TM:
I do not see how this applies to the posting above?

"Lighten up" "Get the starch out of your shirt"--typical "liberal" rsponses. Too bad--more people than ever have caught on.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

No, I'm not kidding!

Rush had nothing to worry about with Bush because he knew Bush was a big tax cut guy. 

The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.

4 years? You're a Pollyanna. I see at least 8. Despite the admirable hope of some here, that the Dems will tank and a new true conservative knight in shining armor will come riding to the rescue in 2012 (who, I don't know), I think it's pretty much whistling past the graveyard. Once the Dems get in, with the media providing the cover and backup, they will be hard to blast out.

McCain is one of those "even Republicans" who believe that if they take on enough of the liberals' stands, they will get their votes. The problem is they have enough liberals already taking those stands; they are not going to be drawn to a "maverick" Republican. Why vote for a liberal impersonator when they have plenty of the real thing?

As for the Republican party being dead, or at least dying, I blieve that to be true. At least as party different from the Democrats.
In another thread, someone else was talking about the GOP sliding further left. I agree. But the problem with that is there is no "middle ground" because the Dems aren't moving right. The GOP is becoming more like them.

But you have to wonder if it's because the country as a whole is becoming more socialist in its philosophy... when more and more people want the government to give them what they can't earn for themselves, even if it means taking from someone else to do it...when people think that no one should have to do without anything just because they don't earn as much as another..
When the country as a whole is developing that attitude...the only argument between the parties. to get elected, becomes: who will offer more goodies and redistribute more. Maybe that's why they are moving left...it's what the country wants.

I don't know if you guys have read HRC's op-ed in the WSJ. Who wants to hear about personal responsibility when a politician promises...college that a single mother can afford..(now where do you think those subsidies going to come from??????) Minimum wage of $10 an hour????? And more, and more, and more. America under HRC will be a veritable "Promise Land."

One last thing: check out Neal Boortz's Democrats' (Secret) Plan for America: especially the tax part: shifting the entire tax burden to "upper income earners," little by little. Then it will be impossible to get tax cuts, and increases will be child's play, because they won't affect the majority of Americans. He says:

Through this ploy the Democrats plan to create a defeat-proof socialist congress.

Apparently some Republicans are willing to go along, so that they can keep getting elected. They will lose anyway, because you simply can't out-pander the liberals.

Sorry about the long rant (to anyone who's still reading LOL)..I guess I'm just feeling frustrated today.

mb...
Romney was ahead...he had 41% of the vote...they had to vote again so Huck and Johnnie teamed up...as usual.

I despise both of those men.

ROFL you're citing NCLB as a example of bipartisan success? By all accounts, including teachers and parents, NCLB is a big fat mistake that hinders our schools to no end. The tax cuts succeeded without "working with Democrats" as did the surge in Iraq and getting Alito appointed. What do we get from working with Democrats? More big government, less free speech, and amnesty for illegals. oh, and for the fourth time - Perot had nothing to do with Dole.

Huh? If Dole had gotten every single one of Perot's votes in '96, Clinton still would have had more of the popular vote. The Electoral College vote would have barely swung to Dole - again by picking up every single one of Perot's voters. I'd say this is pretty unrealistic.

And stating definitively that Dole would have prevented 9/11 is just ridiculous.

I would reiterate my original recommendation for you to get a grip, but it seems that you're far more in need of a clue. The suggestion that it's somehow honorable to be "working with Democrats to pass legislation" for legislation's sake is infantile and pathetic. Garbage legislation is garbage legislation and to claim that tax draining, black hole programs like "No Child Left Behind" amount to progress is ludicrous. Why don't I accept that McCain is for lower taxes when he says he is? BECAUSE HE'S NOT! John McCain is so delusional that he claims to have always been a conservative when his record and rhetoric PROVE otherwise.  He never said he made a mistake...and that's a big part of the problem.  Romney will admit to reaching new conclusions when he has changed positions on issues.  McCain has tried to justify his original votes by LYING...claiming that he voted against them because the bill didn't include enough spending cuts?!!?!?!  But previously he stated that he was against the tax cuts because they favored the rich.  McCain is an admitted economic illiterate who has only now embraced the Bush Tax Cuts because he doesn't want to discuss his opposition to them.  He's not credible.  Period.

As for your last paragraph, I can see that the wheels have come off your wagon.  When you have to reduce your argument to lame, cliched personal attacks on someone because he doesn't fall into line with your candidate, you have officially run out of gas.  I pity you.  You're just sad. 

A little selective outrage going there? Or maybe a little more than you bargained for?

Damn right I sat out, and I'll be proud to tell my grandkids that I'm not a robot who will vote as I'm ordered to vote.    I was pissed off, and, for me, sitting out was a bigger statement than just walking in like a good little conservative.

Just because the kingmakers at the Republican Party selected the "next in line" it doesn't mean I have to play Cuban or Iraqi (when Saddam was in power)  and shuffle in to dutifully cast my vote.   Maybe that turns you on, but not me.

"...who expended all of his energies on preserving his opinions from contamination."   -Michael Chabron,  "Gentlemen of the Road"

Mitt Romney has flip flopped more than John Kerry and that is NOT meant as a compliment. Is this the kind of guy you want? 

The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.

I have lost count of Mitt Romneys u-turns. Is he not a weak candidate?  I admire McCains stance on the deficit. He did not court popularity. That took guts. I do not suggest that he is perfect.  However he has invaluable military experience. This is a sine qua non for a country that is a target for Jihadists. No security no country no economy.There is no perfect conservative. If you want a perfect conservative go back to Barry Goldwater. We all know what happened to him. Please do not accuse me of Liberalism. In an election year  conservatives must reach out to the centre ground to win. It is a matter of tactics.

If Romney wins the nomination good luck to him. Actually Mike Huckabee is my favourite candidate.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin " We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately"

Typical of liberal youngsters:

 "I'm at my favorite ladies customer's house playin on their HP Pavalone drinkin beer.
The bos is n Miami."

Getting paid to do a job and thinks the Boss owes him something for not doing anything productive.

and...

"Three came to the door in skimpie Old Skool Conservative girl shirts. I told em I was only specting two, but three will do."

when they realized what he was they exited stage left without another word (he left that part out).

Smart a$$ kids & the Internet...they mix like water & oil.

"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."

Noel, check this out.

History dorks like me find this very interesting.

Yes, Noel that is true, the Eisenhower Interstate system's original design was intended as a rapid reaction route for the army to move men and tanks in the event of war with the Soviet Union. This made the US lower 48 infinitely more difficult to invade as reinforcements would quickly be brought to bear.  Like NASA's first satellites, they actually had a strategic military purpose, Eisenhower tricked the USSR into accepting the overflight of suborbital satellites under the guise of the geophysical year. Once sputnik flew, the USSR tacitly accepted any satellite overflight, even spy sats.  Sneaky Ike, a true Repub, that's when they actually were Repubs.  Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.