I like Neal, and many of his positions. The majority of his listeners, however, I can do without.

Split What? The 2000-2008 version of republicans is the antithesis of less gov't, invisible hand, hayekian principals. If you spilt the amoeba, one slide of the blob will be the Christian Coalition, and the other side Bill Clinton. Does anyone really want either? Pls guys, it has to the start from scratch, and the current incarnation of the so-called "Liberation" party is not what I had in mind.

For every single person who believes abortion should be illegal, I suggest that you pledge YOUR time and YOUR money to the baby and the mother, so that when the baby is born, you will be there to support her and the child no matter what happens and make sure the child is brought up in a financially sound, loving environment.

Oh, wait. You don't want that type of responsibility? Then stop trying to tell other people what to do with their lives.

If a 16-year-old girl gets pregnant, has the baby, abuses the baby, neglects the baby, and lives on welfare because she can't take care of it, is that okay?

As an adopted child myself, I can tell you that the adoption system is royally FUBAR. Good couples have to go through a ridiculously lengthy process to adopt, and God forbid they're gay, or else it gets worse. More often than not, adoptees are placed in the foster care system which is rife with abuse and neglect. We already have over 500,000 children in the foster care system as it is, with just too few people willing or able to adopt. Not only that, but once a foster kid reaces 18, the government sends them on their way with a couple of bucks and no prospects. More people seem interested in adopting kids from other countries nowadays, anyway.

So before you start picketing abortion clinics, think about whether or not you would be willing to take care of that baby, and the sorry state of the adoption system in this country.

please, 3rd party, i'm tired of dems trying to run my life on fiscal issues, and rep on social. in Georgia, they just passed a bill making an embryo a child - say goodbye to stem cell research. here's the article:http://www.examiner.com/x-6571-Atlanta-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m4d1-The-nations-first-embryo-adoption-bill-passed-Georgia-Senate

we are the one and only state in America right now with this law. ugh.

I have to disagree with your last point. I am not a one issue person but abortion is a very important issue and one that is misunderstood. Only 1% of women who have abortions have a health issue or were assaulted. Abortion supporters like to throw the word choice around. Adoption is a choice also. People should also be aware of how abortion providers like Planned Parenthood were started. Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger to implement her ideas on eugenics. She followed Darwin and Nietzsche and felt the world's resources only belonged to those who produced and that those unworthy should be aborted out of existence. Abortion supporters also never mention what happens to the child during an abortion. The two most common methods are having the brain extracted from the head or having the skin burned off with saline. Abortion supporters also never mention what happens to the women after. I have seen the hurt, emptiness and overwhelming regret. If you don't think abortion is an important issue read Job 31:15 and Psalm 139:13-16.

Newt doesn't like third parties. I saw him on C-SPAN one time talking about his American Solutions think tank, or whatever it is, and an audience member asked him about third party inclusion and before the guy could even finish his question Newt flatly stated "NO!" This was back before he decided not to run in '08. So I guess as long as Newt is involved there will be no third parties. I like Newt, but I like being a Libertarian even more.

ENOUGH about abortion! It's constantly treated as if it's the main issue in governing this country. It's WAY down on my priorities list. Leave it alone, already!

I agree with you; leave those who believe government should be involved in a mother's decision standing beside the road. Look what your comments brought out on this subject. It is the single issue that most divides the GOP. This is an emotional topic that supercedes reasoning and causes regulatory gridlock. What we need is a working structure for the Libertarian party that enables some good people to step forward, not the kooks who could never be elected, and a method to raise some big money.

Boortz, I love ya. But the murder of innocent babies is an issue that will, for me and many others, ALWAYS be fundamental.

The only way this would work is if we did away with all political parties. If you give the general public (this includes democrats, republicans and everyone else) the cop out of labeling - as in political parties - instead of individuals, you release them from any obligation to actually think for themselves.
People in general are just too busy to think for themselves. They are educated [at government schools] with a brief (and often inaccurate) discription/definition of each political party - by a biased teacher. From that point on, they choose sides. They may also be influenced by their parent (or parents, if they are luck enought to have two).

Unfortunately, this is how the DUMB-masses pick a political party. Then, the idiotic celebrities go on thier (also uneducated and biased) missions to get everyone to go out on voting day and cast their votes. The majority of people HAVE NO IDEA of who they are voting for and what the candidate is actually preaching about doing. The choice was made way back in elementary school - each one of these drones decided to be a democrat or a republican when they were in the third grade or so. That's why when they hold these silly little mock elections at elementary schools prior to each presidential election, the results of the elementary school election is almost always correct.

This is a really sad and pitiful system we have in this country - THE BEST COUNTRY!... It's a joke! It will never change (or work) either.

The only solution to bring thought and responsibility into the minds of the voter is to do away with ALL POLITICAL PARTIES!

The fact is that our country "as our founders envisioned it" is toast. So my comments probably don't matter anyway, but here goes...

Neal would like to separate the abortion debate from conservative politics for whatever his personal reasons are... I don't know (he didn't put it in his book) and quite frankly I don't care.

Hell, I don't even care if a woman wants to kill her kid. There are people in this world that I'd like to kill too.

However, under our Constitution, it is acknowledged that our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is endowed by our creator and not by man. Lives and property and personal rights are "supposedly" protected from intrusion by others.

If we are going to make the determination of when life can begin, then we can make the determination of when life can end. And now I guess we will even be able to determine who can and can't have health care. I see it as all part in parcel.

If you don't want to be fat, then don't eat big macs. If you don't want to look like a nasty retard and stink, then don't smoke. If you don't want to create a life, then don't screw.

So leave me by the side of the road all you want. I'll stand on principal with all those who vote pro life. At least with Obama I know he'll stick the knife in my chest and not in my back like the Republican party.

Why should abortion be left up to the states? That would mean the government is still involved in personal matters.

That's a well thought out discourse. However, is abortion pro or con, the only issue separating us? Is that one issue enough? That's the question, I guess, can we put that one devisive issue aside long enough to come together whether it be as a redefined Republican Party or Libertarian, I don't care which. Our main goal should be to get the liberals out of office and any RINO's with them.

Neal
That's what the Democrats WANT us to do. They want to split our flank and conquer us. No; let's have a nasty coup in the GOP. Very nasty. If we lose in 2010 it'll be bad on the moderates.

Anyone here who thinks abortion is up to the “mother” should really think it through. For example, all it would have taken was a simple “choice” and none of us would be here to discuss the matter. If abortion is legal then how can society prosecute a “mother” for a post-delivery abortion (some would call it infanticide).

A woman has the choice as to when and how she has sex. If a sex act produces life, that life deserves to be protected. The instant that a male gamete penetrates the ovum, life begins. During each “stage of development” (embryo, fetus, etc.), prior to the first “legal” breath, the unborn child IS STILL ALIVE (alive, adj. 1. Having life; living.). Whether or not it can survive outside the “mothers” womb has no bearing on “life” (life n., pl. lives (lºvz). 1. Biology. a. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism).

We do not need a third party. We need responsible citizens who vote for personal and intuitional responsibility that revolve around the constitution instead of populist utopian fantasies and charisma. If we had twenty political parties, if the citizenry is irresponsible, the results would be the same.

Neal, just admit it is a state's right issue and move on. You are the person hung-up on the issue. Sheesh.

I would have voted for Gingrich over Mitt / McCain in 2008. Jindal is not the answer, nor is Huckeby, Thompson, Palin or Guiliani.

Currently the Senator from SC, Lindsey Graham peaks my interest the most. He seems to be a matter of fact kind of leader that is controlled and well spoken.

While I won't claim to be a republican, would be much more a Fiscal Conservative.

Everyone have a good weekend.

OK, all those pro lifers who think the states should decide, raise your hand. OK, now keep your hand up if you think Bush was right to intervene in the terry schaivo case...


hmmm...I still see a lot of hands up there. Something is amiss.

I agree with Red, sent abortion to the states, vote on it. I'll choose to live in a state that bans abortion. It's wrong and you know it Neal. This is why you won't talk about it.

politicians are scum!
stand naked in front of your mirror and repeat that phrase 100 times.
now get dressed in your finest dressy clothes. get in front of your mirror again and repeat this one 1,000 times, DON'T RETURN INCUMBENT POLITICIANS. for the dumba$$es stand behind the mirror (the not shiny side) and repeat 1,000 times I WON'T EVER VOTE AGAIN. clothes are optional.

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Is this a quote or your original oath? It's fantastic.

It appears not to matter whether we get a third party, or rely on the two established ones. We will still slip down the inexorable road to statism due to the common-sense dictum of "if voting could change things, it would be illegal." No deus ex machina third party will save us when the fault lies within each of us who fail to take personal responsibility for changing our society to one that respects the individual as an end, not a means.

As a first step, let's advocate for a Constitutional amendment separating economics and state, as Ayn Rand proposed. This would be for the same reason and purpose as the separation of church and state: the prevention of tyranny over the human mind.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

if it were legal to kill middle-aged balding men instead of innocent babies. Maybe even "obsessed..."

....He has broken the record for votes for any Libertarian candidate in the country, ever. Check out John Monds;

http://votemonds.com/blog/2009/03/24/john-monds-announces-intent-to-run-for-governor/


GA is a prime area to start a party that actually wants to pay attention to actual conservatism and what Thomas Jefferson was talking about.

The GOP doesn't give a rat's ass about abortion. They use that as a method to buy the votes of dim-witted evangelicals. (For the record, I am an evangelical...I just don't considered myself dim-witted!)

there was an article about it last week, georgia might be leading the flock on 3rd party candidates :http://www.examiner.com/x-6571-Atlanta-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m3d29-Will-the-third-party-candidate-please-stand-up

If you think the Federal Government has any right in this decision then you are no better than the Democrats in office.
This is a States Rights issue and has never been or should be a Federal issue.

I am pro-choice.As a father I just would like every one to choose not to have an abortion for several reasons but my personal one is my son who would not exist today if the choice had been left up to me 23 years ago. I would have missed out on 23 years of knowing the love,pain and joy of raising a son. I cannot remove my feelings about a decision I could have made so stupidly casual that would have killed him and deprived me of that experience, so I can't possibly be pro-abortion. Abortion is a very personal decision for the individual to choose, not by me or my government.Its your right to choose and your obligation pay the cost for that choice alone. I thank my wife for her choice.

Neal,you keep saying that the right wing is abortion obsessed.But you are failing to recognize that the so-called pro-choice advocates and liberals are far MORE obsessed with the abortion issue.Abortion is an all encompassing issue with them.It dictates where they stand on everything.
Monica below has it right.Abortion is an issue that should be taken completely out of governmental oversight.
Ignore the abortion issue and both parties will be able to get closer.
ps your security surely sucks big time!

"Trouble is, the Libertarian party can't seem to recognize international threats against America."

More accurately, the party recognizes that endless occupation and political meddling do the opposite of promoting safety.

My hopes for the future of the GOP is that they will treat the big spenders like those that are pro choice in the party.

It is time for the likes of George Bush, Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Chris Shays to name a few to leave the GOP. If you spend like a liberal democrat, than join the GOP. McCain may have won had he been a fiscal conservative and opposed the bailouts.

Having a third party is the only sensible thing to do. Let's say you are an employer and hired Bob for the job. After his 4-year contract was up, you fired him for not achieving the objectives you set out for him. So you hire Joe, sign a 4-year contract for him as well. He stinks at the job as well. Now, what sense is it go back and rehire Bob, who KNOW isn't good at the job? That's stupid.

We all know that fierce competition makes stronger competitors. We really need a third party to make the two parties we have better.

"I think it's murder except..."

WOW...I mean, do you even hear yourself?

You think abortion is murdering an innocent child but, it's OK if that child was created by circumstances you deem appropriate to facilitate its murder?

This is why you fail young padwan.

let me guess, you're pro death penalty too...

oy veh

no wonder there's talk of a third party. the tards have taken over this one.

there are only two kinds of people, those who believe in government control and those who believe in individual liberty. a third party will only destroy the dreams of us who believe in freedom. reform the republican party! not sure if boortz will let me do this but i have a blog about this topic, republicanremix.bogspot.com

Never in history has a third party had any success but if another party could be formed it will split the right and hand the government to the liberals

Why must this one issue be the deciding factor? It's not the only one out there and do any of you truly agree 100% with ANY party? Heck I don't any of you agree 100% with your spouse! But you can work together to accomplish the bigger picture. The only obsessed pro-lifers that need to be left in the dust are those who cannot see past that one difference. You are NOT going to change the law on that issue, seriously. And I'm not saying you are wrong or right, because that is a personal issue. I am not religious but would defend to the death your right to believe how you wish. AS LONG AS you are willing to do the same for me. You can practice pro-life all you want. Don't get an abortion. Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry one.

But quit pushing your personal issues on other people.

We can work together to accomplish great things for us and our children if we can agree that we will not always agree on every single issue, but overall we all want the same things. The right to pursue happiness and fail or succeed based on our own efforts. WITHOUT government interference.

Helloooooo!? Anyone else listening?

And to add to some of the other commentors on this board - leaving the pro-life crowd out of the party pretty much ensures failure.

SORRY FOR MULTIPLE POSTS:

I believe in the Bible says it is better for a man to deposit his seed in the belly of a whore than in the dust. Don't know if it says what is to be done with the after affects of this other than ostrasizing the women and the children. I believe this was written in by men to excuse their responsibility for their part in abortion or illegitimacy. Most of the men objecting to abortion don't deposit much in the dust I'm sure.

Here's what the current GOP would have to do in order to regain the traditional conservatives and principles voters;

1. Get 100% behind the Fair Tax
2. Admit that Bush was bad for
Republicans and the country
3. Repeal the Patriot Act
4. Prepare to bring home most troops
from all over the planet.
5. Secure the border, illegals out.
6. Commit to ABOLISHING government
agencies not authorized by the
constitution.Not just tinkering with
the large govt programs.
7. Accept free market capitalism and
trade in dealing with other counries
rather than pre-emptive militarism.
Unless the mainland is threatened.In
other words non-interventionist
foreign policy.
8. Abolish the Federal Reserve
9. Return to a commodity backed currency
10.Emphasize recognizing states rights

Do this and the GOP will win back traditional conservatives. Do it not and Obama will have another 4 years. Face it neo-cons...us amongst the small govt lovers will NEVER vote for a Komrad Mccain, Romney, Bush type EVER again. And yes Im a Ron Paul voter....he was the ONLY Republican in the race.

Cutting social conservatives out of the Republican Party would be cutting like off an arm before batting in a baseball game. We don't have a "two-party" system in the US, we have a 'consolidated two-party' system. The Republican Party is made up of Fiscal Conservatives, Social Conservatives, Military advocates, Social Libertarians, and many other factions. In the same way, the Democrat Party is composed of Global Warming groups, Race Advocacy groups, Government Empowerment groups, Social Liberals, and numerous other groups on the liberal side of the spectrum.

If we take the Fiscal Conservatives, Social Libertarians, and Pro-Military factions and try to run them as a single party while cutting out the other groups, we would have a repeat of the Bull-Moose fiasco. Splitting the electorate never works well. What we need to do is claim our stake in the Republican Party and push it toward the advocacy we want. Don't alienate Social Conservatives - push for stronger state control vs. federal, which gives them an opportunity to fight out their battle of ideas at the local level while maintaining a strong political coalition.

We need to focus on what our common goals are and fight to advance candidates who will push for our voices to be heard, not fracture ourselves and give the Democrats free license to destroy our country. In Georgia, Saxby Chambliss nearly lost to a lying Democrat because the Libertarian candidate split the electoral support. With an anti-capitalist in the White House, we cannot afford to give him any more of a rubber stamp Congress than he already has. Once again, it is "Unite or Perish," only this time, it's the factions of our voting base who must unite against a man who seeks to destroy our way of life, instead of colonies that must unite to fight a king who sought to subjugate us.

The Republican Party must reach out to Libertarians and Constitution Party members to reinforce the voting base on the issues we hold in common against the Democrats. If we don't hang together, we shall all hang separately, and with the empowerment of the mob taking place in this country, I would not hold that idea as purely rhetorical. I may have had many disagreements with McCain, but voting for him was the better option. When there was still even the slightest chance that he could win, I was not going to protest the foolishness of the Republicans in nominating a Democrat in Republican clothing so that a died in the wool Marxist could win while I pouted and voted third party.

We must unite! We must seize our liberty, our rights, and never allow the government to strip them from us. If we do not stand firm here and now, then we may never again have the chance to stand on the battlefield of ideas and with a single, united voice, shout "We will never surrender!"

I've long seen that there is no real difference between the Democrats and Republican; they are two sides of the same coin with the ultimate goal of unlimited power in this country a shared dream. We need a party to cleave to the original intent of our Constitution; leave all these victims, at home and abroad, without the testicular fortitude to help themselves to charities, leave the ambitious to whatever greatness they are able to achieve and leave government to handle those foreign policy and defense issues which are its constitutional mandate.

In the coming revolution, I wonder where the military will stand.

Monica has it right about hte abortion issue. It's not a political debate, it's a moral debate. Hearts need to be changed not minds.
I am appalled at the venom some of the replyees voice against BAC's of which I count myself one. I guess all the propaganda is working. We do NEED a third party, indisputably. A party that stands on princples and morals, not hate and misinformation.

The logical place for misplaced conservatives would be the Constitution Party. Pro lifers would have no place in the Libertarian Party. Pro security nationalists have no place in the Libertarian party. It's the party of people like Ron Paul, a whacko.

Never in history has a third party had any success but if another party is formed it will split the right and hand the government to the liberals again.

Imagine if the Democrats were to split into two parties -- a true Socialist/Communist party, and a Blue Dog Democrats party.

Republicans would govern with majorities for decades.

Now, imagine if the Republican party were to split.

Yeah, that's right.

Newt is a brilliant man. I think if it could keep Republicans honest. I’m mad at Washington in general right or left. The only difference between the 2 parties is by degree. As a conservative we have been betrayed by Washington politicians, I’d be interested in a possible 3rd party.

First off, those in the Republican singing about how other Republicans have abandoned conservatism are really the strongest supporters of abortion. So I don't see that being rejected if they form a new party. What will be left of the Republican party will be those more moderate, who may or may not be pro-life. They are the ones that don't seem so focused on that single issue. Too bad these same moderates are all over the map on a variety of other issues, especially pro-big government, or they might have more support.

Second, I agree with others that Republicans need to do what they need to do. If it means splitting, they better do it soon, as it will take a number of years to rally support and again be a political force. In the meantime, the Democrats will remain in power until Republicans can turn things around or the rise of some other 3rd party. This might be a long, long time...

That's better than leaving it to the "it's not my fault I failed", "I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car", "if it's not constitutional we'll just legislate it anyway" crowd.

Oh, did you get your increase on food stamps yet?

If a third party is to get any traction, it must get its members elected to Congress, where it can have some impact, otherwise the Dem and GOPs will lock the new 3rd party President out. Push for the 2010 off-year elections and take advantage of the buyer's remorse now! Count me in.

A third party is in the Whitehouse now!

I am in the exact same boat with Fernao below. If I have learned anything about the abortion battle, you need to change hearts. I'm not sure you even want to change the laws. How does forcing a woman underground for an abortion help save lives again? If you truly are about life, you care about it in all people-including those subjected to the death penalty.

I also certainly agree with Neal about the Libertarians. I registered Independent last time. I did not vote for Obama in '08 and I am glad I didn't. I am ready to vote for a person on principle instead of party, and I think many Americans are beginning to feel this way. The only way I'll vote Republican in '12 is if they put someone by the likes of a Huckabee up there. We need that Fair Tax today!!

If the problem with government is the two party system, why not back an independent candidate instead of a third party candidate. That way they won't have the baggage of either party.

Ross Perot tried it and got a large number of votes for man with no charisma and no personal graces.

I'd back any fiscal conservative running independently before any party.


Oh... and CopyLeft... Is that your name or is it that all you can do is copy inane left wing comments?

The Libertarian Party will NOT be where this constituency goes for a third party. The Libertarians historically have chosen to be just as nutty as the Greens and a number of other fringe political parties. The Libertarian political platform is just shy of being Anarchist and economically are classical Anarchist.

Keep dreaming Neal because you live in a fantasy world.

The other day I commented on the abortion issue, and was one of the few standing alone with Neal. Here's the straight dope... he's right. It will never be made illegal at the Federal level, and as long as we have Presidential elections (its bad enough that abortion is a litmus test for Congress) where the candidates are running on a pro-choice/anti-choice platform, we're all losing. The Commander in Chief of the United States Millitary should not be elected based on his stance on abortion, which is something that he can not alter. Yes, I know he can appoint judges, but those judges have to seriously consider precident, and Roe v. Wade is precident. Anti-abortion folks need to stick to local and state politics, which is where they can make a real difference for themselves, instead of focusing on national politics and losing their cause entirely. We need elected officials that deal with national security, trade, and domestic economic matters, not matters of personal, moral, or reproductive nature. Not all Republicans are pro-life, only about 30% of them. If Republicans dropped the pro-life stance at the Federal layer, they would win over masses of Democrats who only vote Dem because they value the right to determine what they do with their body, and don't want the launch of yet another government intrusion into their personal lives; a Government Office of the Vagina, or GoV.

the Constitution Party is a better choice than libertarian

Much of what the Libertarian party advocates would be true IF ... The problem is the IF's aren't true. For example, Open Boarders are as much of a problem IF there isn't a Social Services Cost to tax payers. The Federal Government has so greatly overstepped the bounds of its Enumerated powers, that unwinding that abuse and recovering States' and People's rights would be too aggressive a stance for enough Americans to embrace.
Like was done with the Fair Tax, create some separation between the Vision and the proposed Practice.

Lets please do leave the ANTI-CHOICE(pro-life is a stupid inaccurate term) crowd behind. This would be a brilliant move, and smart for the GOP. Let those 'earth is flat' nutjobs form the theocracy party they've always wanted. Hey maybe once they are solidified and figure out they won't get anywhere in America(or anyplace that likes the concept of logic), maybe they can head over to somewhere like Iran or Saudi Arabia where they can live in the moral police state they seem to romanticize about.

As a woman, I agree that abortion just needs to be left out of the debate. I'm sick of that issue being used as a wedge by both parties. Abortion is not a political issue, it's a moral and medical choice that needs to be kept between a woman, her doctor and her god. Love you long time Neal.

It seems that people who support the population growth use the excuse that abortions are robbing us of future taxpayers. The reality is that most of this growth could be compared to the replacing of a blood bank with a leech farm. I am a Republican and one of those nasty moderates.

Since you just had "the great one" on yesterday hawking his book, The Conservative Manifesto why don't you write The Libertarian Manifesto? Maybe you can convince Newt to co-author it with you.

Libertarians recognize the threat Islamic fascism poses. The difference between us who are usually traditional conservatives vs the more left wing neo-conservatives(Bush,Mccain,Cheney, Patriot Act types) is that we go a step further in wanting to stop inspiring muslims to unite against America.
Boortz you seem to consistently fail to recognize a lot of the nature of the problem. America and the west have been intervening in these poeple's affairs since the first world war. If the Saudis were in America trying to redraw America's borders and telling them how to live and building military bases here, Americans would NOT like it and would probably be willing to fight about it. It works the same way for them. Why do miss the painfully obvious? Are there muslims who want sharia law and jhimmitude for the planet? You bet. Let's stop putting cash in their pockets(foreign aid some call it) and let's stop giving them a convenient and effective recruitment tool in American military presence in the middle east. Besides there's no more money to police the world with America being 11 trillion in debt. Let us always rememebr the idiots telling us there is a terror threat are the same one who REFUSE to do anything about securing the border and getting illegals out.It doesn't make sense to call the troops liberators...not if you understand the history of that place and what western intervention has been doing over there for years. If we were being honest we would say "interventionists". If Americans are liberators then throw a dart at the continent of Africa and lets get started on the next invasion America can't afford.

Right on, Neal! The problem with the 2-party system is that the nuts of each side form the grassroots of the Republican and Democrat parties. Those on the far left and those on the far right are all big-government statists! The vast majority of America who are rational, non-judgmental fiscal conservatives wishing for more freedom and smaller government have to continually choose between the lesser of two evils.

"...let's leave those who are completely obsessed over the issue of abortion standing on the side of the road." -ok, here's your comment. I agree completely. Abortion should be left at the table so that the important issues threatening everyone can be addressed. It won't help to save the babies if they have to live under tyranny.

I wish we could find John Galt to run.

Sorry Neal, that would be a bad move. Alot of those folks that value life (in ANY form) are the same ones that value liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well.

Granted some of the more militant people make the movement look bad. Still if you're wanting to take out that group as a whole, you're just as bad as a democrat in targeting a 'group'.

There are no third parties with nearly enough power to break the death grip of the Dems and Republicans. Nor is there the will among the electorate to produce one.

Obama's grace period will not easily expire with the MSM covering for him, so the outrage will take longer to build

With that said, if Newt wants to test the waters, I'll send a few hundred to see how it goes.

Thank you! I have always believed the politicians use the Abortion Issue as a smokescreen to avoid the _real_ issues. I'm much more concerned to know whether a candidate can balance his bank account than what his position on abortion is.