Landrieu is hotter.

I'm not surprised her daughter's pregnant, she's even hotter. Ow-ow!

Troll...

According to Larry Flint, Palin *does* 'go'....

http://www.hulu.com/watch/40764/the-colbert-report-threatdown---whos-nailin-paylin#s-p2-st-i1

lol... "don't think about white elephants"

Has anyone mentioned Nazis yet? Trying to ban books in Alaska, using her power to get state troopers removed for personal reasons, getting ready to declare war on the Russians for inapprorpiate threats against Alaska, massive pork-barrel projects... seems she might be worth talking about!

Has anyone seen the Palin Rap on SNL?

ugh... it was terrible. Someone on youtube has placed the SNL skit and then the Palin interview back to back, on the same run. SNL didn't have to write the skit, Palin did it for them! Honestly, it's very closely word for word. Check it out!

I don't know any conservative politicians anymore. They're all just pro-life Democrats.

We need to dig up Barry Goldwater and nominate him in 2012.

Haha cause he did so well last time Invictus

>>aeo3
I go to school with her son. She's a milf :)

Sometimes you win in the long run by holding onto your beliefs. We never would have had Reagen if Goldwater hadn't made conservatism mainstream.

Jimmy Carter helped too!

The Republicna party that still clings to the Goldwater platform is preaching to a shrinking redneck population. They need to change their message and quickly or they will never get back into office.

You don't know anything about Barry Goldwater if you believe that. Look up his views just a little and you'll realize what an embarrassingly ignorant statement that was.

Haha. Am I the only conservative here amused by reading previous posts?

I meant to say POST-Goldwater. Not that Goldwaters message really resonated either.

It did. Al Smith ran just as left as Roosevelt. You need an extremist to lose first and then win with a guy who has the party's heart.

I agree we've lost our way, but the Republicans will not win by compromising their beliefs.

Fremont lost before Lincoln.

Maybe you should run Palin in 2012 then. Shore up the 2016 presidency.

Ron Paul 2012 I agree with you.

Ah yes, the beliefs of discrimination, religion and state mixing, running huge budgets, expanding government. all great beliefs. You can argue that those arent the beliefs of the Repubs, but its exactly what they do.

The last president to shrink the size of Government was Carter. But At least Ron Paul knows what the Constitution is.

It is what they do but it isn't why their elected. They were thrown out because they did that and can win big if they keep their word.

How did Jimmy Carter shrink the size of government? He created that monstrosity that is the Department of Education.

It's not something new that the Republicans do. They've been doing it since Reagan, Reagan did it too. I dont see why you would throw out a party for expanding government, the debt, etc and replace them with the party that does the same thing and admits it. Republicans can win once they divorce their social policies and revamp their economic policies.

If a politician kept their word things would be different.

The Republicans lost pretty badly and they really need to rethink their overall strategy. They need to evolve the party to be compatible with the majority of the American population as it is now - not as it was 8 years ago.

I agree with Maica that they need to alter their social policies - not so much as to alienate the theocratic authoritarians that are the party's base though. They also need to make their economic policies reflect their old Reagen-ideals or to have a much clearer direction.

History was against them winning anyhow. A two term President of one party is very rarely followed by another of the same. The last was W's father after Reagan and this guy, this guy was no Reagan. Before that you have to go to Truman and before that all the way to Taft (giving the remainder of McKinley's term to TR as his own).

Unfortunately, in today's politics, it's hard to win major elections without pandering. this means campaigning and voting for policies that are sometimes on the extreme end (on both sides). This was sort of the downfall of McCain, he tried to be more moderate and lost a lot of support from his own side. Granted, the Bush fuck-up and anti-conservative wave that's come over the country helped. Anywho, the point is that for republicans/conservatives a non-moderate stance means supporting ridiculous shit like anti-gay marriage, stopping stem-cell research, banning flag burning, and all the other insane nationalistic attitudes that have been around for almost a decade now. Honestly, I can't believe that we had a man running our country who 'wasn't so sure' about evolution... I'm not saying democrats are right about everything, but it is refreshing to see the public support starting to shift a bit leftward. maybe we can finally match the minimum wage to the cost of living...

A good candidates needs to centrist so he can get the independents but appeal enough to his base to a) win the party nomination and b)get volunteers working for your campaign. Apparently the McCain offices were empty before Palin, but then all the independents went to Obama

Tetra0, the anti-gay marriage movement is a legitimate way to look at things. No one wants to deny gay couples basic benefits like hospital visits, but marriage is just too far for some people. Gay marriage isn't like civil rights because civil rights were about the immutable trait of skin color while being gay is a lifestyle. They're not equivalent.

Also, no one is against stem cell research per se, just against using human embryos. Stem cells can be harvested from adults. A stem cell is a stem cell is a stem cell so we should be focusing our research there where there is no gray area about destroying human life.

You shouldn't burn flags but there shouldn't be an amendment either.

Since when is strict subscription to evolution a litmus for being able to govern? What if they're not so sure about fluid dynamics or string theory? Can they not be President then? Most people really don't think about it too much and when they do it's a low priority.

Raising the minimum wage will raise the cost of living. It's inflationary and does the most damage to the people its intended to help because prices rise across the board, affecting the poor the hardest.

There's far too much pandering, I agree. It's isn't so bad to lose if you can keep your soul.

I'm sorry, why shouldn't gays be allowed to be married? It's a legal engagement, and If I remember correctly, legal commitments of any kind shouldn't be constricted to religious dogmas. That whole church and state thing that always bites conservatives in the ass...

you are correct that there is a difference between stem cells and embryonic stem cells, but the distinction is often not made in mainstream politics and media

Flag burnings: I agree

Evolution vs. Creationism isn't even comparable to something like fluid dynamics, which is proven through it's daily applications. String Theory is an arbitrary mathematical plausibility that was applied to theoretical physics. as far as theories go, it has very little credibility. But to consider Creationism an equally valid theory as Evolution is ridiculous. The case for evolution is made through tens of thousands of archaeological finds, and supported by DNA and anatomical observations. Creationism is from a book, and supported by a millions of people who would like, very much, to not be told it's wrong. And of course accepting arbitrary theories is not a prerequisite to govern, but I think either publicly or personally accepting one over the other says a lot about his ability to accept 'new' ideas, or alter his own thinking. Maybe I'm overanalyzing this, but I think it does say a lot about someone who rejects a theory with all kinds of support for one who's only credibility is tradition. It shows a great deal of acceptance over questioning, and I don't think that kind of attitude has any business running a nation.

Minimum wage increases actually have a minimal effect on monetary value. There is a seeming correlation only because during periods of rapid inflation, the minimum wage is generally raised to meet it. And actually, since WWII, The periods where the real minimum wage is highest, are periods of huge economic growth. The simple fact is, the minimum wage is not keeping up with the cost of living. This was even true before the recent depression. Since the late 90's, the cost of living has increased by almost 40%, where the real minimum wage has actually decreased by 10%. Besides, any inflationary effects raising the MW would have, could be countered by decreasing the flow of tender to the public, which causes deflation.

Also, I think the gays burned and stoned to death in 1300-1700 a.d. Europe would disagree that it's a lifestyle 'choice'