The American Spectator

Appleby| 11.4.09 @ 6:50AM

There is a lot of daylight between Republican and Conservative. NY 23 showed that more clearly than anything else.

There is also no enthusiasm for voting in a Yellow Dog with the Republican label on its backside, regardless of which fat cat deeply entrenched Apparatchik stamps his name on her.

THROW THE RASCALS OUT is now the battle cry. That also includes Republican rascals, Newt.

Mark Twain once said that we should learn only the lesson that was there. A cat, he pointed out, will not sit down on a hot stove twice. But it will also not sit down on a cold stove.

Let us learn the lesson of Election Day 2009 and throw the rascals out, and let us do it judiciously lest we end up only with a different brand of rascal.

Michael Tomlinson| 11.4.09 @ 7:35PM

Got to love these blue dog Democrats.

Wilderman| 11.4.09 @ 7:22AM

"When they side with conservatives, Republicans win -- just as Ross Perot taught us."
--AS front page headline

You're talking about the Ross Perot who won the '92 and '96 presidential elections, right?

Danny| 11.4.09 @ 12:55PM

I saw that too. I can only assume he is referring to the fact that Perot got around 18% of the vote in '92 & 8% in 96'. He didn't win he definately was a huge factor in '92.

Michael Tomlinson| 11.4.09 @ 7:38PM

He helped elect Clinton the "King" of the blue dogs so that made him and his angry independents a major factor. Probably the same folks who elected all of Pelosi's blue lapdogs in 2006 and 2008.

W. James Antle III| 11.4.09 @ 8:14PM

I'm suggesting that when Perot-style independents and conservatives vote for the same candidates, those candidates tend to win.

Wilderman| 11.4.09 @ 9:36PM

What Perot taught is that when Perot-style independents run against them, Republicans lose.

Ran / Si Vis Pacem| 11.4.09 @ 7:44AM

Mr. Antle, thank you for the thoughtful article. I believe the lessons of the Perot debacle are not lost to residual anger. Eric Dondero's Libertarian Republican website is a constructively bridges between Libertarians and Republicans. It's part of Republican grass-roots recognition that the "undecideds" are not all of them "moderates." There are distinct and valuable Conservative and Libertarian constituencies within that can deliver winning votes, if only Republicans balance the Democrats with honest counter-ideals.

Cheers!

stephanie| 11.4.09 @ 7:49AM

Oh HAPPY day in Virginia!!!!

Michael Tomlinson| 11.4.09 @ 7:39PM

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JimP| 11.4.09 @ 8:22AM

It was great pulling the lever for 4 conservative Reps in VA yesterday (including my state rep). A straight ticket. Cha-ching! Take that Tim Kane, and don't let the door hit you on your backside as you cross the "Virginia-Delaware" border, you dufus.

It would be interesting to know how many unaffiliated voters are independents v 'moderates'. My impression is that independents have a strong conservative/libertarian streak whereas 'moderates' don't seem to be grounded in any ideas/philosophy and are subject to being pursuaded by charismatic 'leaders' . Anyone have any ideas or info on this thought?

Gazinya| 11.4.09 @ 8:30AM

Can you hear me now?

Son Of Sam| 11.4.09 @ 8:40AM

Politicians of both parties need to wake up to the fact that we the people will NOT be pushed around any longer. We will not have our lives run by an ObamaNazi elite that tries to tell us what to feel and think, that its our "patriotic duty" to pay more taxes or that any resistance on our part to the TelePrompter In Chief is proof that we are racist Tim McVeigh wannabe "mobsters"

Likewise, we will not have tax and spend, Big Government, baby killing, gay "marriage" advocating RINOs forced down our throats by a small handful of so-called "Republican leaders" who get together in a back room and choose our "representatives" for us.

We are the people. We are basically pretty conservative. We are definitely patriots who love America. And we will resist ANYONE who thinks that they can take the system that elected our prom king and queen and use it to run our lives.

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

Raul| 11.5.09 @ 1:06AM

I agree with you, Son of Sam.
The problem I'm having is that both parties, and I mean it, are corrupt as hell. Pelosi is an embarrassment as a leader and a politician. The Dems fell into power in 08 in Congress because there were no other viable options for voters, kind of a tallest midget contest. But independents were right to move away from Republican Party that, under Bush II, ramped the deficit up to historic levels after inheriting a surplus and was as Big Government as they come.
My point is, our options suck. And I wish we had a third option that took the best of the Republican platform (small gov, fiscal restraint, less government intrusion into personal decisions), and Dems (more thoughtfulness on foreign policy). At least, that's how I see it, but in principle I'm with you on fighting back corrupt bastards who want to profit personally from political office.

naman| 11.5.09 @ 3:49AM

If I were the Republicans, I wouldn't start counting my chickens just yet. There are quite a few small-government Independents like me who still haven't forgiven the GOP for all the expensive Big Government projects GWB supported. Until the Republicans start looking like the party of Reagan again, I wouldn't be so confident about my vote in 2010.

TheEnforcer| 11.4.09 @ 9:21AM

'

A warning to Virginia and New Jersey newly elected governors:

Just because you won, that does not mean it is business as usual.

An eye will be kept on you to follow through on your promises or else you will also be out in four years.

Remember when Joe Biden said he's had no boss all these years and now he has to answer to his boss Obama.

Well....

Obama also has a boss....

And that boss is us, the voters.

All these politicians have to answer to their bosses.

WE ARE THOSE BOSSES.

'

defeated pigs| 11.4.09 @ 9:35AM

Obama's campaign chairman, David Plouffe, said the president's approval rating "is at or above his vote totals."

Plouffe called politics "a comparative enterprise" and said "the Republican brand right now, with independents all across the nation, is really hurting."

"I think, generally, these elections tend to be overrated as to what they'll mean later. These are local races," Plouffe said. He also said he believes the GOP has a problem because conservatives "(Sarah) Palin and (Rush) Limbaugh and (Glenn) Beck are out there purging moderates from the party."

victor| 11.4.09 @ 10:44PM

The only problem to Plouffie, is that Conservative identity is at an alltime high at 40% and liberals are down at 20%.
Once we put up the Conservative shingle up and open up as Reagan Enterprises, we will start the ball rolling towards 2010 and 2012.
Sarah and Rush are Conservative and they simply say what we're thinking in the first place.
Beck is simply a young Perot and needs to be reigned in.
Anger without direction is simply chaos.
Perot learned that in '96

Alan Brooks| 11.4.09 @ 9:35AM

It is opposition to Obama that is fueling the recovery and his re-election three years from now; '93 all over again.

Alan Brooks| 11.4.09 @ 2:05PM

or shall we say '94 redux? perhaps Obama is ahead one year on Clinton.
So drearily predictable: another contract with America in 2011, then it fizzles-- as everybody wants help for their family, not others.
Then the Grand Old Potatoheads run Jeb in '12.

He's Tanned Rested and Ready.

Michael Tomlinson| 11.4.09 @ 7:42PM

I feel your pain blue dog.

defeated pigs| 11.4.09 @ 9:37AM

Steele said he wasn't particularly upset about the GOP's loss in a hotly contested race in upstate New York, saying "this process is done at the local level. The drama of 23 (district) was nice and is cute and funny and everybody made fun about how the party is fractured." He said "we'll have a cleaner process there" in the future.

In that race, retired Air Force Capt. Bill Owens, a Democrat, won the special election in which the Republican candidate withdrew over the weekend under pressure from the party's right wing and GOP heavyweights endorsed the Conservative Party nominee.

NWBUS| 11.4.09 @ 12:53PM

This was a special election. Owens will be gone this time next year. Providing the rpubs run a center right canidate.

defeated pigs| 11.4.09 @ 9:41AM

Van Hollen held up their success in New York as indicative of what could happen in the future when the conservative and moderate wings of the GOP clash.

“The Republican Party spent close to a million dollars to lose a seat they had held since the Civil War, and in the process launched a civil war of their own,” he said.

victor| 11.5.09 @ 8:01PM

Interesting that they had a dem in the 80's til 92.
Care to revise your talking point?

defeated pigs| 11.4.09 @ 9:46AM

Oh, the irony! On the same day Republicans launched a “Just Say Yes” tour across Virginia, gubernatorial nominee Bob McDonnell “Just Said No” to answering questions about a troubling Virginian-Pilot report. According to the report, McDonnell previously served as the lawyer for the so-called “Faith and Family Alliance,” a shady political group headed by his current campaign manager. The Virginian-Pilot reported that the group funneled funds on behalf of convicted felon Jack Abramoff, attacked Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor, and – in possible violation of federal election law – coordinated its activities with the campaign of Cantor’s opponent.

McDonnell can continue to be a member of the “Party of No” or he can “Just Say Yes” to answering the following questions:

1. What’s your response to reports that your closest advisor broke federal campaign finance rules trying to defeat Eric Cantor
2. How much money did you and your law firm profit from work for the Faith and Family Alliance?
3. Were you aware of the Faith and Family Alliance’s efforts to defeat Eric Cantor?
4. Were you aware that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff was funneling money though the Faith and Family Alliance - an organization you represented?
5. Will you ever share the whole truth with Virginians?

“What is Bob McDonnell hiding?” asked Common Sense Virginia Press Secretary Yoni Cohen. “Why won’t Bob McDonnell answer simple questions about his work for a shady group that funneled money for a convicted felon and attacked a Virginia Republican, perhaps illegally? Virginians deserve better. Virginians deserve the truth.”

Michael Tomlinson| 11.4.09 @ 7:44PM

Sounds like someone needs a diaper change or bottle.

Etiquette Man| 11.4.09 @ 8:21PM

Yep. "defeated pigs" is a real "Blow Me Ben" (a vile poster from another thread).

Alice Moore| 11.4.09 @ 9:46AM

My opinion of independents/moderates? Here's my .02. I know of some independents that are on board with the Conservatives on taxes, judicial restraint,but not social issues. They think the social conservatives would have a restoration of Oliver Cromwell or a Western equivalent of Saudi Arabia. Refendums on Civil Unions think it EQUALS banning cohabitation between consenting adults. Conservatives should emphasize that they are not for policies that pick your pocket and break your leg. Let the independents of this type know they are not interested in legislating morality. That is the other party's province.

Then we have the "moderates". The Dems have an edge with this crowd. An attractive candidate who sprinkles in phrases "the Children", "good for America", and "civility" can capture this person's vote. They can also be conned by a bait and switch of "middle class tax cuts". The candidate doesn't even have to be very specific on their platform. They want things to be nice and civil. They usually watch the network news, but not on a regular basis. Most of the time the Democrats win with this crowd. However, I think Bob McDonnell prevailed with this crowd over the rumpled and malaprop prone Creigh Deeds. GWB likewise prevailed in 2004 over the comic book patrician, J0hn Kerry. Both Republican candidates seemed more likable than the alternative Democrat.

The first group of independents are more akin to conservatives than the second group. So more effirt should go toward their vote. Don't write off the second group only realize that a pretty superficial package is of great utility.

There is a 3rd group, self identified Democrats who have conservative ideals but, vote Democrat out of tradition. To give an example; many African-Americans are for low taxes, fiscal responsibility of the government, and a strong foreign policy. Other groups that are have social conservatism are Asian Americans and Hispanics. Somehow, the Republicans cannot get through to these groups. My own theory is many have bought into the macroview of group rights.

Any other theories? And no, I don't think Conservatives are racist.

defeated pigs| 11.4.09 @ 9:56AM

Your examples of how races vote is racist. People just didn't like a knucklehead like Mccain and a douche bag like Palin regardless of their race. It's not that conservatives didn't get through to them, it's just people aren't buying their bs.

Appleby| 11.4.09 @ 11:41AM

Language like yours, df, is why we adults are waking up and taking charge. More of us should have slapped more of you silly when you were babies for substituting name-calling for rhetoric. Well, it's never too late. Better get a helmet.

Michael Tomlinson| 11.4.09 @ 7:50PM

Poor baby.

Sadly, the party of racism, slavery, Jim Crowe, lynching and segregation now has a lock on the African-American vote. Sometimes victims of abuse stay with the abuser, because they don't know anything else.

As Obama creates greater pain in the African-American community with job destroying policies they will inevitably rally to him. They're going to have trouble seeing beyond his shade of melon. That's too bad, but until Obama and Democrats totally destroy freedom they have that right.

Jason| 11.4.09 @ 11:43AM

I think your generalizations are full of stereotypes and not true enough to be helpful for your analysis. To say that moderates don't really know what is going on, or that African Americans are robovoters is insulting to them and to you. If you don't have more respect for people who have different views than you, do you really think that you could possibly persuade them to your point of view.

Michael Tomlinson| 11.4.09 @ 7:52PM

Sadly, despite Obama causing greater pain in the African-American community with higher and higher unemployment they will stick by his sinking political ship. That's not racism it is just accepting the reality of politics in the African-American community. The true racists are the Democrats who want to keep African-Americans mired in poverty and on the welfare plantation.

victor| 11.5.09 @ 8:07PM

"African Americans are robovoters"
"African Americans are robovoters"
"African Americans are robovoters"
Is that why 98% of black people voted for That Man in the White House?

Sam| 11.5.09 @ 12:29AM

I am a moderate/independent and its people like you that piss me off. You're no better than the Dems- just trying to sell us your views and you don't give a shit about us personally, just as long as we help get you back into power.

Well I got news for you and for all you other Republican clowns. Independents/Moderates are the fastest growing group in this country and WE will decide how it is governed. You are no different than the Dems in power now. They are lying to us and breaking their promises, but you want us to put you back in power? You will do the same thing!

So don't get on your pedestal and tell us what we think because we know better than anyone what we think.
We will do everything in our power to break the stranglehold partisan politics has over this country. The Reps and Dems are powerful, but we will do our best to stop you both every chance we get and the sooner you figure it out, the better!

Raul| 11.5.09 @ 1:30AM

Alice, I know I'm going to be insulted by someone on this comment board for writing what I'm going to write, but since you were so refreshingly honest and insightful, let me try and expound on what you put forward.

My dad was an immigrant from Peru (came in the 60s). He was socially moderate, and fiscally leaned conservative. He voted for Reagan twice, and Clinton twice (surplus budget...), and W. only the first time, the second time he was with Kerry.
I think the issue with my dad, and the issue with a lot of Hispanics and a good chunk of African American voters, from about 2004 onwards is what is PERCEIVED (please, readers, note the difference between "perceived" and "is as a matter of fact") radicalization of a segment of the Republican Party. Take the neocons as an example. Take a small but vocal segment of the anti-immigrant crowd with roots in white empowerment movement...).
The PERCEPTION that there is a place for neocons and white empowerment folk, however small their numbers may be, leaves an awful taste in many moderate's mouths.
At least my dad's for sure, and mine too.
You mention that Republicans can't get through to some of these groups -- and let's be clear, if not for Hispanics fleeing en masse from Republicans in 08, McCain would likely be president now (do research on www.pewhispanic.org).
I know a lot of Republican Hispanics, and they have this belief that they can "wrest power away from the radicals," and so they stick with the party, but they get no love from the party, and they get no love from the community, in which they are "minority of a minority," so to speak.
We need an alternative to Obama Democrats, we need fiscal restraint, social conservatism, we need real compassion and real hope, but without the shrill voices on the far right which will continue to alienate Blacks, Hispanics and many many moderates. Can the Republican Party do that?
That seems to be the issue of the day. Those are my two cents...
And, please, I welcome criticism, but no need for people on this comment board to insult me or, worse, label me, because I'm young and I ain't going no where.

victor| 11.5.09 @ 8:20PM

LaRaza!
LaRaza!
Laraza!
As in: For the race everything, outside the race nothing

"because I'm young and I ain't going no where."
Apt description of your attitude and your future.
Let's knock off a few of your mis-perceptions, shall we?
Firstly no one is against immigration except for the libberterrier trolls, here and elsewhere, we are against, one more time, ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!
If you or anyone else sneak over the border or come here on a "tourist" visa and simply forget to leave, or anyway other than putting your name on a list and waiting your turn and coming when your number comes up, you need to GO HOME!
We are LAW ABIDING citizens who want to see the laws enforced, the borders secured and the American Culture to regain its Rightful place and not White Supremecists in the same vein as La Raza.
As to "we need fiscal restraint, social conservatism, we need real compassion and real hope,"
that is what Conservativism is all about. You need to talk to US rather than those who know nothing about US and therefore hate US for it.
BTW you need to listen to someone other than PEW. Their name says it all.
Try the Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/

Raul| 11.6.09 @ 1:45PM

"La raza La raza La raza"?????

First, most people who identify in one way or another as "Latinos," like myself, don't buy into the narrow view of liberal, activists Chicano organizations.
My point is, it's well documented that some financial supporters of FAIR, who I have been following since the mid 1990s, are white supremacists. And skinheads have taken the immigration issue to mobilize and grow their numbers.
You may be against illegal immigration, that's fine, I'm not arguing your position. I'm saying that we know, and if you don't know it's because you don't want to know or the media you usually consume ignores it, that some white supremacists groups are clearly part of the "anti illegal immigration" movement.
What's more, the "anti illegal immigration movement" has grown parrellel to a thought that Hispanics/Latinos do not assimilate, don't want to learn English, and want to establish Third World communities in the U.S. Pat Buchanan, who've I watched and read since I was in my teens, is one of those. Sam Huntington, in his unbelievably false book "Who Are We?" is another.
If this were a thing of simply "legal" or "illegal," why is that the last two Hispanic men beaten to death on the east coast by white young men were legal immigrants? It's because the lines were blurred, surely that's not too difficult for you to understand?

And I'm glad you bring up the point of "la raza." It's a common phrase in Mexico, and literally translated it means "the race." But the meanings are different.
Latinos/Hispanics are not a race. In fact, we are composed of all races. White (mostly spaniards), Indigenous (take your pick: Aztec, Inca, Aymara, Maya, etc...), Black (brought as slaves to Americas), and Asian (remember Peru's President Fujimori??). Race mixing, as they say in the U.S., has long been a taboo, not so in Latin America, where it's the norm.

In the 1940s, Jose Vasconcelos wrote a book, "The Cosmic Race," which describes Latin Amrerica as the place were all the races of the world will come together to potentially create a new, "cosmic race," that fuses the best aspects of all the world's races.

It was a very influential book throughout Latin America, required reading by school children for decades from Mexico to South America, and it influenced heavily the use, meaning and intention of the word, "la raza."

But of course, it's kind of idiotic today to stand by a phrase: "inside th race everything, outside nothing..." No argument from you there.

The reason I point out that I'm young is that most Republicans are old, and they're not going to change their views, by definition. And most Latinos/Hispanics are young, which means that while most describe themselves as liberals and budding Democrats, that could change if a better alternative is provided by a conservative party.

But, to reiterate, as long as the perception is strong that Republicans welcome extermist views, that probably won't happen.

Margie| 11.6.09 @ 11:26AM

Hi Alice,
I'm late posting to you but I just wanted to tell you that your descriptions were, from my own experiences in life, right on target. You get how people think. I wasn't aware of the Asians and how they generally think, only because I haven't known very many.
I used to live and work in NY City for many years and so have met and known lots of people of various nationalities and different belief systems. It was a great time in my life and sometimes I miss the City for that very reason. I loved how you could go outside any time of day or night to a thriving city of people from all over the world.
I think the way you appeal to people is you just kindly inform them, if you get that opportunity. I always think of Ronald Reagan as my political example because he just told things like they were. He didn't fudge and people respected that. Not to mention he had a great personality and knew how to be kind and funny at the same time. What a great combination.
God made us with a desire to know the truth. It's what we do with that desire throughout our lives that gets us into trouble. There are so many "forces" that work on us to lead us away from Him that by the time we're 18 we don't want much to do with it. It's a lot easier to follow something easy that makes you feel good. It takes work to stay on the straight and narrow.
What this is leading to is that some of us need to get "mugged by reality." Who was it that said if you're still a Liberal by the time you're a certain age..?" Some of us take longer than others. Some die Liberals. :^(
Anyway, learning how a person thinks does help you to get to know them and then you just try and show them the truth.

JimP| 11.4.09 @ 10:19AM

Defeated Pig: LOL You're trying waaay too hard. Take your lumps like a man. Your comments don't convince anyone here. We know better. Try dailykos etc. Your pals over there could use some cheering up today.

Bulwark| 11.4.09 @ 10:31AM

I am as conservative as a conservative can get. However, we must remember Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil. Yes Tip O'Neil, who said "all politics is local." and Ronald Reagan who said "thou shalt not speak evil of a fellow Republican." You don't have to endorse every Republican. Just don't play the Democrat/State run media game of divide Republicans and conquer them. The issue is the Democrats and what they are doing and will do with the stewardship of power. Focus the negatives on them, the positives on us and we will win. It has already started as of yesterday.

Margie| 11.4.09 @ 11:12AM

Excellent post. It's always been the name of the game by Liberals. The big lie is that "there's no difference" between the Dems & Republicans. In reality there couldn't be more of a difference. The Democrats stand for Socialism and it's clear. Republicans are for freedom and individual responsibility. The door is always open for anyone who wants to join us. Just don't try and change what we stand for.

Sam| 11.5.09 @ 12:35AM

Margie, its too bad you feel that way. That is why independents like myself kicked you and your Rep friends out of power! There is no difference between the Dems and Reps. You both lie, cheat, steal, and care more about bickering than you do for this great country. The Democrats are currently the lesser evil, but we will knock them right back out as soon as they overstep themselves.
Margie, you should be joining US rather than letting Republican ideology cloud your thinking. We encourage independent thinking that allows us to see the issues behind Dem/Rep postulating.

Raul | 11.5.09 @ 1:43AM

Well said, Sam, well said.
2010 is up for grabs. And people like you will decide who wins the prize. The people on the right, we know who they are and how many there are. The people on the left, same equation.
Long live the independent voter, the last line of defense between democracy and *****ism.

Margie| 11.5.09 @ 4:14PM

I sometimes do have clouds in my thinking. It's true. But you know how when they're filled with rain, and after it rains the air is so fresh and clean?

That was a silly comment to a silly suggestion, yet true. I'm sorry but I am unconvertable. Perhaps if you guys see more of the great success of the Republican Party of likes of what we've just had, you will come on over to our side. The weather's fine!

victor| 11.5.09 @ 8:24PM

To Raul/Sam:
You will make no points by talking to yourself.
You're not deciding anything. You can't even decide to be honest and not spout talking points.
When Reagan devised his Big Tent, he meant for you to come and join us, but keep in mind, you don't get to make the rules.

Raul| 11.6.09 @ 3:49PM

Oh, I get to join your "big tent," oh, thank you victor, thank you, and, yes, i'll do anything you say, you just tell me what to do, and i'll do it, cause i'm so grateful to be allowed in your tent. Sure, i'll canvass voters for you, sure, i'll donate and raise money for you, and sure, you can use my face on your posters, but i would never presume to actually have my interests represented, that would be so rude of me!! Everyone!! I think we have the Republican Nominee for '10. His name is Victor!!

Michael Tomlinson| 11.4.09 @ 7:54PM

Well said Bulwark. Had this sound counsel been followed from 2005-2008 the Democrats would still be in the minority and Obama a footnote in history.

martin j smith| 11.4.09 @ 10:31AM

" Focusing on voters actualy concerns..." A novel idea. When politicians who are in the " elite mode"
they focus on their theories and what they believe is in the public's interest --the public be damned. Health Care is an especially sensitive area and very personal. Yet other areas such as energy,employment levels to name a few are among addition issues the public will be concerned about. Whether Republican or Democrat
or whatever--when the "elite mode" is adopted, the voters will rebel. To some extent this is what is happening now. I have grown into an independent voter because I disliked the Democrat Party's left direction and the Republica RINO direction. So though I am not a "pure" conserative I am a believer in the free markket,strong national defence, and believe in patriotism( and yes Obama is not patriotic--he hates this country as he found it--he wants to re-make it and i and others do not buy it !!! )

lsjogren| 11.4.09 @ 10:42AM

I don't give a r*** a** whether a candidate is a Democrat or Republican.

In both gubernatorial elections yesterday, the candidate that won was the one that was by far the superior candidate for the job.

I didn't watch the NY-23 election closely but that could quite possibly be true there as well. Did anyone see interviews with Hoffman. Did he not strike you as a half-wit?

If Owens is ideologically out of step with his district, he will be defeated 2 years from now.

That's the nice thing about the House. In contrast, when you get a loser in the Senate (example, Lindsey Graham), you are stuck with them for 6 godawful years.

But after electing that good for nothing Chris Cannon so many times, Utahns finally dumped the loser last election, so maybe next time he's up for re-election South Carolinians will dump Lindsey Graham.

Jason| 11.4.09 @ 12:37PM

lsjogren: I commend you for your belief in the wisdom of the voters and your belief that inequities will be corrected at the ballot box. Now that is a truly adult attitude.

I wish more people would adopt your attitude than their overreaction to being temporarily out of power. Sometimes, it seems scary how "out of control" these angry people are, as if they cannot wait for the peaceful resolution at the voter booth.

Michael Tomlinson| 11.4.09 @ 7:55PM

DemocRATS are always the worst candidates, because of their ideology.

Dai Alanye| 11.4.09 @ 12:40PM

Those who call themselves Independents are needed for us to win elections, but they are fickle and superficial voters at best. Right now they are concerned with over-spending and the scary health-care proposals of Obama, but come 2010 or 2012, who knows what will sway them?

The cynical (and the realistic) observer will note that all three races with which we're concerned were won by the prettier and more personable candidate.

McDonnell had the biggest win, and is the most personable and handsome of the three. Christie did less well but was helped by having an ugly (in more ways than one) opponent.

And I submit that had Hoffman resembled Harrison Ford in looks and demeanor, he'd have come in first.

So put not your faith in independents, even while considering their predilections when choosing candidates.

Bob| 11.4.09 @ 1:29PM

The real lesson seen in the exit polling is that when Republicans forget about social issues and concentrate on economic issues, they can win. You SoCons should take note that no winning Republican candidate played the social conservative card (because they knew better). Furthermore, as with most elections, people vote their pocketbook. Independents are now the largest political party -- twice as large as Republicans. About half of them lean Democrat and half Republican. Any rational person can see that it isn't far right extremist ideology that won, but candidates running to the center of the ideological spectrum.

Here's a warning. When the economy gets better, and it will, running to the center on social issues will be the only way Republicans can win.

Margie| 11.4.09 @ 2:06PM

The Republicans ran as who they are. Republicans. Which is far better than any Socialist Communist loving Democrat will ever be! And We The People are sick and tired of Leftist policies for our country.

The opposite of what you say is true as well. The more conservative a Republican is, the more he or she wins. That is why the Liberal Democrats always PRETEND to run with conservative values. That is the ONLY way the rascals can win. Well that fiasco is well near finished with. America does NOT appreciate Socialism. And we're letting you know.

Bulwark| 11.4.09 @ 2:51PM

Republicans yesterday did not 'forget" about social issues, they "de-emphasisized" them. This was a good strategic decision, given the circumstances. There is a difference. The issues right now are jobs, the economy, government takeover of healthcare and the turbo-charged piling up of government debt. Republican candidates rightly emphasized what the voters had in mind and the strategy paid off.

Nick| 11.4.09 @ 3:09PM

Bulwark,

How were social issues "de-emphasisized"(sic)?

The Washington Post did all it could to emphasize Mssrs. McDonnell's and Cuccinelli's Social Conservatism. And they both won with double digits.

Don't believe the MSM's spin and downright lies about what these elections were about.

Nick| 11.4.09 @ 2:54PM

Don't waste your time with 3/5 Bob folks.

In case you didn't know, until recently (last June), 3/5 Bob thought that blacks had 3/5 of a vote under the U.S. Constitution, as originally written.

He also doesn't know when biological HUMAN life begins because he is not sure when "ensoulment" takes place.

He is a pseudointellectual, ignore him.

Margie| 11.4.09 @ 3:08PM

"Ignore 3/5 Bob." LOL Nick, I know.
But when I say something to Bob, I'm saying it for all Libs. I figure maybe they could learn something.

Nick| 11.4.09 @ 3:14PM

I know Margie.

This is a public service announcement for those who don't know how ignorant 3/5 Bob truly is.

Margie| 11.4.09 @ 3:19PM

BTW Nick~ I heard about the win in Westchester Cty. (N.Y.) of Rob Astorino for County Exec. I heard he has a talk show on satellite Radio on a Catholic station on and he won as a Republican with 57% of the vote. Westchester Cty. is a heavily Democrat area. It brought a smile to my face. Congrats!

Nick| 11.4.09 @ 11:48PM

Thanks Margie!

I heard about that too. This is how we'll take back this Great Nation, one election at a time.

JimP| 11.4.09 @ 3:18PM

Bob, here's a warning for you, the economy isn't going to get better until conservatives are back in charge. Also, complaining about "SoCon" is a smoke screen. The vast majority of Americans fall into the definition of social consrervatives. Those griping about "SoCons" generally hold the extreme social opinions.

PS: Thanks to Nick for giving us a headsup about Bob's extreme social position. "3/5's Bob"

Bob| 11.4.09 @ 4:14PM

Actually, Jim, government has little to do with economic cycles -- it is far more due to the activity of private enterprise. Those of you who believe that government, conservative or liberal, makes a big difference have no understanding of macroeconomics.

Conservatives have the worst record in creating debt and liberals have the worst record in spending. They are both devoid of fiscal responsibility because they believe in ideology over reality.

Furthermore, I agree my social positions are extreme and align closely with Ayn Rand. People like Nick are cowards who focus only on personal attacks. That's exactly what Hitler did to wipe out most of my family in Germany and what the Russians did to drive us out in the late 1800's. I could only rely on myself to get out of the ghetto when I grew up and believe that people should be responsible for themselves. That's why I was against the bailouts and most of the stimulus plan and why I rail against government incentives that are either tax based or subsidies. But you "true" conservatives seem to believe that tax incentives and subsidies are acceptable as along as they agree with your ideology. ALL of these are wrong because no one in government is smart enough to make the right decisions -- that should be left up to the market. Government should, however, regulate to protect assets and against crime. You "true" conservatives seem to want no restriction on companies. Having been a corporate executive, I can tell you that you need things like capital requirements and assignment of risk and a personal incentive system that makes executives responsible for their decisions. We have virtually none of that now.

JimP| 11.4.09 @ 5:15PM

Good heavens, Bob. The current recession was caused by government policy and incompetent government enforcement of regulations/oversight. Now in the middle of the worst economy since the Great Depression the Dems want to raise taxes (which BTW is what made the Great Depression the Great Depression. Both Hoover and then FDR made this mistake.) What we are currently experiencing is NOT the normal business cycle.

Sam| 11.5.09 @ 12:41AM

Well said Bob. You clearly are far more sophisticated than most of the posters on this site and have a clearer worldview based on your experiences. And I can tell you're one of the tribe, which gives you extra points in my book. Shallom!

Lee| 11.4.09 @ 3:46PM

I'm with Bob. I left the GOP and joined the LP in 1992 when GHWB caved to the anti-choice crowd. I am fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. Consequently, I vote Libertarian whenever I have the chance. So, if the GOP wants my vote when there is no Libertarian on the ticket, he/she best be strong on the smaller government message and basically mute on the social engineering.

Bob| 11.4.09 @ 4:00PM

Lee, do you notice the hatred for those of us who are for truth, are fiscally conservative, but are socially libertarian? They cannot believe we exist. However, we are, in general, far more fiscally conservative than they are and are largely either "Republican (RINO)" or independent.

The truth is that they are not really fiscal conservatives -- that is just a smoke screen for forcing their religious extremist views on all.

I'm OK with letting people die if it their own choice -- that is what individual liberty is all about. If they cannot pay for Cadillac health care, they may die, but it is their choice. If they want to be gay, it is their choice and none of my business. If they want to marry, it is their choice. They only want individual choice when it agrees with their religious beliefs. That is not individual liberty, it is living in a fascist state.

Nick| 11.4.09 @ 4:07PM

Lee,

We call ourselves "Pro-Life", thank you.

And we are not going to compromise our committment to the sanctity of human life for people like you.

I encourage you to look up the voting records of the fiscal con/soc lib politicians and compare them to fiscal/social conservatives.

The social liberals have no qualms voting for tax increases, big government programs, and gun control. Soc cons, not so much.

A person who says an unborn baby doesn't have the right to life, will have no problem taking your private property away from you. Remember that.

Margie| 11.4.09 @ 4:29PM

If you think it is your choice to kill your baby in the womb then you are in for a rude awakening on Judgment Day. It is murder. If you believe as Bill Clinton thinks "I did it because I could," makes it OKAY and that there will or should be no consequences, you are sorely wrong. There are horrible consequences to murder. The truth is, you (or anyone) won't get away with it.

Of course you'd have to believe there's a God who means what He says when He says so.

What political party you choose to be in pales in comparison to those facts.

Sam| 11.5.09 @ 12:46AM

Marge, why don't you stop preaching about God.
If he's really as powerful as you say he is, he will have no trouble smiting me or my pro-choice friends. He can handle his business just fine and doesn't need you to do it for him.

Hill| 11.5.09 @ 4:01AM

Sam, why don't you give up your hateful ranting about choice? If human lives are really as unimportant as you bloody mass-murderers make them out to be, that can only be because your life is worthless as well. Therefore, you have no rights at all and anybody who's mightier than you can snuff your worthless life out at any time for any reason or none, just as your murderous group likes to do to little babies.

Margie| 11.5.09 @ 12:24PM

"Marge, why don't you stop preaching about God."
~Because I love Him.
"God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are." 1 Cr. 1:28

victor| 11.5.09 @ 12:18AM

Lee=Pro Abortion=Baby Killer
You can join the Reagan Big Tent, but you don't get to make the rules!

Michael Tomlinson| 11.4.09 @ 8:01PM

The economy will only get better with Republicans in charge of the Federal government. It wasn't until Democrats took control of Congress that the economy headed south.

As for social conservatives the candidates in Virginia were all well known social conservatives. That holds especially true for the new Governor and Attorney General. The hate mongers at the Washington Compost did their best to use it as a wedge issue and their candidates got the shit kicked out of them.

As for losing Congress in 2006 that was primarily the fault of fiscal conservatives calling on the right to punish Republicans. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The good news team Obama plans to continue with their policies that are destroying jobs and undermining the US economy and foreign policy.

Alan Brooks| 11.4.09 @ 1:57PM

Okay; you can have all the cheap sex, porn, empty entertainment, and marijuana you want, Bob.
Coming soon: designer soma.

There are no standards anymore.

Alan Brooks| 11.4.09 @ 2:00PM

... you got it made in the shade with Slade (Slayed?)

pardy hardy, Marty (hic)

ATLmedia| 11.4.09 @ 2:12PM

Thank you Palin!
When I said we liberals had a win-win in NY 23,
some disagreed. Now its obvious, the greatest gift to Democrats (& democracy), is for all the teabagging 'Real' conservatives to keep putting up their "pure" candidates. Go 3rd party!!!
And again, THANK YOU!

Nick| 11.4.09 @ 3:02PM

ALTmedia,

I believe you said democrats would be cheering.

Are Corzine and Deeds cheering today?
How about Shannon? (The guy Cuccinelli beat badly.)

Is B.O. cheering today? Ha-ha!

Al Adab| 11.4.09 @ 4:28PM

You are more than welcom ATL. After all without a clear opposition it would be hard to assign the blame. We stand for Freedom not tyranny. How about you?

Michael Tomlinson| 11.4.09 @ 8:04PM

Ownes is out in 2010. The blue dogs are going to get neutered and Obama is a one term fluke.

The big news is coming out Friday Barack Obama's policies have led to 10% unemployment. That means more actual American are homeless and hungry than when President Bush was in the White House and Republicans controlled Congress (unemployment was 6% or less).

victor| 11.5.09 @ 12:16AM

Hey Doofus, Hoffman is a Reagan Conservative Republican who tried to get the Republican line, but was frozen out by Dede and her corrupt union thug organizer hubby who riged the election.
Hoffman is NO third party.

Lou| 11.4.09 @ 2:17PM

Wanna know what people want on both democrats and republicans, centrist conservatives and centrist liberals, as well as, independents? EISENHOWER.
-No more forces in Europe, time for equality. The US only needs equal access in Europe not permanent military forces.
-No more proxy wars for Israel and no more economic and military aid amounting to $25k per Israeli
-more shifts toward VAT taxes which tax consumption and imports while raising the minimum taxable income for savings
-more infrastructure
-less new programs and better run existing programs
-more private, parochial and charter schools competing equally with public schools: choice and vouchers
-an end to all immigration, outsourcing and offshoring
People are nearly as frazzled, afraid, and exhausted as they were from the depression, WWII, Atomic Bombs, Berlin Airlift, Korea and very simply the american people want to focus entirely on domestic policy with no crisis financial, cultural or military.
EISENHOWER TOLD THE BRITISH, FRENCH AND ISRAELIS TO SHUT UP ABOUT SUEZ, TOLD THE LEFTIST STEEL UNIONS TO SHUT UP, TOLD THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX TO SHUT UP AND WE GOT A DECADE WITH A MIMIMUM OF PROBLEMS ANY ONE OF WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN HUGE EXPLOSIVE.

JimP| 11.4.09 @ 3:26PM

No more forces in Europe under Eisenhower? Lou, what are you smoking? We still occupied Berlin under Ike (the Berlin Wall went up when JFK was in office), we maintained large ground forces in Germany to deter the Russians/Eastern Block, and could go on and on. Suffice it to say this is a big error, Lou. What are you really trying to say?

Al Adab| 11.4.09 @ 4:26PM

Poor Lou,
Half right is half wrong.

Lou| 11.4.09 @ 2:19PM

You can trace Ron Paul and Perot all the way back to Eisenhower and you can probably trace Eisenhower back to Monroe and GW Washington. None of which wanted Empire or its trappings and their entire focus was on running the affairs of domestic policy.

Al Adab| 11.4.09 @ 4:39PM

Lou,
You better read up on Monroe. BTW, he ran unopposed for his second term.

dick| 11.4.09 @ 2:40PM

NY-23
Hoffman runs 18% worse than McHugh did in the last election--and loses in a district where there are 50,000 more Republicans than Democrats. That takes true talent--run him and Michelle Malkin for the White House in 2012.

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, "Extremism in defense of teabaggers will get your a$$ handed to you every time".

Nick| 11.4.09 @ 3:19PM

Mr. Hoffman was running on the Conservative Party ticket.

And B.O. won the 23rd last year. The fact he did as well as he did is a testament to the power of the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin.

Al Adab| 11.4.09 @ 5:48PM

Let's see, the most influential losing candidate in the last century and all you remember is he lost. The rules have changed old man. Freedom trumps Tyranny whatever the cost. Where do you stand?

Michael Tomlinson| 11.4.09 @ 8:06PM

Republicans creamed Democrats in Virginia and New Jersey. Ha, Ha, Ha!!!

Margie| 11.4.09 @ 9:04PM

:^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^)

victor| 11.5.09 @ 12:13AM

Once again for the liberalterriers in the audience:
The fix was in:
http://www.observer.com/4971/n.....-continues
http://www.observer.com/5585/b.....abor-ny-23
Dede's hubby is a labor thug organizer and they conspired with the RINO bosses to rig the election, remember, there were NO primaries, just she was picked.
That's why the rats should be booted over to the dems.

Gene- Fairfax, Va.| 11.4.09 @ 3:05PM

Despite Obama's claims to have saved the country from the brink of economic collapse, it appears that the actions of Bush and Bernanke stopped the meltdown. Obama's actions- the porkulus, buying auto companies, etc. have only contributed to a skyrocketing deficit and jobless recovery. If we add healthcare and cap and trade, we will increase the deficit further and prolong the spike in unemployment. It amazes me that Axelrod and Obama can claim to be helping anything. Americans are on to them- the elections yesterday and 2010 will make it very clear that the majority are fed up after only 10 months.

dick| 11.4.09 @ 3:27PM

Showing that you can get 45% of the vote is an accomplishment of sorts--showing that you are smart to know where to run hard-core conservatives is what shows that you have political sense. This was a gift to the Dems--a district that the Republicans never should have lost and never would have lost, if there was adult supervision on the right side of the aisle.

Adam Smith| 11.4.09 @ 3:31PM

I would encourage readers to take a look at redstate.com and check out the open letter response to Michael Steele.

It is abundantly clear Mr. Steele does not get it and puts party above country and thinks this is some kind of game.

It it much more serious than that at this point and the childen need to let the adults take over.

We have no opposition party under Michael Steele and the current GOP leadership.

Margie| 11.4.09 @ 4:20PM

"We have no opposition party under Michael Steele and the current GOP leadership."

Mr. Smith, question for you~ Would you be FOR the GOP anyway, even if the current leadership were perfect? Or do you want to do away with it altogether?

Honestly~ aren't you for the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul?

Adam Smith| 11.4.09 @ 5:13PM

Margie,

I would get back on board in a hearbeat.

I was a socialist until 8th grade, voted for Reagan when I was 18 (by far the best pres in my lifetime but hamstrung by congress) and finally got so fed up during the Newt/Clinton/Bush madness I switched to Independent.

Paul has too many politcal opponents to win. Most of us libertarian leaning conservatives know and except this. He may get a ton of respect, but both sides of the isle fear the guy.

Take a look at Thompson, Margie. He is a less polarizing Palin and would make a good canidate imo.

Hope this helps with clarification of my views of reality (or not).

What about Bob? I am not.

What I am is an upset former Republican who believes in the message of the party, but the party leaders do not. This has been demonstrated for decades now. I was also fortunate enough to have a friend of Milton Friedman's as a Dean of Finance in college who became a personal friend and tought me some valuable lessons in economics & how our system works. That and later work experience in banking & finance gave me a birds eye view & considerable vested interest in what is happening and has been since the Carter era.

After spending a couple years as a CSPAN junkie the stuff I have seen from both parties is quite beyond belief. DC is a complete circus, more on the Dem side, but no supervision from the GOP who is supposed to be the adult.

The Republicans need it pounded into their heads they are representing a majority of (taxpaying) citizens, not just a party label.

I'm really not an old crank...or a slicker Bob...

Margie| 11.4.09 @ 7:31PM

Hey Adam,
Great post! I enjoyed your "testimonial." LOL, you said you were a socialist till the 8th grade. You must've been quite a child if you even knew what that was. I was still playing with dolls at that young age. I grew up in a Dem atmosphere, but I was always a free thinker so I never really formed an opinion and was apolitical till in my 40's. Yep, came very late to the game. Just wasn't interested. I was involved in Christian work and that was my life. Politicians would make no sense to me when I listened to them so I mostly paid them no mind. One day I heard Rush on the radio quite by accident. I loved his sense of humor. I thought he was thee coolest guy I'd ever come across that talked politics. He made things perfectly clear and exposed the real story on how politicians operated. And why. I loved it. So I've been involved ever since. I also loved Bob Grant and Sean Hannity as well.

Sorry getting long here but I share your love of conservative values and agree with you that Ronald Reagan was the best Pres. in our lifetimes. I too was a C-Span junkie. It was during the reign of Newt and the revival of as I call it of conservativism amongst the Repubs. I'm still a Republican and won't quit. I'm hoping with these current wins we will start really restoring the Party. I know that the base grass roots are conservatives. It's the best Party in existence so I'm sticking with it. No hope in a third Party, IMHO.
Fred Thompson? Great guy. Not sure he's into running for Pres. again but I sure wouldn't mind. Thompson/Palin perhaps?

Sam| 11.5.09 @ 12:56AM

Margie, I may be a left-leaning independent, but I love going toe-to-toe with you over your beliefs.

You got quite the spirit and I respect spirit. So return my posts, even if you disagree with them. I fundamentally. And I appreciate that you weren't affraid to say that you were in your 40s on the web. I happen to be an 18-year old college student at a midwest school.

Samuel Brier| 11.5.09 @ 12:58AM

And my parents would question all the money they're paying for my education if they saw my grammar in that last reply!

Margie| 11.5.09 @ 1:17PM

There's plenty of hope for you, young man! :^)

Having said that, there's no time to waste! We need you on our side and there's no time like the present. Since you are young you might wish to dilly dally about with this 3rd party nonsense. But I wish to talk some sense into you. And since you've given me that liberty (and even if you didn't), I'm telling you that if you think Ronald Reagan was the best Pres. we've had and you like Sarah Palin, you're on the right track, but you will need to make a slight course correction. Then you will be voting Republican at all times. LOL. It's like Rush says how he won't quit till everyone agrees with him.
Oh, and in my 40's I just started out being politically informed... so......

Anyhow I have nothing to lose because my life in hid with Christ in God. Col. 3:3.
~Welcome to life. Glad to have you aboard.

Sam| 11.5.09 @ 4:23PM

Margie,
I respect your opinion, but I think you and other conservatives should be wary of Sarah Palin and not for the reasons posed by the left.

Recently, I read that she is charging a grass-roots non-profit conservative organization $100,000 to come speak at one of their meetings. Whether you're a liberal or conservative, that's just not cool. Sarah Palin is only as good as the conservatives who support her. Charging $100,000 to a non-profit conservative organization is some repayment for supporting her.

Note her book deal as well. I think she's just out for fame and wants to capitalize on the huge revenues she can get from marketing her conservative viewpoints. While that's perfectly okay, you should not be so supportive of her as she may let you down. She did step down as governor and don't be surprised if she doesn't make a run for president in 2012.

And I'm gonna stick with my independent stripes. I just cannot offer unconditional support for parties that too often, focus more on partisan politics than what's good for this country. Sometimes the Dems have the answers and other times, the Reps do.

Margie| 11.5.09 @ 6:47PM

Sam,
Free market enterprise should always rule as far as I'm concerned. You're product is only as good as the market is willing to offer.

You are for FREE market enterprise, being a Libertarian and all, aren't you?

And not only will I not be surprised if Sarah runs for Prez but I am hoping she will at least be involved. She's awesome.

Margie| 11.5.09 @ 10:41PM

Sam,
Oh my. I got you confused with adam smith in my above post. Sorry. I posted to the wrong person. Oops. You must have wondered why I was talking to you about being A Libertarian and liking Sarah Palin when you hadn't said a word about them. But I appreciated your response to me I'll be glad to respond to your future posts!

Margie| 11.5.09 @ 1:32PM

Actually how about Barbour/Palin?

Would that be awesome or what?

Derek Leaberry| 11.4.09 @ 4:10PM

Mr. Antle's analysis is wise. Moreover, the neo-conservative foreign policy and the absolutist free trade mantra should be thrown over the side. Just as isolationism and absolute protectionism is bad politics and bad policy, so is the obverse. Anything that stinks of the Bush family is nothing less rotten than a fish left for a week in a cooler in mid-July. Such is neo-conservative nation building and absolute free trade.

victor| 11.5.09 @ 8:32PM

To quote the Great One:
"Some of us are Wise
and some are Otherwise"

Bob| 11.4.09 @ 4:15PM

Actually, Jim, government has little to do with economic cycles -- it is far more due to the activity of private enterprise. Those of you who believe that government, conservative or liberal, makes a big difference have no understanding of macroeconomics.

Conservatives have the worst record in creating debt and liberals have the worst record in spending. They are both devoid of fiscal responsibility because they believe in ideology over reality.

Furthermore, I agree my social positions are extreme and align closely with Ayn Rand. People like Nick are cowards who focus only on personal attacks. That's exactly what Hitler did to wipe out most of my family in Germany and what the Russians did to drive us out in the late 1800's. I could only rely on myself to get out of the ghetto when I grew up and believe that people should be responsible for themselves. That's why I was against the bailouts and most of the stimulus plan and why I rail against government incentives that are either tax based or subsidies. But you "true" conservatives seem to believe that tax incentives and subsidies are acceptable as along as they agree with your ideology. ALL of these are wrong because no one in government is smart enough to make the right decisions -- that should be left up to the market. Government should, however, regulate to protect assets and against crime. You "true" conservatives seem to want no restriction on companies. Having been a corporate executive, I can tell you that you need things like capital requirements and assignment of risk and a personal incentive system that makes executives responsible for their decisions. We have virtually none of that now.

Nick| 11.4.09 @ 4:45PM

3/5 Bob,

"That's exactly what Hitler did [...]"

Ha-ha-ha-ha!

That explains why I loved "Hogan's Heroes" as a kid!

Bob| 11.4.09 @ 4:20PM

1/5th Nick, you are not "pro-life". You don't mind killing in wartime, support capital punishment and would let people die if they don't have health care. You are "anti-abortion". So stop with these "pro-life" claims. On the other hand, I am at least consistent. I believe in individual liberties and choice, support capital punishment, and have no problem with people making their own decisions about their own bodies.

Basically, Nick, you are a nut who refuses to address the issues and just relies on personal attacks.

Nick| 11.4.09 @ 4:55PM

Don't waste your time with 3/5 Bob folks.

In case you didn't know, until recently (last June), 3/5 Bob thought that blacks had 3/5 of a vote under the U.S. Constitution, as originally written.

He also doesn't know when biological HUMAN life begins because he is not sure when "ensoulment" takes place.

He is a pseudointellectual, ignore him.

Cervantes| 11.4.09 @ 5:31PM

So why did you vote for B.O. Bob?

Hypocrisy is a dish best eaten warmed up with some humble pie!

BTW? Nick has dominated your pathetic lib ass everytime he debates you!

Bob| 11.4.09 @ 6:52PM

Actually, Nick only does personal attacks and has never debated with facts and logic -- a perfect example of an extreme right zealot. As to voting for Obama, I will never again vote for a far right zealot or uneducated idiots like Palin. I supported Romney until he dropped out and then Ron Paul. I believe in individual liberties on BOTH fiscal AND social issues. Therefore, on half of the agenda I was fine with Obama. Perhaps Romney will run again and win the primary this time. If it is the Huckster or the idiot Palin, you can forget it.

Nick| 11.4.09 @ 7:06PM

3/5 Bob,

I bet Sarah Palin knows the Constitution didn't give blacks 3/5 of a vote.

And she knows basic human biology, like when human life begins.

So what kind of idiot does that make you, 3/5 Bob?

victor| 11.4.09 @ 10:51PM

Forget it Nick, Bobber is just a liberterrier troll.
Just remind him that Romney screwed Mass. with State Run Health Care.

Margie| 11.5.09 @ 1:26PM

Bob,
I used to think that the death penalty was immoral. I'm a Christian, and was appaled and aghast at some of my Christian friends who were in opposition. One friend almost threw me out of her house because of it! Well, thankfully God brought me around. It was when a read a written peice by Carles Colson. He used Scripture to show how, that each life God has made is so precious, that if a man takes another man's life, it MUST be requited of him by death. I'm going to find that article if you'd like, and post a link? In seeing the truth of life through God's eyes, I had to change my way of thinking over to His way of thinking. Indeed that is what He requires if we want to please Him.
So, what do you think? Would you be interested in me giving the link?

Alice Moore| 11.5.09 @ 6:54PM

The willful and premeditated taking of a life can not be replaced. Hence, the death penalty. Maiming, slander, and Libel can be compensated in a civil trial.

That being said as a juror I would try to find reasonable doubt in a Murder One case. There have been horrendous killers like Ted Bundy. They had to be put down. However, the celebratory rallies of "The Bundy Barbecue" were of equal repulsiveness.

Margie| 11.5.09 @ 10:59PM

I too would not want to have to serve on a murder trial, but I would go according to the law as I understood it.

You mentioned reasonable doubt. I learned something from a lawyer about that. She said that you are allowed to have a reasonable doubt during a trial and still convict. The rule is "If there is evidence is BEYOND a reasonable doubt, you must convict." I always thought that if you HAD a reasonable doubt you shouldn't. Quite enlightening.
~As for the Ted Bundy "barbies"~~ I'm happy to say I must have missed that.

victor| 11.5.09 @ 8:48PM

Here you go:
http://www.breakpoint.org/key-.....-statement

Simon Templar| 11.4.09 @ 8:35PM

Bob, you think your consistent but after closer analysis of your statements and positions, you sound a lot like many of those that call themselves independents who are a mismash of contradictory ideas, values, and political positions. Your conservative on economic issues, liberal on social issues, apparently hate christains and religious nuts as you call them, anti-war but support capital punishment, want governent involvement in restraining and controlling executives but do not want government controlling the market because they are not smart enough. I would guess that you have really not thought too much about any of these issues but rather follow the trends and conventional wisdoms of the moment, what you hear in the media, and your personal selfish motives and past experiences. Well, that is the typical modis of most people. These words you banter about like extreme right wing religious zealot betray you. The only zealots I know of that fit this description are the Taliban. Why the insulting and ridiculous language?

Joseph Romani | 11.4.09 @ 9:10PM

You folks better get your act together; I oppose big government like Obamacare.

However I despise all facets of the state that infringe on my rights & my civil liberties. And I loath a government that is too stupid to denounce its pointless foreign wars, that our soldiers are fighting & dying in as we type.

You can take your social conservative & neo-con agenda, I'll take my freedom.

You have to man up & admit the War on Drugs, the Patriot act, & our failed foreign policy were mistakes before regain my vote.

victor| 11.4.09 @ 10:49PM

Is that a promise or a threat?
Back to amcon or antiwar with you.
This is Reagan's Big Tent, you can join, but you don't get to make the rules.

Joseph Romani| 11.5.09 @ 7:56AM

Its a promise I will fulfill, I've been voting libertarian since the Patriot act & Iraq. If your party can jettison its statist/neo-con afterbirth, I'll come back.

victor| 11.5.09 @ 8:47PM

Dear Joseph,
As Ronald Reagan said of his Big Tent:
You can join us if you wish, but you don't get to make the rules or make any demands.

Simon Templar| 11.5.09 @ 1:42AM

You despise all facets of state infringing on rights and liberties. You mean the ones you hold so dear? Not the ones like my right to pray with my freinds at school, or mention God at my graduation or at a football game? Or my right to not be forced to hire people that I find in complete contradiction of my values and mission as a private organization. Or my right to freely express my opinions about other groups which I disagree with and not find myself in jail for hate speech. Or my right to not have to be forced by the state to pay taxes for acts that I find to be murder along with 51 percent of the American population that see this act as murder as well. Or my right to buy a gun without paying ridiculous fees and it takng up to a year to complete the paper work to get it. Or my right to educate my children rather than be forced to enroll them in public schools. Yes. I would like my freedoms too.

Joseph Romani| 11.5.09 @ 7:44AM

I think we can work out a comprise then, as neither of our goals area mutually exclusive. I'm just tired of social conservatives using the state as a truncheon to force their view of society on those that don't hold their views. If I don't hurt or coerce anyone it shouldn't be illegal, period.

"It is not the business of the law to make anyone good or reverent or moral or clean or upright." ---Murray N. Rothbard

I'm all for shrinking the state in the areas you describe, but when you nominate candidates that want to impose criminal penalties on nonviolent offenders in Prohibition II, or approve legislation like the Patriot act or the bailouts, (or like McCain, casually toss around the idea of going to war with Iran) you're not going to get my vote. Its just too much to swallow.

PS: NRA member, guns are to keep our government in check.

Margie| 11.5.09 @ 12:57PM

"If I don't hurt or coerce anyone it shouldn't be illegal, period."
Now. Mr. Romani,
With all due respect, I have heard that said man, many a time over the course of my life. I will tell you of one special instance. It was of a former acquaintance that I knew for several years who decided to sell his soul to the devil and become a drug addict. One day I passed him on the street and said barley a word to him but I guess the look on my face said it all to him and he defensively said, "As long as I'm not hurting anybody else, why should it matter?"

It's true that God doesn't make anybody obey Him and you are free to do your own will. Supposedly your own will. But in reality the laws of God mean that there have to be consequences. Since He is the Lawmaker we really don't get to decide. So much for "free will."

People in general, even if they claim to not believe in God, are happier when they have principles to live by. And in reality, God made us in such a way so that when we do live by them we can be fulfilled Humanly, and spiritually.

The Founding Fathers were very wise and had the fear of God about them. No matter which religion they may have called themselves, they knew that a people without laws, and a people without morals would not survive. This is what we are seeing now.

The answer, my friend, is not to have a country where there are no laws, where chaos would rule, and every form of immorality would reign unbridled, but to indeed restore our Constitutional form of government. We need a restoration, not a "change." Again. God gave us our freedom, but it isn't to be squandered. Or used as a pretext for sin.

You think by rebelling all the more, it will cause more freedom, but in truth it would cause more chaos. Utter chaos. "Awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death." Rev. 3:2.
~God bless.

Joseph Romani| 11.5.09 @ 1:50PM

"It was of a former acquaintance that I knew for several years who decided to sell his soul to the devil and become a drug addict. "

I'm sure prison would improve upon his misery & make him a valuable member of society, instead of driving him further down the path of self destruction.

Margie| 11.5.09 @ 4:28PM

OK so you're taking the tuff guy response, I get it. Tuff in your reaction, but not in your stance. That type of stance, not holding him accountable for breaking the law, is actually a very weak one. It's like allowing a child to grow up without any discipline. If you allow any type of behavior to exist in that child he will grow up to be a spoiled brat and will believe he is entitled to do anything he wants. Wow. How wonderful. A nation of anything goes. I'm sorry that you see it as you do, but it is wrong.
~As for that man. God intervened in his life. His heart had stopped beating from an overdose and a prostitute that he was with called 911 and they revived him. I can hear you saying.."See?"
~If this is the world you prefer I can only say that may you not be successful in your attemps.

maarthaardy| 11.5.09 @ 1:06AM

Like her husband, Michelle Obama has spent a great deal of time trying to convince white independent voters that she is not "unpatriotic" and "angry."
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-.....?C=2149951

Michael in Peoria| 11.5.09 @ 4:16AM

I am sick of both of the major parties. Neither cares about anything but obtaining power, and holding on to that power at all costs. Both parties are equally contemptful of the Constitution, and only different in the ways they walk all over the founding document. In 2008, I just couldn't support this sick, twisted, broken down system any more. I gave the middle finger to both Obama and McCain, and cast my vote solidly Libertarian. I urge others to get off this destructive Democrat-Republican disaster of a carnival ride, and vote both parties out of office. Vote Libertarian, or vote Green, but don't feed the monsters any more by voting for Democrats or Republicans. Think of them by their icons, donkey and elephant, and remember the messes both animals leave in their stalls. The messes created by both parties is just as odious.

Margie| 11.5.09 @ 1:44PM

Michael,
Take 2 aspirins and call me in the morning.
:^)
Just a small point.. the grass roots of the Republican Party are conservatives who, if I could dig deeper, I'd venture to say want the good things that you do. It's like people who go to a Church where the leadership may not be perfect, but it's still a great Church and he loves his friends there, who all want to please God. The Republican Party leadership isn't perfect, and NO Party's leadership will ever be. And guess what? Neither will you or I be, right?
I still say what we need in our Party is a restoration not a change, back to our roots. Limited government, free market enterprise, Pro-Life, Pro Second Ammendment, LOW taxes, and a STRONG Defense. What do you think?

http://www.xuyu-bearing.cn/| 11.5.09 @ 4:32AM

Garden tooling series

Spherical plain bearing

http://www.xuyu-bearing.cn/| 11.5.09 @ 4:33AM

Control arm
Ball joint

Supra Shoes| 11.17.09 @ 10:16PM

Supra Shoes
Supra Skytop Shoes