"Republican primary voters, party activists and party leaders have a choice to make, ruthlessly clarified by recent events," asserts Gerson. "They can take the path of Democrats in 1988, doubling down on a faltering ideology. Or they can follow the model of Democrats in 1992 and their own party in 2000, giving their nominee the leeway needed to oppose outworn or extreme ideas and to produce an agenda relevant to our time."

I wonder if Ladbroke's is giving odds.

Ho boy, the Cult of So-Called "Conservative" Perpetual Victimhood lies on!

"We'd a won if only the peoples have voting for us."

By the way, Paneocon, getting your political arse whuppped at the national level does not mean you're right. Sometimes you get your political arse whupped at the national level because what you're saying is just plain stoopid.

"Return to Goldwater/ Reagan ideals is precisely what the Republican party need to do...."

Goldwater defended SC decisions on abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. He opposed the military's band on homosexuals. He supported legalization of medical marijuana. He bemoaned the "bunch of kooks" taking over his party. When asked to comment on Jerry Falwell's opposition to Sandra Day O'Connor's nomination to the SC ("Every good Christian should be cocerned"), he replied: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass." He described Reagan's Iran-Contra fiasco as "the god-damned stupidest foreign policy blunder this country's ever made!"

And then there's this, instructions delivered to the righties in his party: "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."

"If you don't want opinions on articles why do you post them?"

I do want opinions on articles - but I don't pay a lot of attention to broken-record, lockstepping, ill-informed silliness like the stuff you habitually post.

"That's your narrative, not mine."

Which is precisely why your brand of Republicans will probably go the way of some near-extinct critter that seeks refuge deep in the swamp.

I post what I read and find interesting - quick reads in the a.m. typically from Daily Beast, Salon, the WP or NYT. Other stuff from The New Yorker, occasionally Mother Jones, Think Progress, National Journal, The New Statesman, The New Republic, and The Onion ("Old Reliable").

I also post articles that criticize Obama's politics, report errant Dems (Rangle, Jackson, etc.).

What I try not to do is post b.s. and refuse to go back and admit it's b.s. when I discover that's what it is.

And, frankly, some of the posts are the virtual world reality of pouring water down a gopher's hole to see if the gopher's there.

I also post articles that criticize Obama's politics
#10 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Yes when Obama is not leftist enough...
#14 | Posted by paneocon

Congratulations, you just won this a.m.'s "DUH!!!!! Award."

I also wrote: "What I try not to do is post b.s. and refuse to go back and admit it's b.s. when I discover that's what it is." That one was aimed squarely at the gaggle of posters of which you are a charter member.

I guess Paneocon must've missed this. So, one more time:

Return to Goldwater/ Reagan ideals is precisely what the Republican party need to do....
#2 | Posted by paneocon

"Return to Goldwater/ Reagan ideals is precisely what the Republican party need to do...."

Goldwater defended SC decisions on abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. He opposed the military's band on homosexuals. He supported legalization of medical marijuana. He bemoaned the "bunch of kooks" taking over his party. When asked to comment on Jerry Falwell's opposition to Sandra Day O'Connor's nomination to the SC ("Every good Christian should be cocerned"), he replied: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass." He described Reagan's Iran-Contra fiasco as "the god-damned stupidest foreign policy blunder this country's ever made!"

And then there's this, instructions delivered to the righties in his party: "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."

#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Can you deal with that?

No. Doc has posted articles critical of Obama, Matflop. Any other questions?
#13 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-22 09:44 AM | Reply |

Yeah, one, NullandVoid; when----forget it...
#17 | Posted by matsop

At best, you're poorly informed.

And, please, would you please stop playing DR Victim Diva for a even just a while? It's smearing your virtual mascara.

#15 | Posted by KBM

Do all the threads whizzing by your noggin part your hair?

#20 | Posted by matsop

Provide a few examples of where I've slapped something up here as a fact, been called on it, the call actually turned out to be correct, and I did not own up to it.

Or, please, stop embarrassing yourself.

Return to Goldwater/ Reagan ideals is precisely what the Republican party need to do...
#2 | Posted by paneocon

When you say, "Reagan ideals," do you mean things like the his administration's use of American taxpayer money to print books for Afghani children extolling the glories of jihad?

First it's "Goldwater/Reagan," but when you find out the degree of contempt in which Goldwater held and your ilk, you drop him from the equation. Whuzzamatta, buttahcup? Was Goldwater one of those "RINOs" you so disdain? As for Reagan, he played people like you like a fiddle and if he demonstrated anything it was that the Laffer Curve is better described as the Laughter Curve.

How about those US taxpayer-supported jihadi textbooks Reagan distributed to the Afghanis? Kewl, eh?

I have no issue with Goldwater and I could care less about your use of the red brush of revisionist history on his career.
#32 | Posted by paneocon

You never seem to grasp the point: history is always about revision, unless it's "history" that gets ossified to suit narrow partisan/cultural purposes. You always go back and look at it again, reexamine the evidence, reevaluate the information, reframe your conclusions. Unless, like you - and George Bush - you like your "history" extra-lite.

Goldwater defended SC decisions on abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. He opposed the military's band on homosexuals. He supported legalization of medical marijuana. He bemoaned the "bunch of kooks" taking over his party. When asked to comment on Jerry Falwell's opposition to Sandra Day O'Connor's nomination to the SC ("Every good Christian should be cocerned"), he replied: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass." He described Reagan's Iran-Contra fiasco as "the god-damned stupidest foreign policy blunder this country's ever made!"

And then there's this, instructions delivered to the righties in his party: "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."

The party you support has certainly played the social issues card - and it's been able to do so because of a combination of forces, including the rabid activism of committed loons or the torporous connivance of those who enabled them.

Chalk up one more - and one of the three or four most predicatable - Riiightie Whambulance Chasers who can't handle what Gerson has to say.

And here come another!

"If you build it, he will come."

ROTFLMAO!