And did it say how they feel about Obama's new Jewish Chief of Staff?

Birds of a feather.

Can we consider this mini-Hilter's RSVP for tea with Obamarx?

Let's hurry on over to that negotiation table.

Whew! Well now I feel better about the next President of the country...I can rest easy now knowing that Ahmadinejad approves of BO.

Thanks for setting my mind at ease.

/

Now lets all unite with Obama and our new Islamofascist allies! YAY! UNITY!

Jeez. I don't even know what to say.

Would it be in poor taste to wish the Iranian midget a debilitating stroke?

Hey I can see maddoggs avatar!

and now mine. yay!

Is that a sound of smacking lips that I hear?

re: #8 bellamags

Hey I can see maddoggs avatar!

Cool, avatars are back. :-)

No preconditions.

[deleted]

Didn't Obama say which way his winds would blow in his book ...

em>re: #3 unrealizedviewpoint

Hey, Hitler negotiated with Stalin, right? Same thing here...

Charles,

A mild weirdness today. When I poke "new comments", browser goes to top of the thread. Using Firefox 3.0.3 on Mac Leopard 10.5.5

I guess the needed precondition prior to negotiation has been met by the Iranians. They did congratulate Barry, right?

In his message to Obama Thursday, Ahmadinejad went on to say that "nations of the world" expect changes from Obama

Obama sure has a lot of people he needs to please the next four years - here and abroad.

great bumper stickers

dont' blame me I voted sarah palin

neighbourliness=socialism

Perhaps Ahmadinejad is campaigning for the Secretary of State job!

Ahmadinejad went on with his remarks, of course...

"You are generally expected to make a fast and clear response to the demands for basic... change in US domestic and foreign policy, which all people in the world and Americans want on top of your agenda,” the Iranian president wrote to his new counterpart.

Ahmadinejad went on to discuss his views on the extent of American involvement in the world. "They also want US intervention to be limited to its borders, especially in the Middle East. It is highly expected to reverse the unfair attitude towards restoring the rights of the Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghans,” he said.

Ahmadinejad to Obama: Restore Palestinian rights

Testing ...

Ahmadinejad sent a message to Obama in which he congratulated the Democrat on “attractingbuying the majority of voters in the election.”

Fixed ...

Mebbe Short Shanks wishes to worship "The One".

OT - The White House is getting all new limos...

re: #23 Miss Trixie

Testing ...

Awesom avatar!

Yeah, because Iran has such a good name both currently and in history.

Dinnerjacketjihad, fuck you and good day. Please leave our president-elect out of your idiotic speeches.

Further proof that dinner jacket nut job just isn't feeling up to his old self these days. Maybe the PE0 (thats President Elect zero) should pay him a visit and get things worked out. Just saying...

Congratulations Jimmy er I mean Obama.
We... like...you.

surprised Ahmed The Mad could arise from his hospital bed for this momentous news.

re: #6 bellamags

Jeez. I don't even know what to say.

Try one or more of the following:

"We hereby break off all diplomatic relations with the Zionist occupiers of Palestine."

"We are immediately pulling all US forces out of Iraq."

"The Iranian nation is pursuing nuclear technology for strictly peaceful purposes."

/quislings

re: #26 shiek al beif salami

OT - The White House is getting all new limos...

ROFLMAO!

re: #27 MandyManners

Awesom avatar!

Thanks, toots. I've only been able to get on here since election night. Now I have to go to a %#&$^% meeting.

Later.

re: #19 faraway

great bumper stickers

dont' blame me I voted sarah palin

those are great, but i think most of those would get your tires slashed

Rush saying that journalists (Charlie Rose in particular) are the first to display buyer's remorse about Obama.

I have no comment, really, just want to show off my new avatar.

I take comfort knowing most of the Iranian populace are pro-US, most of the Iraqi populace are pro-US, see a pattern? Bush had a landmark speech years ago where reached out to the Muslim populations and essentially apologized for supporting dictators. Zero coverage in the MSM. When I think of Iran and Iraq, I regard them as Europeanesque countries who are struggling to shake off the various yokes placed upon them by history and dictators.

After the VDH article, what else needs be said?

OT: So Rush Limbaugh is throwing knives this morning.

For those listening and are partial to his views and analysis, I ask you to think for a minute about what he is saying.

He is attacking McCain over and over and over - complaining about him not being a real Republican and being a moderate and that moderates are the bane of existence for true Republicans.

What is today's justification for doing this? That McCain staffers are bagging on Palin, and that Chuck Shumer is calling for McCain to be a bridge builder in the Senate (because McCain has always been willing to work with Dems, even though Dems went about destroying his character and goodwill during the election, aided and abetted by the MSM).

Rush also asks "Who benefits?" without answering the question.

Here is the thing - if McCain is such a horrible guy who is rigidly anti-conservative then why did he select Palin for VP? And if Palin is so stupid, how was she offered the job, let alone how did she out maneuver an entrenched network of Republicans to reform Alaska? It doesn't wash.

Rush is agitating to eliminate all non-social conservatives from the party. Economic conservatives are to have absolutely no place except to get lip service as the treasury is plundered to reward social conservative causes, as they did not have any place under the K street project and the balooning of the national debt under social conservative GWB.

Rush knows his listeners are motivated by social issues and that is pretty much it.

Rush has yet to point to the fact that the Palin subterfuge can't be at McCain's direction because McCain gains nothing by it - yet he attacks McCain for it. If anyone can be attacked for undermining a Republican, it is Rush himself, who just said he can see why 20% of conservatives voted for Obama and "can't blame them" (which, BTW, had it swung to McCain, would have delivered the election - where is your insistence on loyalty there, El Rushbo?).

Wake up, Rush fans - think. Rush is doing the dirty work of fratricide in the name of a pure party solely composed of social conservatives in a permanent cultural war. He has put forward that these staffers are looking for their next job, and that this is motivated by someone who wants to take down Palin - so why is that person John McCain? Why would John McCain want his legacy to be the guy who picked Sarah Palin, and then make Palin out to be an idiot? How does that help McCain in ANY way?

The dots connect to an arrow pointing to someone who can hire these staffers now and wants Palin out of the way for 2012 so that he can be the social conservative AND economic conservative choice: Mitt Romney. But Rush won't say that because he likes Romney for being correct on social conservatism (even if he converted to it after running Massachusetts), or because Romney is helping folks like Jindal (who Rush mentions repeatedly as a "great prospective president".

So Instead of delivering the logical conclusion to his normally insightful analysis, he gives you all the parts and then points your at John McCain, when he should be simply telling you that this is positioning and fratricide as 2012 candidates jockey for support. But he isn't laying that out because he is pushing his own agenda, which requires a civil war within the ranks for his side to come out ahead.

Screw Rush - he wants a civil war and we don't need one.

re: #37 Golem Akbar

no comment is still a comment.

re: #16 unreconstructed rebel

Charles,

A mild weirdness today. When I poke "new comments", browser goes to top of the thread. Using Firefox 3.0.3 on Mac Leopard 10.5.5

Fixed. Thanks

I wonder if Obama knows that Ahmadinejad is a devotee of the Hojatieh Sect, or knows what the Hojatieh believe.

Dinner Jacket went on to say don't believe all those nasty lies written about me in the National Intelligence Brief.

Ahmadinejad sent a message to Obama in which he congratulated the Democrat on “attracting the majority of voters in the election.”

That's a rather bland "compliment". It's like saying, Sure Obama's qualified to be president - he's over 35. But then again, that's apparently all it took for some people.

re: #41 shiek al beif salami

no comment is still a comment.

Naturally. I've sent the VDH article to all my friends. It's the best summary of things I've read, so far.

Have any of the Neo Nazi groups in Europe been referring to Obama as President Swartz yet? Italy's Berlesconi (certainly no Neo Nazi) has already referred to the President elect as being "evenly tanned" in conversations with Russia's Putin.

re: #40 karmic_inquisitor

I really like Rush and your comment makes me sad.

I thought he'd say "Congratulations on the (new) Islamic republic."

re: #33 MandyManners

ROFLMAO!

I don't get it.

re: #47 gymnast

Have any of the Neo Nazi groups in Europe been referring to Obama as President Swartz yet? Italy's Berlesconi (certainly no Neo Nazi) has already referred to the President elect as being "evenly tanned" in conversations with Russia's Putin.

No bikini line?

re: #50 The Pulchritudinous Patriot

I don't get it.

I didn't either. wtf

re: #50 The Pulchritudinous Patriot

I have a dark gift.

Mandy, help me out here. . .

re: #53 shiek al beif salami

I have a dark gift.

So, please explain the joke to us, less darkly gifted people.

Iran offers congratulations. Is optimistic.

The Stock Market is down near 1000 points on the DOW since the election. Is pessimistic

I don't know that the two are contradictory of each other.

Each signals that we may be screwed.

re: #50 The Pulchritudinous Patriot

I don't get it.

I didn't get it either. I thought the limo pictured looked kinda European though.

What I'm going to do

Well, I think I've taken a small step out of the despair I've been feeling. I have an idea of what I want to do next.

1. Become involved on a volunteer basis with a Republican politician's office.
2. Find a forum to write essays stressing the need for conservative unity. We MUST resolve the split between the "soccons" and the "libertarian" branches of the party ... and the movement to teach I.D. in public schools must be neutralized.
3. And most important. I want to get a teaching certificate and homeschool kids on world and American history. I've always loved history and I taught much of it to myself (although I did go to school before history teaching got into the state it's in now).

re: #40 karmic_inquisitor

I hate to say it, but I saw this coming. It's going to get worse. The social cons are going to stone the unfaithful monkeys now.

It's a Soviet commie damn limo. . .

OT: One Mac site I visit features cartoons. The one they posted after 0bama's election features the whole world celebrating, and a geek saying, "Whoa! This is like the ending of Return of the Jedi!"

Funny, when 0bama was elected, the Star Wars movies came to mind for me, as well. However, for me, it was a different scene that came to mind.

re: #50 The Pulchritudinous Patriot

I don't get it.

ZiL made the limos for the Soviet leaders.

re: #14 JacksonTn

Didn't Obama say which way his winds would blow in his book ...

First outward, in the first millionths of a second, then seemingly an eternity later but only a few seconds, roar back inward.

Oh, yay!

re: #60 shiek al beif salami

It's a Soviet commie damn limo. . .

I don't think there is enough clearance for CBBHO's ego.

re: #62 MandyManners

ZiL made the limos for the Soviet leaders.

Ohhh! NOW I get it!

Thanks, Komrade Mandy.

How does one say thanks in Russian?

re: #59 Charles

I hate to say it, but I saw this coming. It's going to get worse. The social cons are going to stone the unfaithful monkeys now.

I am afraid that the circular firing squad will continue until a new leader shows up. Clauswitz reminds us that they are rare creatures, so it may be awhile.

re: #52 bellamags

I didn't either. wtf

ZIL is a Russian company

re: #40 karmic_inquisitor

I've been listening on and off To Rush. It's possible I missed what you heard, but I was hearing him defending Palin and attacking the elite Washington insiders for attacking her.

Meanwhile, other Obama fans are congratulating him today:

Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, expressed willingness on Thursday to hold talks with US president-elect Barack Obama even though Washington considers the Islamist movement a terror group.

"We are ready to hold a serious dialogue with the new US president," said Ismail Haniya, who heads the Hamas government in the Palestinian territory.

"We hope the new US president will learn from the mistakes of the previous administration and give up the policy of bias towards Israel," he told journalists during a visit to a Gaza hospital.

The European Union, Israel and the United States list Hamas as a terrorist ogranisation. The Islamist movement seized power violently in Gaza in June 2007 after ousting forces loyal to secular Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas.

Obama voiced support for Israel's refusal to negotiate directly with Hamas during a visit to the Jewish state in July.

Hamas ready to hold talks with Obama

Obama will make this guy arm wrestle Ahmadinejad for the Lincoln Bedroom.

re: #57 unrealizedviewpoint

Zil was the limo of the politburo and Soviet elites

From the BBC article:

"I hope you will prefer real public interests and justice to the never-ending demands of a selfish minority..."

I wonder who that "selfish minority" would be.

Spaziba is close thabks in Russian

re: #59 Charles

I hate to say it, but I saw this coming. It's going to get worse. The social cons are going to stone the unfaithful monkeys now.

The party needs leadership. It's OK to have these disagreements - any party that has a chance at becoming a ruling majority has to have a big tent - but disagreements should remain disagreements, not become a war for control so one side can purge the other. Where are the leaders?

re: #72 Frank_Mtl

From the BBC article:

"I hope you will prefer real public interests and justice to the never-ending demands of a selfish minority..."

I wonder who that "selfish minority" would be.

Oh, I don't know.

Could it be... JOOOS?

re: #40 karmic_inquisitor

Rush came up with the idea of operation chaos, which produced a choice between 0 and McCain.

re: #59 Charles

I hate to say it, but I saw this coming. It's going to get worse. The social cons are going to stone the unfaithful monkeys now.

I agree. Some, if not many, of the "social conservatives" are agenda-driven, running more on emotion than reason. (Same general phenomena as with many on the Left.) It's very safe to be so. One doesn't have to deal with the complexities of life, or with the demands placed upon behavior by character. Oh, and it's never ... "our fault".

/rant off before it gets started

re: #76 debutaunt

Rush came up with the idea of operation chaos, which produced a choice between 0 and McCain.

Did chickens come home to roost?

re: #59 Charles

I hope it doesn't get worse. I really hate seeing the same old behavior of trashing each other going on in the party. I hope it leads to the basics of smaller government. individual liberty, and strong foreign policy, period. The Democrats play ruthlessly, and the Republicans let them while they beat each other up.

Charles, FWIW, I often read using a Palm OS and whenever I hit new comments, I go back to the home screen.

re: #40 karmic_inquisitor

OT: So Rush Limbaugh is throwing knives this morning.

For those listening and are partial to his views and analysis, I ask you to think for a minute about what he is saying.

He is attacking McCain over and over and over - complaining about him not being a real Republican and being a moderate and that moderates are the bane of existence for true Republicans.

Considering what he was up against, McCain did as well as could be expected- even conceding that he made some tactical errors.

Cal Thomas- a true blue SoCon writes:

Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed.

[Link: www.calthomas.com...]

Giuliani would have been seen as a take charge guy who can handle a crises when the economic tsunami hit. But he was vetoed by those who Rush believes are the saviors of the Party.

If they are the saviors, the Party is dead.

re: #78 unreconstructed rebel

Did chickens come home to roost?

BAWK, BAWK...I think so!

The markets are systematically draining again today. Combining both yesterday and today, about 10% of all stocks' values have vaporized. The decline is systematic, the decline being linear step-downs as straight as a ruler. I can't see inside the market, but I sense a steady withdrawal by big money. This isn't speculators. This is abandonment.

re: #72 Frank_Mtl

From the BBC article:

I wonder who that "selfish minority" would be.

Too bad we couldn't just all accept Hobbes' and Locke's judgment on this: selfishness is an essential aspect of human nature and fundamentally rational. It's the demand that we continuously sacrifice our legitimate self-interest for the sake of some kind of abstraction such as the "state" and "society" that is fundamentally irrational and the root of tyranny.

I mean, who is more likely to take my self-interest seriously, me or you?

Depends on what you consider a social conservative. If by that you mean somebody who bases every vote in life on somebody's stance on abortion then I guess you could say he is trying peel social conservatives from say the fiscal conservatives.
The problem is most people have some sort of conservative beliefs and trying to make the term conservative be a one size fits all description doesn't fit.
What has happened is the term has been corrupted enough in the pass so that the average person cannot unlink the word conservative with evangelical. It is the connection to being considered fervently religious that scares a lot of people away.
Trying to tell people taht they don't have to be particularity religious to be a conservative often gets met with blank looks.
Yes even atheists and agnostics can be conservative.

Is there any terrorist-organization or rogue-state that did not hail Obama?
Hamas, Hizb-Allah, Fatah, Muslim-Brotherhood, North Korea, Kuba, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Germany...

There are so many people in the Republican Party with megaphones blaring hateful and destructive things that I want to tell to just shut up, shut up, shut up right now. I'm just one small voice and I know that while what I say isn't always positive and unifying or productive, but I'm just one small voice among many, I'm not reaching millions. Why do these people feel no sense of responsibility for the harm they're causing? How do they sleep at night?

re: #82 The Pulchritudinous Patriot

BAWK, BAWK...I think so!

A squawk usually means an egg. Are we going to have enough for an omelet for supper?

Rush is far more of a fiscal conservative than a social conservative. He rarely speaks of abortion or religion, he mainly talks about taxes, welfare, media bias, democrat hypocrisy, and American exceptionalism.

re: #59 Charles

I hate to say it, but I saw this coming. It's going to get worse. The social cons are going to stone the unfaithful monkeys now.

I hope Rush et al get to read VDH. /Can't we all get just along?

re: #84 Lucius Septimius

I wonder who that "selfish minority" would be.

Too bad we couldn't just all accept Hobbes' and Locke's judgment on this: selfishness is an essential aspect of human nature and fundamentally rational. It's the demand that we continuously sacrifice our legitimate self-interest for the sake of some kind of abstraction such as the "state" and "society" that is fundamentally irrational and the root of tyranny.

I mean, who is more likely to take my self-interest seriously, me or you?

Ahmadinejad was taking a shot at Jews when he said "selfish minority."

re: #66 The Pulchritudinous Patriot

Ohhh! NOW I get it!

Thanks, Komrade Mandy.

How does one say thanks in Russian?

Beats me.

re: #40 karmic_inquisitor

Agreed. Before we get all fratricidal here, let's all look at Byron York's article I linked this morning.

What if gerald Ford had stepped aside, and Ronald Reagan had run in 1976 against Jimmy Carter?

REMEMBER: people were pissed at Ford for pardoning Nixon, and nobody had ever heard of stagflation and malaise at that point--but economically, things weren't so wonderful in 1976. The media was tongue-bathing the nice Baptist governor of Georgia about as much as they did for Obama.

Yes, Reagan brought unprecedented unity---but people gave him a chance in the first place because we had suffered four years of Carter. Without the four years of Carter, Reagan may have ended up with the epitaph of "amiable dunce."

re: #91 Adina in Judea

Ahmadinejad was taking a shot at Jews when he said "selfish minority."

/Wha Jew mean by that?

re: #78 unreconstructed rebel

Wasn't the idea of Operation Chaos for Republicans to vote for Hillary in the primaries? That being the case, OBama would have won the nomination with or without OC.

re: #89 stevieray

Rush is far more of a fiscal conservative than a social conservative. He rarely speaks of abortion or religion, he mainly talks about taxes, welfare, media bias, democrat hypocrisy, and American exceptionalism.

Remember the caller abortion routine with the vacuum cleaner?

re: #26 shiek al beif salami

LOL

re: #94 RememberSekhmet?

Agreed. Before we get all fratricidal here, let's all look at Byron York's article I linked this morning.

What if gerald Ford had stepped aside, and Ronald Reagan had run in 1976 against Jimmy Carter?

Reagan would have lost. Ford only got as close as he did because he was the incumbent.

On the Social Conservative thing, there is a distinction that needs to be made. There are those who opposed the notion that government should be involved in social engineering and the deliberate and overt championing of a particular social agenda that runs contrary to the values and judgment of the majority. There are also those who would wish to use the power of government to enforce their vision of society. The former, effectively libertarian with regard to social issues ought not be confused for the latter. I suspect the vast majority of individuals who view themselves as social conservatives are more like the former than the latter.

re: #76 debutaunt

Rush came up with the idea of operation chaos, which produced a choice between 0 and McCain.

I will never understand his Operation Chaos thing ...Never ...Rush was not as smart as he thought he was or he would have realized how dangerous it would be to run against Obama ...

re: #92 MandyManners

Beats me.

Davs vedonna

/something like that

re: #40 karmic_inquisitor

I think you are placing the blame for fratricide squarely where it does not belong, on the shoulders of the commentators, not the ass coverers who are perpetrating the crime of complaining from within the campaign, to the press, whose knives are ever sharp to slit Republican throats.

Rush is right.

re: #91 Adina in Judea

Ahmadinejad was taking a shot at Jews when he said "selfish minority."

No, I understand that. I was making another point -- it's just that people tend to throw the term "selfish" around in ways that suggest that in and of itself selfishness is a bad thing.

The ultimate "selfish minority" is me, and I'm unabashed about my selfishness in that regard.

On the morning after the election, Boker Tov Boulder posted this as a postcard with a stamp showing former Israeli PM Golda Meir:

Dear America,

Thank you and Shalom.
We have to go home now.

Your friends,
The Jews

Dinnerjacket said...

Ahmadinejad sent a message to Obama in which he congratulated the Democrat on “attracting the majority of voters in the election.

I'm surprised he understood our novel approach to elections in regards to having a majority of votes to win.

re: #96 neocon hippie

Wasn't the idea of Operation Chaos for Republicans to vote for Hillary in the primaries? That being the case, OBama would have won the nomination with or without OC.

Operation chaos then turned into the dems choosing McCain as the rep candidate. Each party attempted to choose the easiest to beat opposition candidate. We ended up with this. Perhaps not the best people to run the country.

re: #97 unreconstructed rebel

Remember the caller abortion routine with the vacuum cleaner?

Yep. So?

I was thinking today that history is tricky and sometimes it's better not to get what you wish for.

Four years ago I was ecstatic when Bush won. In retrospect it would have been better if Kerry had won. At worst a Left leaning Administration, not Obama's wholesale damaging change we are going to get.

re: #102 Just_A_Grunt

Davs vedonna

/something like that

that means good bye...

re: #92 MandyManners

spasibo.

Sorry all y'all but we've been in a state of - unfortunately undeclared - war with Iran since they took over our embassy in 1979, enabled Hezbollah to murder 243 US Marine "peacekeepers" in their barracks in Beirut and have still, to this day, supplied munitions, training and frequently on-the-spot military leadership to those in Iraq who kill American Troop.
Fuck Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Mullahs, those who support them and those who don't fight against them.

re: #109 opinionated

I was thinking today that history is tricky and sometimes it's better not to get what you wish for.

Four years ago I was ecstatic when Bush won. In retrospect it would have been better if Kerry had won. At worst a Left leaning Administration, not Obama's wholesale damaging change we are going to get.

Actually, what I suspect we're going to get is gridlock between the White House and congress, flopping around on policy like a fish on the deck of a boat, and, within 18 months, a lame duck presidency with no direction, no authority, and no effing clue what to do. Meanwhile chaos will spin around.

Our best hope is for the 2010 congressional elections and, perhaps, a moment of sanity.

re: #109 opinionated

Four years ago I was ecstatic when Bush won. In retrospect it would have been better if Kerry had won.

No way!

Kerry would have had the U.S. losing totally in Iraq.

At this point, the surge has worked and it's seen as a success.

It's about the right time to be giving the Iraqis more responsibility.

Obama would have run after Kerry (against Edwards) in 2012.

He still could have won with the $600 million he would have gotten then.

re: #101 JacksonTn

As I recall, the point of OC wasn't to get either Clinton or Obama nominated; rather, it was to encourage bloodshed by extending the primary season. This was due to the assumption that McCain (already the nominee at that point) wouldn't go after Obama.

re: #106 Walter L. Newton

Dinnerjacket said...

I'm surprised he understood our novel approach to elections in regards to having a majority of votes to win.

Oh, he understands it, all right. He used the Baseej to get himself into, and stay in, office. Not much different from Obama, just more obvious.

but it seems to be the wrong place to do it doesn't it? re: #59 Charles

re: #113 realwest

Here here!

re: #72 Frank_Mtl

From the BBC article:

I wonder who that "selfish minority" would be.

RACIST!

re: #69 seekeroftruth

I've been listening on and off To Rush. It's possible I missed what you heard, but I was hearing him defending Palin and attacking the elite Washington insiders for attacking her.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Yes - he WAS defending Palin. I defend Palin. Many of the "staffer" assertions don't wash, but they are probably sprinkled with some verifiable truths to give the fabrications weight. I expect the clothes bills will be big, but I don't see it as an issue frankly.

Look - I agree with Rush that something smells rotten and that these staffers are looking for the next gig. But his conclusion doesn't follow either the facts or inferences he states. When that happens, the spotlight needs to be directed at him.

I don't think there needs to be a war. I am a big tent guy. But I'll be damned if I am dragged into one by the social cons who don't have a problem with profligate spending. Why spare a child from abortion to hand her 100K of debt the moment she is born? We need to focus on the Democrats rather than on playing "human sacrifice for the sake of the purity of the Party."

fck you din jac.
and your congratulatory thinly veiled manipulative words.
you barbarian s.o.b. you think you have a flunky in the white house who will do your bidding.
well, their are millions and millions of americans in this country who are watching you.
we will make our voices heard.

I have actually figured out the problem, Democrats have one ACORN for a brain. Only one.

re: #105 Adina in Judea

On the morning after the election, Boker Tov Boulder posted this as a postcard with a stamp showing former Israeli PM Golda Meir:

Dear America,

Thank you and Shalom.
We have to go home now.

Your friends,
The Jews

Adina, if things get any worse around here some of might want to come with ya, save some room huh?

re: #76 debutaunt

Rush came up with the idea of operation chaos, which produced a choice between 0 and McCain.

I normally like Rush. I think he should direct his talents at the other side rather than to those of us manning the trenches.

re: #94 RememberSekhmet?

I for one am not a fan of "suffering must precede liberation" theory (and I am Catholic, so I should be a big fan of it) but we now have no choice on that one.

re: #125 Iron Fist
sounds more like Thompson to me

re: #121 karmic_inquisitor

I've been listening to Rush on and off for fifteen years now. If you think he is a socon, or is sympathetic to "the social cons who don't have a problem with profligate spending", then I gotta question your perceptions. He is deeply suspicious of those "big government conservatives", and has been warning against following their lead for many years now.

re: #121 karmic_inquisitor

But I'll be damned if I am dragged into one by the social cons who don't have a problem with profligate spending.

Where do you get that? Who's defending that? Not me. Not Rush.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday congratulated Barack Obama on his election win — the first time an Iranian leader has offered such wishes to a U.S. president-elect since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. (Hmmm what about Barack Hussein Obama would make Mahmood Achmadinejad want to write and congratulate him? However, something tells me that Ach hasn't heard that Rahm Emmanuel was going to be Obama's chief of Staff)

...

In the message, Ahmadinejad also said he hopes Obama will “use the opportunity to serve the (American) people and leave a good name for history” during his term in office.

(I'd want to know if Ach actually said "american people" or just "people". They are very different.)

re: #40 karmic_inquisitor

I am not sure that Rush Limbaugh's antipathy toward McCain has much to do with "social conservatism." IIRC, his beef with McCain had to do with McCain-Feingold, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the "gang of 14."

What is a "social conservative," anyway? McCain has a consistent pro-life voting record that stretched back for years and years. He is opposed to the redefinition of marriage. Outside of the fact that he doesn't (thank God!) go around preaching and bloviating about these issues, what makes him a social liberal?

re: #107 debutaunt

Operation chaos then turned into the dems choosing McCain as the rep candidate. Each party attempted to choose the easiest to beat opposition candidate. We ended up with this. Perhaps not the best people to run the country.

I think McCain was already chosen as the Republican candidate. Rush was upset because he believed the Democratics had chosen our candidate. So, that's why he started Operation Chaos...using the Dems play plan...if they select ours, we'll select theirs. At least that's the way I understood it.

re: #135 Hobbes
and I feel your quite correct

re: #135 Hobbes

You're exactly right.

re: #103 rawmuse

I think you are placing the blame for fratricide squarely where it does not belong, on the shoulders of the commentators, not the ass coverers who are perpetrating the crime of complaining from within the campaign, to the press, whose knives are ever sharp to slit Republican throats.

Rush is right.

How does Rush's analysis make sense? Does McCain want his legacy to be that he picked someone he knew to be an idiot and knew would be a drag on the ticket so that he could tell everyone afterward while handing the election to the Democrats? Because that is what Rush is ultimately saying.

And if that is the case, why are McCain's staffers participating in that suicide pact? So they can have the privilege of being cited as co-conspirators and never get to work again? Ever?

These staffers are looking for their next job - they are doing this on behalf of someone who wants Palin out of the way. Someone who wants to occupy the space she does - the social conservative space.

That is how this game is played. But blaming the other half of the team for it is bizarre and irrational to say the least. Accept it for what it is rather than making a war with your allies.

re: #136 Iron Fist
yes, he was smarter than that

"Hi, my name Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I deny the holocaust ever happened, I hang people for being homosexual and I'm looking forward to nuking the dogs and pigs of Israel off the map. Barack Obama is MY kind of guy!"

If people in this country feel comfortable sharing adoration for Obama with people like him then I really am at a loss for words.

re: #127 ploome hineni

who posted this?

[Link: spectator.org...]

very scary

I think its very accurate, considering the past few years, and who is running the leadership in Washington now. The Republicans who refuse to dirty their hands fighting these people will dirty their hands digging their own grave.

re: #139 karmic_inquisitor
I don't listen to Rush. But from what other posters have said on other threads, what pissed Rush off the most was that McCain hasn't come out and publically defended her from those atrocious allegations against Palin made by folks who hope to get a job as staffers for Mitt Romney in 2012.
And while I don't listen to Rush, I haven't seen or heard McCain defending Palin at all.

re: #125 Iron Fist

Giuliana

You didn't have to write anything else. The way you wrote his name tells me all I need to know.

You- and those like you- are the bane of the Party.

re: #139 karmic_inquisitor

Does McCain want his legacy to be that he picked someone he knew to be an idiot and knew would be a drag on the ticket so that he could tell everyone afterward while handing the election to the Democrats?

WTF? What exactly are you saying, what exactly do you think Rush said?

re: #127 ploome hineni

who posted this?

[Link: spectator.org...]

very scary

Yes very scary because it is probable. I just can shake this pit in my stomach.

re: #144 realwest

I don't listen to Rush. But from what other posters have said on other threads, what pissed Rush off the most was that McCain hasn't come out and publically defended her from those atrocious allegations against Palin made by folks who hope to get a job as staffers for Mitt Romney in 2012.
And while I don't listen to Rush, I haven't seen or heard McCain defending Palin at all.

That's basically it.

re: #77 pre-Boomer Marine brat

There's a party for folks like you, its called the Libertarian party.

re: #131 Rancher

Where do you get that? Who's defending that? Not me. Not Rush.

Rush himself said after the 2006 debacle that he "would no longer carry water" for the K street crowd.

That crowd was the Denny Hastert / Tom Delay / Dick Armey leadership troika that motivated voters with their "Real Conservatism" and then went on a 4 Trillion dollar spending spree that ended in indictments and a crushed party reputation for competence on the economy and spending restraint.

So Rush "carried water" for them for more than 6 years, and admitted to doing so in the name of maintaining the more important agenda - the cultural war agenda.

re: #149 mrsnuggles

There's a party for folks like you, its called the Libertarian party.

Absolutely not.

re: #145 Opinionated
Excuse me, but Iron Fist spelled Rudy's name correctly in the two other places in that post where he used it; perhaps it was just a typo.
And I just LOVE the fact that you're sitting in judgment on who is and who isn't the bane of the party.

re: #128 karmic_inquisitor

I for one am not a fan of "suffering must precede liberation" theory (and I am Catholic, so I should be a big fan of it) but we now have no choice on that one.

I'm not talking about suffering preceding liberation. In fact I was totally against suffering preceding liberation as strategery. What I'm saying is that people are damning McCain and Palin out of some misguided notion that they did not run the best campaign they could. Some folks seem to think if we ran some mythical Second Coming of Reagan this year, he would have won. I'm saying that Reagan would have lost in 1976, and 32 years later, with the bulk of the electorate having been born after or babes in arms during the Carter years, Reagan's Second Coming would have lost this election.

re: #150 karmic_inquisitor

Hold on a minute, it is not social conservatism that lost the past two elections for us, its the fiscal liberalism exhibited by this party. In case you did not notice, gay marriage was given the axe by CALIFORNIA.

Well y'all it's been interesting anyway today. I gotta go now and I hope you all have a good day and would suggest to EVERYONE who has posted out here today, that we all try to cool off, take a week or so to reflect on the lessons to be learned from Obama's buying or at least renting America and then come back and try to rationally discuss who is and who isn't a Republican or a Conservative and where in the hell do we go from here.
Have a great day, all, and I hope I get the chance to see you all down the road.

re: #150 karmic_inquisitor

Well not me then. Seems to me Rush fought the spending if not those who he said he wouldn't carry water for. As for the "culture war", I believe he has fought the war on all sides, not just culturally. I'm guessing he didn't want to "eat our own", but maybe he should have. Your recollection is better than mine, I suffer from CRS.

re: #154 Iron Fist

Here here!

re: #130 stevieray

I've been listening to Rush on and off for fifteen years now. If you think he is a socon, or is sympathetic to "the social cons who don't have a problem with profligate spending", then I gotta question your perceptions. He is deeply suspicious of those "big government conservatives", and has been warning against following their lead for many years now.

Then why did he attack McCain from the get go?

McCain voted against the second tax cut for the right reasons, even if it was the wrong call.

And where was Rush in taking down Bush / Amey / Delay / Hastert for the 4 Trillion dollar debt add on? I know some of that was unavoidable, but much of it went to a much larger government and useless programs and earmarks meant to buy favor with lobbyists. Again - where was Rush, other than having these guys on the phone talking about a "permanent majority?" If that episode isn't proof that "money can't buy you love", then what is?

Actions speak louder than words - the social agenda got much higher preference over the small government agenda, and you didn't hear an attack from Rush on any of those guys, but he attacked the crap out of McCain, including days and days of ridicule after McCain secured the nomination and now his justifying the "20% club" making their vote for Obama.

Sorry - that is indefensible from a guy that claims to be a team player.

Is it me or are things moving along rather briskly today?

re: #161 Bumr50

Big time. I worked all night, I'm off to bed.

re: #155 RememberSekhmet?

I'm not talking about suffering preceding liberation. In fact I was totally against suffering preceding liberation as strategery. What I'm saying is that people are damning McCain and Palin out of some misguided notion that they did not run the best campaign they could. Some folks seem to think if we ran some mythical Second Coming of Reagan this year, he would have won. I'm saying that Reagan would have lost in 1976, and 32 years later, with the bulk of the electorate having been born after or babes in arms during the Carter years, Reagan's Second Coming would have lost this election.

Sorry - I read your post wrong. I agree.

re: #127 ploome hineni

who posted this?

[Link: spectator.org...]

very scary

Bingo! All these fools who think this is going to be a repeat of Carter's fiasco, and then see a Conservative rebound rescue weren't paying attention to how the far left plays the game. Anyone with more than one brain cell should have noticed what Putin has done in Russia, [T]Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or any of the other examples around the world.

To think, especially after the fraud, collusion of the past 8 years, that once they gain power they'll relinquish power easily if at all are deluding themselves. If even half the scenarios play out, the only way they will be taken out of power is through violence.

Note: Obama gets his fully staffed National Civilian Security Defense Force, it's all over. Period, end of story. Those New Black Panthers (NOI THUGS) seen in Philly would become a fixture across the nation, and instead of batons, they'll be armed with something far more lethal.

Personally, rather than wait for them to come to full power, the minute I see the beginnings, makeup, and leadership of such a force, I'm going to make my government murder me... Course, I do not plan on leaving alone.

re: #134 Iron Fist

If there's to be a war, I'd definantly rather spend my ammo shooting the real enemy. And I think that if things do break into open warfare that will be what happens. Obama has the oppertunity to step back from the brink, but his first appointment doesn't look like he is going to.

Agree on all counts. Obama the uniter? I guess Stalin united the Soviet Union.

You've got to give the iranian dwarf one thing - he sure knows how to stir things up. And yet everyone thinks he's a fool. Divide and conquer. Make sure american stands against american instead of putting pressure on Iran. Much better. He outmachiavellis a lot of people that one.

re: #156 MrSnuggles

Hold on a minute, it is not social conservatism that lost the past two elections for us, its the fiscal liberalism exhibited by this party. In case you did not notice, gay marriage was given the axe by CALIFORNIA.

Hey - I agree. Thing is, why weren't we having the jihad on the big spenders with the R's after their names.

And again - I will stick up for Palin - she went to war with Ted Stevens when no one else would.

The irony on the Gay Marriage exit polls - whites voted against it, but the Blacks and Latinos that voted for Obama (and came to the polls in large numbers because of Obama) pulled 70% for ending Gay Marriage.

I want to bypass this civil war - there is no sense in it.

i would like the party litmus test moved, though. If we are going to insist a candidate is pure on one issue, it should be spending at this point.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

and more enemies...

enemies . . . everywhere . . .

Enemy!

/Rant off

I just do not see how Barry is going to be a match for Iran, North Korea, Hamas and Vladi Putin is planning to return to the Presidency. These people must be hardly able to contain themselves waiting to take on Barry. The rest of us get to suffer from Barry's crushing tax plans. Only being able to read a column from VDH makes me feel a little better.

re: #133 wolfie

I am not sure that Rush Limbaugh's antipathy toward McCain has much to do with "social conservatism." IIRC, his beef with McCain had to do with McCain-Feingold, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the "gang of 14."

What is a "social conservative," anyway? McCain has a consistent pro-life voting record that stretched back for years and years. He is opposed to the redefinition of marriage. Outside of the fact that he doesn't (thank God!) go around preaching and bloviating about these issues, what makes him a social liberal?

Hey - I don't make the labels.

At this point, I think you have 2 camps. The Fiscal Conservatives and the Social Conservatives. I distinguish the two camps with a "if you had to choose" test of "If you had to choose between a government with 0 national debt, no deficits and low taxes vs a government that outlawed abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and illegal immigration, which would you choose?"

While many would answer "Yes" or "both" the point is priorities - which comes first?

At this point in our history, I would go with Fiscal Conservative. I think the actions of the last Republican congress (and the bill they left on the table) says they chose the other option. With the economy where it is, and Obama who he is, I think we would attract a lot more voters with Fiscal rather than Social at this point.

Rush doesn't use those terms - he calls the Fiscal Conservatives by "blue bloods" or "Rockefeller Republicans" or "Country Club Republicans" or "Moderates" and, if you listen to him, he wants them chased out of the party. He never advocated chasing the earmarking, pork barreling guys out of the party, because they delivered on the social agenda.

This doesn't mean that a Social Conservative can't be a Fiscal or vice versa. But lawmakers have to make choices and we have to tell them which approach they should stress over the other.

re: #170 Iron Fist

I had an instructor named Jonathan Hodges that essentialy argued that case. He thought Stalin was one of the greatest leaders in the 20th Century. He'd calmly admit that Stalin killed 20 million Russians, and still argued that he was a great leader. I'm very much afraid that there are Obama followers who would give him that same kind of pass.

I agree. These are scary rigid minded nuts, and "journalists" are suddenly asking "who is this guy?" Unreal. Yet it is happening.

re: #50 The Pulchritudinous Patriot

I don't get it.

Not sure, but believe the ZiL is Russian-made...

re: #115 Adina in Judea

No way!

Kerry would have had the U.S. losing totally in Iraq.

At this point, the surge has worked and it's seen as a success.

It's about the right time to be giving the Iraqis more responsibility.

Obama would have run after Kerry (against Edwards) in 2012.

He still could have won with the $600 million he would have gotten then.

Obama was the anti Bush. He would be Harold Ford if not for Bush. Never elected President.

Every candidate has their moment or they are yesterday's news. It was, then to some of us, and even more true in retrospect, that it was an American tragedy that McCain was not the Republican nominee in 2000.

What Obama will do in the Mideast - bring ascendancy to our enemies- will vitiate any good from Iraq.

re: #173 Miss Molly

I just do not see how Barry is going to be a match for Iran, North Korea, Hamas and Vladi Putin

He doesn't plan to be a match for them.

He plans to be a match for successful Americans who are "too selfish" to agree for the Government to take away the fruits of their labor.

Hillbuzz is still underestemating what they are up against. They think its Jimmah Carter, but we should be so lucky.

re: #151 Iron Fist

Gee, um, we're also called the base of the Party. Without me and people like me, there is no Republican Party.

You're not a base. You're quicksand.

"Mahmoud, you had me at 'death to America'..." BHO

re: #156 MrSnuggles

Hold on a minute, it is not social conservatism that lost the past two elections for us, its the fiscal liberalism exhibited by this party. In case you did not notice, gay marriage was given the axe by CALIFORNIA.

Will you people stop saying (or at least implying) that gay marriage got crushed at the poll? 47% of CA voters voted in favor of it. That's huge for such a controversial subject and it's only going to go up over time. Give it a rest.

Amir Tahiri foresaw this in 2006. Well worth reading again:

According to this theory, President George W. Bush is an "aberration," a leader out of sync with his nation's character and no more than a brief nightmare for those who oppose the creation of an "American Middle East." Messrs. Abbasi and Ahmadinejad have concluded that there will be no helicopter as long as George W. Bush is in the White House. But they believe that whoever succeeds him, Democrat or Republican, will revive the helicopter image to extricate the U.S. from a complex situation that few Americans appear to understand.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's defiant rhetoric is based on a strategy known in Middle Eastern capitals as "waiting Bush out." "We are sure the U.S. will return to saner policies," says Manuchehr Motakki, Iran's new Foreign Minister.

Mr. Ahmadinejad believes that the world is heading for a clash of civilizations with the Middle East as the main battlefield. In that clash Iran will lead the Muslim world against the "Crusader-Zionist camp" led by America. Mr. Bush might have led the U.S. into "a brief moment of triumph." But the U.S. is a "sunset" (ofuli) power while Iran is a sunrise (tolu'ee) one and, once Mr. Bush is gone, a future president would admit defeat and order a retreat as all of Mr. Bush's predecessors have done since Jimmy Carter.

The mullahs are smiling.

What some of us were warning since 2006. The election would be determined by moderates. Keep genuflecting to the "Base" who scare away the center and Republcians are DEAD.

REPUBLICANS are con soling themselves today by noting that we still live in a "center-right country." Sure - but that's the good news. The bad news is: The GOP has lost the center.

Exit polls show Barack Obama winning moderates by a whopping 21 points on Tuesday, 60 percent to 39 percent, more than doubling John Kerry's 9-point margin over George W. Bush among moderates in 2004.

The electorate's ideological makeup was remarkably unchanged from 2004. Conservatives were 34 percent of voters; moderates, 44 percent, and liberals just 22 percent.

McCain underperformed Bush by six points among conservatives - but it was getting trounced in the country's great middle that doomed him.

Rich Lowry

[Link: www.nypost.com...]

re: #175 karmic_inquisitor

I don't think it's so much fiscal/social conservatives as it is establishment/working class conservatives. Nothing evidences this as much as the dust-up over Palin. She has been and is still uniformly rejected by the "upper crust" Republicans like Buckley, Noonan, et al. She, like many other Republicans, lacks their educational and social pedigree, yet she somehow articulated the principles of Conservatism better the candidate himself. The reason for this is that she believe in them while McCain paid them lip service.

The core values of the modern conservative movement are easily distilled into four basic tenants; limited federal involvement in local matters, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense and a core set of traditional values. The GOP that lost on Tuesday had only one of these values-defense. Otherwise, it was in many ways indistinguishable from the Dem platform. These four tenants are what we have to return to in order to gain back the Congress in 2010.

The issue now is for control of the GOP's soul. Where will it go? There is a schism now between the middle and upper class GOP as to who would be the better standard bearer. Unless we do return to the values heralded by Goldwater, then Reagan, the GOP will become unrecognizable--it will return to being the GOP of Taft, Harding--a party of big business and social elites.

They say that Palin was an ignoramus. Maybe there is some truth to the claims. But, the ignorant can become well informed in a short period of time. Likewise, the arrogant party of our party can also be humbled rather quickly, too. Which do you suppose is more painful?

re: #156 MrSnuggles

Hold on a minute, it is not social conservatism that lost the past two elections for us, its the fiscal liberalism exhibited by this party. In case you did not notice, gay marriage was given the axe by CALIFORNIA.

And Arizona, and Florida. While every "moderate" Republican went down in defeat, and Coleman is not out of the woods, yet.

“use the opportunity to serve the (American) people and leave a good name for history”

Yeah, a good name for history- and a smoking radioactive crater where a major US city used to be.

*SPIT*

re: #175 karmic_inquisitor

The "blue bloods" and Rockefeller republicans" are the big government conservatives! I don't know who you are listening to, but if you think Rush sees fiscal conservatives as the problem, you are simply delusional.

You are wrong.

Fact. Deal with it.

re: #185 opinionated

You are missing the point. The party lost this election two years ago. It's brand was tarnished by the lack of leadership and a clear message. The moderates moved away from the GOP because the GOP was a part of only one core message; strong defense. It has abandoned the principles of small government, fiscal restraint and traditional values. It had nothing to offer the moderate as it had done under Reagan.

Palin energized the base; that much is certain. McCain cold not reach the moderates because he had nothing to sell them.

Like Coke after the "New Coke" debacle, the GOP has got to get back to its original winning formula in order to regain the trust of the electorate.

Well, if the little Ringo Starr-wannabe nutjob from Iran says he's cool, then he must be cool, right?

You mean the Leader Of Tiny Non-Threatning Nation Issues Warning To Non-Threatning Leader of A Huge Nation?

re: #190 calcajun

Yeah, I don't get it!

Start the next cycle again appealing to those Republicans in Iowa who find "Christian Leader" politically appealing and lets see how moderates are attracted back to the Party.

re: #193 Opinionated

Yeah, I don't get it!

Start the next cycle again appealing to those Republicans in Iowa who find "Christian Leader" politically appealing and lets see how moderates are attracted back to the Party.

You're right; you don't get conservatism. But, you're right in the sense if the GOP makes this about a personality and not a platform, it's doomed.

There has to be a new "Contract with America". There has to be a set of pronounced beliefs and the actions which show commitment to those beliefs. Without that, all the GOP is doing is looking for its own "rock star" politician. Having grown up in a state where Huey Long was a fresh memory, I need not tell anyone how dangerous the cult of the personality is, or how vulernable we are to it.

re: #26 shiek al beif salami

OT - The White House is getting all new limos...

"al beif" -

7.68 Liter V-Type Petrol Engine, Carbureted - She's Real Great, my 468, with Beach Boys Era Engineering in an 8000# + automobile.

-S-

re: #189 stevieray

The "blue bloods" and Rockefeller republicans" are the big government conservatives! I don't know who you are listening to, but if you think Rush sees fiscal conservatives as the problem, you are simply delusional.

You are wrong.

Fact. Deal with it.

OK - the ball is in your court. What is Rush advocating? What makes a person "moderate" that qualifies them for expulsion?

It can't be party loyalty or supporting the ticket, or Rush has to go for skewering McCain throughout and for supporting the 20% who voted Obama.

It can't be "big spenders" because Bush and Armey and Delay and Hastert all have to be expelled.

So who does that leave?

re: #196 karmic_inquisitor

OK - the ball is in your court. What is Rush advocating? What makes a person "moderate" that qualifies them for expulsion?

It can't be party loyalty or supporting the ticket, or Rush has to go for skewering McCain throughout and for supporting the 20% who voted Obama.

It can't be "big spenders" because Bush and Armey and Delay and Hastert all have to be expelled.

So who does that leave?

The "moderates" are more in line with people who are perhaps gay, or atheists--people who don't agree with one part of the conservative platform. Those would be the bunch that would be welcome in the tent. The ones who are "socially liberal" but "fiscally conservative" would be out. You can't have government act to end society's ills and not want to pay for it.

re: #194 calcajun

You're right; you don't get conservatism. But, you're right in the sense if the GOP makes this about a personality and not a platform, it's doomed.

There has to be a new "Contract with America". There has to be a set of pronounced beliefs and the actions which show commitment to those beliefs. Without that, all the GOP is doing is looking for its own "rock star" politician. Having grown up in a state where Huey Long was a fresh memory, I need not tell anyone how dangerous the cult of the personality is, or how vulernable we are to it.

The problem I get is that while fiscal Conservatives and Moderate Republicans are willing to compromise for the greater good, the militant SoCons - who want to push their beliefs on everyone- believe they are the Party and should have a veto over its candidates and policies.

That is the cancer eating away the Party.

LGF writes of the AP writer, "who, by sheer coincidence, happens to live in Tehran." It would be a little hard for this person to write about Iran if he/she did not live there.

re: #198 Opinionated

Could not disagree more. Out of control spending and more federal programs--the abandonment of the fiscal and small government pillars of conservatism--were abandoned by the Congress elected in 02 and by Bush. It made the party weaker than ever before.

The fact that the anti-gay marriage props passed in CA, AZ and FL ought to tell you that the results from Tuesday were more a repudiation of "moderate" GOP policies and a sign that traditional values are still important to the electorate. No one is pushing values down anyone's throat, unless you mean to say that someone is foisting their beliefs on you simply because they disagree with your position.

re: #196 karmic_inquisitor

OK - the ball is in your court. What is Rush advocating? What makes a person "moderate" that qualifies them for expulsion?

It can't be party loyalty or supporting the ticket, or Rush has to go for skewering McCain throughout and for supporting the 20% who voted Obama.

It can't be "big spenders" because Bush and Armey and Delay and Hastert all have to be expelled.

So who does that leave?

Rush is a Reagan Republican. He advocates:

Fiscal conservatism
Legal constitutionalism
Strong defense
American exceptionalism

He has criticized Bush, Hasert, Armey, etc... for their belief that there can be conservative social welfare programs -- they all eventually decay into a handout [liberalism] no matter how they are originally designed.

He criticizes McCain for his willingness to limit free speech with campaign finance reform.

He doesn't advocate "kicking them out of the party", at least not at first. He advocates bringing them back to the core positions that created the modern-day Republican party [i.e Reaganism], and if they don't realize how far they have strayed and continue to advocate the "Dem Lite" of the past few years, then we should kick them to the curb.

He recognizes that holding political power in DC is inevitably corrupting, one can't sit there and watch those trillions of dollars flow through one's hands without eventually succumbing to the notion that "we can turn this money to our benefit...". No, you really can't. That's why he advocates bring the elected officials back to earth from time to time... get them back to the positions they went to DC to enact.

In short, he sees the current Republican party's problems as being its leadership, not its regular folks back home.

re: #200 calcajun

The fact that the anti-gay marriage props passed in CA, AZ and FL ought to tell you that the results from Tuesday were more a repudiation of "moderate" GOP policies

Moderate Republcians don't support Gay Marrige.

People don't like extremists and sanctioned Gay Marriage is as extreme on one side as messing with the US Constitution is on the other side.

Abortion was inconsequential in this election- but the pro-Life forces got their way when they threatened McCain with terrible consequences if he picked a pro-choice running mate.

He didn't and he got nothing for kow towing to them.

If Republicans continues to bow to the Guns, Gays and Abortion uber alles crowd, we may never see Republican control again in our lifetime.

In the famous words (almost) of Tanner Boyle: "Hey Dinnerjacket, you can take your congratulations and shove it up your ass!"

Why spare a child from abortion to hand her 100K of debt the moment she is born? We need to focus on the Democrats rather than on playing "human sacrifice for the sake of the purity of the Party."

So in your mind it's better to not be born than to be in debt? How did people have the courage to live during the middle ages when life was reportedly "shirt, nasty and brutish" and yet, there weren't mass suicides - even a poor life is better than no life for most.

Republicans
Marriage.

Excuse the typos, multi tasking.

re: #202 Opinionated

Moderate Republcians don't support Gay Marrige.

People don't like extremists and sanctioned Gay Marriage is as extreme on one side as messing with the US Constitution is on the other side.

The point you're missing is that almost every moderate GOP candidate lost. There are no longer ANY GOP House members from the New England states--they were all moderates. Of all the Senate races, most of them were moderates and they lost--Coleman is the only one who made it, but by 400 + votes. That's why there is no future for a "moderate" GOP when they could not even get the moderate vote.

Ok, here's my take on Obama now that I have had time to reflect:

He is not necessarily socialist or Marxist - he is a blank slate. He loves power. He has aligned himself with holders of power in order to purloin their power and get on the fast track and now that he is the most powerful man in the world, he plans to hold on to it. He has chosen the pitbull to guard his back. Nancy and Harry can go sit down now.

My prediction is he will not do a single thing that will cost him this power. He will not give any of it away to Iran or Russia. He is a Chicago politician first and foremost doing the expedient thing to build and keep power. The first foreign power to mess with him is going to get a large can of whoop-ass opened on them. This was the cryptic message that Biden was giving, not the Sean Hannity "he will play dead" interpretation.

Chicago politicians play for keeps and they don't mess around.

re: #206 calcajun

The point you're missing is that almost every moderate GOP candidate lost. There are no longer ANY GOP House members from the New England states--they were all moderates. Of all the Senate races, most of them were moderates and they lost--Coleman is the only one who made it, but by 400 + votes. That's why there is no future for a "moderate" GOP when they could not even get the moderate vote.

They got punished for being Republicans.

Dole also lost.

And in Georgia, Chambliss may still lose.

Go ahead, Republican won by the skin of their teeth in 2000 and 2004, now are loosing badly. Keep doing what isn't working and we'll see what happens.

Keep making social issues the litmus test for who belongs in the party. It will be an ever smaller party.

Maybe the good news it that from the revulsion of extremists on both the Leftist and Conservative sides, both who want to control your life, sooner then latter, a new moderate center right party will be birthed.

People don't like extremists

Uh, yeah, I think they rather do.

Moderate Republicans do not win. Hence McCain's failure. Had he followed through on his acceptance speech promise to point out pork and name names, he would have won. But, he did not - he covered for his senate and congress buddies and threw us under the bus. THAT is what cost him this election. Conservatives stayed home. He was not the Maverick cleaning up congress, he was the populist trying to pin it on Wall Street Greed , when he fully knew better - and if he didn't know better, that was worse in the eyes of free market conservatives. Conservatives would rather suffer under liberal rule to force the true conservatives out than to sell their souls to "moderates" who only further the liberal agenda.

THAT is why we lost. NOT because of the social conservatives.

Kaixo!

re:#92 MandyManners: "Thank You" is "Spasibo".
re:#102 Just_A_Grunt: "Goodbye" is "Da Svedanya".
re:#190 cacajun:
I completely agree with your hypothesis. The GOP house and senate members became "Demo-Lites" regarding their spendthrift tendancies. Why vote for politicians who have abandoned their conservative roots? So we get a runaway socialist executive and legislative government, with a soon-to-be liberal supreme Court, and ultimately a left-wing dominated "soft socialist", European style, country. The islamo-fascists are licking their chops, waiting for the U.S. to display its soft underbelly. I can't believe that the majority of the voters in this free land are so clueless as to elect a stealth socialist like Obamma. I pray that God may protect this land, but He will not force us to make the right choices; this is our responsibility!

Ez Horegatik!

Maybe the good news it that from the revulsion of extremists on both the Leftist and Conservative sides, both who want to control your life, sooner then latter, a new moderate center right party will be birthed.

And what would be the creed of this new party? Would they be free market capitalists? Libertarian? Anarchist?

What issues in your mind would bind them together?

The reason I ask is because in reading the left leaning blogs, they are as upset about the moderates of their party as well. So, where is the common ground for a third party?

re: #202 Opinionated

If Republicans continues to bow to the Guns, Gays and Abortion uber alles crowd, we may never see Republican control again in our lifetime.

No one is forcing you to buy a gun. My AR-15 is not going to jump up out of its case and run down the road and shoot you.

Liberals gun control fanatics who would deprive us of our second amendment rights, declare people criminals for owning a particular type of firearm and confiscate property without due compensation are the extremists, not the NRA.

The liberal media has turned what was once a nation of riflemen into a nation of gun fearing wussies.

re: #211 QueenOfCups

And what would be the creed of this new party? Would they be free market capitalists? Libertarian? Anarchist?

What issues in your mind would bind them together?

The reason I ask is because in reading the left leaning blogs, they are as upset about the moderates of their party as well. So, where is the common ground for a third party?

Giuliani Republicans
Scoop Jackson Democrats.

Low taxes, pro growth, fiscal responsibly, strong defense, competent governance, mostly live and let live social policies, all the good stuff.

((***))
(((***)))
((***))
(**)
(*)
(((***)))

/change we can believe in...

Sigh...
{insert mushroom crowd}
/change we can believe in...

PIMF...

re: #213 Opinionated

Giuliani Republicans
Scoop Jackson Democrats.

Low taxes, pro growth, fiscal responsibly, strong defense, competent governance, mostly live and let live social policies, all the good stuff.

i'd convert into that third party in a heartbeat if it was in that mold

Soros and Geffen just made it easier for the Islamic Jihadists to cut off our heads, just as Muhammad instructed them.
Oreobama's neck is safe.

re: #217 oldbluesboy

Uh, guy. Other people who aren't on our side of the political fence are known to lurk in these parts. Names such as you used for the president-elect only add grist to their mill that we are all mouth-breathing racists and haters. You might want to refrain from doing so in the future. Thanks.

So these miserable little scrotes in Tehran presume to rejoice that the US has a democratic system? Pity they won't emulate it themselves!

(What? they do have elections there? --Oh, wait--the candidates are all selected by the Supreme Leader. Whew! Had me worried for a minute)

re: #40 karmic_inquisitor

Interesting analysis, but requires accepting conclusions which are not supported.

I agree that Governor Palin is being targeted for political annihilation by disenfranchised and potentially unemployed staffers. She was valuable asset who represented a large segment of the base. The attacks are both party advantageous. She gave McCain footing which he would not have had otherwise. I suspect the next election cycle is a possible motivation for both parties.

The McCain campaign exhibited a lack of discipline which leads to the conclusion that the trend will continue. McCain should have chosen more disciplined staffers, or take responsibility. Rush has never been a great fan of the abuse of party cloaked in bipartisanship especially when it is one-sided.

calcajunre: #218 calcajun

Shut your ass up. It's people like you who love to limit all free speech you don't agree with.

re: #221 oldbluesboy

Let's see, you tell me to shut up while accusing me of wanting to limit your free speech. I agreed with your sentiment in the first sentence, you twit. It's the second sentence which left something to be desired. I suggest a more judicious use of words other than a racial epithet, unless you do want to see your self quoted over at Kos or HuffPo.

re: #222 calcajun

I don't give a crap about HuffPo or Kos. You can worry about them. I have little left to lose in the area of vocabulary due to the past forty years of political correctness and condescending individuals like you. I don't need your suggestions or critiques. Twit.. Who in Hell do you think you are?

We NEED a knock-down, drag out fight within the Republican party. The 'moderates' have taken it over and driven it off the cliff with all their pandering to the left. The idiots in the Republican party trying to blame Palin now need to STFU and look inward at what their own prevaricating and appeasement have wrought. They are just miffed because Palin has a future and they in all likelihood do not. We need to return to basics and rebuild the movement, based primarily on fiscal conservatism, limited government and strong foreign policy. We also need to make it clear that abortion is NOT a form of birth control but should be allowed in all the necessary instances. I think this is how most people feel about it anyway. As for the religious aspect, I think many atheist conservatives are simply put off by people that are religious to begin with and this immediately taints their view of that person. I think the atheists need to be a bit more tolerant and remember that it was infact judeo-christian values that founded this country and that these are worth CONSERVing.