I'm pretty sick of the argument that instructs conservatives to vote for Republican Candidate X because he's not Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or some other liberal bogeyman. Conservatives should be more ambitious in their candidate wishes than merely settling for their votes going to a politician who is not a liberal. Cutting government, respecting federalism, adhering to the letter of the Constitution, defending America's borders, and protecting Americans from security threats are among the beliefs I want candidates to share. Yet, when I see what happened in the Senate yesterday, the "because they're not Democrats" argument starts to make a little bit of sense. "Senate Republicans blocked a bill Wednesday that would make it easier for people to sue over pay discrimination," reported CNN.com. Good. I know that's not the response they intended to elicit, but--good. Had the Republicans had a few less senators, the bill would have been passed and, who knows, even might have become law under the current chief executive. That law would be putty in the hands of creative judges and fuel for litigious employees looking to gain the raise they believe their employees owe them. There is already a remedy for employees upset over pay or work conditions: fire your boss and get a new job.

Dan, there once was an age of enlightenment...this is the age of ENTITLEMENT.

Rather than do for themselves, a growing majority would prefer to use the courts to MAKE someone else do it for them. When a prisoner can sue to get cable TV and WIN, something is wrong.

I get tired of people telling me "I am sure there are programs for you." Yes, there are. But dammit, I would rather try every avenue of empowerment first.

When did this crap start Dan? The New Deal or the Great Society. I am not talking about the programs, but the "gimme" mentality that goes with it.

And our children will be worse, I assure you.

Be well,

Sponge

PS 20 years ago I was a liberal. Government programs turned me into a federalist/conservative.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Democrats were more logically centrist and the Party was predominantly more moderate. It’s unfortunate and it certainly could be argued that both parties have moved leftward but even the further left faux Republicans of today are a better choice than the way, way, way left of the majority of Democrats.

All you have to do is look and see what happened with one of the last of the moderate Dem Mohicans, Joe Lieberman. The Party kicked him out!

So, even though it makes me ill to hear many of the principals of the Republican Party sounding like Democrats, many of them still possess the social, political and ultimately legislative common sense that the Dems lost long ago.

It all quite $uck$.

What does it say about the modern state of affairs that there must be something wrong with you if you don't think people should be allowed to sue their bosses for not paying them enough?

Sorry, that was 95 percent off topic. But I couldn't hold it in anymore. I just had to say it somewhere.

To get back on topic... Just remember who said what to you, with regard to this issue that McCain has to be better than any Democrat. Over the long run, McCain will be more destructive. He'll nominate judges who'll make Souter look like Story; and then whoever is elected president after McCain will definitely be a Democrat, and the Democrat will nominate the same kind of judges that McCain would nominate.

If McCain wins in 2008, as he probably will, he'll either serve one term and be beaten by a Democrat in 2012, or serve two terms and be replaced by a Democrat in 2016. There are no other possibilities; McCain definitely will not be followed by a Republican. Here's why.

First possibility: If McCain gets one term, he'll want to serve another, and it's fantasy to think that his age will keep him from running for a second term. He'll definitely run for a second term. And he'll win the primary, because Republicans don't dump incumbent presidents in primaries. (Remember 1976 and 1992.) So if he loses in 2012, he'll lose to a Democrat.

Second possibility: If McCain gets two terms, that means the Republicans will have had four consecutive terms in the White House (two for Bush and two for McCain), and there's no way they'll get a fifth--it's never happened before, and it won't happen now that the GOP has soiled its public image so badly.

So if McCain wins, we'll have four to eight years of McCain picking Supreme Court justices, followed by four to who-knows-how-many years of Democrats picking Supreme Court justices. That's at least eight years of dystopia, and probably more. And what are the odds that Scalia and Thomas can hold out that long? At least if a Democrat wins this year, there'll be a chance of getting a decent Republican in the White House in 2012.

Republicans seem incapable of accepting that they have to lose SOMEtime. If the Republicans were rational, they'd choose to lose when they've got a bad nominee. (A nominee who said, when he last ran for president, that abortion is "necessary" and that he opposes overturning Roe v. Wade now or ever.) But no, they've got to win RIGHT NOW, DAMMIT.

Pray for the Republic.

I think that as Republicans/Conservatives we need to focus on the House and Senate as the Presidency is lost this time around no matter what happens.

Either Dem would be a disaster and McCain $uck$. He's a nasty entrenched elitist left leaning RINO who could set the Party back years if other strong GOP representation isn't maintained to control him.

His recent tirade with regard to his telling the North Carolina State Republican committee not to run the Rev. Wright 'God damn America' soundbite demonstrates that he's a weak candidate who thinks he's royalty.