The moral majority has become a minority.

Exactly. We don't need 'moderates'. We need TRUE conservatives who reflect our values.

The Republican party has to follow the Democrats philosophy; promise them what they want to hear and then do what they want to get done. I concur with Allison, they have to refrain from courting the extreme right-wing zealots and even the right-wing supporters. Although many things go against my personal beliefs, if the Republican party desires to remain a viable governing body, they have to change with the times,otherwise they will become the Edsel of politics. If they present viable programs that benefits ALL people they stand a chance, otherwise a repeat of the last two elections will occur.

Allison, you are so correct when you state that abortion/gay marriage/ contraception have no place in politics. But you must have watched the convention in Charlotte and mistakenly thought you were tuned in to the repub convention. It was the dems who made abortion and contraceptives their main pitch to the American voter.

"promise them what they want to hear and then do what they want to get done."

In the context of the rest of your post I'm not sure if this was serious or sarcastic, but to rebut or to reinforce what you said; exactly, that is what the government for the people by the people is supposed to do, the will of the people.

A person's belief should NEVER be a bench-mark/litmus-test for a political office. Whether or not that belief is the same as mine; I will support the candidate that holds most of the same views as mine. The 49.7% of the Nation that did not vote for the incumbent are irrelevant, now. Are those 59 Million United States Citizens supposed to sit down, sit back and shut up?

I am 47, so born after JFK, but you are talking 50 years ago (half a century). So for you to have to go back 50 years for a countering example shows how much the Democratic party has evolved on this issue, while the Republican party still holds this as part of their main strategies.

I don't think that you meant to, but you really reinforced my point by putting that on such an expansive time line.

To this sentence; "As long as you are spending your time on this stuff -- it means you are NOT spending your time on other stuff such as figuring out why an overwhelming majority of Hispanic, Asian and voters aged 18-44 voted Democratic last night and how those numbers keep getting bigger."

The answer to that problem is found both in my post above and (surprisingly) in the rest of what you wrote before and after this sentence. It is this fringe in the 24/7 news cycles (and in most cases the 24/7 agencies like Fox and talk radio) that perpetuate this objectification ranging from coded text (like my Mormon example) to the more obvious such as the thousands of times we heard Obama referred in a disparaging way as a Kenyan (and people blame it all on race affinity, rather that the fact that Republicans can't even refer to a country in Africa without making a face like they just sucked a lemon). Then the loyal repeat all of it at any opportunity. If the Republican party wants to know what is wrong; DVR 8 hours of Fox News. Dont watch it right away but wait 3 months until that news is old enough that you won't be distracted by the issues. Then watch it. With the passion removed from the timeliness of the news, you will be able to perceive it stripped down. Then all the racism and religious intolerance (coded or otherwise) will stick out like a sore thumb. Now imagine that anybody not enraptured in conservatism sees that news exactly the same way anytime they tune into Fox.

Wow, we should sit back and watch our nation be destroyed by wild spending: we should sit back and watch our young women be reduced to harlots who receive free condoms and free abortions; we should sit back and watch as our senior citizens are denied healthcare because of rationing in the name of 'Affordable Healthcare'.

Oh, definitely will I say that I want to be an 'adult' taking a 'timeout' as I pledge full support for the guy who won. Thanks for the invaluable suggestion Mr. Kaynard!

You have an unbelievably high expectation as to what kind of impact partisan internet fighting/trolling on local blogs has on US policy Mike.

Also, Colnzgprnts is a moron. Not that you speculation that rationing will occur or the supposed reason for it is right, but you prefer we should sit back and let our senior citizens be denied health care because they can't afford it? How is that better?

Actually, I would suggest the exact opposite. First of all, at the age of 16, I first read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty and have had numerous copies since (over the past 30 years), because I have passed so many on to friends. Awnd that is only the tip of the iceberg as to where they took me over the decades, within the Libertarian movement. There is real Libertarianism and then there is tea party, Glenn Beck/FoxNews Libertarianism. The later is more like political tailgaters who lead ideologically vapid lives until some DJ or FoxNews took a handful of Republican positions and tied them in a bow and presented them to the conservative base as "Libertarianism." We actually do have a Libertarian party and for any true Libertarian, that is where they should go to, instead of just hanging out with Republicans because they get more camera time. Then the remaining political tailgaters should figure out if they want to be a part of the "Republican party" without all that flash and insanity that became the Tea Party (which even now sounds as outdated as a Milli Vanilli reference).

I agree with your assessment of similarity of the candidates/presidents on both sides, however I don't agree that the GOP will start winning with a more extreme candidate. Many Americans, perhaps the majority now, like some aspects of "big government" because they still believe that the government is for the people by the people,so if the government wins, we win. I agree that there are some aspects that are clearly not like Citizens United, The Patriot Act, the NDAA, global mega-corporations in established industries getting subsidies, de-regulating global mega-corporations even after they poison our water/crash our economy/destroy small businesses, etc. Hopefully they'll push to work on that, or we'll elect leaders who will.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83571.html

JoSCh, the only thing regulations do is make mega-corps richer.

They bar competition from up-and-coming companies who can't afford compliance costs.

They allow the mega-corps to pay for exemptions. So they just go on polluting, worse than ever, but they pay fees to the government for the right to do so. We lose, the environment loses, they win. (and the lobbyists and government stooges win, as usual).

They allow the mega-corps to buy loopholes.

This stuff should be obvious to you.

Also, "extreme" is a word used by someone who disagrees and wants to marginalize their opposition. So, I think the GOP should adopt constitutional government and libertarian principles, which you might think is extreme, but I think is the only alternative to the Democrats. So long as the GOP offers big-government solutions, they're going to lose to big-government Democrats. That's just a fact.

You're wrong regarding regulations because you said "only" as if every regulation makes mega-corps richer, as if every regulation comes with compliance costs borne by all competitors, that all regulations have exemptions. This should be obvious to you.

Extreme is a word that means something, and you attempting to define it's acceptable use it is you trying to marginalize my position that is clearly centrist.

I don't think a constitutional government is extreme, nor many libertarian ideals. However your ideology that you've presented... wanting to remove every government program, yeah, I think it is.

I concur. Fix the problems that affect ALL Americans, not just the special interest groups.

@NYConservative: ‘GOPs stop trying to legislate morality...Dems stop trying to create a socialist welfare society. We need common sense.’

it's uncommon...

and people legitimately define freedom/responsibility differently...eg,

in general, DEMs believe society has more of a responsibility to help the least, than GOPs...who see this help as socialism...a welfare state...

DEMs tend to believe: 'The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.' [FDR]

GOPs seem to believe progress is adding more to those who have much...ie, trickle down...

BTW socialism is not a dirty word...universal (socialized) healthcare is a good program. cheaper and improved care in most developed (and undeveloped) countries.

over the next year maybe be worthwhile to look at SC, GOP controlled state gov...and CA now DEM controlled state gov...due to size/population difficult to compare...but might offer some insights...

I would like to hear somebody explain to me specifically what is wrong with socialism and welfare, particularly for the basics for survival like food and healthcare. Without using the words themselves as pejoratives.

JoSCh, teaching classes in atmospheric science I always pointed out the socialism of the atmosphere and oceans...redistributing energy and moisture from the areas with plenty of it, to areas with much less. It's what makes the planet livable. Socialism is not a bad thing until the cost gets so high that people lose their motivation to take economic risks and strive for excellence. Our tax rates are nowhere near anything like that. I wish the tea bagging tax resistors would recognize that our taxes are lower now than they were when our economy was booming, you know, "the good old days". A little more generosity, theoretically a pillar of Judeo-Christian and Islam religions, could work wonders.

Always a thoughtful answer Robert, thank you. Although you didn't answer my question as asked, specifically relating to the mundane. And honestly I wasn't asking you or someone like you ;) I was poking around for a debate. You and I are more or less in agreement.

Josch, I figured since there was no actual question mark, just a wish, expressed, it was not necessary to answer. Mine was just a comment, kind of tied to yours, that I felt like getting off my chest. If I were answering your implied question, I think I would suggest the only problem I see with socialism and welfare is at the extremes. Like capitalism would be a problem if it were applied strictly, with no social conscience. Most people I know are not extremists in any of these directions, but there will always be debate about where to draw the boundaries. In my opinion...most of the extremists are active Republicans, but that doesn't mean there aren't more reasonable Republicans as well, like Michael Steele, and ... oops, I'm kind of stuck for a second name...all the reasonable ones are dead or out of office. Where is Bob Dole when the nation needs him! At this point he would be the bleeding heart liberal of the GOP.

The problem with socialism is easy: it is involuntary. Stealing is never OK, even if you are stealing for a good cause.

A practical problem with socialism is that it is inherently unstable and leads to bankruptcy. The success or failure of businesses or individuals is how we figure out what works and what doesn't work. If you remove failure, then there is no mechanism to indicate what we should stop doing, and so eventually the entire system collapses upon itself.

There is also a problem with prices. In a socialist economy, there is no way to set prices accurately. No central planner can possibly identify the "proper" price for something, only free competition can do that. So you always end up with shortages and surpluses for things as common as bread and cars.

I could go on and on with this but I doubt these realities will change anyone's mind. Socialism is a good dream.

Socialism isn't universally involuntary, and it isn't stealing.

Free economies don't always choose correct pricing, in fact without regulation they often resort to embargo to increase prices. See California rolling blackouts and Enron.

There are many, many examples of socialistic economies and components of economies working. Sweden, Canada, Australia, the US military, US highways and infrastructure, grocery shopping, etc.

If socialism is a good dream then aren't we wrong NOT to pursue it? Freedom was a good dream too...

Bravo.

We hear so many people complaining about 'inaction'; often times the best course of action is no action. An example is Obamacare which was pushed through congress. Americans enjoy the best healthcare of any people throughout the world, but by action of congress we have been put on an equal footing with Europe.

Our government is funding businesses such as Solandra by spending billions, this is 'action', but it is destructive action. Our government is promising women free contraceptives and free abortions - it won't be free and it will use resources which would be better directed at cancer and real diseases, but again it is 'action'.

Years ago a popular comedian of the time said 'congress is in section, the nation is at risk'. His words still ring true - we can hope for inaction on the part of our elected officials!

http://www.nolabels.org/

some truth in humor...eg, americans are safer when congress is in recess...
we would be better off if people didn't promulgate mis-information...

re: 'but by action of congress we have been put on an equal footing with Europe'

oh that we were on an equal footing...

FYI

USA 37th in quality. First in cost...

Data from 2000 was used in the report.

Ranking Country Expenditure Per Capita
1 France 4
2 Italy 11
3 San Marino 21
4 Andorra 23
5 Malta 37
6 Singapore 37
7 Spain 24
8 Oman 62
9 Austria 6
10 Japan 13

[...]

34 Denmark 8
35 Dominica 70
36 Costa Rica 50
37 United States 1

[...]

189 Central African Republic
190 Burma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems

Can you imagine how the men who donated so many of their millions feel? Knowing that no matter how much you spend you can't buy even half of the free people in this country must really sting if you're a billionaire.

But keep on saying that Americans need to fight each other. That isn't divisive at all.

Meh, at least those people got a special event and a meal that they'll probably remember for the rest of their lives. Sheldon Adelson spent $53M at least since we can't know how much he sent into the 501(c)(4) groups like those run by Rove, the Koch's, and Nordquist. I can't imagine any event that is worth $53M+++.

Of course I can't imagine how normal working class people can support these billionaires currently legal right to buy our government either. But they do.

If my options are waste, payoffs, paybacks, special interest gimmees, and keep people from needlessly dying because they couldn't afford treatment or worse, because the insurance company decided that it's profits were more important than the treatment then I'm going to choose waste, payoffs, paybacks, and special interest gimmees...

That said, I'd much prefer to see evidence of this "pork" and have it removed/repaid and have those who benefited or were responsible for it held responsible. There is no reason we can't have good and universal health care without corruption.