Right-side Media: The Right's Own Worst Enemy

There are two factions of Right-side media and both of them do a disservice to conservatives and Republicans. If it doesn't stop, it's going to be difficult to re-build a conservative/libertarian alliance to push back against the more liberal and generally statist approach of today's Democrats.

For all the benefits the Right realizes from Right-side talkers they are, by and large, entertainers. There are plenty of exceptions more interested in discussion and informing, certainly. But some of the largest also tend to be the most provocative. That shouldn't be a surprise as with all entertainment today, the most provocative and even outrageous gets the most attention and even the highest ratings.

But that also makes it rather easy for the opposition to paint conservatives as unreasonable, intolerant and, on a few occasions, even hateful. The fact is that is not the case for the overwhelming majority of conservatives and Republicans.

And then there is the elitist branch of self-described conservative media. And what do they do? Well, lately, they grab unto the former and ride that puppy for all it's worth for their own ends. And as they chiefly exist within the elitist and mostly liberal NYC/DC corridor, in effect they validate for the conservative opposition the absolute worst of conservatism that for the most part simply is not true.

Jennifer Rubin acknowledges this somewhat here at Commentary. But I think she's a bit too quick to dismiss it. We live in a media age. Mass communication is still key as most independent-minded voters develop a general feel for their politics through television and mass circulation publications. And that's precisely where all of the nonsense above ends up.

I'm solidly against any new Fairness Doctine on principle. But frankly, Reagan emerged and won when the previous version was in effect. And if the so-called Right-side or conservative media of the elites and the grass-roots wants to continue shooting conservatism in the foot while they fire at one another, having it back might not be so bad for genuine conservative thought in America at the end of the day.

More from Stephen Hayes at TWS here. And Hugh Hewitt here.

Comments

[templar knight]

Dan, I think you are exactly right. The bozos of Talk Radio have more than served their purpose, and can do nothing but hurt our cause in the long run. And one other thing occurred to me, which kind of goes along with what you said, is that the harder and more radical the changes are, the more likely we are to get people energized. The Fairness Doctrine is just one of many proposals that might hurt us in the short run but will help us immeasurably in the long run. We have to have something to run against. If the Democrats govern from the middle, we really don't have that much to add, as that is exactly where we need to be.

We need to rebuild the Reagan coalition. That would be Republicans, conservative Democrats and libertarians, along with social conservatives who must realize that they cannot get everything they want. For example, some abortions must be allowed, especially in the cases of the mother's health, incest, and rape. We do not need to be so rigid on the issues.

Now, I'm going to the store. Bye.

[jharp]

Heck of a run by ElRushbo but I guess it's come down to live by the sword, die by the sword.

Pretty interesting that the gasbag who propelled the GOP to the top ended up sinking the ship. And the Rush copycats did their part to sink the GOP too.

Is he still playing "Barack the Magic Negro"?

[PrestoPundit]

And here I was under the illusion that all of the stupid and dishonest "intellectuals" were leftist -- and now this endless river of steaming piles coming from Brooks and Sullivan and Will and Noonan and on and on.

God help us.

[Rob Crawford]

How, exactly, did anyone on the right-side of the media cost McCain this election? I realize we're well into the "pinning the blame" phase, but, seriously, WTF?

Yeah, the far-out ones let the lefties paint conservatives as intolerant, but, hell, they'd do that anyway. They don't even have to go to the likes of Savage (to cite one I count as far-out); they've turned innocent statements by Bill Bennet into racist calls to kill blacks by stripping them of context.

[PrestoPundit]

Can't someone slip Brooks a check with the "suggestion" he spend his time writing about what the DEMOCRAT party needs to do to better fit Brooks' own personal aesthetic tastes?

[mark l.]

my problem with frum, noonan, brooks, will, et al. is that they themselves have forgotten the nature of conservatism, which stems from FISCAL conservatism.

George Will was an instrumental voice for fiscal conservatism during 92-96. the success of the 94 midterms almost exclusively occurred around the premise that team clinton was seeking to federalize health care which was correctly portrayed as a massive expansion of govt.
(Krauthammer, arguably is the new voice of conservatism, but only in regards to foreign policy.)

When bush took office in 2000, the focus on monetary conservatism died.

2002, 2004 given the backdrop of 9/11 were clear and concise victories for foreign policy conservatism, just as 2006, 2008 were abandonment of the gop for failure to adhere to fiscal conservatism, as the flurry over foreign policy returned to it's normal level of focus.

For any of the above 'so-called' conservatives mentioned, including rush, I would ask one question:

does the current incarnation of the gop represent your personal beliefs about fiscal conservatism?

The willingness of the gop to get bogged down in the waterloo of social issues, surrendering their high ground advantage of fighting for limited govt, is the primary source of their failings. Left to their own devices, and given the majority again, they would revert into drunken sailors-indistinguishable from democrats.

[templar knight]

"..they'd do that anyway."

True, but they would lack credibility. The things Rush and some of the talk radio guys and gals say is out there, funny perhaps, but the time for comedy is over. These guys need to get serious. We are now about to enter uncharted waters, with no idea what is about to happen. You can rest assured that Obama will be tested by foreign entities and regimes, and we need to be ready to offer a better answer than the Democrats.

As for the talking heads, the media gets to decide who they are for the most part, so we'll continue to see the piles of excrement for some time to come from these guys. That's alright for now, as we need to organize from the bottom up, not the top down. These guys will be replaced in due time.

[jharp]

As a devoted leftist I would like to know who the conservatives leaders are today.

And by leaders I mean whose ideals and leadership are to bring the GOP back.

I'm really trying to think of some but it is futile for me.

And please, save the Palin suggestions. Only serious answers.

[Dave]

When Reagan 'emerged and won', the public did not consist of the vast majority of people under 40 who've been educated as socialists and propagandized toward the left ruthlessly since kindergarten.

THis fact, combined with the fact that the left is now learning what media harms them and planning on how to silence it, means we see a future of --

young voters who don't know a thing about the history and traditions of their country, and

an impossibility of communicating that history and those traditions to the masses.

Reagan's rise was witnessed and facilitated by the children of WWII. Now we have the children of the Clinton '60's, raised in the '70's and '80's, coming of age under Clinton (well, not all of them were under him, but a few were), and seeing the world as thirty-somethings with NO GROUNDING in classical American facts. They have, instead, a vague sense of guilt about the power and wealth of this country, and a determination to go beyond borders and be citizens of the world.

Reagan's time will never come again. IF we are to have another one, we'll be facing incredible odds in bringing him/her to the attention of the masses. Look what happened to Sarah. Soon as the media discovered how well she connected with the public, the knives came out, and it was just ugly.

No, another Reagan, the same way we got the original, just will NOT happen.

[mark l.]

"And by leaders I mean whose ideals and leadership are to bring the GOP back."

that would preclude any current gop leadership...

with the exception of Jindal, there isn't anyone out there. I give jindal a ton of credit, but if he is the only one out there, why would he leave Louisiana?

[templar knight]

"No, another Reagan, the same way we got the original, just will not happen."

You're right, of course, Dave. The new media type known as the facilitator will surely do everything possible to destroy anyone remotely connected with the conservative cause. But, as the media gets less and less centralized, the national media will continue to play a less and less important role. Perhaps that will be an advantage. And if you consider that only about 60% of people even voted, and given the large turnout by minorities for Obama, I think it is entirely possible that large numbers of conservative-minded voters are out there. Conservatives weren't motivated by McCain, that's for sure.

I think the first thing for us to do is target the upcoming Congressional elections. There will be opportunities to take back seats in the House and Senate. Let's see what happens in these elections. Perhaps new leadership will be coming from the ground up, rather than from the top down.

[templar knight]

And Jindal would be a good choice, mark. His handling of the hurricanes this summer was quite impressive, and I marveled at his ability to process information. He also has the advantage of being a minority, and he is well versed in conservative thought. But bear in mind that he is hated by the Left, mainly because he has entered the Intelligent Design fray in Louisiana. I do think he left himself some wiggle room there though, as he only said he would like his children to be exposed to all ideas. I don't know whether the evolutionists will be able to gain much traction against him or not. He still looks like the best hope to me.

[jharp]

Don't really know much about Jindal but promise to learn.

And why doesn't everyone just leave the religion out of it? I could not care less what, if any, religion any candidate is. It is a private matter and nobodys business.

I always felt Romney was a good candidate and figured his Mormonism sunk him. If the GOP would just take it off the table we'd be a lot better off.

And yes that includes Jindal's promoting intelligent design. I don't care what his beliefs are. Only that I don't want him legislating his religion.

[mark l.]

"His handling of the hurricanes this summer was quite impressive, and I marveled at his ability to process information."

that was the moment he sealed the deal with me. 45 minutes, almost no notes, and 95% data, with 5% folksy schmaltz.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5823865672988182519&ei=rwAaSYuFK4L8rAKAm4HKDQ&q=bobby+jindal+hurricane+gustav&hl=en

this is a 14 minute clip. The whole presentation had to have run over 40 minutes. When he passed the podium off to chertoff, chertoff gave him this glance of awe. It took him over a minute to get over how good the presentation went.

if you can find the larger clip it is well worth watching. It wasn't even a matter of just the shock of watching a human computer, but that he kept it under the confines of appearing likable and 'entertaining'. Count the uhhs and ums...I don't think he had one.

[jharp]

"In 2006, Jindal voted with the Republican Caucus 97 percent of the time during the 109th Congress."

Jindal is done. Toast. We just got rid of George Bush. We don't ever want another one.

Next.

[templar knight]

I saw that news conference live, mark, as I was working in the Shreveport, La. area at the time. And Shreveport was one of the main staging points for all the evacuees headed north away from danger, although we ended up getting hit pretty good there as well. At the time, I thought Jindal was just too inexperienced to be selected as V-P, but the Palin pick proved me wrong. Not that I dislike Palin per se, it was just much easier to attack her, not that Jindal would have been immune to the attacks of the media, either.

[templar knight]

jharp, Jindal is the governor of Louisiana.

[jharp]

templar,

I know. He was elected in 2007.

My quote was pertinent to 2006, when he was in the U.S. House of Representatives.

[templar knight]

You need to listen to Jindal before you dismiss him so casually. He is very competant, has proved himself in the morass that is Louisiana politics, and will be a leader to be reckoned with. Give the guy a listen before you dismiss him. He is not George Bush. On second thought, it's better that this guy flies under the radar for a couple of years.

[jharp]

I have no doubt he is a bright man and most likely a competent leader.

However, I cannot find a damn thing on where he stands on the issues.

Him voting with the republican caucus of 2006 97% of the time is a major negative for me. Major.

If you have anything regarding his stance on the issues I'd be happy to give it a read. And I don't care if he's a devil worshiper. As long as he doesn't try to legislate his religious beliefs. Or use tax dollars to promote them.

[Frank E]

So much for that permanent Republican government Karl wished for. The boomerang effect has hit us squarely in the fore head. The results are in and the neo conservative principals which have been driving this country/administration for the last 7+ years have been resoundingly rejected by a majority of Americans. Republicans can no longer use the divide and conquer approach, it has been recognized and worn thin from overuse. That approach now comes back to bite us. If Republicans are to find their way out of the wilderness in less than 8 years, it will require much more than a shiny new compass and recycling an obviously failed ideology. At the very least,it will require something conservatives have had very little of lately, patience and flexibility.

[Dave]

Jharp, I"m trying hard to figure out how the Governor of Louisiana 'votes with' Bush in the 109th congress.

HE ISN"T A CONGRESSMAN AND DOESN"T VOTE ON ANYTHING! He's the governor of LA, he's an executive, not a legislator, doesn't vote, only makes executive decisions.

Idiots. We are afloat, adrift, in a sea of idiots. :-) Charming future we've got here....

[Ci]

That's Before he WAS governor, while he was a Congressman. I'm not even Republican, nor do I live in La. Anyway I actually like this article. I'm an independent that considers myself fiscally conservative but socially liberal and always wondered what being Republican was all about. From the right-wing media/pundits it always seemed about not only being fiscally conservative, but also hating others not like them, loving to discriminate and pushing their social/religious beliefs on others. I understand the conviction, but it never seemed about having an intellectual well-thought out reasoned argument.

But I'm trying to shed my stereotypes about "conservatives" and Republicans get it from your side. BTW I was raised in a house full of democrats.

[tk]

As a conservative and not some right wing loon, I believe perhaps Obama's win could help bring the GOP to the middle, both fiscally and socially. We need to talk about we can do for the country not what is wrong with the other guy.

If anyone knows where I can go to listen to and exchange with rational people, I would love to hear about it. Solutions are the key, not denial of problems or Reagan. If we are the entrepreneurs and small business owners which we are, we sure as heck can develop answers.

[Ted]

"Heck of a run by ElRushbo but I guess it's come down to live by the sword, die by the sword.
Pretty interesting that the gasbag who propelled the GOP to the top ended up sinking the ship. And the Rush copycats did their part to sink the GOP too.
Is he still playing "Barack the Magic Negro"?"

I guess you either don't listen to Rush or you're just a stupid troll. His message this entire cycle was the only consistent one, and if you think he had anything to do with this election disaster, you're not paying attention. He said from the minute McCain took the lead that this was a disaster for the GOP, because he is the candidate picked by the left, which is 100% dead on. He consistently said that when conservatism is on the ballot, it wins...and it wasn't on the ballot this year. He also initiated Operation Chaos, which had millions of GOP voters voting for Hillary in the primary, which meant that the leftist media had to decide which leftist they would defend and which to savage until summer. Can you imagine if Obama had no competition since March?

And "Barack the Magic Negro" is one of the most brilliant parodies of the year. In case you don't know, and I'm guessing you don't, Magic Negro was a term coined by some columnist at the LA Times, not by Rush. The brilliance of that piece is that he takes the left's bigotry and turns it right back to them. It's genius, and having Sharpton singing it makes it even better, because if you remember, early on the question was "is he black enough?", since he was not "down with the struggle". Iowahawk's piece skewering New England conservative columnists is hands down the best thing written this year.

Talk radio is the only consistent voice the right has in the media. With Noonan, Buckley, etc. bailing out on Sarah Palin and really making no intellectual sense, Rush and to a degree Hannity were exactly what conservatives needed in the media. Hannity gets repetitive pretty fast, but he was all over Ayers, Wright, Rezko, etc. from the start and did not let up. Rush warned us that McCain was a disaster but that we could not as a country afford Obama. So, criticizing talk radio is exactly the wrong approach.

[jharp]

Jharp, I"m trying hard to figure out how the Governor of Louisiana 'votes with' Bush in the 109th congress.

HE ISN"T A CONGRESSMAN AND DOESN"T VOTE ON ANYTHING! He's the governor of LA, he's an executive, not a legislator, doesn't vote, only makes executive decisions.

Idiots. We are afloat, adrift, in a sea of idiots. :-) Charming future we've got here....

Posted by: Dave | Tuesday, November 11, 2008 at 07:57 PM

Hey Dave,

Read this carefully.

Governor Jindal was a Congressman in 2006. The 109th and voted with the republican caucus 97% of time.

This was one year prior to his winning the election in 2007 and becoming governor.

One thing you were right about though. We are afloat in a sea of idiots.

And you are one of them.

[jharp]

Ted,

"because he(McCain) is the candidate picked by the left, which is 100% dead on."

So now the republican party has a majority of leftists?

You are funny. How in the heck did leftists pick McCain?

[Ted]

Very simple - he was endorsed by the media, the NYT especially, because he was a "moderate" and because he's opposed GWB every chance he got. So, he became the media darling, got the favorable press during the primaries, and McCain believed, in his ego dreamworld, that he could appeal to "undecideds" and democrats. Just look at his debate and campaign speeches - he was more interested in telling everyone how he "reached across the aisle" etc. And the feckless GOP leadership, who would rather get along with democrats rather than promote conservatives. Democrats crossed over and voted for him in the primaries to keep out Romney, which has been documented especially in NE and FL.

But, once the actual campaign started, they pulled the rug out from under his feet and treated him like any other GOP candidate, and the weak GOP didn't attack Obama with both barrels. The left got exactly who they wanted; a soft, moderate, left-leaning RINO. If not for Sarah Palin, it would have been 65-35 or more.

[ptg]

jharp: Your density is astounding. Why do you bother?

[Sara]

Back it up with facts. Your opinion smells like Huffington Post to me.

So we stifle free speech in order to "prevail?" What's next, taking away guns so nobody gets shot? End justifies the means?

What a pile of crock.

www.saraforamerica.com

[WVinMN]

Posted by Ci..

"...loving to discriminate and pushing their social/religious beliefs on others."

This is rich, considering the treatment Mormons, Jews, and Christians receive from the "Progressive Left" on a daily basis. Tell you what Ci. The next time Israel is in the news, check out the filth that gets posted by your pals (yeah, your an independent that I would bet a paycheck has never voted for a Republican in a national election) over at the Huffington Post (if Arianna doesn't shut off the comments), Daily Kos, Democrat Underground, etc. Or, if you don't give a damn about Israel, google Michael Steele and Oreos. Still not enough? How about the prop 8 opponents? If a group of conservatives where caught on tape using the language and techniques that these savages have employed, they would rightly have been tarred and feathered. But hey, we are talking about "progressives" here, and they are always entitled to at least one "get out of jail free" card.

[jharp]

"Very simple - he was endorsed by the media, the NYT especially, because he was a "moderate" and because he's opposed GWB every chance he got.
So, he became the media darling, got the favorable press during the primaries, and McCain believed, in his ego dreamworld, that he could appeal to "undecideds" and democrats. Just look at his debate and campaign speeches - he was more interested in telling everyone how he "reached across the aisle" etc. And the feckless GOP leadership, who would rather get along with democrats rather than promote conservatives."

So I guess this confirms what I have always thought. Republicans are mindless sheep who are unable to think for themselves. Thanks for admitting it.

"Democrats crossed over and voted for him in the primaries to keep out Romney, which has been documented especially in NE and FL."

Is that so? You got any evidence to back up your ludicrous claim?

[tk]

As a conservative and not some right wing loon, I believe perhaps Obama's win could help bring the GOP to the middle, both fiscally and socially. We need to talk about we can do for the country not what is wrong with the other guy.

If anyone knows where I can go to listen to and exchange with rational people, I would love to hear about it. Solutions are the key, not denial of problems or Reagan. If we are the entrepreneurs and small business owners which we are, we sure as heck can develop answers.

[BD57]

Kos & Huffington Post haven't doomed the left.

Whenever there's a poor election for Republicans, there are two groups of people screaming at conservatives - Democrats and the establishment-type "Republicans" who worry so d*** much about what Democrats think of them.

Rush, Hannity, et al. could disappear tomorrow and Democrats would still demonize Republicans. It's what they do. All silencing Rush, et al. would accomplish is to further reduce the defense of conservative principles.

We've seen the "no defense of conservatism" approach to politics up close & personal since January 2001 - it doesn't work.

[Ted]

"So I guess this confirms what I have always thought. Republicans are mindless sheep who are unable to think for themselves. Thanks for admitting it."

No, dumbass, not even close. All it says is that McCain was a weak candidate and people were voting for Sarah or against Obama. All your post proves is that you leftards have no grasp of logic.

[mark l.]

"Heck of a run by ElRushbo but I guess it's come down to live by the sword, die by the sword."

how does one explain air america's failure?

[jharp]

"Heck of a run by ElRushbo but I guess it's come down to live by the sword, die by the sword."

how does one explain air america's failure?

Posted by: mark l. | Tuesday, November 11, 2008 at 11:19 PM

A failed business model. Liberals and the more educated American's don't spend their time listening to talk radio.

Or more importantly buying the snake oil sold by the right wing radio's advertisers. You ever listen to the hucksters selling identity theft protection and how to avoid paying your bills on the druggies program?

[jharp]

All it says is that McCain was a weak candidate and people were voting for Sarah or against Obama. All your post proves is that you leftards have no grasp of logic.

Posted by: Ted | Tuesday, November 11, 2008 at 11:15 PM

Thank you for the explanation of how the leftists nominated McCain.

Good one.

[jk]

McCain and Palin lost because Mccain has been a RINO forever. The reason the race was as close as it was because of Palin and the who is Obama voote.

The Republican party lost high ground by abandoning conservative principles. We all know that once you have nothing left to bargain with you are out on the street.

El Rushbo is one of the few who is a true conservative who will not sellout. McCain is a class "A" RINO and has been a pain to Repubs for a long time. He was never really presidential material, it is not in his nature.

I fully agree with Ted's post from Tuesday, November 11, 2008 at 09:38 PM

"Posted by: Ted | Tuesday, November 11, 2008 at 09:38 PM
Very simple - he was endorsed by the media, the NYT especially, because he was a "moderate" and because he's opposed GWB every chance he got. So, he became the media darling, got the favorable press during the primaries, and McCain believed, in his ego dreamworld, that he could appeal to "undecideds" and democrats. Just look at his debate and campaign speeches - he was more interested in telling everyone how he "reached across the aisle" etc. And the feckless GOP leadership, who would rather get along with democrats rather than promote conservatives. Democrats crossed over and voted for him in the primaries to keep out Romney, which has been documented especially in NE and FL.

But, once the actual campaign started, they pulled the rug out from under his feet and treated him like any other GOP candidate, and the weak GOP didn't attack Obama with both barrels. The left got exactly who they wanted; a soft, moderate, left-leaning RINO. If not for Sarah Palin, it would have been 65-35 or more."

Unless the Repubs get back to their strong basic conservative roots, insure these beliefs are clearly and fully expressed by the Repubs and not the dems we will be successful again as always. A real Statesman maybe waiting in the wings and isn't on the radar as of yet. It is way to early to begin to call Jindahl or Palin or anyone else a POTUS candidate at this early date.

I just the Dems and Obama don't do too much further damage to the country with their usual modus operandi of higher taxes, environmental/legislative restrictions, no drilling, more pointless bailouts and vote buying welfare. Pulling out of Iraq to soon will be damage enough.

[Tennwriter]

You are speaking ill of another Conservative.

And you are comparing those who've pretty much chosen to leave the Party with those who are loyal supporters.

This piece was overall not helpful.

Justice demands punishment. Victory demands a reorganization of the Party along Standard Conservative lines of values, national defense, and fiscal responsibility. I do not favor tossing out the loyal to appease those who hate us.

[Spartan112]

"seeing the world as thirty-somethings with NO GROUNDING in classical American facts"

Ok, help me out here...what is a classical "american" fact, and how does it differ from a plain old fact.

[Iwillnotsubmit]

Stunning, the article about the changing of the GOP and some on here still believe the GOP needs to move to the MIDDLE. And how we need to lay off the social agenda. Are you kidding me? Where do you think McCain is? The GOP wins when we run as conservatives, fiscal conservatives, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-border enforcement, strong defense, ITS THAT SIMPLE. How did Obama run? Lets see, he ran as "95% of the people will get tax CUTS, he will defend this country, and he was all for reducing the number of abortions. Sounds pretty friggin conservative to me. Oh and guess what, he won. The guy stole our agenda and won, he didnt run as a middle of the road D.

And enough with the "we need to keep religion out of it". No we dont. They are a huge voting bloc that garners more than it loses. Why dont we ever talk about the lefts religion of gay rights and global warming? Just because they dont have a house of worship doesnt mean its not idealism thats trying to get crammed down my throat. At least my religion isnt going to tax people to further their cause and swell their coffers.

It just seems there is a correlation between the slamming of Palin and her religion and the outrage from the RINOs screeching for us to keep religion out of our politics. If you are ashamed at your cocktail parties Im sorry. Change parties.

[Iwillnotsubmit]

Just a little tid bit here on religion as well. From Jawa, an organization is running a 40K ad about atheism. Heres the roundup:

"We are trying to reach our audience, and sometimes in order to reach an audience, everybody has to hear you," said Fred Edwords, spokesman for the humanist group. "Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion."

Pardon me, but last I checked, Christmas was a religious holiday celebrating the birth of the SON OF GOD.

Oh, and just another little statistic just to point out how successful their campaign will be....

Yet few Americans describe themselves as atheist or agnostic; a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life poll from earlier this year found 92 percent of Americans believe in God.

[Dennis D]

Without Right Side Media we would not have known who Rev Wright was. Without Talk Radio the Amnesty debacle would not have been defeated. After MSM displayed the most bias in any election I can remember the only thing you can do is bash right wing media??

I call this cannibalism . Reminds me of the McCain aides attacking Palin.

Attack the LEFT not ourselves.

[Dennis D]

As a Conservative who did vote for many Dems in election 2006 due to the fiscal issue I feel cheated. The defecit was about 200 Billion back then and now 500 Billion. The National Debt was 8 trillion. After 22 Months of Reid and Pelosi its 10.5 Billion. The debt has been growing faster since the Dems took control of house and senate than anytime in History.

[Spartan112]

While 92% of americans may claim to believe in god, how many of those are actually "religious"? I'd be willing to bet there's a large portion there that only "believe" because it's the norm.

[tk]

from Iwillnotsubmit:
"The GOP wins when we run as conservatives, fiscal conservatives, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-border enforcement, strong defense, ITS THAT SIMPLE".

That message is not conservative - it is just hate. Tell me the things you support to make our country better.

[Dave]

jharp

got me. :-) '

TK,

"The GOP wins when we run as conservatives, fiscal conservatives, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-border enforcement, strong defense, ITS THAT SIMPLE".

You say this is hate? We believe you shouldn't spend more than you earn, and you should not use taxpayer money to buy votes. How is that hate?

We believe an abortion is the taking of a human life, a murder, and we are opposed to murder. How is that hate?

We believe marriage is one man and one woman. If you change any of the elements, you're not talking about marriage. One man and another man, one man and one dog, one man and six women, one man and one motorcycle, all are NOT marriage. THe word "gay" is already unable to be used as it was originally defined, because of this destruction of language. I refuse to let anyone tell me the sky is green, just because it makes them happy. It's still blue, unless words mean nothing. Marriage is what it is, and it IS NOT what it is not. How is this hate? If I call hate love, does that make it love? Marriage is a word, and it has a meaning, and 'gay marriage' is like 'green sky', it is nonsensical. I do not begrudge gays a happy life with the one they love, but it is not marriage and I refuse to allow words to be altered at will for the sake of, what exactly? I don't even know... a gay man has exactly the same right I have, to marry a woman. He is free not to exercise it, as I am. If I chose to remain unmarried, would I then be right in demanding that 'married' now mean SINGLE? Because it would make me feel better about myself? 'gay marriage' is ironic, because both words are victims of destruction of their meaning. 'Gay' (formerly "happy and lighthearted") is already dead, and "marriage" (legal and spiritual and physical union of one man and one woman) is soon to join it.

Pro border enforcement means control of who goes in and who goes out, and who DOESN't. How is this hate? Unless you think anyone who wants to come here should just walk in and we should ignore it. BUt isn't that unfair to AFricans? They can't help it if they weren't born contiguously to America... should we send ships and planes to GET them here? Where do you draw the line? Should we, a nation of 300 million, allow 800 million to come here with no controls and no laws applied?

Our side isn't hate. Your side is mindless emotionalism.

[Dave]

jharp,

the left picked McCain by crossing over in every open primary state (the early ones are all open) and voting for him in REPUBLICAN primaries. Once he had the momentum, he rolled into the CLOSED primary states with it. A key test was one of the virginias, can't remember which one.. they had caucuses, and Romney was the leader after the first round, which surprised everyone. At that point, McCain told all his caucus leaders to guide his votes to Huckabee, who was in second.

McCain's ugly maneuver killed Romney's early momentum in the first CLOSED primary, and that never came back.

Lefties chose McCain, and he was not above a little weasel action to make sure Romney never had a chance.