Their regime will last for however long it does, but not because their opponents lost elections.

The GOP factions can no more help each other than Democrats can help America. Not because there is a mutual incompatibility, but merely because one side, the Left, believes that it is better for them to have a situation where they win 5 and you win 0, vs a situation where they win six and you win six.

During the campaign of 2008, yes, some Republicans in the so-called “establishment” were against her. But most were not. I certainly remember David Brooks (who doesn’t even count as a Republican in my book) being critical then, as well as (at least, to the best of my recollection) Krauthammer and Rove (although I can’t remember whether they were critical of her as early as 2008). But the drive to take her down, to discredit and destroy and ridicule her, was mounted almost entirely by Democrats with the assistance of their handmaidens in the press.

Somethings need to be cut 100% (eliminated) and all else needs to be scaled back by 20-50% and this includes in descending order the big 3: medicare, SS, and the DOD. Otherwise there is no path to fiscal sanity. For example: Franklin Raines should now be a resident of Leavenworth. The window is closing, rapidly.

Rickl,

I want to see Corzine (and others) tarred and feather, run out on a rail, weighted down with cement boots, and then deposited into the Atlantic and/or the Pacific. The same goes for the banksters and their politico friends, dim or repub. Otherwise, the message is there is no rule of law (GM bond holders). When there is no rule of law, anarchy descends upon the land. Under anarchy, it is time to raise the black flag and begin slitting throats. The window is closing, the thugs of DC have to prove us wrong or face the consequences.

A rough beast slouches….not toward Bethlehem but towards DC.

Look at how the rule of law has been utterly trashed. Whether or not you are prosecuted for a crime depends on how well connected you are. (See John Corzine and David Gregory.) And if a connected person is prosecuted, he’s likely to get off with a fine; whereas a non-connected person would face jail time. We are rapidly moving towards a society where there is one set of laws for the elite and another for the peasantry.

Recall that Sarah Palin ran for governor of Alaska on the platform of rooting out corruption in her own party. She, and anyone like her, must be smeared, discredited, and driven out of politics. If a genuine reform movement gains traction, large numbers of the established political class, of both parties, will end up behind bars.

If during that period if Republicans had moved to cut – for example – agricultural subsidies, pushed through entitlement reforms – especially social security which Bush attempted to his credit, cut back/down Fannie/Freddie, then they would have a record of standing for principles that many people would find attractive now after having experienced the Democrats in power for 4 years.

This most electable conservative is a slippery concept that is often used by establishment type Republicans very comfortable with ever bigger entitlements and government.

Somehow I doubt Reagan met the criteria in ’76 and probably not ’80 either for many party leaders.

Short of going through a Faber like catastrophic melt down of the political/financial system – something a lot of us might not survive – I don’t see this country going back to the limited Federal government of the 19th century. On the other extreme I don’t think we should support MEC’s like say Gergen or Powell who say they’re Republicans but don’t have any space between themselves and Pelosi type Democrats that I can see.

The current ‘civil war’ between the Tea Party – I take that to mean a fiscally responsible Republican – and the establishment free spending types is healthy and necessary.

Both parties have broad coalitions with plenty of fissures ready to bust open. And Obama I believe will work overtime to close up those Republican fissures in time for the next election.

Mourdock was inartful, as opposed to offensive. He was wrongly characterized (by the media/left) as having been offensive, and the Rove type Repubs did not adequately stand up for him.

Any Repub candidate … who does any effective advocacy for conservative causes … is going to get hit. The Repub candidate, most of the time, will be mischaracterized in completely unfair fashion.

Fraidy-cat conservatives believe conservative candidates ought run from criticism. They are wrong. Such is a losing strategy. Such results in candidates who play scared, and who do zero advocacy, and who thus make zero difference: it is as if they are not even there. Their fear, and wrongful strategic calculation, turns them into poodles.

The winning strategy is: audace, audace, audace! Attack straight into the ambush.

Mourdock was betrayed by his fellow Repubs. Also, Mourdock failed b/c he did not attack straight into the ambush, and with everything he had.

Every Repub, who is worth spit, will be attacked. We must not run from such Repubs. Cruz will be attacked, soon, and viciously. Cruz, for one who has a record of accomplishment, appears to have an amazingly clean past. It doesn’t matter. Dems/left/media will promote lies about him. Conservatives must respond; must not abandon Cruz. To abandon him is the way of poodles. Loser poodles.

Public figures, who are worthwhile, will say things of value, and will be attacked. We must not run away from being attacked. We must welcome it, and counterattack with everything we have.

Here we have an out and out lie followed by duplicity. It would astound the heavens if the GOP would ever support a clearly conservative candidate whose convictions against gay ‘marriage’, against any consideration of illegal aliens, and who was less than admiring of Islam – and who had unpropitiously stated any or all of them publicly.

…the most conservative candidate who can win. The Hispanic Hope, Marco Rubio understands this well – hence rationalizations on illegal aliens. The admirably exotic Gov. Jindal understands this well – hence rationalizing same sex marriage as the wave that’ll carry the candidate. CPAC understands this well, so that when Ann-Marie Murrell questioned Suhail Khan of CPAC about his statement that there was no Muslim Brotherhood influence in the government and conservative circles (Mr. Khan himself) she was asked by some CPAC members to leave and called an instigator.

Sit down, sit down, sit down, sit down, sit down you’re rockin’ the boat.