Listen to urban politicians when a black criminal kills a police officer. they will justify it. Look at the No Snitching movement in the black community. Liberals Democrats support movements such as No Snitching. They also push for black juries to acquit black defendents.

There is no easy solution for harden criminals, so the left what to wishdraw from the area and give the criminals whatever they want. You should also look at how urban areas have found ways to lower the crime rate by refusing to report crimes. Besides, any lowering of crime is due to large incarciration rates that the Democrats have uniformly opposed.

Where did you get the nonsensical idea that the left thinks its ok for criminals to torture families?? Name one Democrat that has come out for that idea!
As far as living where you want,eating what you want,driving what you want—–
No one is totally free to do exactly what they want— that is called anarchy.

The Pentagon has spent billions in environmental costs and not one single piece of land had been rule decominated. California has been fighting over Hamilton Army Air field for over 40 years. The reason places are not cleaned up is because there is no way under EPA rules to say that they are cleaned up. See Jefferson Proving Ground.

The left does not have to spy. They just force people to give them data (see the University of Delaware). Guess what happens in sexual orientation becomes protected stautus. The government will demand that every tell them their orientation to get into college, get a job, etc.

The left has been outing CIA agents for decades. The left has decided that it is fine if street level criminals torture and kill people (see the family murdered in Baltimore when their home was burned). The left screams that the CIA did not do its job but then places limits on the CIA/NSA that give terrorist the abilty to avoid detection.

the left wants to ban cigarettes but legalize hard drugs. and then make non users pay the medical costs of users.

You are willing to be up rights to feel safe just like the right. I want to be able to decide where I leave, where I work, what I drive, and want I eat. The progressives want to regulate all of that and it will get worse with nationalized healthcare.

the left also wants to regulate what is said in political speech, how people practice their religion, and who they associate with. There is no consitutional right that the left will not find a compelling interest to limit.

If you are worried about dying how about controlling street crime and illegal immigration instead of trans fats.

And Republicans have been guilty of caging, voter suppression and harassing voting rights groups so that their candidates will win.

And who complained on the right when the Pentagon was not forced to clean up sites it had polluted or Big Tobacco was let off with a slap on the wrist?

Maybe our kids will stop getting injured and killed when toy companies are forced to clean up their acts, and we stop importing all that cheap stuff from China.

The left has debased voting rights but refusing to enforce the law and opposing reasonable requirements on domicile and identification. It is Democrats from DC to St Louis who have been sued for voting right violations.

The left cannot claim workplace safety and then require pizza delivery guys to drive inot the worst neighborhoods. To the left, the appearance of not profiling is more important that work place hazard. Besides, while the left promotes open borders and unlimited immigration, it had added millions of workers who are incapable of reading and understanding simple warning signs.

The left does not care about consumer safety while promoting legalizing drugs. Besides, consumer products have been getting safer and the envrionment cleaner through both Republican and Democratic Administrations. Of c ourse, the Republicans believe the government should pay when regulations make land and property worthless but the Democrats like the taking without paying idea.

It is hard for the Demcorats to worry about warrantless searchers after looking through Joe the Plumbers government records. When push comes to shove, governments will abuse their powers. What do you think will happen when the government requires sexual orientation on college applications or government job applications?

The left has created an entire legal industry in denying rights to individuals. All they left has to do is find a leftist activist judge and claim, compelling interest. The left has used compelling interest to regulate speech, to discriminate in the delivery of government services, to limit religion, and to limit people's ability to associate.

People who believe that the left is for more freedom are focusing on sex and drugs. How else can they believe that the political party who wants to regulate cooking oils is really about freedom.

The generation that has grown up since the Reagan years voted decidedly for Democrats, and they won 96% of blacks and 67% of Hispanics. So Reagan's three pillars which created the GOP's coalition no longer interests a working majority of voters.

Unfortunately that's not true on all issues, such as Prop 8 in CA. The religious right voted for it because they wanted their government to say gay marriage was unconstitutional.

On more general observation about prop 8…. (not directed at you, kritt)…. Forget the fact that prop 8 has absolutely no bearing one way or the other on how those effing religious right folks practice their religion. If they do not want to recognize or perform gay marriage in their religion, they are not forced to. All the religious right wanted to do was force their beliefs on others to keep them from marrying the one they love. I'm half way tempted to start a ballot initiative in CA to allow discrimination against religious right folks in the workplace…. that would give them a taste of their own medicine…. discrimination against someone (and taking away a basic constitutionally protected right) just because you don't agree with them. Obviously I wouldn't do it, but the point I'm making is that once the government (acting through the will of the people) take away a basic constitutionally protected right for the purposes of discrimination, where do you draw the line? Which rights do you preserve and which do you allow the people to decide on? I thought the constitution was meant to protect such basic rights. And once you do draw the line why there and not some other place?

So imo, Republicans will continue to lose if they offer nothing besides their limited government- no new taxes-supply-side markets mantra and will do equally poorly if they advance a socially conservative agenda. They are beginning to realize this now, which is why there is so much vindictive finger pointing going on.

Is it so unthinkable that Republicans lost a bunch of elections because they did a lousy job?

You don't even need to picture George W Bush. How about George Pataki instead?

PS And I certainly hope the expression the Mormon Belt goes no further than the comments section of this post. Sheesh!!

So take your thesis to the next logical stepl. How will the U.S operate as a one party state where the DEmocratic primary is the real election. Will most offices be up for grabs once a generation. Will current office holders hand pick their successors. How will people view politics with so little change in office holders?

Maybe if the moderates would show social conservatives anything but the back of their hand, they would be more accepted. Yet, social conservatives are suppose to always support the moderate even though the moderate never suppports the social conservatives.

If could point out a small government, more freedom moderate, you would also have a stronger case. But the moderates in the Republican Party seem to have never seen a new spending program that they would not support.