Still can’t find it, even on New York Times, CNN, Washington Post…all the “real news” sites. I guess you got me on this one...

blaming the media. I thought this might be a mea culpa, but of course the fault is demographics, the damned media and political correctness "where diversity is nearl a religion..." It's everybody's fault except the Republicans.

I find several problems that Republicans as a whole are not recognizing. One is that the base of the party is made up of white protestants who have openly racist opinions against African Americans and Hispanics, as well as Asian, Jewish, and "Arab" and "other" people. Many Republicans openly voice opinions that are racist, many against the duly elected President of the United States and his wife. The other problem is that the Republican party is composed almost entirely of greedy people with little compassion for others. I won't bother with examples, I'm sure you are thinking of your own as you read this comment.

Here are a couple of news articles and blogs for you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/17/AR2007011701256.html

http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2007/01/fisa-that-was-then-and-this-is-now.html

http://themoderatevoice.com/10344/white-house-reverses-course-on-warrantless-wiretaps-program/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/washington/18intel.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1169182800&en=31f17ca266626030&ei=5094&partner=homepage

It's not exactly that the Bushies admitted they had been acting illegally, but they did effectively acknowledge that such extraordinary secret orders were unnecessary, as the powers they wanted could have been, and at the time the articles were written had been, accomplished legally with rather little effort. It was considered rather a slap in the face to those who had bought the Bush propoganda line, hook and sinker. The effect is a sideways admission that the secret wiretap orders were not legal--- but it's all fixed now, so don't worry your little heads about it.

Sorry, mikebuzz, you seem like a nice guy. But your unthinking loyalty to those who draped themselves in the Republican banner has blinded you. That neo-con crew was no more Republican than I am (although very different from me.) They used you and will continue to do so, if you let them. Your party does not represent folks like you, they only tell you they do. People like Mr. Greener sell you the myth that they do. Don't buy it. My advice is to switch to a party that has the same interests as you do, for real. I can't tell you which would be a good match for you-- look around. Libertarian, perhaps? The principles you stand for may remain a small part of the Republican platform, but once the election is won, the words stay on the platform and are not acted upon. If the fiscal conservatives join another party in droves, that party will have enough people to make strong moves. The religious right could do the same, although I suspect they would not gravitate to the same one as you (and wouldn't that be a relief for both of you?) Follow your own principles -- you have them, the GOP does not.

There is no real reason to stay with a party that does not actually represent you. There is no reason why this country needs to stick to a two party system. Strength in numbers only works is the strength/power is used on behalf of the numbers that support them. I suggest the same to disgruntled Dems. Let's move away from the corruption and mindgames of the current system, the current parties, and see if we cannot perhaps shake things up. Wouldn't it be great to have more choices in leaders, valid choices who might actually have the interests of their constituents in mind, than we have now? Wouldn't it be interesting if any of 6 candidates for President could have a real shot at it? (Right now, one feels as if one is wasting one's vote to spend it on a third party candidate. How about changing that?) The current two party system keeps us scrambling to find someone who is not actively offensive or who does not stand on an offensive platform. Let's have more. Others countries do, and they are more vibrant for it. All it would take is for us to leave our current parties en masse, taking our votes with us. Spread those votes out.

Thanks for the cites but they don't rise to the level of the Bush Administration "admitting it acted illegally" (in fact, both the Times and WaPo articles specifically note that the Administration was claiming no such thing). Now, you can read this as after-the-fact ass-covering if you wish, or as a good-faith effort to satisfy critics about a program that the Administration already believed was legal, but an admission of guilt it certainly isn't. As I said before, if they had engaged in illegal activity and then admitted it, where are the prosecutions? It's not like there's a friendly new Administration in place covering for them, so my guess is that they know they have no case.

As for my political affiliation, it's funny you should mention the Libertarians. That was my affiliation for a long time until this past election, when I concluded that the world is too dangerous to fritter away with a party that is comically naive about national security. I am by nature libertarian when it comes to personal lifestyles (as long as they affect only the individual involved and other consenting adults), and I definitely remain libertarian on economic matters.

So my choice in 2008 came down to bedding down with the social cons in the GOP or the big government crowd among the Democrats. It was no contest, so here I am, a newly (or at least recently) minted Republican, and you're right, there's plenty that the party has done that I find objectionable. But the Democrats are much, much worse.

I don't see multiple parties emerging, sorry to say. The foreign examples you cite operate under a different (parliamentary) system that encourages and rewards political fragmentation. The American system by contrast has historically encouraged "big tent" parties, and I don't really see that changing. Your vision of six presidential candidates all with a shot of winning makes no sense with the electoral college system. It's basically a recipe for having elections decided in the House of Representatives because nobody will have an electoral college majority.