I believe that was the point I was making and have been making for some time. The groups that are open to any sort of conservative ideas are less than 50% of th epopulation and shrinking. Thus, some people like Shaun believes that the Replbuicans should become the Democratic Lite Party. Yet, that very strategy has been tried in New England and failed miserably. Becoming Democratic -Lite leaves the repulbicans appealing to a small base of upper middle class whites and that is not enough to win elections.

PS, it is kind of hard to say that Democrats are pro-gay rights when one of the bluest states in the U.S. just voted to end gay marriage.

The election is over. You can stop reposting moveon.org talking points are original ideas. Why not go cold turkey and spend a week making posts about the coming Obama Administration. Maybe you can reconcile the idea that the Democratic Party that wanted to maintain race based busing programs in Louisville and Seattle will once again have a president-elect who will send his own children to elite, private schools. Maybe you can reconcile the idea of the idea of narrowing the gap between the wealthiest and poorest with the Democrats support for open borders and unlimited immigration. Of to bring up an idea from 1992, please explain how the Obama Adminstration will support higher real wages and lower unemployment while starting new regulatory programs, higher taxes, and open borders,

I guess repeating moveon.org talking points is what passes for intelligent analysis these days.

My real problem with these folks isn't their fiscal policy, although it is clear that taken to an extreme, it can have disastrous impact on the country. But the same can be said of the traditional Democrat fiscal policy. (Let's hope that Obama will eschew that thinking and embrace pragmatism as his books seem to portend.) But, the real problem is that Palin and the neocons are socially reactionary. I don't say socially conservative as conservatism implies less government interference in people's personal lives. No, reactionary as they believe it is their mission to impose on all of society both their moral code and their religion. They honestly believe that the only path to morality is through their personal religious belief structure, and that it is their right and their duty to force everybody else to believe as they do.

I happened to have a very civilized conversation with a young man who told me that Sarah Palin was wonderful for the party. He was glad to see that Christianity was being properly represented in this contest. He welcomed a country where professing the Christian faith was a prerequisite to high office. I asked him by what right he sought to impose this faith test. He stated that this had been founded as a Christian country, thus it was absolutely right to expect our leaders to be Christian. He tolerates those of other faiths, although he considers them damned and ripe for conversion.

This thinking is ultimately the reason for my revulsion to this brand of conservatism. The Bill of Rights explicitly promises freedom of religion, not just tolerance of divergent religions. There is no reference to a Christian foundation for our country in the US Constitution. Progressive people have been bullied into silence on this key issue, mostly because they believe that the Evangelical Right has every right to practice and believe as they do. Unfortunately, the Evangelical Right doesn't have the same belief about those who don't practice their brand of Christianity. Therefore, they believe they have both a right and an obligation to force their beliefs on the country. Just another situation where the moderate voice is drowned out. Moderates can always see both sides, those on the fringes are adamant that there is only one side.

I actually believe that the failed policy of the neocons combined with the bedroom policies of the so-cons handed the election to the Democrats, because these two groups seem to have little or no idea that they are alienating and thus uniting the rest of America.

Both are overly reliant on ideology, to the detriment of their ability to find workable solutions. Palin may have attracted those two groups, but was sufficiently repellant to the other 60% to help Obama into the White House.

It is hard to see how the party gets past this loss. Reagan was able to accept a 70-80% win as a win- in the end he was successful because he was a pragmatist. Goldwater would be considered a moderate or liberal Republican today and probably be drummed out of the party. I haven't seen one article lamenting the loss of the NE GOP moderates, which should be alarming to the RNC bigwigs.