Dumbing down conservatism

In 2006, the Democrats regained control over both houses of Congress. Just two years later, conservatives couldn’t even manage to get one of their own nominated to head their party’s ticket in the race for the White House. In fact, no true conservative has been nominated for the presidency by the Republican Party since 1984. That’s almost a quarter-century without a conservative bearing the standard for the GOP.

What’s going on here? Is conservatism on the decline?

The numbers argue otherwise. Several consecutive Battleground Polls show that conservatives are in the majority in this country:

In each of those bipartisan polls over the prior four-and-a-half-years, the American people overwhelmingly consider themselves either “conservative” or “very conservative,” as opposed to “liberal,” “very liberal,” “moderate,” or “not know.” In the October 2006 Battleground Poll, just before Republicans were routed, the results were virtually the same. Sixty-one percent of Americans considered themselves either “conservative” or “very conservative,” while only thirty-four percent of Americans considered themselves “liberal” or “very liberal.” Five percent of Americans either called themselves “moderate” or “not know.”

So, something must have changed dramatically between October and November or between October and today, right? Wrong. The Battleground Poll released in late January 2007 showed that fifty-nine percent of the American people considered themselves either “conservative” or “very conservative,” while only thirty-four percent of Americans considered themselves either “liberal” or “very liberal.” Seven percent were “moderates” or “not know.”

The gap of twenty-five percentage points between self-identified conservatives and liberals is a wider gap than in five of the seven prior Battleground Polls, although all of the polls show almost identical results. The number of Americans who consider themselves conservative has never been lower than fifty-nine percent and the number of Americans who consider themselves liberal has never been higher thirty-eight percent…

Winning elections is simply a matter of convincing conservative voters that you are a conservative. This may have something to do with the reason that Ronald Reagan, the most popular Republican president of the Twentieth Century, was also perceived as the most conservative Republican president of the Twentieth Century.

So if conservatives’ numbers are not declining among the rank-and-file, that’s a pretty strong clue that the problem must lie elsewhere. But where?

Look no further than the leadership of the Republican Party. If you doubt me, just read this recent news item:

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels elicited several hushed gasps and raised eyebrows late last week as he lectured a conservative crowd that it was “time to let Ronald Reagan go.” The governor delivered his remarks to a room full of fellow red-staters at the Fund for American Studies’ annual conference and donor retreat at the Newseum.

Nostalgia is fine and Reagan’s economic plan was good,” Daniels said. “But we need to look towards the future rather than staying in the past.” Daniels added that the GOP needed to work on uniting behind Sen. John McCain instead of constantly comparing the Arizona senator with the Gipper.

While he prefaced his remarks with the disclaimer that his thoughts were “somewhat controversial,” he hoped that he “would not be misunderstood.”

With leadership like this, it’s no wonder that conservatives appear to be splintered into small interest groups and unable to agree on much of anything.

“Get over” Reagan? Why would we want to “get over” a great world leader who helped bring down the Iron Curtain, bring an end to the Soviet Union and free so many millions of people? Why would we want to “get over” the last American president who was able to make us feel good about ourselves, our nation and the future? Why would we want to “get over” the last Republican candidate for the presidency who literally blew the Democrat opposition into the ditch with two landslide victories in a row? Why would we want to “get over” a winner? So we can feel better about the losers who have taken over the leadership of the GOP since Reagan left the White House?

Daniels wants us to stop comparing our political candidates, including John McCain, to Ronaldus Maximus. He overlooks the fact that many conservatives have, however grudgingly, accepted the fact that we have to support McCain to prevent the country from falling into the pink paws of one of the two most liberal Democrats to seek the White House since George McGovern. But Reagan is the yardstick by which we take the measure of all our candidates. If no one can measure up, that’s all right. We movement conservative types know that there was only one Ronald Reagan and that there shall not be another. We don’t expect our candidates to be Reagan; we just expect them to be true to his principles. The Gipper stood for small government, fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense and moral certitude - the four essential ingredients to across-the-board conservatism.

The failure of the Republican leadership to remember what Reagan stood for and how he put these principles into practice is a knife driven right through the heart of the conservative movement. This short-sightedness represents not only a watering down of conservatism, but also its dumbing down. Daniels and his ilk, little by little, have been throwing conservative principles under the bus for nearly twenty-five years. As a result, the Republican Party, which Ronald Reagan left us in a proud and stong condition, has been steadily morphing into Democrat Lite.

Rush Limbaugh took some time today on his radio program to tell us what’s underneath this willingness of the part of the GOP leadership to abandon the very people and principles which made the party great and such a winner in the 1980s:

Now, this, sadly, is a symptom of what is happening in the Republican Party at large. The country club, blue-blood Rockefeller Republicans — and there are lots of them in the Republican Party, they were not happy with Reagan when he was in office. They didn’t like Reagan. They were embarrassed because they thought he was a dunce and an idiot and he didn’t come from their stock, and even when he was winning two landslides. He brought with them these Reagan Democrats, conservative evangelicals — and that brought abortion, and that really embarrassed the hell out of them…

Hey, Mitch? Governor? Governor Daniels? Should we get over Lincoln, too? He’s in the past. We just gotta go over Lincoln. This is so contrary to conservative thought. For me, on the wrong day, this could be tough to take. We’re supposed to learn from our past. We are supposed to build on that which works. This is part of conservative thought! I’ll tell you what. Let’s just get over the founders. The founders of the country are in the past, too. Let’s get over them…

Why would we “get over Reagan,” unless we reject the core principles of the party and the nation? For that matter, why should we do that? I think a lot of these politicians who are suggesting that Reagan’s old news and we’ve chronicled all of them that have said it. Newt said it. “The era of Reagan is over.” I don’t think they can attain the status of a Reagan. Maybe that’s why they insist we get over him and by implication I suppose all great conservatives. We should get over Bill Buckley and we should get over Milton Friedman…

So you have Governor Daniels, and he’s not alone, dumping on the very people who made conservatism a viable political option. In fact, it set the stage for his election as a governor: running as a Reagan economic conservative. So now they want to take the party and the movement, wherever. They’re going to take it down, but they don’t see that. They think they’re taking it to a new direction; one where they won’t be plagued by yapping chatterboxes like me being critical of them because there won’t be enough of us to matter. That is their hope. So we’re supposed to close ranks. We’re supposed to get over Reagan. We’re supposed to shut up. We’re supposed to get over all of these great traditions that made us who we are in our movement and our country and close ranks behind their favorite Republican and Republican candidates, while they trash the most successful policy-wise and politically conservative in a century or more, the most successful Republican in fact.

Sadly, it seems to me that the people that want to get rid of Reagan and want us to get over Reagan, leave him back there in the past; these are people like a lot of libs who cannot compete in the arena of ideas. They are lousy at communication. They can’t compete with the successful political politics of Reagan, so they insist that we reject him as a standard. So we have to embrace much less, dumb down thinking, a loser political mentality. They want to control the political debate. They insist that they’re the only realistic alternative to the Democrats. What we’re seeing here with this, with the support of some pseudoconservatives, is the rise of the country club Republican. He’s back.

Once again, El Rushbo nails it.

No, let’s not get over what makes conservatism - real conservatism - great. Instead, let’s get over these Rockerfeller Republicans and turn the Grand Old Party away from the death march to the sea where these lemmings are leading it. Once we’ve managed that, there’s no problem finding which way to go. Ronald Reagan drew the map to the treasure, and we only need to follow it.

- JP

Professors at Carnegie Preach Incapability.

 In the online student newspaper of Carnegie college, The Tartan, a revealing article quotes the schools professors in a light few will appreciate:

Faculty Hosts Forum on Barack Obama’s Campaign  http://www.thetartan.org/2008/4/21/news/obama

““What impressed me with Obama is how he’s been able to mobilize young people,” said associate art professor Ayanah Moor.”

“Associate history professor John Soluri commented on the significance of the Senator’s success so far. “Everyone loves a winner,” he said. “It will be hard to overturn his current lead of delegates.””

“Continuing on the topic of funding, philosophy department faculty member Andy Norman said that what impressed him about Obama was “his refusing to take money from lobbyists.””

“Lisa Hazirjian, an adjunct history professor and the forum’s stand-in moderator mentioned that she didn’t believe Obama’s recent comments regarding “bitter” rural Pennsylvanians would do much damage to his campaign.”

“If Barack Obama becomes president, how other countries view the United States changes overnight,” Shields said. “Imagine if a kid in Africa were to wake up one day and see the ruler of the free world as a black man.”

When professors of our colleges reduce themselves to;

* favorably comment on the deceptive influence of the meaningless and most overused platitudes in history of a current candidate daring to use such as “change” on the most susceptible and unaware of us…

* Casually remark on the sheer stupidity of ‘following the herd mentality’ is anywhere near acceptable instead of encouraging support based solely on honest capability…

* Make an already proven false claim that a candidate refuses lobbyist funds when the evidence reveals over 2 million dollars collects interest for him due directly to lobbyist contributions AND where lobbyists are members of his own staff.

* Attempt to mitigate Obama’s rightful cost of an election to blatant elitism…

* Mindnumbingly offer that a message of socialism is anywhere near correct for a country founded upon freedom and self accountability OR have the audacity to continue on to drool in the outrageously racist implication that the pigment of a United States president’s skin dictates whether that president is racist or not when we’ve seen this predominately middle eastern/caucasion candidate who was taught for twenty years to BE a racist…

THEN, we know our children’s instruction is in the hands of the insanely incompetent which means change is certainly in our near future but, not the socialist kind they have in mind.

Prepare yourself professors for the change of who is signing your paychecks! 

Gun Ban = Obama & American Hunters & Shooters Assoc.

We’re being conned people, and due to the recent endorsement of American Hunters and Shooters Association for Barack Obama it’s time for all of us to know exactly what that con game is;

Barack Hussein Obama sings his song and dance, ‘I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns but, I support the D.C. gun ban AND I believe it’s constitutional.’ Obama also wants to ban all semi-auto firearms. If the situation weren’t so serious the right thing to do would be to laugh in his face while handing him over to the men in the white coats rather than letting schizophrenics run for the presidency. 

For those who may not know the D.C. gun ban demands from everyone that we’re just as defenseless while we’re away from our homes as in them. The illegal law demands from us that they must be locked up or taken apart while in our own homes…so much for ‘Every man’s home is his castle’.

The police study past violent crimes and measure the time it takes to commit them ( real-time ). These studies prove beyond any doubt that you have no time to unlock, retrieve from a safe or even load, much less put back together a gun before the bad guys have you. Which means when it comes to be your turn in the every so-many-seconds of every minute of every day a violent crime is committed, your run to find the only thing you have to protect yourself and your family with is completely worthless to you.

We know that Obama is only paying lip service to confuse people so 80+ Million gun owners and their families don’t hand him a defeat just like we did to Al Gore not long ago. Pot smokin’, cocaine sniffin’ Al ( interesting how the two men are so alike. ) was more than elitist enough to think running his mouth against our inalienable right of our own self-defense wouldn’t hand him his own head in the 2000 election. What a legend…in his own small mind.

Obama’s relatively new con game with his new team of imposters who name themselves after our other pro-rights groups think they can fool us by putting their arm around our shoulder rather than the fist they’ve always had in our face to say, “Maybe we should be “reasonable” and show “common sense” with those stupid gun grabbers?” Obviously, they think we’re stupid.

Enter the endorsement of Obama by the American Hunter and Shooting Association, AHSA formed in August of 2005, led by Ray Schoenke, President. If his keeping a public “daily diary” at the Daily Kos in rants against his ongoing battle with the NRA doesn’t give you the hint of who this clown is then his long financial support of outrageous anti-rights fanatics will; Al Gore, Ed Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and of course Bill Clinton. His ten year stint as an offensive lineman must have provided him one-too-many blows to the head as he attempts to declare conservation and our access to our own land is more important than our inalienable rights…somebody break out a smelling salt for this guy and shove it deep up his nose. Beyond the fact that no other group has fought harder for or given more money to the maintenance and stewardship of hunting land as well as conservation of all outdoor lands and animals as a whole, hunters and hunting have absolutely nothing to do with our inalienble right to defend ourselves from criminals and tyrants.

Ray’s buddies who help him run this scam have very interesting pasts with known anti-rights groups and you can find them with the links I’ve provided below.

By endorsing Barack Obama, Ray and every single current member of AHSA has announced their intention to outright ban nearly all firearms and our possession of them to literally take us back to the day of our founding fathers…no, worse than that, back to Flintlocks to hunt with but, only rocks and stones like a caveman to throw at our tormentors who are armed because they don’t recognize our laws…the slaughters of carnage in our recent past are nothing compared to what would predictably happen if we were stupid enough to allow these illegal laws to continue and idiots like Obama to tell us this “change” isn’t merely letting the lunatics run the asylum.

As if all this wasn’t bad enough, on choosing the date of the Virginia Tech shootings to endorse Obama must be one of the most brain-dead stunts in the history of our country in knowing that those children died as a direct result of keeping them and their teachers, or anyone on campus, completely defenseless in the attack of a mass murderer…forget the smelling salts, this idiot and anyone who follows him is far beyond mere human help.

 BTW, how does ASHA, a (501) C(3) endorse a candidate and not lose it’s C(3) non-profit status!?!?

There are more snakes in the grass out there besides AHSA folks, be very careful who you join with. 

  Democrats set up fake organizations to support gun control policies by Dr. John Lott http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2005/08/democrats-set-up-fake-organizations-to.html

A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing by Chris Chumita http://www.gunowners.org/op0624.htm 

Gun Law News: AHSA   http://www.gunlawnews.org/asha.html

Obama To Get The Dems “Barack” Into The Business of Gun Control by Erich Pratt http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm

American Hunters And Shooters Association: The Ultimate In Political Camouflage http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=232&issue=011

On The Issues Barack Obama On Gun Control http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Barack Hussein Obama  http://bhobama.blogspot.com/

“Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.” -Thomas Jefferson

Is there a Barr to a McCain victory?

From Jason Pye’s blog, we learn that Neal Boortz has conditionally endorsed Bob Barr’s quest for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. Pye quotes Boortz:

Here they go again .. all those emails from people who are upset with (1) Bob Barr running for president on the Libertarian Party ballot; and (2) my support for the Libertarian Party. (I’m a lifetime member.) These people are concerned that Barr’s candidacy are going to give us another Ross Perot situation … where votes for Perot essentially put Bill Clinton into office.

Frankly … I’m really not going to be upset if the Republicans get their hats handed to them in this election. During the Bush years the only bright moments for the Republican Party were tax cuts and fighting Islamic fascism. Beyond that, what have they done? Well, they doubled the size and the cost of the federal government for one. How’s that for a record of accomplishment. In 2007 Republicans were the pork champions in Washington; more pork spending than Democrats. Oh yeah — let me get my checkbook out and make a huge contribution to the Republican Party right now.

The way things look right now, if Bob Barr is the Libertarian nominee .. and if he will pledge to continue to take the battle to, and not run from the Islamic fascists … they he will have my vote. If the Democrats win … so be it. We’ve become a nanny nation anyway. Might as well make it official. Remember .. this is the “I want my mommy” election. We’re turning America into a giant assisted care living center. What sense does it make to continue to support a party that is helping this along?

Bottom line .. the Republicans haven’t earned another shot at this.

Jason applauds Boortz for jumping ship after previously backing Mike Huckabee, calling it a welcome change. Unfortunately for Neil Boortz, his support for such a notorious nanny-stater as Tax Hike Mike just about burned up all of the available Boortz political credibility. Neil left both the libertarian and conservative reservations for that one, dwelling for a while on populist ground.

Personally, I have given up listening to Boortz’ radio program on my favorite local talk station. Whenever I’m free to listen, I switch over to the competition to hear Mike Gallagher’s show instead. He’s a much better listen, and not a political gadfly like Boortz.

Democrats are licking their chops in anticipation of a strong Barr candidacy. They figure that he will draw a lot of conservative votes away from John McCain, a guy conservatives never much loved anyway. But there are some flies in this ointment.

Barr has bashed President Bush for listening to U.S. citizens’ phone conversations, even when there’s a terrorist on the other end. He even went so far as to team up with the ACLU on informational and data privacy issues. Although he voted for the Iraq war, now he’s against it. Security conservatives will not be impressed. Even Boortz will have to withdraw his support for Barr if the former congressman doesn’t show enough backbone against the Islamofacists who want to do us in. Barr is sounding more like Ron Paul on the war issue every day. Paul, meanwhile, appears to be moving toward an endorsement of Barr. This may hurt Barr more than help him, especially if Paul’s more enthusiastic supporters try to back Barr in the same pushy manner that they pushed for Paul.

The former Georgia congressman flipped again by voting for the Patriot Act, but is now saying that he regrets casting that vote. But perhaps his biggest flip, one which tops even NASCAR driver Carl Edwards’ aerial victory tumbles, is the one he did over medical marijuana. The man whose name will be forever associated with the Barr Amendment to deny funding for any use of cannabis is now calling for the reversal of his own legislative measure.

Social conservatives will find Barr’s opposition to a federal constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage a deal-breaker, just as many of them refused to back Fred Thompson for the same reason. Well, “reason” is perhaps not the best word to use here, as the odds against such an amendment passing are slim to none. Fred’s federalist solution was to have the states pass their own amendements, but socons would have none of that.

Before Barr can try to have any impact on the 2008 presidential race, he must first secure the Libertarian Party nominaton. That’s not a sure thing, as many LP members appear to be lukewarm to the prospects of a Barr candidacy. At the party’s North Carolina state convention last week:

The delegates applauded at the end of Barr’s speech, but afterwards it was clear that many of those attending the two-day state convention still viewed the Republican-turned-Libertarian with a good deal of skepticism. When a presidential preference straw poll was taken the next day, Barr got only one vote, compared to 17 for longtime LP activist Mary Ruwart, three for Massachusetts physicist George Phillies and two for Las Vegas oddsmaker Wayne Allen Root. (Ruwart is something of a “favorite daughter” among Libertarians in North Carolina, where she lived for four years before moving to Texas last year.) Like Barr, ex-Democrat Mike Gravel got just one vote in the straw poll.

So it remains to be seen if Barr can win the Libertarian Party’s nomination, and even if he can manage it,  just how much “conservative” support he would be able to draw away from the GOP. Would it be enough to hurt McCain and hand the White House over to a liberal Democrat? Some small-government conservatives may flock to his cause, but securicons, socons and across-the-board conservatives won’t join them in any appreciable numbers. Not even Neil Boortz can put lipstick on this squealer.

- JP

 Cross-posted at MainstreamConservative.com

McCain Streaking Conservatism?

Are You Sitting Down?

The same man who drew up the Shamnesty bill behind closed doors, the same man who thinks the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says, the same man who STILL believes the incumbent protection attachment he sponsored with the soft money limitation bill ( McCain-Feingold ) doesn’t adversely affect our First Amendment speech 60 days prior to an election, the same man who wants to close Gitmo giving terrorists the same rights that citizens have ( All right, I could keep going on like this for quite awhile but, you get the idea. ) has actually adopted Fred Thompson’s optional “Flat” tax plan!

No, I didn’t dare hope he had that much common sense either, I just kept the thought tucked away in the pin-head-sized liberal area of my brain that I never use anyway.

When Fred Thompson offered his optional Flat tax plan ( when page opens click on the words ‘Fair vs. Flat’ and video clip will start ) the main stream media hardly breathed a word of it as they fearfully knew conservative policies that work would certainly unite the entire republican base…well, their tactics of spin and nonreporting worked but, his principles, values, plans and policies could very well live on if this streak of conservatism lasts a little while longer in McCain to get out of this huge mess we’re in.

 Of course, lets hope McCain isn’t merely streaking us a flash of conservatism to get us to watch him just long enough to take the oath.

A Social Conservative Has A ‘Come To Jesus’ Chat

From “The Huckabee Alliance” Blog

http://huckabeealliance.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/advice-for-john-mccain/#comment-133

Advice for John McCain

If Arizona Senator John McCain wants to win the White House come November he needs to sit up and take heed of what some people have been saying. There is an important group of voters that he needs to befriend and assure that he will not throw them under the bus. Social Conservatives. He has all but ignored us, especially here in Iowa where he skipped the Iowa Caucuses. This has not endeared him to social conservatives across the country; instead it has alienated many of us. He has continually ignored us and thumbed his nose at our beliefs. This is not the way to win the White House this November. The only reason that he has ratings anywhere close to the two Democrats is because they seem to be intent on destroying not only each other but their party as well.

Without the millions of social conservatives across this country Senator McCain does not stand a chance come November. He is known as being soft on illegal immigrants; he sure doesn’t seem to have any moral values. These two issues do not make him the ideal candidate for President from our point of view. Because of this it would make sense for McCain to choose a socially conservative running mate. And yet he has still not chosen one at this time. Many social conservatives are worried that he would choose Rudy or Romney for a running mate. It would be a mistake of catastrophic proportions for him to do this as it would ensure that his campaign would fall in flames.

Social conservatives are the ones that go out to campaign for candidates, how else could former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee defeat Mitt Romney in Iowa, even though Huckabee was outspent by an enormous amount. Think about what McCain could do with that kind of grassroots support, he could handily defeat the Democrats. However this will not happen if he chooses a running mate that is anything other than socially conservative. The thing that McCain needs to realize is that we are not stupid, we know how to effectively use the internet to research his running mate’s political background. This means that he can claim anything that he wants, but we will be able to locate the truth.

The ‘Come To Jesus’ Response

While you are not alone, by any means, with your rightful anger towards and serious concern about McCain, his liberal policies and his choice of running mate, lets really explore how Juan rose to the level of our nominee by default in a Come To Jesus chat of our very own, right here, right now;

Pray tell us, the other two legs of the conservative party stool, exactly why you broke away, as a group, by not only demanding your intentionally limited priorities came first, foremost and exclusively but also, with the added nerve to actually dictate how they must be accomplished through Constitutional Amendments?

You correctly point to the strength you have in numbers so you should also realize that by The Huckster’s clear and resounding defeat that you can not elect a candidate who was only capable of pandering to your exclusive issues. In other words, you intentionally left your friends behind in completely ignoring the fact that there are MANY issues critical to conservative principles and values wherein he possesses absolutely none of them.

You offer you are “not stupid” and “know how to research on the net” then, why didn’t you all know that seeking Constitutional Amendments are;

1) WRONG to attempt according to the instructions of our founding fathers who specifically offered ‘Federalism’ as the means for us to limit bad science and bad law which is inevitable to crop up on occasion in a democracy straying from a republic through judicial activism and/or over-reaching legislators.

Treat the cause, never the symptom. Appoint only strict constructionist judges who will interpret the law but, will never make new law according to our Separation of Powers which protects democracy and forestalls tyranny. Stick to the remedies provided by the men who designed the government or there will be ‘unforeseen’ and tragically unwanted ramifications.

2) IMPOSSIBLE to obtain the supermajority vote required evidenced by our previously wrongheaded attempt to pass a pro-life amendment at the time we had the largest majority in Congress we’ve ever enjoyed. The NRLC saw this was the truth and gave their full support to the candidate who showed them that accomplishing goals in the federal government is an incremental endeavor, inthat they must be gained a little at a time with the right plan or it will blow up in our faces wherein if we’re very lucky will only set us back and not into total chaos.

Therefore, banging our heads against the wall in futility with religious as well as other GOP “leaders”, such as James Dobson and Paul Weyrich, publicly dictating we will reverse or prevent society’s moral decay by demanding candidates platform be based upon quick-fix pipedreams is not remotely close to intelligent nor is it demonstrating we are capable of our own governance. 

Further, for social conservatives to support the Huckster who once took his stance with Federalism only to flip that correct position to pander to the uninformed merely for their votes is unconscionably immoral at face value. In so doing and seeing the same type of depravity ( and much worse ) in his past and records, he has vividly demonstrated that he is not worthy of occupying the office of the presidency…nor any other public office.

This all leads us to how we wound up with McCain as our nominee. The following articles continue the explanation of our current situation so, let us now see if you really can be smart and also put the effort out to actually be informed in realizing social conservatives have only to look at themselves for the great amount of the ‘credit’;

The Mike Huckabee Effect http://acandidworld.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/the-mike-huckabee-effect/#comment-188

How the Republican Party Committed National Suicide By JB Williams
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_19227.shtml

Who Hijacked the Primaries? by Brett Winterble
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24726

The Death of Conservatism? 43 Mistakes and the GOP’s Dobson’s Choice
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961546/posts

GOP Leads Astray
http://gopleadsastray.blogspot.com/

Conservative Blackout by Lisa Fabrizio
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12517

Mike “The Huckster” Huckabee
http://mikeyhuckabee.blogspot.com/

Now, if you’ve finished the research, that had to be handed to you after the fact, remind yourself of how angry you are at McCain to merely take a wild guess at how angry your like-minded friends ( that you left behind ) are with you for handing McCain to US!

« Previous Page — Next Page »