You continue to insult me telling me that I dont get it. Fine. I can only surmise that you are offended that I attacked the democrats when you wanted us to attack the Republicans. As for me I attack both parties. You simply have no clue how to deal with someone who finds disdain with both parties and so you result to semi negative personal attacks on me personally by calling into question my intellect.

Perhaps you dont get it as well. Asking these questions about what does the GOP have to do to become viable again assumes that they are broke………I disagree. I said as much.

Perhaps the problem with both of us is that we both have an agenda that drives us to the point of not seeing the forest for the trees.

I have no argument at all with what you wrote. What I wanted was commentary specifically about what I wrote – but you don't seem to want to comment on the GOP or conservatives – you only want to comment on the Dems and people you define as liberals.

That's your choice – this is, as I keep saying, a blog – but your avoidance is obvious – I've only been trying to get you back to what I wrote about. If, after 64 comments, you still don't want to or for some reason I can't figure out are unable to comment on the GOP's failure and inability to figure out who they are or what they look like (which is what this post was noting), then you know – I think I've tried my darnedest. I can sleep knowing I tried a lot of different angles to get you to speak about the GOP and this problem I perceive that they have. That's all I ask of myself when blogging something like this.

My response was:

WEll lets see.
1. The democrats have Howard Dean, Nanny Pelosi and Harry Reid..
2. Obama was buds with a terrorist, Went to church for 20 years with someone who hates America.
3. Hillary Clinton is the former first lady whose husband was nearly impeached and who was about 1 step from being impeached for Whitewater.
4. 1/2 of Obamas cabinet nominations cant pay their taxes.

That is the face of the Democratic party. But aside from that. People continue to want to lift up the democrats as some sort of saints compared to the Republicans. I find that truly amazing and I guess if enough people say it over and over then pretty soon the masses begin to believe it.

Its called brainwashing.

As I stated from the beginning. Your not going to like what I say.

The topic of the post was: the GOP is placing the primacy of image over the primacy of anything else, yet they keep changing the image they want people to see. I supplied to MSM clips that back that up.

I stand by the original post. Thanks for your time.

Well Im glad to provide you with humor. Thanks for taking out of context what I wrote, changing it to mean something else and then claim Im confused.

I was responding to your post which quoted my line. However we both know what your doing. Lets just call it a day.

“This one we might have some common ground. While I was not opposed to it. I certainly have no support for it and believe that if left unchecked that Obama will turn it into a giant pac by allowing these so called faith based groups submit to government rules to get money which would preclude most of the right leaning faith based charities from partaking and this would be wrong.”

Hello? Bush? Created it? Funded it? Expanded it? For eight years?

You have nothing to say for the GOP's continued support for that office?

This is YOUR line – not mine: “”The GOP is simply doing what the Democrats did the moment they were put in charge in 2007.”

You are in an echo chamber and if you are happy there, go with it. In the meantimee, please produce one thing I wrote “in support” of Hillary Clinton.

You were a Clinton supporter. Hardly a surprise that you were writing negative things about Obama.

Where were you this past month and every other time I've written about my intense dislike of the faith-based and community initiatives now neighborhood partnerships program? Can you point me to where you slammed the GOP and Bush for its creation and expansion of that same office?

This one we might have some common ground. While I was not opposed to it. I certainly have no support for it and believe that if left unchecked that Obama will turn it into a giant pac by allowing these so called faith based groups submit to government rules to get money which would preclude most of the right leaning faith based charities from partaking and this would be wrong.

Green – I've been blogging for almost four years. After you've read my literally thousands of posts that demonstrate independence that has earned me great party ire – which I cherish btw – then you can set me up as a straw woman. But if that's the best you can do, well, then really – it's no wonder that the GOP is in the particle state it's in.

Ive been essentially responding to this article and your words directed at me. If Ive assumed something that is not true then that is why YOU are the well known figure and Im just an obscure commenator on a blog in bloggville.

Where were you when I wrote against the removal of the reproductive health money in the stimulus plan?

Where were you when I wrote against Obama calling the reporter in the gym, “Sweetie” and never answering her question?

Where were you when I wrote about how wretched the sexist treatment of Sarah Palin was?

Where were you when I wrote against the racist, sexist image of Michelle Obama that came from a lefty blogger at Daily Kos?

Im sure I was at work.

Secondly most of what you have pointed to I consider bad taste. Not Politics.

While that documentary is a scathing indictment of the idea that capitalism and democracy actually creates “freedom” I am eager to watch this prior documentary by the same guy “Pandora's Box” that focuses on how attempting to have managed solutions makes everything fall apart and this one that is an overall critique of trying to simplify complex behavior in general.

I'm not sure what the moral of the story is taken as a whole. I'll wait to see if the others are as convincing but if they are I'd have to say that it's obvious that conservatives are right that big government doesn't work, but liberals are right that there are times where there needs to be strong government that provides vision and leadership that private individuals don't. Scientists are right that some things can be quantified and give guidance about what works in general, but many things are impossible to measure and even if they are measured, then trying to implement the results changes the environment and invalidates the measurement. Too much too much conformity is bad, too much self centeredness is worse. Etc. etc. The key is humility, skepticism and acceptance of balancing forces.

I thought it was the most concrete representation of Taoist thought that I've come across.

But essentially the biggest difference between you and me Jill is that you are a Democrat establishment person and I abhor both parties while calling myself a Republican when in reality Im a conservative more then I am a Republican. Therefore I have no problems pointing fingers at the GOP while you continue to believe that your party while it might have a few faults if you look hard enough has all the answers.

Where were you last year – almost exactly a year ago – when I wrote about Rev. Wright and Obama?

Where were you this past month and every other time I've written about my intense dislike of the faith-based and community initiatives now neighborhood partnerships program? Can you point me to where you slammed the GOP and Bush for its creation and expansion of that same office?

Where were you when I wrote against the removal of the reproductive health money in the stimulus plan?

Where were you when I wrote against Obama calling the reporter in the gym, “Sweetie” and never answering her question?

Where were you when I wrote about how wretched the sexist treatment of Sarah Palin was?

Where were you when I wrote against the racist, sexist image of Michelle Obama that came from a lefty blogger at Daily Kos?

Green – I've been blogging for almost four years. After you've read my literally thousands of post that demonstrate independence that has earned me great party ire – which I cherish btw – then you can set me up as a straw woman. But if that's the best you can do, well, then really – it's no wonder that the GOP is in the particle state it's in.

Which is why I have been begging the Democrats to get to work do what they say we should do. But you know what. This is another example of the Democrats saying one thing and doing something else. Can't wait for all the excuses to start rolling in that we cant do anything with Green technology because them darn GOP'ers keep blocking it. Yeah right.

Poverty. Why isnt it fixed? Well if they fixed it they would have nothing to blame the GOP for.
Green. Why arent we going full bore with Green. Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal? Why? Because if we do then they have nothing to blame on the GOP. Because fixing it would diminish the differences between the two parties.

I am a states right person who believes that politics is about dividing the country. Not uniting it.

This is and always has been the starting point for any discussion that I have regarding Democrats and Republicans. They both know that if they fix whats broke, then they are no longer needed and their basic need to have power and wealth is then squelched. And that aint gonna happen. Not in their world.

So let the debate roar on about yes we can or no we cant.

I find it amazing that the Democrats passed a stimulus bill and spent all their time not talking up what they passed but trying to divide the country on their own bill by pointing out that all the GOP'ers opposed it.

They won and tried to make it sound like a loss by blaming the GOP for not voting for it.

Blaming them for what? Not voting for something that passed. Incredible that the American public does not see thru this charade.

NO they kept rubber stamping what GWB and the GOP did which is why were in the mess were in now. Perhaps they should have been obstructionist and given pause to what was done the last 8 years.

This is why now that the GOP have found some footing and are just saying no, it perhaps might just be the best thing they could have done.

Yet my opinion remains. You wrote a post, essentially negative about the GOP. Certainly not popular. Then you end it with The crying video. What sticks out the most in peoples minds? YOUR words or the Video? Perhaps I give you too much credit.

But essentially the biggest difference between you and me Jill is that you are a Democrat establishment person and I abhor both parties while calling myself a Republican when in reality Im a conservative more then I am a Republican. Therefore I have no problems pointing fingers at the GOP while you continue to believe that your party while it might have a few faults if you look hard enough has all the answers.

I disagree.

And from your last paragraph there, I guess my point is that at the extremes, we can predict these things somewhat, no? It's in the gray areas where it gets too muddy and we can't expect to micromanage productivity with tax policy.

I think both parties end up being too simplistic about it though, because you certainly can't count on a tax cut producing great enough growth to net an overall increase in revenue (except, again, when you're operating at one extreme of really high rates- and another point I forgot to mention about that was that you can pretty much count on a rate reduction causing an increase under those circumstances just because people stop trying so hard to shelter income.) But you also can't justify more and more spending on the basis of being able to increase tax rates indefinitely either, and I rarely see signs that the Democratic party takes that caution seriously. Programs and social spending are justified by need rather than prioritizing based on what we can actually afford and sustain (that's part of Europe's problem now.)

Unfortunately none of those things can ever be formalized because they are not repeatedly measurable (this goes for economics in general actually) and a lot comes down to philosophy and vision. I happen to believe that it became evident in the mid 90s that something was seriously wrong with the economy because all the red flags referring to sustainability went off. There had been no income growth for 15 years, a series of bubbles had formed in housing, CRE and now the stock market, and wealth disparity was reaching extremes. The only good part was that there was still a lot of room for the IT market to run. But all of that has nothing to do with anything measurable and if I was older back then I couldn't have “proven” that things were entering a danger zone, but I do think that proper leadership would have avoided the worst of the dot com/housing/debt bubble. [Actually I don't because you wouldn't have been able to convince enough people. I'm pessimistic about anyone having foresight about much of anything.]

But, if I ran the world I would have raised tax rates and made investments less lucrative during that era to encourage a weeding out. Similarly I would have supported Reagan tax cuts (although not necessarily his focus point on spending cuts) because by all measures there was a ton of extra room for production. Income was at all time highs, debt was at all time lows and there was very little wealth disparity. And I'm not sure I would have disagreed with JFK/Nixon policies very much considering the time they were in power.