If you take the word marriage out of the equation then it would be easy to get a domestic partnership law passed. Indeed it isn't about acceptance for many activist but an acknowledgment or approval that is being required or that word would be left out and domestic partnerships could be a fact right now.

This is a lie. Just look at what the Republicans passed in Virginia in 2006. In Louisiana the law they passed was overturned by their Supreme Court only because it was determined that in its attempt to ban not only same-sex marriage but also banned any legal recognition of civil unions or domestic partnerships it was trying to do two things at once, which violates another provision of the state constitution. Here is a summary of current laws. Notice the color coded map where red indicates states that do not only ban marriage but specifically ban other types of unions.

Hardly a bit of a stretch. Two current examples. First of all we had many conservatives try to paint Obama as a Muslim… if the conservatives believed in freedom of religion then it would be a non-issue. Second, the conservatives voted to take away the rights of same-sex couples to marry. This previous right was taken away mostly (if not entirely) on religious grounds… using every reason from “marriage between two men or two women is an abomination in the eyes of God” to “homosexuality is a sin”. FIne… I don't have a problem if someone is against gay marriage. I do have a problem when they force their own religious views on others, particularly when the actions of the conservatives takes away previously held rights.

Conservatives can worship their god their way, but let others worship how they want, too. Even if it means letting them have beliefs that you don't agree with.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917…

Change being one of them as well. ”

“Return of lipstick on a pig” is in order, though you've led yourself astray after that point here, because believe it or not, she has formed a PAC if I am not mistaken. I cannot see her running for President in 2012. Her only chance of success is in the event of a substantial Democratic failure. Currently I believe the Dems have failed to comprehend how strong they are and promise to be even more so in two more years. (WIth the House and the idiotic bill, that's just the same cast of childish clowns being childish once more. The Senate wil probably clean parts of the bill.)

No, where Sarah Palin belongs is a place that _needs_ someone like her, ideally lecturing when not excoriating them: The Uinted Nations (and those who want the USA suborned to that organization, or for the USA to be depressed in this or that way).

As for “change,” if I can find the passage -heh, heh…

I would welcome that, and would welcome it even more from the Dems, who are much more retarded when it comes to this, because the 21st century progress includes what is referred to outside the USA as neo-liberalism, a reintroduction of classical liberalism (that is, libertarianism) in many places where the lessons of excess-government failure and authority have yet to be relearned. It will strike many lefties the same way the Enlightenment may have shocked or offended many, centuries ago, but that's the price of progress. (We _are_ going to see _less_ rather than _more_ trade barriers, regulations, and restrictions, if we really are progressing to the 21st century, for example.)

K, I've addressed this on another thread but it merits revisiting here. It's not a question of passivity or helplessness, of can versus cannot. This is a clear matter of action, of choice, of volition. If you want more insight, it merits mention in passing here that a real problem has been the Frankensteinian creation of a monster in Washington once FDR replaced constitutional federalism with the modern welfare state (claiming necessity sometimes, claiming want or ambition later, which carried on to excess by the 1960s). I view it in its proper historical and other forms of context: We're lucky here versus what happened in Europe, which unlike us is a more collectivist place, herd-of-cattle at worst, a place, after all, where there used to be feudalism. We got Roosevelt, whereas the Europeans got fascists (and in some places, Communists). But the fact remains there has been gross overreach by Washington in the wake of FDR's engineered revolution, and the power that has accumuluated and centralized in Washigton has corrupted the members of both parties. The Dems want to overreach more than the GOP as a rule, but the GOP is happy to go along with its own derivative of “tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect” while flirting at the margins of authoritarianism or totalitarianism as have the Dems. The real problem, in addition to the GOP being seduced into being Dems Lite when in power, is Washington and its excessive size and scope.

And where, despite welcome relief and reality after the 1980 elections, at least a welcome brake and break, is the trend going?

Washington will grow, that's where the trend is going. Medicare for All is anticipated, for example, and I've already speculated openly about what Obama might do in health care and in other ways to subsume more state and local functions (properly) into Washington — and power over these.

Incontrovertibly so. Not only in the polls, but in obvious everyday experience, empirical data that not all of us choose to deny exists.

As to wanting work on image and cosmetics, style over substance — well, there goes the GOP, being Dems Lite once again. We're waiting for the substance, to see corrective, remedial, positive action by these people, to convince us and give us confidence we can trust them to be different, more virtuous, more honorable, more trustworthy than the Dems. Not dysfunctional or Dems Lite.

Exactly, and I think this is nothing short of tragic. Priorities like healthcare and the environment have traditionally been sidelined over and over, and it's coming around to bite us in the ass. One of the more discouraging legacies of GWB is that he set the stage for these issues to be pushed back and neglected yet again by leaving things in such a sorry state.

As for images and perceptions, we all know that actions tell the real story, which is why we have to focus on records – accomplishments and failures, and not on how persuasive all the pretty pictures, or all the scary pictures might be that others (with their own agendas) paint for us.

For Bush- he promised tax cuts and they were extremely popular with his base–even though the cuts and huge spending on two wars and national security created enormous deficits. Because conservatives believe in deregulation – and not handicapping business-he pushed that as well- but Democrats DID go along.

We are now finding out that the price has to be paid now rather than later- as Obama will be forced to pay most of his attention to the fiscal crisis- instead of his larger goals of fixing health care, the environment and economic inequality,

I'm not saying where I fall on that – I'm just saying that, as I wrote in the previous comment, I'm not even sure Kevin DeWine understands what a “basic tenet” is – and absolutely disagree with the idea that we all have them – unless you show me the definition.

If there's one thing having people like Palin in the race showed us, it's just how differently Americans do define certain words.

Change being one of them as well.

I believe this is due to the engagement by voters and people with the Internet for the news – the control of the message and the singleness with which any one term can be defined now are diluted considerably from the time during which Luntz and that effort to control the metaphors that got into our heads succeeded or could be expected to succeed.

Here in the blogosphere we push transparency – I have a presentation that I do, like a blog primer, and I have a ppt slide that's about the risk of not telling everything or not telling the truth. It raises the issue of just how true truth can be depending upon the source and the reader.

Anyway – my point is that we have many tools are our disposal now to question what is asserted and as the media becomes more and more sensational and competitive for attention, the more people question what they read or want affirmation that it's accurate – forget about the so-called filters of the media, the editors – we can corroborate now too.

So in this sense, the parties' efforts to tell us what any one concept means will and is challenged – and should be. I think this is where Palin really failed – she put out big huge conclusory notions without demonstrating what they meant – and it made it easy to say, “huh???” You just can't do that – a smaller and smaller proportion of people are willing to accept as true whatever we're told – there are too many tools to help us check or that can be delivered to us via other media to give us doubt.

I'll finish up this thought in the next comment because it has to do w/what greenschemes wrote.

I'm guessing I missed the comment that said that – I apologize – I'm definitely not intending that at all. I just think that they are fooling themselves if they think all that's needed to make that come back is an image update.

The current GOP mess is the result of the GOP being in charge and in the majority. Thus the Democrats and the public in general have this perception that the GOP ideals do not work.

Yet when Clinton was in charge and the Democrats were in the majority the American people threw them out and their was a perception that the Democrats ideals did not work.

Since 1980 There have been a GOP president for 20 of those 28 years. In addition when Bill Clinton was Elected he held a majority in congress all of 2 years before the American people threw the “bums” out and put the GOP in charge of congress. For 6 of the last 8 years the GOP has been in charge and I have to agree with Kritt about that unregulated American free enterprise will lead to nothing but gluttony and greed and avarice beyond all expectations.

Core Values of the two parties are very similar.

They both Value their country.
They both are highly patriotic.
They both value a work ethic that rewards them for their hard work.
They both value family and friends.
They both value American culture even if they are not native born Americans.
They both value the traditions for which America Stands for.
They both Value the need for compromise to get along.

I could go on an on. The problem is not that the core values of Democrats are Republicans are different. The problem is that both sides have a differing idea on how to shape America in their own image and this has been the downfall of both parties for decades.

The fact is you do not. I would never…..ever….ever…….become a democrat. However I do not lose sleep at night know the Democrats are in charge. Why? See my list of core values above.

Democrats share MY values they just have differing ideas on how to get there.

I haven't studied things enough to know if all of that 'setting the terms of the debate' worked or not. Maybe so, maybe not. I would say that where the Democrats found themselves becoming a Big Tent party is actually with people like Howard Dean pushing the 50 state program. To run in 50 states, they had to find moderate and conservative Democrats, which meant that there had to be some pursuit of a true Big Tent. Naturally, there were lots of Dems bashing such an approach for both financial and ideological reasons.

In my mind, it was that purely practical decision to go Big Tent that pushed the Dems forward nationally, not revamping their beliefs or the presentation of them through language and images. Instead, they just decided to engage more Americans. The question is: are the Republicans who also want to return to a Big Ten powerful enough to make it happen? We know that most of the Republicans on this site want to move in that direction. How about the Republicans running the party?

Personally I'm not a Republican and it doesn't matter to me if the party fades are not. But the Idea that the Dems are going to have this unopposed reign is absurd. I think the Republican party will make a comeback but if not another conservative group by a different name will move in quick enough because on average Dems are to the left of most americans. Hell in Texas the Dems are to the right of some northern Repubs. Republicans have never advocated no govt regulation, just necessary regulation only. People point to the current crisis as a call for more regulation. Too bad they leave out govt interference and regulation that made the problems more likely, could even be said to have caused the problem.

I agree with Jill- the problem with the GOP is they know what conservative principles they are supposed to represent, but they can only live by them when they are in the minority. As a governing philosophy they are basically unworkable. In other words their principles make good sound bites but don't really work in today's reality. By making government the problem, you free up the agents of capitalism which unleashes unregulated greed and corruption into our society. And letting the markets rule themselves leads to excesses that can bankrupt our economy.

These guys need to wake up and realize that they are no longer living in Ronald Reagan's America and that the shining city on a hill has become a polluted, corrupt, bankrupt mess. Otherwise they will go the way of the Whig Party.

Not really true. There is a strident core on the right that requires certain things, the same that happens on the left. These groups push politicians in their different directions. If you take the word marriage out of the equation then it would be easy to get a domestic partnership law passed. Indeed it isn't about acceptance for many activist but an acknowledgment or approval that is being required or that word would be left out and domestic partnerships could be a fact right now. Abortion rights to you mean telling people what to do but by your definition so would laws against murder. It's condescending and dismissive of others beliefs. This is the first I have heard that conservatives were against freedom of religion. Usually the complaint is that they mix Govt and religion so from that to being against religion? More than a bit of a stretch. Regardless While some few find some of these issues are deal breakers for the most they are secondary at best. They don't bother them but are not why they vote. Politicians find they can get both the far right and the regular joe vote with the stances. That doesn't indicate that “average joes” want that interference from govt, just that it isn't a deal breaker. Probably because it just isn't a issue in their lives.

There is a difference between what republican politicians do and what the “average” voter wants and what the politicians say.