So, if I hear you correctly, there are enough people of faith out there for the GOP to win, if only they would nominate the right candidate. Good luck with that.

Politics is about winning. We have two major political parties in this country. One of them is utterly pragmatic, and will say ANYTHING to get elected. The other has principals, and would rather lose an election than abandon their principals.

I think the solution is easy. Get elected, and THEN you can work on the issues.

Ronald Reagan brought tons of people to the "Big tent" of the Conservative movement. He did it by articulating an attractive policy, and sticking to his guns. He believed that when people voted for him, that they were voting for his ideals. So he articulated those beliefs, and the people chose...and he won.

Every time that conservatism is presented, it wins. Isn't that what this is all about?

Abortion is a terrible thing, but the alternative is bad too.
Immigration is already covered under the law, uphold the current laws. No change needed, just enforce the ones that we have.
Gay rights? That is a personal choice, NOT a federal matter.
Drugs? Should be decided by the states, NOT the federal government.
Win first, and then decide.

Neal, I agree, If the Republicans grabbed the FAIRTAX by the horns they would surpass the democrats in 2010! The problem is that most republicans are no different than democrats.

Ill just go ahead and tell you what neal wont tell you or is afraid to tell. The reason he wont debate abortion is because he knows hes at the losing end on this one. There is no way on earth that neal can stand up as the so called talk master and beat an informed person on the subject of abortion. I for one could squash every one of his little arguments like stepping on a cock roach. So dont get upset that neal wont debate the subject. He is only taking the path of least resistance which is ok with me. I would love to see someone have the right to take him down to the mat and pummel him on this issue but the great and mighty talk master doesnt dare trodd on this ground. Some day he might gain the courage to debate but for now just let him stay in his comfort zone and just laugh when he calls you stupid for standing up for life. later

Here is a little essay that was going through my mind.

Will my children;

Will my children be honest and hard working?

Will my children try to make their life better or will they be complacent?

Will my children see people for who they are (good or bad) or will they unfortunately fall into the norm of bias?

Will my children stand up for what is right, freedom, the weak and our constitution?

Will my children stand tall and speak well?

Will my children say I can instead of why do I have to?

Will my children have the sense to stay away from bad habits, drugs and crime?

Will my children earn the respect of their peers, supervisors, subordinates, friends and acquaintances?

Will my children give more of themselves than they ask from others?

Will my children be able to look in the mirror and answer these questions?

I do daily.
everydayconservative.blogspot.com

The republicans have crewed themselves. You know why? Because although Bush, in my opinion, handled issues such as foreign policy and social issues well, he handled the economy like a liberal. The recession has been coming since Clinton, but bush passed stimulus packages similar to Obama's (although massively smaller) which only increased the deficit. We need to stop spending and pass the fairtax.

I'm worried about this...I want to be a doctor, but it looks like the healthcare profession is about to be flushed down the same toilet that education was...by the time I'm old enough to have a family and start my life, I may find that I no longer even have the right to do that.

You are right about the fair tax, It would give immediate credibility to the party as the one concerned about the citizens. How about a constitutional admentment for a balanced budget.

As long as they get rid of the "blob" (to quote a liberal) before they can vote for a democrat then I am for it!

>>>"Since the unborn child has not yet developed the ability to think it has not developed a self."<<<<

Well, the typical liberal has not developed the ability to think either, and that we have evidence of unlike with an unborn child.

Come to think of it, I kind of like this new litmus test. How about we start by aborting the 62 million + morons who voted for OBozo.

The mentally disabled, senior citizens, and Alzheimers patients don't exactly have "no" thought processes, they just are not capable of expressing them. They might be random. But there is definitely brain activity of some sort, science has yet to read them.

And again I say in this day and age of multiple forms of birth control, rubbers and the morning after pill any woman who still needs an abortion is stupid. There are very very few exceptions to that.

But like Lee said, we are not going to change any opinions here. It's just a matter of how badly do conservatives want to get rid of the Dems in Washington? (beginning to wonder if it really matters)

If you do want them out, any time soon, you are going to have to find some way past this abortion issue. You can still have your belief, just don't chase everyone else away and think of it as an opportunity to educate people about making the decision NOT to have an abortion.

And LH, never doubted you for a sec, wink wink.

Looks like yall are killing each other off handily, while the dp/left laughs their *sses right off their shoulders.

I think I'll go fishing.

No, I don't support those things. That violates the other portion of the Constitution that protects private property. Also, just because you have swine flu doesn't mean that you deserve to be treated for that swine flu on the dollar of the taxpayer. It's a private service that isn't a required service. They've already established that swine flu can be remedied with Teraflu and not hospitalization. I'm also not in favor of childhood education. Where does it say in the Constitution that life means you have to be educated or you're not a living being?? Lastly, you're right. I do NOT support torture and have no interest in living that lifestyle as an American.

So John McCain has "reached out" to Sarah Palin?
Well, after the way he and his people treated her after he threw away the election, I hope she keeps his hand.

In a jar.
On her desk.

I really am interested in your statement, "Since the unborn child has not yet developed the ability to think it has not developed a self."

So, you're saying that vegetables, mentally disabled, and senior citizens that have Alzheimers are also not human as well. That was a ridiculous claim. The ability to think does not dictate the existence of a human life.

The pro abortion defenders are equally inconsistent. List all the rights you have: free speech, assembly, religion, arms, life, liberty, happiness, etc. Isn’t it odd that you don’t have the right to be born? You can’t enjoy any of those rights without being born so what is the point. The libertarian argument would be that you have a right to life, thus to be born, therefore abortion is wrong. As for the heartless conservative POV- that is BS. Churches, through members volunteering and donating money, have provided assistance to the needy long before the modern liberal showed up wanting to take your money for the needy. From a libertarian POV illegal immigration and same sex marriage can be defended, but I disagree that abortion meets the libertarian tenets. If we can just change the definition of “marriage” why can’t we change the definition of “birth.”

Enough of the philosophy, how about some counter theology.

In the Old Testament God himself was against government. As far as God is concerned we should be a theocracy. In first Samuel the Israelites demand that Samuel anoint a King, Samuel asks God and God allows the Israelites their king, but in doing so establishes that they have rejected God.

So thats the Old Testament view of government. Now lets look at what God has to say about it in the New Testament:

Mathew 22:21
"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

This is a clear biblical separation of church and state. Meaning keep your absolute moral crap out of government that would be over those that are not believers.

Instead the bible offers you this as your purpose:
Matthew 5:13-16: "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

So as a Christian you are supposed to be a Salt and Light in your own life and allow the Pagans to live their lives in piece. That the pagans may find salvation in your example, not in draconian laws enforced on them by religions fanatics. The next lesson that Christians forget is:
Mathew 7:3-3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

The Bible clearly establishes how Christians are supposed to behave in a political forum. The conservative movement in America is anti scripture and does a disservice to Christianity. Instead of being salt and light the Christian wing of the republican party makes themselves out to be hypocrites and in so doing destroys all credibility and also gives God a bad name by example.

@Big Bus

Before we can understand Absolute morality from a higher source we first must understand the self. The self is the first absolute and the only one we can prove. I can not prove that any God exists, I can however prove that I exist. That is a foundation of a personal morality. It also allows the libertarian to be pro abortion without falling into your relativism conundrum. Since the unborn child has not yet developed the ability to think it has not developed a self.

This principle can then be applied to other thinking beings and they to then can have rights assigned on their personage. That is why most libertarians believe that your rights end where their flesh begins and vice-versa.

So the first absolute is that we know we exist. We then extrapolate that others exist, but this cannot be proven. From there we theorize that there is a higher being that divines absolute truth on his people, this we cannot prove.

Carlin was clearly an idiot on this issue. Conservatives want to forget people after the 9 months are up? Give me a break. Anyone that supports life supports the protection of that life regardless of age. He was a moron for saying that, because we believe that life is precious and should be protected regardless. As a conservative, I would fight for the protection of life whether they were unborn or 45 years old. Stop counting on the Hollywood Left and famous people for your rhetoric. You're starting to sound like Jane Fonda.

reaching out to the voter? what a crock..they are all nothing but welfare recipients just like ol prez bo.They picked a fine time to start giving a crap..Like anybodys gonna believe a thing they say now.

Big Bus, you make an excellent point. I have always stood by the one fundamental fact regarding abortion. The reason it's always been such a stalemate issue is because the question "Where does life begin?" has never truly been answered. It comes down to a personal belief system, per individual. I believe that any politician, whether a Congressman or the President, should stand by the choice to let the people decide this issue and not do it for them.

I would, whole heartedly, support a referendum vote by all registered voters to decide this age old question. The ballot would be simple: "Where does life begin?" There should be three possible answers: A. Birth, B. Conception, C. Third Trimester. A majority vote would then be used to amend the Constitution so that this question will never be argued again without the rule of law prevailing.

My biggest problem with this is the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court allows a woman the right to choose whether or not she aborts a child from her womb, but they wouldn't hesitate in supporting that Scott Peterson should be charged with double homocide for the murder of his pregnant wife. Is this not the biggest double standard we have over unborn life?? There must be a precedence and it has to be defined as where life begins and where it ends, because the rule of law can't prevail without it. I would support any of the three choices in a referendum vote, no matter which direction the people decide.

I'm truly amazed that so many calling themselves "libertarian" don't think the abortion issue is a huge deal and should be dealt with. I am a Christian, yet can still make a perfectly legitimate NON-CHRISTIAN argument (yet still theistic, since, you know, we believe our RIGHTS come from God) against abortion.

I guess everyone has a right to their LIFE except that darn baby? This is unbelievable to me. I know a lot of libertarians who do oppose abortion, but this is just disturbing what I read from so man libertarians.

And someone wrote "doesn't anyone realize that morality changes"? Really? Is that an absolute? Is that your morality speaking right there? These are self-refuting arguments. Our very principles of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are considered to be "absolutes". Our laws against MURDER are ABSOLUTE. Our laws against theft are ABSOLUTES and are based on morals. Give me a break on this relativism stuff, it is self-refuting.

Someone down the page wrote "morality comes from within"? Really? Then how in the hell do you take a stand on ANYTHING? I don't know how many people tell me this stuff. Or the people who say morality is some kind of "societal decision", based on the majority vote. Hmm...let's see how well that's gone over in history, and what WE have to say about murderous, liberty-taking regimes. Upon WHAT do we judge Hitler? Upon WHAT do we judge Saddam?

Everyone on here loves LIBERTY, and believes we have some kind of "right" to it. Well, that's a MORAL ISSUE. You cannot in one breath say morality is subjective and then make an ABSOLUTE statement. It is intellectually dishonest.

I love most of what Neal says, and what libertarians stand for. But true libertarians should protect the LIVES of the most innocent and helpless among us. To act as though someone has some personal "right" to destroy ANOTHER LIFE is contra to our very beliefs.

Now, you may not have those beliefs about God and absolute rights, but then you can't very well support the constitution, can ya? Picking and choosing is a funny funny thing, and just shows peoples' inconsistencies.

It's like the atheists who say "I can be an atheist and still be moral". FINE! GREAT for you! I'm glad you won't murder me or take my stuff. You have ZERO justification for those morals. NONE. I could just as easily have my OWN morals, and those may include killing you and taking your stuff. Don't try and give me some "well I have a right to my property". That would then be an absolute, and would refute your own stance.

Can you tell I'm irked? I'm just so utterly disgusted that abortion is even DISCUSSED in this country in a legitimate way. It is the LOWEST of the low, and those children should have equal protection. Their lives are FIRST God's, and second their OWN.

/rant

I have a question. Just who are the "Four" Fathers you're speaking of? Which "four" are you referring to?

I know the system works on electoral votes ...

PrezBO won a majority of the votes in a majority of the states and thus won a majority of the electoral votes ...

He also won the popular vote - which is meaningless ...

It is clear, you see it at work and just about everywhere, presentation style matters. You can be a genius, but if you are boring or stuttering, people don't care. However, if you have good confident presentation skills, people are drawn.

What scares me is the supposed future of the party. Names like Jindal and Cantor are mentioned. Jindal's speech after the State of the Union was a disaster. Jindal is a smart man with solid conservative credentials, but the guy came across as a creepy Indian version of Mr. Rogers. No matter what he says, the left will destroy this guy just like Palin if he attempts to run on the national stage. Eric Cantor was interviewed by Hannity after the speech too, and he was awful. He couldn't even get himself to say that the stimulus budget was a disaster. Why can't these guys speak?

Thanks for the quick synopsis on the process and I consider myself "enlightened" now.

So, therefore I yield my remark.

Thanks LH

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Obama won because he received the most votes! It doesn't matter where the voters live or originate from - they are voters like everyone else.

What the republican doesn't understand is that its divide and conquer strategy is no longer effective. You've effectively alienated so many people they've defected to the democrats.

Most of America is moderate, and your (the repubs) hard-line litmus test for candidates is further driving people away ... (ex - choosing Palin over Ridge because Ridge is pro-choice and some were afraid to ruffle feathers in the base - by choosing the base, you end up with moderate republicans saying - hey, i don't want my country going THAT far to the right. )

By calling out repubs as RINO's, you no longer have moderate republicans - they end up switching parties, voting against party lines (and then their own party attempts to run someone against them in the next primary) or they "fall in line" - and as a party of individual freedom, the last thing you should be advocating is "falling in line".

It's control. Either party. This time the D's have figured it out for the moment, the R's are scrambling to become Democrat lite or whatever it takes to get the control back.

If it were truly power they were after, someone would read the FairTax books and realize that this is truly the road to being the party that brought prosperity to the U.S.A. once again, and that translates into being voted into the majority (in other words, power) in order to enact the FairTax legislation.

BUT this has nothing to do with power, in that with that power comes no control to ensure that the dumb masses continue to vote for them. The current rat-maze of tax laws and the ability to write a group of people directly into exempt status, or write a group of people into the non-taxpayer portion of the population, is a sure-fire way of getting a bloc of votes for reelection.

The political group with the integrity to dump the IRS and all its associated Buffalo Splats will truly have exercised power in the name of and on behalf of the citizens, and removed the control of the US Government back to the individual citizenry instead of consolidation of that power in the hands of a few of the 535 apparent control freaks in D.C.

Good luck on getting the control freaks-in-charge (Reid, Pelosi, and Obama) to even let the FairTax be mentioned in that city.

First of all, I have to be fair to this argument. I used to stand in the same position you did about Ron Paul taking pork projects home. That was until it was thoroughly explained WHY he took the pork projects he did. Neal didn't even understand, because he was uninformed. So, I'll give you a quick education right here, right now:

When a bill is created, they pull a dollar amount out of thin air (just like Nancy Pelosi said they do). Once that number is established, then the Congressmen ask for some of that money to go to their district for certain projects. When Ron Paul asks for $2 Million to go to his district, it's DEDUCTED from the original number, NOT ADDED ON. That's the big misconception people lose out on (I admit I did). Whatever money is left over and not dedicated to a specific project is left up to the Obama Administration to decide how it's spent.
Ron Paul did that, as he said in his speech on the House Floor, because when you use taxpayer money at the local level, it makes it transparent and the taxpayer gets to see where it's going. When you don't use it and let Obama decide how it's spent (like when they allow bailout companies to spend it on bonuses), we don't get to see where it's going until the damage is already done. I think Ron Paul was absolutely BRILLIANT in trying to allocate that money to the local level instead of letting Obama use it at his discretion. I hope that helps. If not, read it in his own words here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul453.html

I am a minority(black...can't you tell by the name?) and I voted for Ron Paul. As far as I've seen there's no mention of race in the constitution. If the GOP can stick strictly to the constitution,(which would mean bringing all troops home from around the world since the consttution does not designate America as world police, and giving up this moral superiority mentality) then that is appealing to me. The constitution treats me as an individual rather than a faceless number in a group. I like the approach of a politician that will simply stick to the constitution and forget all the other garbage.

has anyone checked out the campaign for liberty site?

Wake up! You're a Mccain voter aren't you? If you are then I must by deductive logic ask what you have against traditional conservatism, and having a president that respects the constitution and the concept of the rule of law? No ma'am....it is yourself and your leftist neo-con mystic ilk that will CONTINUE to drive the GOP to lose and become a small regional party rather than a national one if you do not drop the leftist paternalist, Bush/Mccain big government nonsense.Bush was a catastrophe for tradtional conservatism...deal with it, time to face the music. Its you and your type that have fallen for the govt trying to expand and capitalize on crises mode and drive this nation towards soft fascism and bankruptcy. Pick up a Ron Paul book sometime, and embrace a little common sense conservatism maybe. No ma'am it is you that will never win.Lets go ahead and wake it up a little so you can realize that. I advocate the small govt mentality of people like Jefferson and Coolidge it is you who are working AGAINST that.

First, I absolutely love that name, Club-a-Liberal. Wish I'd thought of that.

Second, I was going to send a message attempting to say exactly what he has already put in fairly direct wording.

So, what Club-a-Liberal said!!!!

PJ

I sent a letter to the Republican party 2 days ago, mentioning something to that effect. Made it clear that I was a Libertarian, and if they didn't get their poop in a group and broaden their base some, that they were going to get eaten for lunch during the next presidential race. Told them to lighten up some on abortion, religion, and gay rights (not that I really give a crap about gay rights, but the Republican's stuffy stance on it screws with a lot of people's brains) Put forth a moderate with a sparkling personality (is there such a thing in the Republican party? They all seem kinda staid, tacturn, and boring to me).

I'm sick and tired of being given a choice between an ultra-liberal and an ultra-conservative for president. I'm tired of voting for one party I don't like, just to prevent the candidate from the party I loathe and despise from getting voted in. I want to vote Libertarian, or at least some reasonable semblance thereof. I'd like to vote for somebody I actually think will do a good job, instead of the lesser of 2 evils.

If the Republicans do not put forth a moderate, the vote will be split yet again, and we'll be stuck with that insufferable twit PrezBO for another 4 years.

And no, I'm not deluding myself...I'm fairly certain that my letter will fall on deaf ears, as it were. But, at least I tried.

Getting the FairTax word out is very easy. All BO had to say to get the peoples attention was to say "95% will get a tax cut...". Then when asked how he would do it he'd go on a long winded diatribe about blah blah blah and then net net BA-BLAM... TAX CUT!!"

Simply the NEW Party would say "Everyone would get 100% of their paycheck..." That would raise some brows which would require a cynical "How would you do that? (in a condescending tone)... Simple, taxes would be collected when you buy something.

Break it down so that even a 5th grader or even Copy or Hugo can understand.

John McCain as a "force" to rebrand the Republican party is the wrong move. His own Dem-lite brand failed at the polls, so why would we continue down that same path? We need to show a true alternative to the left's statist policies.

The Fairtax would definitely put the Republicans ahead and anything that gets the word out there for the Fairtax would be great. That's why I love, and voted for :), Mike Huckabee.... Like I said at the Tea Party FAIRTAX! FAIRTAX! FAIRTAX! Everybody!!! FARITAX!!!!

The problem with both major parties is that most of the politicians that they represent have little or no core beliefs. Most of them will say or do anything to gain power and keep it. One only has to look at all the Republican pork in the last big spending package crammed down our throats.
Limited government, personal freedom, low taxes, and personal responsibility is not a permanent governing philosophy of the GOP. Anyone remember what happened to the promises of the Contract with America?
Support the Libertarian Party.

I trust no politicians now. Bush disappointed me like no other. But I see now he was a sympton of the current state of the Republican party.
As bad as Obama is, we are very much set up for a Hitleresque leader coming in on the Republican ticket to be the next president.
Enjoy the ride, people. I am reading every book I can on how oppressed people survive so I know how to live in the near future.

There is a problem for a politician embracing the Fair Tax. If the party can even explain the system to the government educated wealth envy crowd and ride it into power, they will then not have a way to buy votes and stay in power.

i don't understand why the leftist think that the fair tax is a bad idea.

and i would that the prebate, when under a democratic administation, would be enough to get the poor off their knees, and on their feet.

and i'm saying anything bad about them being on their knees. zapata said, "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. "

Hmm, let's see - a group of people that are getting more liberal on social issues while staying more conservative on economic and governmental issues. Starting to sound like Libertarians to me - which is just fine.

My thoughts are www.lp.org. Quit the quibbiling and take action.

I would push like a mother in labor to close our southern border. Americans do not want illegals in this country, period. The MSM is full of shiite in trying to portray American acceptance of this invasion.

Neal, I still can't understand why the Democrats aren't the ones behind the FairTax proposal.It fits their proclaimed objectives better than any of the other bills they pass trying to tweek the tax codes.

Forget the Fairtax. I say we continue taxing everyone the way it is. It's been completely succesful so far and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't right!! As a matter of fact, just like Hugo and Stan, I believe we should raise the taxes on everyone because they aren't paying enough to begin with. Think of how awesome these programs would be if we helped fund them more. The government does it better than private industry!!

Red leader - Right on!

Richtfan - Get over yourself! Dictating personal moral decisions to everyone is not freedom.

The hard right has to finally understand this one basic principle: When you continuously try to legally dictate personal life decisions while spouting about how they are for Individual Rights and the Constitution out of the other side of their mouths, they lose all hope of credibiity. Ditch the crazies...understand morality comes from within each person..and win!

I have always been a member of the Republican Party, although I have not always voted a total party ticket because occasionaly the other member was a better choice on a local level.
I do think putting the fair tax issue out as part of the issues to reignite the party is a good idea, especially right now when Americans are seeing the true "Tax Reform" ie. stimulus packages. I do believe the more people who see what is taxed, who is taxed, and how we "everybody who buy's anything in the US!" and I do mean everybody, are going to be taxed. Because we would not be taxed on our income but by what we buy. What could be more simple, fair and would bring in more money to the Government than the IRS can ever bring in. When President Obama was elected I decided that, Ok I hope he will do right by the Nation, I wanted to give him a fair chance, I really had hope. Well if the Republicans blow this chance, .....
Thanks Neal, Herman, Sean, Clark and Jamie for Keeping us in the Know

"you cannot be conservative and pick and choose".

Let me re-phrase: you must swallow the whole program or you're not welcome here.

That makes for a very small tent and continued erosion of republican numbers in the 75% of the country that does not center its life around Jesus.

The one, best chance the GOP has is the Fair Tax issue. It is the only "new" idea that will work short term. Their core planks will come back after voters get their fill of the Democrats

Yeah.. but not even a picture of him riding a horse or something? After all, he's a former President. Not even a picture of him attending a baseball game? Perhaps he see's the damage he's caused now that he's back as a "private citizen".

Reaching out to minorities is difficult for a Republican party that would adopt the ideals of individual liberty over collectivism. Sorry to say, most minorities vote collectivist. By definition, minority outreach means big government, higher taxes, and less freedom.

Also, I agree with the other poster that said Bush is now a private citizen, keeping his mouth shut as has been the tradition upheld by past presidents until Carter and Clinton.

about some of what you're saying Neal. Of course, you have the right to your opinion.

Republicans are not going to abandon their core social issues. I do not believe that the party is split into factions. The conservative movement is based on a specific set of principles, none of which can or should be compromised.

free and fair trade
the sanctity of unborn human life
term limits for federally elected officials
strict constructionist federal judiciary
tax cuts for all people
simplification of the tax code and/or elimination of the income tax
state's rights
2nd amendment amplification and clarification
promotion of the small business as the key means to economic growth
individual liberty and freedom rather than groupism and victimhood
marriage existing solely between and man and a woman
using all of our domestic energy sources to become independent of other countries
anti terrorism
health care choice
educational choice
anti-union stance
belief in the irrefutable basis for our society that we were endowed by our creator (God almighty) with certain rights. This forces us to believe that there is something above ourselves and our vaporous lives. Judeo-Christian history has shaped the formation of this country. it is undeniable.

all of these principles define conservatism in one way or the other. you cannot be conservative and pick and choose. in other words, those who bash social conservatives because they are against killing innocent babies aren't really conservatives at all. you can't really believe in limited government if you're not for term limits. there are many other examples that I could give.

The bottom line is that when conservatives act like moderates or liberals, they lose in a big way. When they campaign and then govern as conservatives, they win big.

I wonder if turning away from social conservatives would really ignite the republican party. Everyone votes their conscience when they go to the polls. If a social conservative has no voice in the republican party, could they be expected to vote for "republican lite"?

How are we going to push the fairtax when we have conservatives who trash it more than liberals? "Well that 23% tax rate is going to have to be much higher". 23% of GDP, which is around $13 trillion(obviously will be lower some this year), comes out to be $2.9 trillion dollars into the federal gov't. Well obviously that's not enough to run big gov't policies that both parties want to embrace. We're on our way to having gov't consume over 50% of GDP, so obviously the tax rate would have to be doubled. Certainly not a winner with the elctorate.

I 100% Agree Neal. The ONLY way the Republican Party can regain power is through the FairTax. But, either most of them are too lazy to educate themselves about it, or care more about themselves than America and her future.

Any group that includes McCain won't be any different than they are now. "Getting it" means that they will have to listen to the people that go to Tea Parties, that believe in the rule of law, and that favor principle over political pandering.

Will they get it? Are you kidding? The very fact that they aren't interested in the opinions of some of the evangelical conservative positions mean that they aren't in it for an open dialog. Just more BS with hopes of getting back in control so they can continue as before.

They'll try to become more like Dems and will lose out again. And we'll be scuhrewed.

Neal, I am really surprised your station manager hasn't pulled the plug on your constant promotion of the Fair Tax. Most of your shows are now little more than tiresome infomercials on the Fair Tax. Look, its a good idea but it has about as much chance of becoming law as I do of becoming Pope.
You rail constantly about the dumb masses. Has the last election taught you nothing? The dumb masses, products of government schools are incapable of understanding the Fair Tax. You are constantly barraged with the same questions from the public. Most don't want to understand it. The liberals can and will shoot it down with mis-information and the public will believe them.
Please re-think the wisdom of continued efforts to sell this idea. After all, its kind of like trying to teach a pig to sing. It makes you angry and frustrates the hell out of the pig.

There is no Republican Party anymore. If the Evangelicals and Catholics on the right cannot have someone speak on their behalf, they will do what most conservatives did last November- sit on their hands and not vote.

It amazes me- we never lost an election before for standing on principle. Now Neal and these other pundits are on that "the christian right is the enemy" nonsense. We believe in the precious sanctity of life, but this makes us outcasts?

The only thing I agree with- the Republicans are going to be in the wilderness a very long time. If you don't stand for something, you fall for everything.

The Fair Tax is wrapped around Republican principles. The ones that don't support it are in politics for self-gain only. If those that do support it would threaten to leave the party and start their own party, you would see smart masses follow.

A threat is all it would take before the rest of the Republicans to get in line.

Hopefully, one Republican politician could gather the rest of their colleagues that support the Fair Tax to agree on taking a stand together against the RINOs. It only takes one.

The Republican party caan win, but the failed leftist neo-con foreign policy of nation building, and policing the planet to the tune of bankruptcy has to go. America is not Rome. Here what the Republicans need;

-Embrace the constitution and states rights.
-Eliminate about 70% of all government programs.
-Pull troops out from the middle east where their presence is aiding terrorist recruitment,
-Embrace the fair tax uncompromisingly
-Secure the border encourage illegals to go home
-Stop pretending that morals are universal
-End America's drug war addiction
-Audit the Federal Reserve
Embrace freedom of choice in education
-Admit that George W. Bush and Amnesty Mccain were a disaster for traditional conservatism.

If the GOP doesn't do the majority of these things, Obama and his henchmen will remain in power.The number of conservatives not will to vote for Mccain/Cheney/Bush types is growing.The neo-con big govt mystics in the GOP must be exiled in order for the party to regain its appeal.