Perhaps you are right: he can't be a conservative, because on the e-book vs. physical book debate he's not displaying the same aversity to change that I'm feeling at the moment.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/04/f ... tml?hpt=C2

The Republican Party is on the ropes and may never rebound, time will tell. But the reason is not because they are too conservative, but because they are not conservative enough, and because they cannot pick an articuate conservative to head their party and their ticket. George Bush I, Bob Dole, George Bush II, and John McCain were never able to articulate a strong conservative message. I have been a life long Republican and would never vote for a Democrat. I've had to write in my vote for president in the last two general elections.

Why accuse the Republican Party for the bad health care bill we now have. It was written by Democrats and voted for by Democrats. The Democrats must bear the responsibility for the consequences to our nation in the future. If we have a prosperous future, my hat's off to the Democrats. Otherwise, a pox on both the Republicans and Democrats.

Agreed. Who do you suggest as an "articuate conservative to head their party and their ticket"?

The most articulate republican is Newt Gingrich. He is IMHO right on with conservative economic principles and in general agreement on conservative social principles. I think his ship has already sailed as far as a presidential candidate, but he can clearly articulate the conservative position. He has been demonized by the left and I have reservations about supporting him for president because of his problems with his first wife. But I could probably convince myself to vote for him if he should get the nomination.

Senator John Thune is my choice for a presidential candidate at this juncture. None of the "leading" candidates today have my support.

IMO, he's exactly right. They aren't "Conservative" at all right now but are instead far off to the extreme right where only a minority of the population actually supports.

The idea of "let's go further to the right" is what's going to likely happen and what will end up destroying them. Because in the end, there's really nothing THAT awful about a moderate Republican. Without a moderate Republican in charge, teh Democrats will essentially be able to do whatever they want and there will be no middle ground or compromising.

It's better to win a little than never win at all.

Personally, I'd rather lose support of the populace while doing what's right than to compromise and be complicit in the evil construction of the scaffolding of tyranny we are currently erecting in America.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

And who says you can't "do what's right" by being a little more moderate and sane about your overall approach?

There are times when you can do what's right through compromise, but when you reach core tipping point issues, you either have to stand on your principles or give away the farm. In the case of healthcare, that was not an issue that either party was really willing to compromise on. I've said this before. Unless the Democrats were still left with some kind of "foot-in-the-door" healthcare overhaul, they weren't willing to compromise. And unless the Republicans could accomplish "some good reforms" without giving the Democrats a "foot-in-the-door" reform package that would eventually lead to government run healthcare for all, they weren't willing to compromise either. That's as it should be. Not only would such a system break our backs, but it's essentially the scaffolding for a tyrannical nanny-state to which all Americans will become dependent to their detriment.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

Is having a government that serves the needs of the people really so bad? I depend on the government for lots of things - police, fire department, military protection against foreign governments, food regulation, drivers licenses, the court system, medical regulation, and many other things. I do not consider that 'to my detriment'. That is what government is for.

If a service logically can be provided in a better way by the government, then I think it should be. In the case of health care, I believe it is the case that government can provide it better than private enterprise. You and some others believe differently, but that's what happens when you live in a democracy. Sometimes you don't get what you want.

Exactly. Small government conservatives already abdicate the argument of "nanny-state" or "tax is theft" by approving of some government. The real argument is where to draw the lines.

But by drawing the line too far to the extremes and then refusing to budge, you end up being ignored completely as irrelevant and as a fringe element.

As happened with the health care bill. The bill was going to be passed anyways, no matter what. But by being reticent to change and unwilling to move a single inch, the Republicans managed to get NOT ONE of their potential compromises or smaller goals met. What I find amazing is how Obama and the Democrats, knowing that it would be passed no matter what, spent the time trying to get input and include the Republicans as well in the process.

Eventually the train had to leave the station. Principles don't work when it's the last boat and the ship's going down in 30 minutes. Sink or swim. Be included or not. Only at the very end did a few Republicans try to get on board but they were forcefully dragged back by the rest of their party.

1500+ pages and they got a mere handful of them to address and alter as a result. Taking a stand like that only works if you have the majority of the population behind you. If you are a minority, you better move the line a little bit to where it's more even and you pick up more moderates or just start planning for your own political funeral.

The RNC needs to figure this out really quick. 40% of the population is as good as 0% come election time.