I would suggest that the Dems do the same. Change means shrinking government not increasing its scope and influence. I dare say that any candidate that governs less for thaeir party and more for the people will win in a landslide.

But the GOP is going to reverse Roe v Wade!!! I mean, they've put in SO MUCH EFFORT already! That's the only issue in this world that matters, and I'm going to make that my only issue for every race (even county commision) for the rest of my life. So there!

Spot on Gavin.

Good observation and wise words. Why bother to write a party platform if the party standard bearer has a different agenda, or even worse, flip flops at random?

All the theatrics, suspense and pageantry that has become the GOP tradition seems to indicate that the GOP only cares about winning elections any way it way (dirty tricks and deceit if necessary), but seems exceedingly nonchalant about exactly how they intend to govern.

They seem to try to be creating an incompetent government so they can get rid of most of the government.

If the GOP is against big federal government, why did the GOP drop everything to help with the Gustav effort?? -- doesn't this fit "government is the solution" mantra of democrats? If the GOP truly believe in smaller government with less federal interferrance with state's rights and operations, Bush/McCain should have just left the storm to the local and state authorities. The GOP's "ownership society" means that folks are on their own! When mavericks like McCain and Palin start to act like democrats, claiming that the federal government should be involved in solving social problems, then they are not better than mainstream democrats, and we lose the GOP's identity!

If the republican party is falling, they dont have far to go.

You say, "GOP is going to reverse Roe v Wade!!!"

Where have you heard that? I've never heard them claim that is their goal, it isn't even a plank in their platform. They may not support abortion on demand or government funding of abortions but that's far from reversing Roe v Wade. Just because someone doesn't support or encourage abortion doesn't mean they are trying to reverse Row v Wade.

Why are you so obsessed with the politics of abortion? The only way to prevent abortion is through education, not legislation.

Of course there are some people who are just as obsessed as you are with abortion (on the other side of the fence). These people would like to see Row v Wade reversed, but they are just as wacky and obsessed with one issue as you are, and the wishes of these few extremists doesn't make this the goal of the whole GOP, just like your obsessed opinion doesn't represent the mainstream DNC. No one should assume that the extremists from either side speak for or represent either party.

What the writer meant was that the Republican Party was once known for solid, stolid well-grounded moderates who didn't feel they needed a new issue every day. But the Celebrity culture, the Rove attack mentality, the pervasive cynicism as a shortcut for wisdom and the penchant for warrantless wiretapping, torture and secret keeping mean that the entire Party has changed, too. "Republican" used to stand for something - now it's whatever Rush said yesterday.

Quality of GOP has fallen?

How much lower can they go?

And when Roe v Wade is reversed, what then? Won't it be a pleasing sight, all those bloody backroom abortions? All those women in prison alongside their doctors? All those Medical Gestapo agents raiding doctor's offices? It will be Republican nirvana....

I wanted McCain to pass over Romney because his selection would have delighted folks in Utah. That was selfish and immature.

I fully expected McCain to pick someone as qualified as Romney. Instead, he went with a surprise pick. With all respect to Sarah Palin, is she truly the next best talented person in the GOP? Is there no one else in the GOP party to put on the ticket?

Agnew? Quayle? Cheney? Palin? Where do the Republicans dig up these veep candidates?

Guys, for the umpteenth time, reversing the judicial abomination that is Roe v. Wade will not criminalize abortion. It will simply mean that regulating abortion will be placed back in the hands of the people.

If that happens, New York will probably have less regulation of abortion than Utah. And that would be an awful thing, why? Why do Democrats hate democracy?

Guys, for the umpteenth time, the only reason Roe v Wade ever comes up around election time is for purely political posturing.(Ever wonder why Hatch, Cannon, Bennett, et. al, are not working overtime trying to overthrow the existing law?)

To neocons, its always a variation on the same theme:
Republicans love unborn babies
Democrats want to murder unborn babies

What else is new?

I guess it all depends on how you measure the "Quality" of politicians or a political party in general. That sounds like a pretty subjective game (meaning it comes down to your opinion and not something that can be measured, quantified or proven objectively).

This is a the opinion page though, so have fun if that's your game!

the Republican party is so unbelievably corrupt anymore, nobody can stand to be a part of them.
Yeah yeah, I know, the Democrats are corrupt too.
It's just that the Republicans sell themselves as the party of "morals" or "values", but they always show their true values eventually.
And, all the GOP corruption puts their basic intolerance and finger-pointing at the liberals into such an ironic light, that it's far more enjoyable to watch all the Republicans destroy themselves, than the Democrats.

Republican just hate life after in emerges from the womb. After that, a child can dies or starvation, illness or have bombs dropped on it.

A quick glance at some of the Limbaugh-sounding posts above shows how deeply into the abyss the GOP has fallen.
Their lies, deceit, self-centeredness and hypocrisy has caught up with them and they are better off going underground for a decade or two.

This may be "Off Topic" but this comment reminded me of something that had me scratching my head over the weekend.

Watching the incessant news coverage of Gustav over the holiday weekend I heard someone say, "This is a National disaster" and my wife said, "How is it a National disaster, it seems like a local disaster to me". I had to agree with her. I don't have a problem using national resources to help with a local problem, but don't call it a national disaster just because a large area is involved.

I was also suprised to hear many in New Orleans saying, "I haven't even recoverd from Katrina yet". I know everything hasn't been made whole yet, but emotionally, their really not ready for another? I assume the people who live there pretty much expect events like this every year or 2?

You can thank far-righters Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh for the downfall of the GOP. It may never recover.
Theirs is a form of nasty, divisive politics that real Americans are quite tired of.

Perhaps the GOP can morph into an independent form of politics and in a decade or two - who knows?

"Warped values" -- To the contrary, true American conservatives (the definition is *not* synonymous with "Republicans") believe that a human life is so sacred that no human being can rightfully be compelled to exist for the sake of another.

For this, Democrats call them greedy and selfish, and set about looting them loot them for swag to buy votes with. Robbing Peter to pay Paul somehow is translated into "love of humanity," "humanity" being conveniently defined to exclude Peter, who after all is a selfish, greedy, unprogressive Enemy of the People, whose human right to enjoy the property he has created is inferior of others' "human right" to take it.

"Re: 11:10," if you're paying attention, you'll notice that the abortion issue doesn't just come up around election time -- it never goes away.

Yeah the liberals are never divisive,

Not on wealth,
not on abortion,
Not on homosexualty,
Not on religion,
NOt on the role of government,

They are not attacking the child of a prospective VP,

Yeah they are never divisive.

Liberals like to gripe about how a fine word like "liberal" got slimed. (I agree -- just disagree about who did the sliming.)

Similarly, how did "greed" and "divisive" become dirty words?

Greed, as far as I can tell, is a word used by people who like to *take* money to describe people who like to *make* money. I will take, any day, a person who makes an honest dollar -- or even lots of honest dollars -- over a person who is parasite on the industry of others. A person who makes money creates value, adding to the total store of human wealth; a person who takes money just rearranges what others have created (and usually takes his cut in the process -- not that this is his *true* motivation; heaven forbid!)

"Divisive" is a word that describes a person who dares to disagree with what the word's user believes should be unquestioned conventional wisdom. In the real world where people use their own minds and (being different) reach different conclusions, democracies are supposed to be divisive; it's dictatorships who demand National Unity and tell the heretics to shut up.

I am sick of Republican talking about shrinking the government. Have they looked at the Federal Workforce Numbers? There were fewer federal employess under Clinton than there are under Bush.

"Former Fed" -- I'm not sick of Republican talking about shrinking the government. I just wish they'd start doing *as well* as talking.