some self-dubbed liberal commentators are stating publicly, and clearly, without fear now, that “choice is a poor euphemism for abortion rights.”

Rather I believe the new laws will remain in the American legal code and be part of the NEW theme popularized in the past eight years (but not in the 35 or so preceding it while laws were being erased):
Rule By Law.

Almost uniformily, self-dubbed “conservatives” now hold the same position as self-dubbed liberals and the reformed Pro-Live movement: To work to reduce the number of abortions.

Obviously, those who were firmly opposed to abortion, have been outlasted (to be precise: two generations of Americans that formed a majority of the population were ignored and out-lived, and that during 28 years of Republican administrations over the past 40 years.

CAUSE AND EFFECT

Abortion hasn't stood alone.

Without the constant sexual stress that is maintained upon the population of this country via pornography the formal, and legal, definition of which is something that induces sexual desire in a human being], then the abortion industry would have gone nowhere. I believe that it’s doubtful that the promiscuity that began among American high school students, in small numbers in the 1970s, and then in epidemic proportions among high school and junior high school age students, 1978-93, would have occurred.

I don’t refer only to the commercial-industry dubbed XXX Porn that was introduced in 1972, and then ramped up sharply beginning about 1978-79. As I said, the formal, and legal, definition of pornography is something that induces sexual desire in a human being.

Again, my quoting Ronald Reagan from 1976 is not hero worship of Ronald Reagan, but simply my memory of the day, him, his statement and the standing ovation, all quite clearly.

The Reagan administration did nothing to counter pornography, and only slightly less than nothing toward abolishing abortion. The Meese Commission actually aided the commercial industry that produced the so-called XXX Porn.

Other legislation enacted into law facilitated the advance of pornography (all of it) in cable television, then satellite and then internet, following the end of the Reagan administration.

This is some of the filth that some claim is “American culture” and indicative of freedom. Libertarians are great for these kind of statements. It is not.

If something had been accomplished toward what gained Reagan that standing ovation, then I might speak of him with more admiration here than I am, rather than reaffirming my agreement with his clearly stated position.

Paul Crowley| 10.27.09 @ 2:53AM

“Ask them what they stand for.
2.Legalizing drugs” [Margie| 10.25.09 @ 8:12PM]

I stand strongly against legalizing narcotics.
It’s wrong and it will guarantee the ruination of millions of lives.

At the same time, the so-called War On Drugs is an absurdity, as it has been conducted. The only thing it seems to have been good for is weapons systems Research & Development and testing. Aegis cruisers off of South America during the G.H.W. Bush administration???

Narcotics-use has only come to become a norm in this country over the course of the past 40 years.

That’s two full generations born and come of age, and so seeing it as normal, and one, for which it has been around since they entered the first yeras of their youth. That's everyone about 63 years old and younger now. But it is not something from "Time Immemorial."

This is another one where two generations of Americans were outlived.

The laws outlawing narcotics in no way whatsoever resemble the Federal Prohibition against alcoholic beverages (1920-33).

Legalization of drugs as an easy fix, with the romantic image of pharmaceutical companies providing supposedly inexpensive and safe narcotics, and illegal drug manufacturing transport disappearing, as presented by libertarians and others, is wrong.

History is against them, including the history of so-called bootleggers in this country following the second world war. The history of the British opium trade, and its consequences, is against them. And that includes the poppy fields of Afghanistan, which are ancestors of it.

Pat Buchanan's commentary is wrong on this also (but finally easy to see how he aids the libertarians).
This is one of Buchanan's 'tragedy and trapped' themes.

We are not facing a situation of damned if we do and damned if we don’t legalize drugs. Millions will be damned if we do.

I can see why pro-eugenics types wouldn’t be opposed to legalized drugs though. It's not even hard to see why the big pharmaceutical corporations would be happy (especially if conincides with drastic Tort reforms). . .

Paul Crowley| 10.27.09 @ 3:01AM

“Ask them what they stand for.
3.Legalizing prostitution” [Margie| 10.25.09 @ 8:12PM]

I stand against legalizing prostitution.

It’s wrong.

Spare me the “get out of our bedrooms” rubbish.

The population of this country has had garbage imposed upon us to induce sexual stress and try and to train us how to behave in our bedrooms for at least 44 years now (since 1965).

The raunchier versions were introduced 31 years ago, and have been steadily advancing into every element of mass-communications media.

How else could women be taught the act of oral sodomy? Our mothers sure couldn't have taught anyone about it (unless they did time in a foreign female prison somewhere or something. . .). The mothers of the Xers and Yers are a different matter now.

Anyway, the pornograpny can’t be escaped from.

The pretense of containing it for only those who choose to be exposed, is long since gone.

Better to abolish the pornography that’s imposed on the population. Remove the sexual stress and hookers won’t be needed for the “stress relief” that they advertise.

To put it plainly, but without sinking into infantile crudity.

Paul Crowley| 10.27.09 @ 3:19AM

“Ask them what they stand for.
4.Gambling” [Margie| 10.25.09 @ 8:12PM]

I don’t make a strong stand on legalization of gambling.

It's certainly been another drastic reform in this country.

This is an interesting addition.

I’m not a Baptist, or any other kind of congregational Protestant, post-79 reformed into "Evangelicals," or otherwise, and never was.

My Godparents sent me Irish sweepstakes tickets as a birthday present every year for years when I was a kid, and I worked for a vet in high school and spent some time around the local race tracks.

So the gambling isn't a natural addition for me.

What its developed into by this point in time, especially over the past 20 years, I agree is bad.

Gambling is legal.

Forms of it have been all of my life where I've lived.

However, for the past 20 years, it has become unrecognizable from the limited or annual horse racing and parish bingo games of my youth.

Dog tracks seem to have passed away (we never had one), but horse racing as taken off for the past 40 years.

In the past 20 years legalized gambling has boomed and gotten completely out of hand, that I can tell.

The Lotteries have skyrocketed everywhere. The Casinos and such have really boomed.

I can’t even imagine what it must be like at 3 A.M. in a 24-hour Bingo hall, and don’t have the least desire to find out. One of my aunts was a BINGO whiz (something like 30 cards, or some such astonishing number), but I never cared for it. The prize money that I’ve seen posted at the new 24-hr Bingo halls boggles the mind, so I can understand why there are people in there at 3 A.M., even if I don't want to be one.

At any rate, as legalized gambling boomed, then organized crime seemed to boom with it, and no question that prostitution, and narcotics pushing has.

Then there's simple pride, dignity and good sense.

What a pathetic country that relies on “industry” like this that relies on human weakness, for revenue and jobs.

A country that one should be embarrassed and ashamed for.

Paul Crowley| 10.27.09 @ 3:40AM

“Ask them what they stand for.
5."Gay" Marriage” [Margie| 10.25.09 @ 8:12PM]

I stand against the redefinition’s of marriage.

Homosexual marriage is a continuation of the reditinition of marriage in this country.

The a redefining of the meaning of marriage has been done not with the addition of an adjective, but by keeping the same term, but radically changing the meaning.

The term marriage HAS BEEN radically redefined already.

Homosexual marriage is only one part of the social revolution of the past 45 years, an ongoing part of it, still in development.

Without the purging of the American code, especially the divorce laws, and their associated precedents, and the introduction of the new Fault Free Divorce laws, circa 1971 onward, then the laws and precedents associated with American marriage and divorce laws would probably still be sufficient to throw out even the suggestion of such a thing as homosexual marriage as a natural contradiction in terms.

Redefining marriage, via popular referendums whatever the name) in which marriage is dubbed "traditional marriage,” which is defined as merely between a man and a woman, has contributed to the purging of American legal codes: The new statutes are enacted into law, and the old laws abolished, along with the precedents associated with them).

These have advanced the homosexual marriage movement. The arguments of the new conservatives (i.e. same status, but different name), including Sarah Palin last year, are facilitating the tactic of making homosexual marriage a civil rights issue, on the basis that arguments such as Palin’s constitute a separate but equal” argument (as they do).

Merely stating that “marriage is between a man and a woman” is a radical redefinition of marriage also. For what purpose? The laws formed by American culture, and that reinforced it, as just laws should, but that are now long gone, answered the question.

With 'friends of marriage,' like these new "conservatives," then 'marriage needs no enemies.'

The reformed religions have gone a long way in facilitating this also, Protestantized Catholicism and reformed Protestantism, even while nominally taking the opposition and 'draw the line' at homosexual marriage.

Anyone who says that his divorce hasn’t hurt marriage is wrong. He may be sincerely ignorant, or he may be a liar, but either way, he is wrong.

So what’s it take to be a conservative by this test? To merely repeat the absurd answer that Sarah Palin gave in the Vice Presidential debate last year?

Being labeled "conservative" if of no importance to me. I stand against the redefining of marriage.

Ron Paul gave a homely-sounding reply in his 15 minutes of fame in the debates, stating that marriage should be defined as it is in the dictionary. I have one word in reply: Etymology and the English language.

The timing is interesting, given that Texas began action last year that moves toward establishing a new precedent toward introducing legalized polygamy (multiple wives or husbands, simultaneously), for the first time in American history.

Anyway, the redefinition of marriage has not BEEN radical, but is becoming more radical yet. Beyond homosexual marriage, then polygamy is probably something that “conservatives” hould be thinking about, but probably aren’t.

Paul Crowley| 10.27.09 @ 4:42AM

“Ask them what they stand for.
6. War” [Margie| 10.25.09 @ 8:12PM]

I stand for defense, and war if necessary, and in defense.

I stand against the redefinitions of defense and "first strike" made public by our government in only the past five and one years, respectively.

I stand strongly against the hostilities of the present, and the vague "more wars over the horizon.”

I stand against undeclared wars.

I stand against wars of naked aggression (a statement even six years ago I never imagined I’d have to make in regard to this country).

I stand against wars as a means of foreign policy (including so-called pre-emptive wars, as now defined).

I’m embarrassed and ashamed for this country that so many in its population have behaved with such cringing, servile, fear for the past eight years, like frightened women (not only so many of the women, but plenty of the men also).

I’m very embarrassed and ashamed for this country for the massive loss of innocent human life and the scope of human misery that has been inflicted by our armed forces.

I’m in full agreement with Ronald Reagan’s statement at the rally that I was present at in 1976:

“This country will never again enter a war that it has not declared.”

That gained him the second of two sustained standing ovations that day.

This is why I criticized our government, principally our Congress, but also the G.W. Bush executive, in October 2001 when our country began hostilities in Afghanistan with nothing more substantial than an updated Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, passed by our Congress the month before.

That is not a formal Declaration of War, as called for by the American constitution.

It is the very thing that Reagan outspokenly condemned having been done during the Vietnam war. He criticized it during the war and then again at that rally I was present at in 1976.

Spare me the cant about the Korean War and the two hundred something list advertised by the Department of Defense, the self-named “neo-conservatives” and the libertarians (mostly of petty naval landings and marines stationed in embassies and such in the 19th century. . ., completely and exactly-opposite- in-kind-and-circumstances to the present). I've seen them, not from any libertarians, but from DoD websites, including Department of the Navy.

I don’t defend the committing of the American armed forces to the U.N. Command in South Korea, in June 1950, in the way in which it was done. It was a bad precedent, that should not be followed, but instead overtly rejected which never happened, and probably never will).

That vaguely-worded authorization issued by Congress in September 2001, has since been used to justify the invasion of Iraq, increased military actions in the Balkans, North Africa, including Somalia, the Gulf of Oman, and now the military action in Pakistan, that began the night of Sarah Palin’s address to the Republican National Convention last year.

I was not opposed to attacking a country, Iraq, that I’d been led to believe had taken part in the attacks against us on 11 September 2001. But I did continue to be disgusted at the thought of attacking a country without a formal declaration of war. The “liberation” cant of the right-wing writers was confusing, and I simply rejected it as not only irrelevant, but absurd (President Bush did not pick it up and well after).

I turned completely against the war in Iraq in early January 2004, after learning of the public statements by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and National Security Advisor C. Rise, all made on the same day, stating that it was never said that Iraq took part in the attacks against us on 11 September 2001.

The invasion, conquest, occupation, and the development of Advance Bases since, has all combined into one large act of raw naked aggression.

It was, and it remains, wrong.

If you have a problem with that position, and think of yourself as a “conservative,” then it’s not American principles that your “conservatism” refers to, and you are only one more of the many moral midget reformed Americans that form the majority of the population, right, and left.

CHEER LEADING FOR WAR
For all of the whines about some of the government spending in this essay, why no whines about government spending on the military? The armaments enacted into law during the Bush and Obama administrations now sum to the trillions of dollars.

Why no complaints about government expenditures on the military when spending increased upwards of 50% during the G.W. Bush administration and is being projected to increase at least 25% further this decade?

Further, why no complaints, from “conservatives” or liberals,” that much of the allocation of resources, has so largely been directed so as to drive development in Asia, Africa and Europe?

One right-wing essayist I saw even combined the two themes, stating the country can’t afford increased domestic spending because we don’t have the money, but then without so much as a pause, stated that due to war, the country will have to spend billions, probably trillions on the military in the decade ahead!

This rubbish is distraction.

The bottom line is that the hostilities that the American armed forces, and those of its allies and their satellites, are engaged in is unjust, raw, naked aggression, causing massive loss of innocent human life and untold misery to innocent human beings. All is being done, on three continents, for over eight years now, under the vague bill passed by Congress in September 2001, which is nothing more substantial than a Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

It was bad during the Clinton administration, the country has made a major leap in the past six years. The first time in history one need not even speculate that the war was unjust, naked aggression.

I strand opposed.

My opposition includes that of about a half a dozen who have died in just recent years.
Not in the hostilities, but of old age.

This country has become unrecogizeable.

The country’s infrastructure and the population have been massively reformed into a far more efficient and stream-lined structure. Technological innovations and the reformed population means that a massive conscript armed forces is possible again, as it was not nearly so much, circa 1975-2005. Infrastructure development in Asia, Africa and South and Central America is such that a modern war of rapid movement is becoming a possibility on these continents for the first time in human history. I don’t predict one, but neither do I discount the possiblitly of a general war “over the horizon.”

Paul Crowley| 10.27.09 @ 5:17AM

“Ask them what they stand for.
7. Israel” [Margie| 10.25.09 @ 8:12PM]

I stand for meeting our obligations made to other countries. This includes Israel.

I stand against blind defense of Isreali actions or confusion of the country as though it is part of our own.

I’ve never been a blind cheer leader for Israel. Israel is a foreign country. It is NOT the 51st state of the union.

All too many Israeli actions over the past 42 years, and especially over the past 26 years, have been inexcusable.

I am ashamed for my country that it has supported them, openly, or by its deafening silence over the course of the past 20 years.

I don’t buy at all that the U.S.A. is being manipulated by Israel or Israeli political lobbies.

I remember President Reagan’s statements about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the reasons given by the American government for why American and French peace keepers were sent into Lebanon. I have plenty of personal friends who were in the service and part of that expedition at that time. I was not.
The ship I was on, was undergoing post-overhaul trials, qualifications, and refresher training and preparing for a cruise to the Persian Gulf.

As a pre-effeminized-navy naval veteran, I’ve never forgotten the U.S.S. Liberty, and won’t (It looks like something is going on and this may be being used by our government now).

I still remember Benjamin Netanyahu’s (if I’ve misspelled his name, then I don’t care) statement’s in his Public Relations tour of the U.S.A. in the late 1980s (between ‘88 and ‘89, I believe), made on television news, that threats of Arab suicide attacks were bluff (I remembered clearly enough the attacks that killed upwards of 300 Americans and Frenchmen in 1983). Through to the end of the decade, there had been only few suicide attacks. Virtually none against Israelis. That changed shortly after his P.R. tour.

Americans who stupidly believed the Israeli superman rot of the 1970s and 1980s, and sincerely thought that the Israeli armed forces were superior to the American armed forces made me sick to my stomach. America could have fed that miserable little country to the Arabs, at any time, back then, and there is nothing that Israel could have done about it. Only someone grossly ignorant could have taken seriously the rhetoric of the Israeli government during the U.N. eviction of Iraq from Kuwait (i.e. The Gulf War) that if American air and naval forces did not take out the missile batteries, then Israel would (it was a Public Relations-induced illusion).

I’m sufficiently knowledgeable about nuclear chemistry and nuclear weapons not to repeat claims that Israel has thermo-nuclear weapons. I don’t know if it does or doesn’t. If it does, then I do know that it is not due to Israelis developing them, and it should not have them.

I only add these longer comments due to the mindless and idiotic cheer leading of anything Israeli, and republsive rationalizations of wrong that Israel does, even against American citizens that so many Have Been Taught to engage in, for whatever reason.

Spare me the cant of the post-reformed Protestants and Catholics, blathering nonsense about “God’s chosen people,” or any quotes from bible commentaries.

The nation of Israel, “God’s chosen people????!”

A country founded just about sixty years ago??? Look At It today! “THAT is an example of God’s chosen people?”

I spit on the Moody Bible Institute commentary in the Schoefield Study Bible (is that a clear enough statement to express my opinion of the biblical COMMENTARY of that publication?).

The only thing that I believe is going to be Left Behind in the second iteration of the Second Coming commentary of the reformed Protestantism of the past 40 years, is the second iteration of the Second Coming commentary itself. By second iteration, then I refer to that which has developed over the past 20 years. I still remember the first that was publicized, nation wide: That’s when people were blathering about the first version of the so-called Rapture to be popularized, circa 1969-89, which involved Armageddon, due to the Soviets ("proven" by such as the symbol of the Bear and the Eagle, in the Apocalypse of St. John, at least according to SOME bible commentary and some popular-selling books back then (the true 'holy writ' of countless believers).

These things are completely irrelevant where American foreign policy is concerned anyway. If you believe this stuff, then leave the country and become an Israeli citizen, and serve in the IDF (at least you'll pick up a seccond language).

The verbosity is due to the singling out of Isreal. If the question had been regarding Italy, then the answer would have been a single sentence: The first one I typed.

Paul Crowley| 10.27.09 @ 6:51AM

Hi Margie:

Here's tossing the gauntlet back to you.

It shouldn’t take too much to see why the only time statements are made to me, such as "it is Liberals like you," is here on The American Spectator, by what I suspect are the professional comment writers dubbed "trolls."

But what exactly do the particular items on this list, ESPECIALLY 1 through 5, Abortion, Legalizing drugs, Legalizing prostitution, Gambling, and "Gay" Marriage, have to do with Antle’s essay and the 'hopping mad’ comments posted in response to it have here? Everything here is over so-called entitlements spending.

The essay has nothing to do with the sham rhetoric (including “I’m a pro-life president”), as against the weak or non-existent action of the G.W. Bush administration where these items are concerned.

No doubt that in eight years nothing was accomplished in this regard, and more than a good bit of harm was done. But these aren't the focus of the essay. I wonder if there would really be any 'hopping mad' comments on The American Spectator, if it had been the topic?

SoCon| 10.27.09 @ 6:26PM

You are certifiable, you crazy old freak! You're chicken-shit, too; spewing reams and reams of your nonsense AFTER the thread is no longer active.

Man up and make your points when it matters; otherwise it doesn't.

Paul Crowley| 10.28.09 @ 6:27PM

"You are certifiable, you crazy old freak!. . .AFTER the thread is no longer active." [SoCon| 10.27.09 @ 6:26PM]

You have a foul mouth So Con.

It's all too common among some of the coment posters on The American Spectator.

As to your charge, then, you're wrong.
I'm perfectly sane.

If the thread is no longer active, then how were you able to post your reply?

Paul Crowley| 10.29.09 @ 1:58AM

“Man up and make your points when it matters; otherwise it doesn't.” [SoCon| 10.27.09 @ 6:26PM]

Hi SoCon:

It takes no courage to post comments on the internet, especially behind the anonymity of a pseudonym.

You are crude, obnoxious and have a foul mouth, that quite probably indicates a fouled mind.

However, whether you would be crude, obnoxious, foul-minded, AND gutsy enough to speak foul-mouthed rubbish, such as “you crazy old freak! You're chicken-shit,” to a man’s face, and then stand ready to back it up, might very well be another matter.

Since even what sex you are is uncertain, then if you’re a female, then you could make these kind of foul-mouthed statements to my face without fear of a physical response on my part. I’ve been slapped by a couple when I was younger, but I don’t strike women. I don't beat up children either. It’s wrong.

“Fighting women,” or “ass-kicking women” (a crude, foul, term that I’ve seen used by some left-wing writers), don’t exist, and never will.

It takes no courage to punch a women in the mouth. I can’t imagine what kind of man would brag about something so absurd as beating up a woman in most certainly what could not be something that could graced by the term “fight.”

The manipulation of American women, dubbed fighting women,” by our government, for use in the armed forces, in tasks women are now capable of performing, due to technological changes, and cultural manipulation of our population, is something else that I am embarrassed and ashamed for this country for.

At any rate, whatever your sex, then if you fancy yourself as “Manning up,’ simply by posting comments on the internet, or running of at the mouth in your crude and foul manner as you are here with me, then you need to crawl out of what is nothing more tangible then a Fantasy World that exists only in your own mind.

P.S. Whatever your reasoning is regarding “when it matters,” or “otherwise it doesn’t,” where a man’s points are concerned, then I really don’t care. I suspect that the reasoning would probably be too bizarre to even want to hear.