You quote Rush, Sean, Glenn (what a joke Beck) are you nuts. The Republican party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Goldwater has been highjacked by extremists, right wing 'social conservatives'. The party can never recover until it returns to its true roots of small government, low taxes, and staying out of people personal lives. People like you who quote those listed above have given the party the bad name it currently has.

Dr Bill Kirby

Thank You Dr. Bill. you are totally correct.

If the tea parties are all about fiscal responsibility and small government, why weren't they protesting George Bush? Howcome Glenn Beck's eyes weren't filled with tears while the last administration brought the largest government and deficits in history up until that time? Why does the party of "small government" want to regulate our behavior through "social conservatism"? If anybody can answer these questions, I may rejoin the republican party that I left two years ago. Right now, I don't know which people are the republicans and which people are the RINOs. As is stands today, our two major parties are the republicans (the party of borrow and spend), and the democrats (the party of borrow and tax and spend even more).

Sir-

Since you are going on record for the GOP and stating your core values, I present you with some points to ponder.

1. You believe in fiscal responsibility - explain the deregulation of mortgage lenders in the past administration and how it has effected the current economy. -site fiscal responsibility where it applies.

2. Free markets - Republicans traditionally regulate and tax in favor of American monopolies being uncontested in a given business. Free trade would suggest that you believe we should level the playing field against Japanese and German car makers, foreign banks, and outside interests. Site an example of Republican legislation that has done any of that. I can easily site targeted American bank and auto maker bailouts. Explain the socialism leaning policies in economic terms that an old Republican can understand.

3. Respect for our constitution - It states all over the constitution "We the people", "To form a more perfect union", "Promote the common good" and various other communist phrases. A republic form of government is not recommended in the constitution. That document enforces that every voice be heard. The very core of the GOP is for people with knowledge of an area should govern it. I wouldn't say that the popular vote and the GOP are bedmates in any stretch of the imagination.

If I may: Beware of political dogmas, they do not serve the intellectual. You also claim to champion conservatism. Can you explain what that …

Bill,

One of the most vehement liberals, an outspoken Democrat agrees with you. Does that cause you any concern as a Republican? No..I doubt it.

The party has a set of principles. Read their platform.

The problem that led me to leave that party was that its politicians do not support the principles of the party. RINOS like GW (Big Govt) Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain are screwing it up.

auburntom: Many patriots held their nose when they voted for GW the second time and had the Democrats put up anyone reasonable, GW would have lost.

You know this. Bush lost a LOT of his base when he signed up for NCLB, attempted to give amnesty to illegals, etc.

I thought the tea party movement prided itself on non-partisanship. Oops, my bad.

Acadian, are you being intentionally dishonest?

The Tea Party movement is a "Small Government - Fiscal Restraint" movement. That includes Democrats, Independents and Republicans.

Not all Republicans are small government, they are a problem.

Most Democrats are big government, they are a problem.

Our government is being run, grown, and getting out of our control due to corporate, union and special interest control rather than voter control.

Democrats are typically happy with that because it feeds big government which they support.

Republicans are torn up over this because the base opposes it, but the elected (CorpUnionPAC funded) defy their own party principles.

Independents are sick of it, and joining together.

Y-S, you are correct, the only reason that I voted for Bush both times was that the other candidates were unpalatable to me.

bharrison1776, I concur with Dr. Kirby and I will also add that as a loyal Republican for many years I was literally forced from the Party due to the radical attitude displayed by the extreme right. That to me is as much of a turn off as the radical left. I still believe in the concepts of the real Republican party and will return to it once it is cleansed of the radicals.

Acadian: As to why I asked that question, the answer is so obvious that your question appears to be a rhetorical ploy.

Immigration Amnesty, is the right course and Bush should be applauded for his efforts in this area. The rest of you guys that oppose amnesty have forgotten that it is the "American Way." In fact, what most of you wingers want to happen is written in the "Turner Diaries."

Dr. Kirby and loomis. I respect your positions and none of this is directed at either of you.

bharrison1776,

the problem many of us ex-Republicans have with the party is exactly as Goldwater predicted. Politics and religion do not mix.

It's odd that no one seems to want to use the word "Libertarian" on this thread... the elephant in the living room... Is there now or has there ever truly been another party that actually promoted "small government, low taxes, and staying out of people personal lives"? [and in place of "low taxes" you can insert "no taxes" or "user fees"] Too much? Too little? Not enough welfare or warfare state for our tastes?

Well said, loomisresident.

YS

In your post of 10/26/09 at 6:20am I agree with everything you said. As to being upset when someone agrees with me, no.

Dr Bill Kirby

A new poll shows Hoffman gaining 31.3 % Hoffman 27 % Owen and 19.7% Scozzafava

More garbage from Move America Forward and RussoMarsh& Rogers.

Teaparty baggers are nothing more than phony astroturfing by the professional Republican hacks pushing the same old neocon warmonger agenda under another label.

You're a bunch of lying, racist idiots who are dedicated to everything Anti- Obama. And your new trick is to call yourself "Independents" because you're too chicken to call yourself warmongering Republicans anymore.

Will of the "people," my ****. WIll of Exxon, Chevron, Koch Oil, and the religious nutball wing of the Pentagon and the Dept of Defense.

CR, " the religious nutball wing of the Pentagon and the Dept of Defense." They are the most dangerous element with the power to bring about nuclear Armagedon. While they travel on their "Divine Journey" to "God's Golden Glory." The sinners and nonbelievers will be consumed by "Fire and Brimstone". If that doesn't scare people...

Marginal_elite, I haven't mentioned the Libertarians because they seem to represent "no government" as opposed to "small government". I'd jump at the chance to join a new party called something along the lines of "Libertarians that aren't Crazy". I hear too many libertarians talk about private ownership of schools, roads, etc. along with totally open borders. I'd like to move toward the libertarian agenda, but not "to" the libertarian agenda. I can't take them seriously.

auburntom, I have to agree with you in your description of libertarians so far. They go way too far.

That's the job of a philosophically consistent political party: to represent without compromise the cause that is foremost in priority - in this case, that cause is liberty. COMPROMISE will happen, no matter what, so why not start at the extreme end of freedom, rather than at an already compromised position, which will simply get watered down further, with a result somewhere between where you think we should be and where the authoritarians (of left or right stripe) want to force us to be. SOMEONE has to be out in front for the cause of liberty; be glad they are, even if they're further "out there" than you wish to see the country go.

And for the record - the political philosophy of "no government" is called anarchism. There's no constitutional protection of individual rights and liberties in an anarchist state, as there are in a libertarian society. "Minarchism" might be a better word -- minimal government needed to protect person and property from force and fraud, nothing more. One doesn't have to subscribe to the extreme version of libertarianism to see that a libertarian movement is necessary to counter the excesses of authoritarians who cleave to the so-called "left" as well as the so-called "right".

So if you're for moving "toward" the libertarian agenda, then thank whatever gods you recognise that there is one. The closer we get "toward" it, the freer we will be.

Th United States needs a strong, principled Republican Party, but since the Neocons made a deal with the religious right to provide the boots on the ground that they needed to get someone, namely GWB, to accept their PNAC and endless war for ultimate American world control through their doctrine of manifest destiny, the Republican Party has been in free fall.

As someone posted earlier, politics and religion simply do not mix and as long as the Republican leadership tries to mix the two, the Republican Party is history. The now thoroughly discredited Neocons -- Richard Perle, Bill Crystal, Donald Rumfeld, Donald Feith, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, to name just a few -- were a main reason the Republican has become a blip on the American political scene and so many of you claim to be Independents and Ex-Republicans. As the Party now stands, no principled person can remain a Republican.

Let's see what the November '09 elections bring. I expect a Republican sweep.

Scozzafava showed her true colors telling her supporters to vote for the Democrat now that is a RINO. Looking good for Hoffman!!!