All brought to a head in glorious fashion by Terri Schiavo and Tom DeLay.

You didn’t want a vibrant Democratic Party? You should have voted for people who were serious about governing with the consent of the governed.

Just so I know your preference, and for a little fun, tell us who we should have had as our nominee since 1980. I’m not even going to assume that RR was your choice in 1980. In 1996 Steve Forbes seems to fit your bill, maybe Elizabeth Dole in 2000.

Who are your GOP dream presidential candidates over the past 30 years?

If we had elected smart Republicans, we would still be in charge of Washington is my point, Doug.

AND, a “smart Republican” is one who adheres to the fiscal responsibility side of the party, not wrap themselves up in the game of kowtowing to religious socialists (i.e. people who want others to worship and pray the way THEY think everyone else should).

It is a liberal thought process that has no qualms about denying the Constitutional right to life to an unborn baby.

The 14th Amendment clearly defines an American citizen as someone born on American soil. It does not say “conceived.”

Therefore, it is quite clear that the writers then, as did the writers of the Declaration of Independence, did not consider for a moment the “unborn” as deserving of Constitutional protections.

Interpreting the Constitution’s specific words is not “liberal,” but reality.

People like YOU who presume the Constitution meant something else than what it says are the true “liberals” in America.

Could somebody name me a Republican candidate for President, since Roe v Wade, who has won by not overtly supporting pro-life and common morality?

The fact that those candidates won as Republicans GAVE this country Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

“Winning” for them proved harmful to this country for a long time. The 2 Bushes SUCKED as President each time they served.

If all you do is wrap yourself in your Bible and hold that up to be the touchstone of a Republican, then don’t cry when things like Cap & Trade get rammed down your throat.

“Bertrand Russell said, “At present the population of the world is increasing…War so far has had no great effect on this increase… I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others…If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full…the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of others.”

Could somebody name me a Republican candidate for President, since Roe v Wade, who has won by not overtly supporting pro-life and common morality? McCain tried lip service to life issues, but few believed he was serious. I guess character does matter, at least for Republicans.

Most voters who would vote for a conservative on economic and defense issues won’t trust a candidate who has no regard for social conservatism (neo-Whigs). The same neo-Whigs that have led the party to defeat with Dole, McCain, and the defeat of the neo-Whig Republicans in 2006 will continue their streak of defeats so long as they keep the ones who are conservative across the board from influencing the party. Bush41 went down to defeat because he campaigned in 1988 as a Reagan conservative, but governed as a neo-Whig. Bush43 campaigned as a conservative, but waited until after the 2004 election to show his neo-Whig principles, and lost tremendous support in his last term. In 2008, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain all showed their neo-Whig principles, and we see what happened to them.

To call oneself conservative, and reject pro-life and common morality as necessary for the security of this country, is a non-sequitor. It is a liberal thought process that has no qualms about denying the Constitutional right to life to an unborn baby.

If the neo-Whigs want the Republican party to themselves, then let them get and keep control of it at the primary level. Why try to silence consistent conservatives in the party? Let the primary voters decide.

For clarity, I use Neo-Whig, Rockefeller Republican’ts, and Liberal Republicans interchangeably.

BUT, they must first demonstrate how insanely “pro-life” and a “Christian” they are.

Al Gore will personally benefit greatly financially, this is a fact. Everyone else, not so much.

Part of me sort of wants Obama to have his way on all his dumb, childish, destructive ideas, so that by the 2012 election, his policies will have come to fruition and he would be cast out like his mirror image, Jimmy Carter, was. Then we can get back to being America instead of imitating a failed, socialist, Europe.

And, for the record: There is no scientific evidence for anthropogenic global climate change. None. Nada. And for the public school educated libs – scientism is not science.

Perhaps because one cannot quantify fairy tales.

Jeez. Where’s the coffee?

So how about we go to the non-partison congressional budget office and see what they think:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion–or about $175 per household. That figure includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy and of payments made to foreign entities under the program, but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in GHG emissions and the associated slowing of climate change. CBO could not determine the incidence of certain pieces (including both costs and benefits) that represent, on net, about 8 percent of the total. For the remaining portion of the net cost, households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020, while households in the highest income quintile would see a net cost of $245.