UC,
As important as "image" is and has been in U.S. politics, perhaps you are right to point out this fresh "new" face of conservatism. But it seems to me that the electorate is finally maturing and actually thinking about issues. This bodes ill for conservatism, since people are beginning to ask questions like.....
"Is trickle down economics really working?"
"Who is benefiting from deregulation of banking?"
"Why do we even need a surge in Iraq, in the first place?"

LOL out David Walters, talk about coming way out from left field with that one. How do you sleep at night with the BS that you are feeding everyone. Just because the people that Barack has energized into eating his crap, and your crap, does not make the mature or actually thinking about the issues.

In fact, since it is a proven fact that all Barack has to do is stand up and talk about making change, for change sake so that the people will feel the power of change, and never truly define his change policy, I would have to say that the exact opposite is going on.

Just because a person buys into a false concept, does not make the person smart, no matter how much you agree with them. Case in point Global warming, has now been reclassified as Global Change because oh that’s right the evidence could not stand up to the real world. Just like Barrack will never be able to stand up to the real world. This is the same guy that agreed with McCain to do these town hall debates, until one if his many handlers reminded him that he sucks when he is not scripted.

Any way enough with you, I’m tired of arguing over your dribble. Go find a communist site so you can fell more at home comrade.

UC you are right that the face of Conservatism is much whiter then it should be. Your also right that the conservative base is not as white as many would want the rest of the world to believe it is. But I don’t know if you can blame it all on the old white guys that run the networks and what ever. I think that it is deeper then that, much more sinister then that. Look at probably the two most current and famous Black Liberals. Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton. These two goons and yes I call them goons, because if you are black and not Liberal they would just assume you did not exist. I think that in our society where community is so much more important for young blacks, then it might be for young whites, it is hard to go over to the other side. And even when you have gone over to the other side, it is not something that you get up and preach about. Hell look at what Jesse Jackson said about Barrack, finally a black leader other then Bill Cosby demanded that young black males should be accountable for themselves, and Jesse wants the man dead.

I know a lot of great young black men that are conservatives, I served with them in the military, and I serve with them in the Fire Department, and they don’t care that it is these white men more then black men that are representing the conservative party. Just like I believe a large majority of young white conservative men could care less about the color of skin. It is Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton that keep racism alive these days. That does not mean that there are still not some bigots out there and they should be shunned for it, but we are a land of the free, and a person is entitled to their feeling right, wrong or in different. But the way that Al, and Jesse use and abuse the black community to control their power base is down right wrong, and I know in my heart that when these two get to heaven God is not going to see them as men of God.

you know what i think? I think y'all should stop calling yourselves conservatives. The republican party is not conservative. The libertarian party is conservative. Sure, the Republicans care about our economic liberties, but or social and personal liberties??? throw them out of the window in the name of the war on terror!!!! The democrats care more about these personal liberties, but all in all, libertarians are the true beacons of freedom in this country.

And UC, i remember you calling ron paul a liberal. LOL ROFL LOL!!! you need to learn something if you think that is true...... come on man

@heathenhater

Where did I say this? show me ... I probably said he was socially liberal, not fiscal.

heathenhater you need to go back to school and get an education.

Freedom does not = anarchy. Even a free society has to have rules and regulations. Conservatism stands for small Government, and embracing a moralistic society. Not a screw you I will do anything I want attitude.

You asked once what it means to be more seassoned, or something like that. Understanding the true concept of these political parties would be a good start.

Librals = Big Government, no social morals (Meaning freedom to do what ever you want, as long as it is OK with them.

Libratarians = Small Government and you can do what ever you want no matter how much it is rotting our society.

Concervatives believe in limited Government, high moral standards (It is not OK to be a phedifial, in fact that should be sent to face God in the shortest path possible), and true conservatives know that sometimes you have to get your hands dirty, and a bit bloody, to protect your freedoms. Where cooks like Ron-Paul believe in issolationism. Let's just say screw the rest of the world, and hide in our own little bubble.

Try this for once, think of something that truly matter to you, somthing that you would be willing to die for. Hold on to that thought, and that feeling. Now understand, that true conservatives, would much rather give up their own lives, so that their loved ones, and the rest of society can continue living on in a free country.

Why do you (meaning anyone) support the Republican party? What does this "party" offer you? What does this "party" do for you?

PLEASEHELP, here is a little something for you. I do not belong to a political party because of what it offers and or what it can do for me. If I may paraphrase President John F. Kennedy, it is not about what a country (or in in this case a political party) can do for me. It is what I can do for it. You see, a lot of Americans do not seek to have a government do anything for them. Many of us want to do what we want, within reasonable limits. That is what makes a conservative. You, PLEASEHELP, sound like a freeloader. One that does not mind the "goodies" that government will offer on the backs of others.

Talked with a young man today - a university student. A conservative one. As usual he was complaining about the other students and faculty, who were unfailingly liberal. " Every time they state something and I reply by stating facts which prove them wrong they start to yell.". It occurred to me that we Conservatives are going about it all wrong. We try to convince people with facts but they are operating on emotion. I think we should try a different tack: I think we should have some questions which make people think. For instance: When someone complains about the war in Iraq or Afganistan we should ask them who they think we are at war with. We are not at war with either Iraq, Afganistan, or Iran. The President declared a War On Terror. That is what we are doing in the mid-east.

Everyone I ask that question of wonders why no one has asked it before. I suspect that the Conservatives as a group can come up with a whole bunch of questions like this which will make emoting people actually think for a change. We will not succeed with them all. Probably not even with a majority. And it will require hard work, repetition, and persistence. But it will be more effective than what we are doing now. Especially with young people who are still trying to identify themselves.

I'm a young, conservative girl with tattoos, piercings and pink hair, which basically makes me not at all what anyone thinks of when they think "conservative". Most of the political conversations I have with my peers end up being "oh, come on! You have TATTOOS! How can you possibly support this b.s.?", as if having a tattoo says anything greater about me than I do not plan on having a job that pays well (ha ha).

This is problematic because if political conversations are being boiled down to "you look like x so therefore you should obviously vote for candidate y" for me, I can only imagine the pressures someone my age who happens to be ethnic who doesn't support Obama must be feeling. He's "their" candidate so they have to vote for him, right? An Obama t-shirt is as much a hip-hop fashion staple right now as vintage Nikes. Maybe the conservative party does appear a little overtly white and privileged, but when popular rap artist are wearing "vote or die" t-shirts on stage I think it presents an equally closed-minded message to ethnic youth. Neither one of the major parties are doing a very good job of breaking out of stereotypes right now, and that suits Obama just fine.

If we want to win in November we're going to have to start making our image a little more "sexy'. I, for one, am having a cupcake bake sale to support McCain. The democrats don't own the cool t-shirt market. If one of you photoshop-ers makes a good McCain design (that doesn't look like the yard sign in front of my parents house stapled onto a t-shirt, for cryin' out loud) I promise you I will buy and wear it. We do need better talking heads. Someone get Meghan McCain in a sexy dress ASAP...

@AldenxOhhh

great comment. Let me know if you'd like to write an article for Urban. I have tattoos as well...woo hoo.

AldenxOhhh,

Good for you and your tattoos but I have news for you. If you arrived at RNC headquarters they would throw you in a room with the Log Cabiners. That's not commentary on your sexuality. I'm saying that in the ultra competitive world of national politics the republicans want and need your vote even if they abhor your very existence. The conservative image of a buttoned up tight ass has been carefully cultivated over the years. They want your vote but they want you out of sight in the meantime. And about that T-shirt, I suspect given your appearance, a McCain T-shirt would look sarcastic on you. Sort of like Johnny Rotten wearing a T-shirt with the Queen on it. I suspect your support for McCain is in line with the rest of your life which seems to be about doing the unexpected or going against convention. If you actually kept company with conservatives they would have you in a Talbots faster than you can say doubleknit. I have more respect for you and your choice than the rest of these fake conservatives on here. Don't be surprised when they take your cupcake money but tell you to seek Jesus.

JarrodM,
you missed the point......for if you had you'd have actually made sense in your rebuttal. I sleep good at night, because I see a change in peoples attitudes. They are beginning to think for themselves instead of depending on"old school" media to spoon feed them talking points which you seem to lap up.
The issue now isn't "weather the surge worked", but why it was necessary in the first place and how it it damaging our military ability to react to REAL threats in a cost effective manner. The issue isn't tax and spend liberals, but the depletion of our treasury by so-called conservatives........there is time yet, JarrodM for you to engage the brain, and jump up on the train!

simonesdad, so you've tried to go to an RNC convention I take it? No? Then how do you know? Any testimonials? Evidence?

Hey David, you know the old school media -- ABC, CNN, NBC, (etc), newspapers -- are clearly in the tank for Obama, right? In fact, the "new school" media -- FOX News and the internet -- are pretty evenly split. So, I'd actually be encouraged if people were beginning to ween themselves from the "old school" media outlets and began to think for themselves. Then they might actually hear something about McCain, rather than having Obama coverage 24/7.

You're right that the issue isn't whether the surge worked; it was only an issue up until we started seeing it worked. Since we can't have anything the right does being successful, it's not the issue any more. Now it's being cost effective. If we should address that, it'll move onto something else. I'd have more respect for your position if you just maintained that we shouldn't be there and you don't care WHAT happens in Iraq, you want us out. As it is now, you're pretending to want success but complaining about everything you can find in regards to Iraq.

By the by, conservatives aren't draining our finances; the Democrats and Republicans Congresses are spending like crazy. As you may or may not know, conservative views aren't very well represented in either party. We used to align with Republicans on fiscal non-dumbassery, but they've apparently shifted their position on that.

For AldenxOhhh. I am not a big fan of tattoos. BUT, many a moon ago I had long hair, love heavy metal/rock 'n roll, and when I told people that I am a conservative and-horrors!-a Republican, I got the same crap. The left loves to stereotype. And I am certain that you get all your crap from lefties. That is the difference between conservative Republicans and socialist Democrats. They talk a good game about not stereotyping and loving everyone. But get them alone and they will be the MOST judgemental, vicious people you will ever meet! Good luck on the bake sale!

"The reality is that there are a lot of Black, Asian and Hispanic conservatives today but no one ever talks about them; they are rarely interviewed or featured on the news. It’s about marketing, positioning and changing the perceptions of Americans that all conservatives and Republicans we see in the media are not grumpy old white men. Here are a few that I think are worth mentioning."
There are many? Where? In congress? Give me a break.

The neocons who own (owned, I should say) the party are grumpy old white men. The corporate interest which still owns the party (i.e. the same interest that is pressuring the public to foolishly lift the ban on off-shore drilling, or to continue to deregulate our businesses to disastrous effect) consists of well, pretty much grumpy old white men.

The constituents of the party are largely white males. There isn't much getting around this fact, and naming just a few public figures who are not white does not in any way "prove" that the Republican party is as diverse racially as the Democratic part. It might fool some thick-headed individuals, but nobody who checks facts and thinks critically.

I've worked for local campaigns and not had that problem- they even let me canvass and talk directly to voters, and I didn't have to put a bag over my head once! All my tattoos cover easily, pink comes out of hair in one quick trip to a salon and I look positively charming in sundresses and pastel sweaters. I bet if you met me you'd never guess I had major ink hiding under that Ralph Lauren (because let's face it, my mom doesn't even shop at Talbot's anymore). It's easy to put on a pretty dress and smile, much easier than hearing someone say you're "acting white" because you choose not to vote Obama. My appearance is based on choices I've made to cultivate an image, and believe me, I understand what I'm doing. Yes, my McCain-wear might look ironic, but it invites people who would otherwise never talk to me to make a judgment based on my looks, determine that I'm "witty and sarcastic", and start a conversation with me. The message is a little easier to swallow when it's coming from someone who looks a lot like you and your friends instead of coming from the kid you beat up in high school because he looked like an elitist jerk then and still looks like one now.

You, and the rest of the imaginary party, might not want youth support based on judgements you've passed on them, but who do you think makes all those youtube videos? Who scans Wikipedia pages to make sure the writes aren't getting away with obvious bias? Who came up with the social networking feature on McCain's campaign page? Who makes all the facebook applications I've got in my profile? The party is starting to realize that just because you raised Tucker and Muffy in a conservative household doesn't mean they're going to grow up to think like you do. They need to be shown it's still cool to vote values.

And for the record, look at XXXchurch (which is anti-porn), Relevant magazine (which looks just like Spin or Blender but is actually a Christian magazine), pastor Rob Bell of the Mars Hill megachurch, or the Acquire the Fire rallies- the new Christian movement looks an awful lot more like me than it does Jenna Bush. Even Jesus knows tattoos are cool these days.

Look, you have a whole medium (talk radio) and a whole network (Fox) to put whoever you want on 24/7. If I didn't know better, UC, I would say you are advocating Affirmative Action for your pundits. Horrors! Conservative whites aren't giving up the reigns to anyone accept other conservative whites anytime soon. Welcome to America. Let me show you around. You've got AldenxOhhh "covering up" and going to the hair salon and buying Ralph Lauren so that she can be in your little club. People are people. We have flaws and individual traits that don't fall squarely into one camp or another. The difference is that so-called liberals have always fought for inclusion. Would you say the abolitionists of their time would be considered liberal or conservative by today's standards? Think about that one for a minute.

Reaper,
You wrote: "Hey David, you know the old school media -- ABC, CNN, NBC, (etc), newspapers -- are clearly in the tank for Obama, right? In fact, the "new school" media -- FOX News and the internet -- are pretty evenly split."
Clearly, ALL the TV news media (including Fox) has been hammering away at Obama.......to get him to admit that the surge has worked.
Actually my view has been that we have been foolish to go into Iraq. Not one of our brave sons&daughters lost in that sad place was worth the lives of Saddam&his dead sons. But then i don't mistake supporting the troops with supporting the views of neo-cons&the military-industrial complex.
I support the soldiers of my old unit....82nd Abn. and all the other soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen that are trapped in constant redeployments, and their families, who rarely see them.

David:
The major networks (FOX News excluded) & newspapers have been vastly favoring Obama with airtime, and they've been vastly under-critical of his campaign. Being hammered hardly characterizes it.

Your viewpoint on Iraq is plenty valid -- I almost agree with it myself. The point is that we're there now and we're winning. Do you hear about that? Not from "The Big Three." In fact, their coverage pretty closely correlates to the number of deaths in Iraq. To underscore this, now that Afghanistan is seeing MORE deaths than Iraq (due to a decrease in Iraq, not an increase in Afghanistan), suddenly it's on the radar again. You'd hardly know we were in Afghanistan in the intervening years while things were quiet. Don't pull that "death sells" crap, either. It may have some merit, but it is still utterly malicious that our success goes almost completely unreported.

Simonesdad, there's a difference between being required to maintain decorum and being a sexist/racist. Looking presentable in professional situations lends credibility, which is likely why Alden dresses up for professional occasions. I'm sorry if you disagree with the stated and agreed upon policies of every establishment in the world, but that's the way the it is. Besides, there are plenty of non-white-men in the conservative fold. In fact, Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingram often fill in for the Alpha Grumpy-Old-White-Man, Bill O'Reilly. But he's not yielding the reins. He's only giving them the reins and letting them do as they wish. That's completely different.

"The point is that we're there now and we're winning."

How is it possible to win the war in Iraq with only 30,000 more troops? How is it possible to win the war in Iraq period?

We are fighting an ideology, not a nation. Continued fighting only exacerbates the problem. Winning or not, this does not change the fact that we should have never gone there in the first place.

Finally, what has this war done for our country? Put us in debt? I should think that in a time when China is rapidly on the rise (and set to have an economy twice the size of ours by mid-century), and is putting more engineers and scientists on the street per yer than we are, that money wasted on an entirely pointless war would be better spent on our failing education system.

Back on topic, I'm a republican at heart. But the party has been hijacked; the party that freed the slaves has been hijacked by racists (O'Reilly, Coulter, and others), corporate bigots, and most of all, grumpy old white men.

with a name like Yanni Woland, you must be a "grumpy old white man", no?

I'll buy into your argument when the AldenxOhhh's of the world can represent you as they are. There are CEOs and sought after professionals out there at the top of their fields in T-shirts and jeans. This is most apparent in the computer/internet/technology field. Their talent and ability is unquestioned so their appearance is irrelevant. Isn't that the merit based society that cons talk about? Yeah, I agree if you walk into most law firms in jeans, you probably won't be hired on site until they find out you graduated at the top of your class at Harvard Law. SOMEONE will hire the top graduate from Harvard Law no matter what and it will have zero to do with his appearance. I think you are telling me there is no room for the top student from Harvard or anywhere if his/her appearance is not professional and they don't exhibit decorum. What you are saying, I think, is that you must look the part before you can be the part. That leads to what is acceptable as the look. That leads to well, this has always been the look so let's stick with that. Then that closes the doors to others. I won't call it racism or sexism. I'll call it familiarity. If you are not familiar, you are not considered. Who do consider the leader of the conservative movement in America today? Can you see the UC, with his tats and brown skin, taking his place one day? He swallows the conservative garbage like it's his job. Why can't he lead the movement?

Sorry UC. That was a cheap shot and I'm better than that. My apologies.

LOL, well I would like to think I have olive skin. : )

Reaper,
Your view about "winning" in Iraq underscores the change that i see in the perceptions of many Americans. The question many ask is......"Why are we in Iraq in the first place?" or "Who actually profits from our involvement there?"
Winning in Iraq? Do a simple costs analysis.......what do the American people get out of it? Are we any closer to catching the perpetrators of 9/11?
We can win a battle, yet still loose the war. That happened in Vietnam, remember?
We elected Nixon in '68 to achieve "peace with honor".........how many died from 1969-1973? Was that so-called honor worth that? Hell NO!

jarrod......

lets see here. Shall we trust your awfully spelled definitions or those of the merriam-webster variety.

Liberalism - (a disease* LOL) - a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

Libertarian - a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action

Conservativism - such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

NOW, Jarrod, just one question for you. Who decides what is rotting society? Isnt Sex original sin? Now, if thats true, society has been rotting for quite a while now. See, what libertarians believe, is that it is not for you to decide what is rotting society beyond a few widely held moral beliefs. Does gay marraige really rot your world Jarrod?

and UC, you called Ron Paul a liberal and lumped him in with the bunch in your Free Speech for All except conservatives article.

"with a name like Yanni Woland, you must be a "grumpy old white man", no?"

Ironically quite the opposite; High school student!

Come to think of it my name does sound pretty grumpy

"jarrod......

lets see here. Shall we trust your awfully spelled definitions or those of the merriam-webster variety.

Liberalism - (a disease* LOL) - a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

Libertarian - a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action

Conservativism - such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

NOW, Jarrod, just one question for you. Who decides what is rotting society? Isnt Sex original sin? Now, if thats true, society has been rotting for quite a while now. See, what libertarians believe, is that it is not for you to decide what is rotting society beyond a few widely held moral beliefs. Does gay marraige really rot your world Jarrod?

and UC, you called Ron Paul a liberal and lumped him in with the bunch in your Free Speech for All except conservatives article."

Aah yes, the modern republican. So much kinder and more tolerant then those filthy democrats, who spread lies and disease.

Honestly, can you be any less civil about it? Do you feel gratified when you call an opposing political ideology a disease, instead of excepting it as an alternative point of view? I'm not saying there aren't liberals guilty of the same intolerance, but should the "moral majority" be guilty of it as well?

Winning the War in Iraq is obviously defined as achieving a stable democracy. For our part, we are doing great. We're keeping the peace while their government gets its act together. The answer to the question of why we should be there in the first place is obvious: we shouldn't. BUT, we're there now and pulling out would be tantamount to kicking a 2 year old onto the street. We'd be killing them before they had a chance to thrive.

The answer to the question of what we would gain by winning is also painfully obvious: we'd gain a stable middle eastern democracy comprised of our former enemies. If it thrives, the people in the region will need to look no further than their neighbors to see what it is to really live happily. I'm not so optimistic to think that a democratic Iraq will single handedly destroy Islamic fundamentalism, but it will SEVERELY undermine their efforts and cause a rift between the common people and the figureheads pulling the strings. Now my question to you: what do you think we'll lose by a loss in Iraq?

Reaper states:
"BUT, we're there now and pulling out would be tantamount to kicking a 2 year old onto the street."
Maybe this is the arrogance that many people speak of when describing U.S. policies.......do you actually think the Iraqi people are children?
Do you actually believe they see us as "liberators"
Americans want to believe in the in the "greatness" of America, but MANY are waking up and beginning to understand that the good nature collectively of the American public has been used by a greedy few.
The only good so far, to come from this conflict has been Saddam&his boys lives, and securing oil contracts.........who profits from this? Not me, and certainly not the dead American service members.

This has provoked interesting, if not off track, comments. Too me, the Republican party is the natural home for conservatives. Sorry, while I lean in many way to Libetarian thought, the Libertarian party has some extreme positions that are not viable. The party though has a lot of people that are uncomfortable identifying themselves as conservative in the first place. That is something we need to get over. But, one way that I think we will see more minorites rise through the ranks if they are promoted in Republican districts. Here in California, the DA in Riverside County is Rod Pacheco. Would it not be great if this Republican were in congress or the senate? We have to get minorities involved in areas of the country that are NOT minority-centered. We can not win there. JC Watts won in seat in congress in 1994 in a very white district and was reelected several times. That is the model. I mean, I love Colin Powell, but he is not my kind of Republican. He would easily win the White House because he, not Sen. Messiah Barack, is seen as one who really had to come of age in the transition from segragation to desegratation. And, he does not use the blame game. Anyway, keep this going. It is a real and important disscussion we conservative Republicans need to have.

I am a grumpy old conservative white man. However, I despise Rush, Billo, and their friends as narrow minded and wrong idiots, totally incapable of fair, original, and productive thought. I was not surprised to hear Scott McClellan on TV telling the world that the White House has been feeding Fox News and other conservative reporters "talking points". So much for fair and balanced reporting.

I am a grumpy old conservative white man. However, I believe that the republican party has abandoned not only me, but America and the world in their desire for political supremecy. I see nothing to hope for in the republican party of today. Their ideals and dogged pursuit of failed policies has left me sick and rejected.

You speak of the conservative base. I have been the conservative base for all of my adult life, but the conservative leadership in this country no longer speaks to me. The conservative leadership has slipped into the darkness of fear mongering, hate, slander, and wrong ideas.

I am a grumpy old conservative white man, and I am voting for Obama.

robert, thank you for your thoughtful response. the republican party used to be something entirely different- it was thoughtful and respectable ...sadly, this is no longer the case. they have allowed themselves to be identified with narrow mindedness and the every-man-for-himself attitude. newt's "contract with america" and the "moral majority" served not to lead or include americans but rather insult, dismiss, name-call, legislate against, and ridicule those that did not hold their version of morality, their version of what constituted a family, their version of what religions are acceptable, to name a few. many of these very individuals were later discovered to be involved in sex scandals of one sort or another- the self proclaimed moral majority were (and still are) seen as majorly hypocritical. of course the smoke and mirrors folks will be anxious to point out that sex scandals, money laundering, drug and alcohol abuse, child molestation, tax evasion, etc has involved democrats as well- no one disputes this... but the democrats did not run on a platform of "i am better than you are" as the republicans did.

anyone who has followed closely what has transpired in washington for the past seven + years realizes that george bush the current has pounded securely in place the last nail in the republican's coffin. there are so few people that want to be identified with someone who will go down in america's presidential history as the absolute worst ever that the best they can come up with for a candidate is an old man who cannot remember what he said last week, what countries border iraq, has no clue concerning economic issues, thinks that gas is still $2.49, puts people to sleep the moment he starts to mumble, is advised by his own personal economic wizard that we are imagining our misery and that this is a nation of whiners, a man that is so personally out of touch with reality he has no clue what it means to grow up poor, to struggle, to live paycheck to paycheck...he is more interested in making certain that the top 2% of the nation's wealthiest get their tax break. mc cain is a bumbling old man that needs to sit down and take a rest.

David: Yes the Iraqis are children, figuratively speaking. At this juncture, they are categorically incapable of staying aloft in the very rough world around them. Yeah, no good has come of the conflict so far, but as I mentioned at length, the benefits are in our future, and they are incalculably valuable.

Robert: I'm a liberal, and the liberal base has completely abandoned my lifelong beliefs. I thusly blame democrats and liberals alike for running off course. You very well may be speaking the truth as seen through your eyes, but I'd be willing to bet that the change occurred in YOU, not everyone else.

toe: I'm tempted to rattle off a list of perceived wrongs against society that the lefties/democrats perpetrated, but there's honestly no point. Suffice it to say, though, that few of your allegations against Bush and his party have any merit at all, and most are outright propaganda that you obviously had no dispute in swallowing. That's about the same as these people believing that Obama is a Muslim. Just cuz you say it don't make it true. It doesn't make it false, but the burden of proof is on the accusers, and I've yet to see any compelling proof of your allegations against Bush. Ditto on Obama's Muslim'hood.

I will say, though, that all presidents from all wars in the 1900's (perhaps throughout history) were likely virulently demonized as Bush is today. History always manages to forget the emotional weight that these conflicts have with people and so all we see is the empirical evidence of success or failure. Simply put, this is nothing new. Bush isn't "the most" or "the worst" anything right now (outside of our deficit). Those who claim that he is without compelling evidence are being melodramatic and pathetically short sighted.

WoW!
Reaper, do you really think Bush isn't the worst wartime prez ever?
"Bring it on!"--How utterly stupid.......how many American lives did that statement cost us?

reaper, it seems that you have entirely missed the point of my post- i am talking about the downfall of the republican party- a fall brought about by their own selves through ineptitude due to unqualified personnel, falsifying and cherry picking information with regards to the run up to the iraqi invasion, illegal activities ranging from the outing of a covert CIA agent, to the cover-up of tillman's death by friendly fire, scandals of every sort, poor leadership, fiscal irresponsibility, blind allegiance to a president with no interest in oversight, blatant abuse of the justice department, rendition, torture, complete disregard of the rules of the geneva convention as they relate to "war criminals", no-bid contracts, a vice president that believes he not in the executive branch, contempt of congress, ...reaper, the list is very, very long- infractions are many- these are facts- some of these infractions are impeachable offenses- i know that you have the ability to search out items- if you are not happy with kucinich's articles of impeachment- go read what bill moyers or jonathan turley (a nationally recognized legal scholar and constitutional law expert) have to say regarding this administration's activities. it's all there.

i don't know what your problem is regarding obama- never mind the fact that the constitution clearly states that there will be NO religious test/requirement for elective office- so you are already in deep kim chee on this- additionally, the fact is that he is not that which you claim. i am occasionally impressed with some of your posts, reaper- you seem almost rational at times...and then you come up with this. honestly, i really makes me wonder what in the world are you so afraid of? would you be happier if he was an atheist?

I have a question for Robert and "toe". Do you think that Richard Nixon was a conservative? Gerald Ford? Do you think that Ronald Reagan ruined the GOP? If you answered yes to all, then I am sorry but I do not think that you are conservatives. And, anyone who says that they are a conservative and will vote for Sen. Messiah Barack is no thinking clearly. Do you really think that Sen. Messiah Barack will somehow restore "civility" in politics? Of course not. In a democratic, republican system of government, there are two or more opposing views. That is why there is a tension. I like that. We have a governor in California who claims to be a Republican, yet I am still waiting for him to do something different than the Democrats. Please, do not write that you are conservative Republicans. You do not mean it. I have been a Republican since I could vote in 1982. And I have been proud to be a Republcan. And I am conservative. And I know non-conservatives when I read them

i never said that i was a republican- nor am i a "conservative"- even though the two are not mutually exclusive.

as i have said in a previous post- national opinion, with regards to politics in the US, the pendulum swings to and fro in order to correct their collective perceived need to correct the status quo... this consensus was reached and exacerbated significantly once the majority of americans realized the many problems this administration has caused and the many needs of this nation that have been neglected....problems both global and local, needs that include the urgency to invest in alternative and renewable energy sources, the urgency to invest monies to correct failing infrastructure throughout the nation, the need to examine legislation that requires any government contract awarded would be not just a US business- but a US business on US soil that pays US taxes. election reform, campaign finance reform, education needs, healthcare needs are but a few of the many areas that have been placed on the back burner or ignored entirely during this administration and a republican-controlled congress that rubber-stamped and brown nosed rather than lead and serve this nation.

ideology - whether it be religious or political- needs to be tempered with rational thought and sound judgment. this has not been the case for the past 7+ years.

Toe, again, you can rattle off perceived illegalities but the fact is that even under a democratic Congress he hasn't been impeached, much to the chagrin of many senators & representatives. Do you think they're LYING when they say they want him impeached? Or do you think that -- perhaps -- the charges aren't so clear-cut as you are suggesting they are?

Also, I dunno what you gleaned from my comment on Obama, but I was saying that he ISN'T a Muslim until someone comes forward with compelling evidence to prove it.

David...you're using a single quote to encapsulate the entirety of a conflict that isn't even over yet? Moreover, you're using those three words to indict Bush?

I pray you never our judicial system.

Reaper,
If one could encapsulate this conflict in a phrase to show the ignorance and lack of judgment that has prevailed, Yes,"...........Bring it on!" would be it.
No, sadly this conflict isn't over. When i hear "We are winning", or "The surge is working!" it reminds me of Westmorland in 1967 speaking of "the light at the end of the tunnel"............... How many of the benchmarks of success have been met? Is it even worth it?(Oil companies aside).
Hopefully Americans are beginning to see through Conservative Bullshit Philosophy, that dresses up a corporate money grab for sound policy. No, much more than window dressing is need'd for the conservative movement to capture the imagination of thinking Americans.
Perhaps these companies that have profited from this ill-conceived adventure can somehow give a portion of those profits to the cause........perhaps giving shares to the families of the dead, as well as to the injured service members.

again, reaper- the charges made regarding war crimes are there- the deeds have been done. ms plame was a covert CIA agent- her outing was an act of treason. FACT. mr bush stated that he would track down the source of this leak and that person would be "taken care of". uh huh.

they not only refused to cooperate with congress and the prosecutor- bush commuted the sentence of the one person charged in this case. yup. he took "care of it". FACT: approval for the mistreatment of prisoners came directly from the white house and the pentagon. torture, humiliation and rendition- clearly against the geneva convention. FACT: bush approved illegal wiretaps. FACT: the justice department and the executive branch acted in tandem to usurp the existing laws of the land. FACT: the administration, while claiming they did nothing wrong have refused to cooperate with congress - claiming executive privilege where it did not apply. one of the prime areas of congress is oversight- this is their job. this administration is in contempt of congress.

one reason that congress has not been too keen on impeachment is that they have been complacent in allowing the expansion of presidential powers, complacent in lack of oversight, the media has been complacent - blind support for an invasion while being spoon fed misinformation and never lifting a pencil or digit to investigate further. this has been a republican controlled congress- even now, the senate has been stalled in many areas because of a lack of a solid democratic majority.
it seems that you are unwilling to understand not just this HUGE mistake -ridden administration- the ineptitude displayed by cronys appointed by bush -favoritism and paybacks for support rather than having the best and most qualified person for the job- the no-bid contracts that have boggled the mind and cheated the government out of billions of dollars, engaged illegal activities and sub-standard work causing deaths of our military personnel- the arrogance displayed by this administration in it's refusal to listen to all sides and seek diplomatic resolution- the "pre-emptive" war strategy- what part of all this do you not wish to see????

Reaper, you sound so similar to the rants of Bill O'Riley that I figure he must be one of your heros. He also demands negative proof where proof is not needed, nor the subjects even of concern. He also uses unsupported accusations as facts. He is misleading, and unfortunately he, and his kin, have mislead you.

You appear to be an intelligent person, so I wonder what it is about you that you have ignored all the facts that toe and David Walter's, among others, have so elequently related. These facts are not secret, they are not even debatable. But you continue, in the same vein as the conservative spokespersons and leaders this blog originally referred to.

They have failed the conservative movement through their obvious, and continuing misrepresentations of... hmmm, practically everything. They see nothing beyond their paranoid representations, and are incapable of developing anything new. The possibilities of the future are extinguished by their never ending poisenous rhetoric.

Yes, reaper, I changed! I decided to become an Intelligent American first and give up on designations beyond that goal. We are in a new world, new circumstances, new ideas, new challanges, and new perils. As Americans we can no longer afford to think we can handle everything as we have in the past. The world is too small now and we are, whether we like it or not, swiftly becoming citizens of the world also. It is in America's interest to rid ourselves of the old-world negativity of the current conservative movement and develop a new America that works with the world, not against it.

That is the road to survival and growth for America. The conservative movement may some day come to realize they also have to grow. When that time comes I will happily call myself a conservative again. Now, I am only an American.

exactly, mr. simpson. mahalo again for rational thought.

it's time to put aside labels- save t