Funny how the rightwing writers say that Obama will make our country weaker when it has been their ideas and their policies that has destroyed the nation.

But, they would never admit it.

I find the progressive conservative thing interesting. It means that some on the right are toying with 'progressive' when it's largely democratic.

And Teddy Roosevelt was more like the democrats today then republican. The republican party was a far different party a century ago. They were the progressive party then. Democrats were more conservative. Teddy's cousin, FDR turned the party alignment upside down.

What the republicans need to do is return to the party of realistic and pragmatic ways of Eisenhower.

But, they have a civil war to fight for who will be in control If the extremist rightwing and those like palin win, it will be a broken party for a very long time and one that most average people will not want to be voting for.

The beautiful advantage for Obama is the press removing as racist all references to associations, school records, birth certificate. The cloak of secrecy is irrevocable. The press to me also includes Letterman, Olbermann, Maher, and left coast limousine liberals: Geffen, Spielberg, Streisand, Oprah.

McCain-Feingold is a joke as money is filtered thru innumerable loopholes such as Soros' corrupt laundry worker contributions. McCain's own law came back to bite him and should disappear.

Bill Clinton was the first to obviously play the race card and any criticism thereafter was labeled racism. The frustration began when Obama won the Iowa caucus for obvious reasons. This is when the Bradley effect first reared its ugly head.

Also downplayed is the hand-over-heart pledge of allegiance, flag pin, 57-state reference, and Stephanopoulos helping him correct reference to his Muslim religion. This is an ongoing handicap when I hear people speak of their lack of race prejudice but natural apprehension to vote for a Muslim(?)

People laugh at Alan Keyes who is far preferable to Obama as would be Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Clarence Thomas.

You make an interesting point, re: a return to Eisenhower Republicanism. I would be curious to know what you mean, specifically.

Here are a couple thoughts that occur to me.

First, if we are talking foreign policy, then I agree a return to Brent Scowcroft caution is in order, after the Iraq debacle. And of course, Eisenhower was known for caution, too. His contemporary, DeGaulle, pulled the French out of Algeria. Realism, drawing of bright red lines for our enemies, those are all good things.

Second, when we talk about the party being *taken over by the far right,* I think some additional tough thinking is in order. Colin Powell, for example, said recently the party is too far right, yet he was appointed and promoted by Ronald Reagen (far more doctrinally conservative than McCain) and George W. Bush (more or less indistinguishable from McCain, with the latter's 90% support). So what is Powell talking about? Similarly, Anne Applebaum wrote a column in the Washington Post on the rightward trend and offered as her evidence . . . a Fox program by Sean Hannity bashing Obama. According to Applebaum, when your *supporters* are doing this sort of thing, it reflects badly on you. Allrighty, then.

My point here is that the Republicans have had a right-to-life wing for decades. They can't win without it. They have to give it props from time to time to sustain it. If by going back to Eisenhower, you mean making the party pro-choice, it won't exist any more, and will not command 50% support. Remember, not only are right-to-lifers a minority; the *rich* or *upper rich* are a minority as well. Even non-rich people who just don't like the modern trend of government are a minority. Three minorities divided against themselves cannot stand.

And finally, don't forget that Eisenhower himself nominated a 45 year old named Palin . . . oops, a mean a 39 year old named Nixon, to appeal to conservatives, and instead of teenage-pregnant-daughter-gate, they had the slush fund story and Checkers. Some things never change. (Palin, incidentally, has a less distinguished academic record than Nixon had in '52, but far more concrete accomplishments, in terms of her ethics bill, budget cutting, and pipeline project in Alaska).

So, I am genuinely curious. What do you mean by getting back to Eisenhower? Is it more than just ditching the anti-abortion plank?

The beautiful advantage for Obama is the press removing as racist all references to associations, school records, birth certificate. The cloak of secrecy is irrevocable.

The stories of Wright, Ayers, Rezko and Obama's schooling in that Indonesian "madrasa" immediately come to mind. Seems I know quite a lot about Obama's past, despite this "cloak of secrecy" you mention.

The frustration began when Obama won the Iowa caucus for obvious reasons. This is when the Bradley effect first reared its ugly head.

This makes no sense. What were the "obvious reasons?" Do you know what the Bradley effect is? How do you see it applying to Iowa?

Also downplayed is the hand-over-heart pledge of allegiance, flag pin, 57-state reference, and Stephanopoulos helping him correct reference to his Muslim religion.

Hand-over-heart, flag pin and 57 states are just gaffes and/or similarly meaningless things. (Someday, history books will contain mentions of the curious times in the waning days of the USA, when citizens bickered over flag pins while the world crumbled around them.)

As for "his Muslim religion," dude, are you telling me you're one of those? Please, tell me, do you or do you not think Obama is a Muslim? (If so, I've never encountered one of you before.)

People laugh at Alan Keyes who is far preferable to Obama as would be Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Clarence Thomas.

Hmmm. All black people, why is that? You seem to be suggesting that black people are interchangable, and that you'd rather swap out Obama for a more agreeable one. Am I understanding you correctly? In the same way, maybe we could swap out McCain for, say, Jon Stewart, both of them being white guys and all?