reserved

I agree.  One of the things that made Reagan's Presidency so effective was the Blue Dog Democrats (now almost extinct).  They were conservative democrats, and had the same goals as Reagan.

As soon as I heard Castle's stands, I threw him under the bus.  While I cannot vote in Delaware, I saw no reason for the Republicans to get a majority if he was part of it (and besides, he may have done a Jeffords/Specter number).

I especially found your comment about the "American on the street" impression to be inciteful.  While Obama is trying to say the Republicans are the reason for all the ills, most Americans are not that stupid.  They can count and see that democrats have all the power and do not need them (and indeed have treated them with contempt).

O'Donnel may not win, but she is the first candidate I have donated to.  I just wish we had some like her, Miller, Angle and Rubio in my state.

The thing is, if conservatives do get elected and start correcting things you know that Obama will take the credit.  Just like how we hear all the time that Bill Clinton balanced the budget.  The President has limited power on balancing the budget so who were those people in Congress.

If Obama does take the credit, 2012 is so ways away...... He could get another term.   If he doesn't win, I want a true conservative.  One who really knows what Americans want and when to give the finger and a punch to the face when getting a thumb to the nose. 

Maybe, some day our government will tighten its belt just like how the rest of us have been tightening our belts and losing some weight.

I know, but its easier to argue "congress controls the purse strings, and things were horrible under obama + dem congress, and got better under obama + rep congress". Much easier sell then "when it was obama with a republican congress that was actually liberal controlled congress because the republicans suck so bad they can't even properly represent themselves and select RINOs, which are really democrats with a republican label".

Also, for anyone who honestly believes in liberalism, it is better for the republicans to win than to elect blue dogs (heh, RINOs and DINOs)... But I honestly prefer they don't (since hardcore liberals ruin countries). I can see some need for blue dogs since blue dogs are basically libertarians, they are fiscally conservative (low taxes, etc) but socially liberal (eg: abortion, gay marriage, etc) if I understand correctly (someone correct me if I am wrong on that)

@Dr Guy, did you mean insightful (full of insight, can be found in the dictionary) or inciteful (meant to incite... aka, trolling. not in the dictionary)

I want to clarify that "man in the street" is not meant as an insult or a put down... I myself was exactly this sort of man on the street until I began investing a whole lot of time into the issue, and I still find it really damn hard to know at a glance who is a RINO and who isn't. What I really know is who is the party in power (or how the two parties share power), and that takes going out and counting Dems and Reps in the senate and house (just president isn't enough).

It is why Clinton went from 43 to 49% of the vote between 92 and 96.

Damn spell checker!  yes I did.  But then your article is citeful as well!

I know, it is just a statement of fact.  Most people do not pay close attention to politics and are vulnerable to a silver tongue and a well stated lie.  But not an obvious lie. 

As for Rinos - I take the view as the author of "The Ruling Class".  In other words, many conservatives went to Washington as conservatives.  But living there turned them into RINOs

I don't see why Republican ideological purity (as defined by whom?) has anything to do with whether someone should get elected or not.

Of course the GOP can plan for defeat and refuse to run "RINO". But what is a RINO? Was Lincoln a RINO? Or was he the definition of a Republican? Which Republican today is most like Lincoln? And is he a RINO or a true Republican?

Look at the Tea Party, look at some of their people. Are Ron and Rand Paul really ideal Republicans? (Do Republicans accept funding from neonazis? Since when?)

To undo Obama's and the Democrats' mistakes, America needs a government somewhat more right-wing than Obama and the Democrats. But America does not need a choice between extremist conservatives and socialism.

If America really has to choose between Democrats more left-wing than Obama and true Republicans who believe in Creationism, I cannot envision a bright future for the country either way.

You seem to thin kit is some kind of pejorative, and it is not.  Simply put, the republican platform is for small government.  So how many have bene voting that way in recent years?  The ones that do not are called RINOs because while they are affiliated with the party, they do not adhere to the party platform.  Some may make the case that they have deceived the electorate by campaigning one way and then voting another.

As for Lincoln, I would have to see what the party platform was in 1860 before commenting on whether he was or was not.  As I was not around, it really does not make a big deal of difference to me now. 

No, but democrats do (Sheehan anyone?)

You are falling for the MSM trap.  Some republicans do believe that, but I defy you to find it in the party platform.  You are listening to the hype and not going beyond it. And seeking the truth for yourself.

Creationist have voted republican because their platform is closer to what some creationist believe (some vote democrat).  The Media is trying to assign guilt through support.  In other words, only the republicans are now who votes for them, instead of standing for something and having different people vote for the position.  A politician can only be responsible for their actions, not the actions of their voters.

The Tea Party has nothing to do with religion.  It has every thing to do with a basic principal of small government.  That is what scares both the Republicans, Democrats, and the MSM.  They are not some monolithic cult that can be (although the MSM is trying to) be dismissed based upon the views of some members of it.  If that scares you (smaller government), then yes, I guess you should be concerned.  For the battle now is between Obama leftists (the only thing farther left is the communists and then not by much - read his writings and his comments) and small government Tea Partiers.  In one respect you are right.  What we have now is a compromise and no one says it is working.  So it will change.

But if you define Republican values as they are today, the term RINO means nothing, because those valued can change again.

Lincoln was a founder of the Republican party. His philosophy should matter.

And Ron Paul does.

I was referring to the Tea Party, not the GOP.

The most vocal Tea Party candidated seem to be Creationists.

No, but if he supports nonsense to gain votes, I cannot respect the politician.

The Tea Party is whatever calls itself Tea Party and isn't rejected by the rest of the Tea Party. I have seen many complete nutters run under the Tea Party name. What started as a movement against Obama has evolved into a movement that allows everyone on the fringe to have a say. And that will cost the GOP dearly.

1.  Yes, and a RINO can become a democrat - or a real republican.  Specter chose the former.  However, it is not our problem when they become RINOs if we decide to toss them since they betrayed their constituency.

2. Politics is not religion.  The issues of 1860 are not the issues of 2010.  We can thank him for his contributions, criticize him for his faults.  But what he wanted would only matter if we had the same issues and his solutions were going to work or not.  Clearly some of his ideals are worthy of praise, but most of his views are irrelevant today.

So was I.  And my challenge still stands.

Again, s/he is responsible for their actions, not that of their voters.  And if you dissect every stand of every politician, you would wind up supporting none.  As none stand with you 100% of the time.  That is a truism.

No, you are wrong.  The Tea party was and is a revolt against TARP and all the other bailouts (anti-capitalism).  Obama got the heat because he was elected, but the Party was coming regardless since it was voted in by Bush.  The Tea Party is very definitive in its platforms.  But those planks do not cover the entire political gamut of issues.  Nor does the Tea Party - as a whole - care about the other issues except what they carry as their personal beliefs.

So by the same token, you can find those carrying those non-core beliefs in any party.  Anti-Gay Rights?  Check out the Blue Dog Democrats.  How about pro-gay rights?  Try the Log Cabin folks.  Again, by your pigeon holing, the 2 groups mentioned above should be in the opposite parties, but they have core beliefs that put them in the democrat and republican parties that transcend that single issue.  And you have creationists that are alive and well in both the democrat and republican party.

The difference is again, you listen to the MSM and stopped questioning as soon as you heard the code words.  No one is denying that the Tea Party has a lot of "creationist" within their ranks.  That is because they are normally fiscally conservative.  but back to Logic 101.  just because most creationists are fiscally conservative, does not mean that most fiscally conservative are creationists.

My point is that ALL parties and ALL people will benefit if parties stuck to their platform. You could correlate policy and result. Whether someone should be elected is not the question, the question is whether a party platform should mean anything. The liberals COULD prove us wrong if their policy is really sound, or we COULD prove them wrong with our policy is sound. By properly counting liberals and conservatives we could properly associate spending rates, tax rates, etc with different parties.

If I see an R or a D next to someone, he or she better be a conservative / liberal (respectively). As a fiscal conservative I am worried that democrats will take credit for the benefits of policy they oppose, and republicans get blamed for policies they oppose (because I believe that the conservative policy is the correct one). Anyone who believes liberal policy to be correct would be worried about the opposite (aka, democrats receiving blame for the actions of republicans, and republicans receiving credit for the actions of democrats). No matter what policy you think will work, you should be in favor of correctly and honestly assigning credit/blame.

Who says true republicans believe in creationism, show me where it is in the party platform? Be aware that creationism is not "belief in a god, a creator" (just as "progressive" is anything but and "Scientology" is not a science but a church). Creationism is a group that believes that "theory of evolution" (a name they incorrectly assign ALL science) causes atheism, that atheism is the root of all evil, and that by spreading LIES about science they could discredit evolution and preserve the faith of people. The fact that they use LIES is why their staunchest opponents are devout Christians... people who believe that such lies are wrong.

besides, a true republican believes in the constitution. The constitution specifies a separation of church and state...

What is the Tea Party? the tea party can be best defined through their platform, called "contract from america"

http://www.thecontract.org/

It is a clear and concise list... and notice that nowhere does it mention creationism. There will be all kinds of people supporting the Tea Party. I have seen some talk radio hosts say that "this is about god". I disagree, it is about freedom. The Tea Party is full of people of every color, gender, age, and religion. Actually, amusingly I attended some rallies with a group of friends and none of us was a Caucasian or Christian (most of us are atheists)... and I didn't see any rich white men amongst the speakers either.

To say that "true republicans are creationists" is like saying "true democrats are in favor of segregation, jim crowly laws, and the KKK"

Anyways, in the VERY short term (next 2 years) it will be better to have a republican victory at all cost... but a republican victory with RINOs is a pyrric victory. it will be disasterous in the long term. We could end up with 2 years of further economic failure due to a socialist majority in congress, and having it blamed on the republican party because it was the party in control. Both democrats and republicans need to clean house. Anyone who doesn't conform to the party platform is more then welcome to run as an independent.

the whole creationist angle is a just posioning the wall fallacy.

Call it what you will but I couldn't vote for a Creationist just because Creationism is not part of the GOP platform and not necessarily supported by all Tea party candidates.

As long as the Tea Party doesn't distance itself from the Creationists and the Paulians, I cannot support them.

That may be. Yet my opinion of the Democratic party is certainly influenced by their traditional support for segregation just like my opinion of the Republican party is influenced by their current fascination with stupid Creationist candidates.

If the Tea Party find the time to distance themselves from people who primarily advocate policies that are not on that list, I won't have a problem with them any more.

You are quick to "poison" the right, yet I have not seen similar "poisoning" on the left.  Does that mean you would vote for someone on the left regardless of their stated positions?  Clearly the left has as many (perhaps more) poison positions within its ranks (top of the mind - eugenics) as does the right.  Yet that does not "poison" your support of them.  Your litmus test appears to be singular, and as long as someone plays a mouth harp to it, you do not seem to care about actions, just words.

Again, you make bold statements, without any over t support.  Some Republican candidates are creationists.  But I see no influence in them other than their vote. Name one plank of the Republican party that is creationist?  Should we have a litmus test on who can now vote for candiates? "If you believe X, you are ineligible to vote!".  Welcome 1984.

If.....If.....If......  It seems you want them to drive the car before determining where they are going or even starting it.

Really? Even though you commented on so many of my blog postings where I wrote about the racists in the Democratic party and why therefor I wouldn't have voted for Obama?

Yes, but they have had them for a longer time. I am not just now losing them.

You remind me of the people in the old OS/2 newsgroups who attacked me because I was constantly complaining about OS/2 and never about Windows. It didn't occur to them that I complained about the shortcomings of the product I use, not the product I had already decided against earlier.

I'll happily vote for a Creationist if (s)he is against racism (in a real sense, not a politically correct sense).

But that doesn't mean that I have to abandon one of my positions.

Are the Paulians a plank of the party yet?

I have a litmus test for people I might vote for.

The Democrats bank on those petty disagreements to garner votes. One only has to ask themselves when in modern history has a major politician's personal views on evolution or creationism impacted jobs, spending, foreign policy? Keep them focused on something that is of little consequence in the real world then sucker punch them after they have your vote.

Leauki, you being Jewish should understand that clearly enough. The majority of Jews in the US vote Democrat, and are repeatedly kicked to the curb for their effort. Perhaps some aren't happy if unless they are suffering (in a sense. Bush didn't get their votes either, but IMO had their interests more at heart than Obama has. One might not like moose hunters, but is it wise to overlook the whole package when one is sitting down to a steak dinner?