No, you witnessed the opposite from 2001-2009. You witnessed the huge growth of government, which has only continued at an even faster pace since the last election.

Completely wrong. Perot was leading the race in june 1992, but lost his credibility after he dropped out in july for several weeks before re-entering the race. He made more than a dent. He could have been President.

Actually, I spend most of my time attacking liberals, and the rest trying to promote fiscal sanity (two sides of the same coin).

Ideally, Americans would have many significant candidates to choose from….but until/unless public financing of campaigns becomes reality….it's never, ever going to happen.

Seems he spends most of his time defending republicans

Herodotus said that the Ethiopians chose a king by lining up the candidates and picking the tallest one. I believe Shaq would probably do at least as well as any of the hat tossers I've seen lately.

"there will never be a viable third party candidate."

Really ? Hmmm. Ross Perot might disagree.

And I could care less what fantasies you have about Libertarians. I was a Libertarian before Bush II showed up. How do you explain that away ?

You voted for Hillary, as Rush instructed conservatives to do. Purely coincidental, I'm sure.

And I'm not buying your, "I may have voted for Hillary" laugher. You have pilloried the Clintons for years….so your claim here is not credible, not even close. Additionally, you defended Johnny-Mac and his Puffball VP, right up til the election. But like I said, whatever.

Like it or not…there will never be a viable third party candidate. Not ideal, I'll grant you….but reality, nevertheless.

Those who say they are libertarian, or independent, I've found, are mostly those who are embarassed or humiliated by Republican office holders they voted for and no longer want to be identified with those losers.

I see it as a tad cowardly….but like I said, whatever.

I'm the same way, and when I do vote for a Democrat or a Republican, it's usually because I'm voting AGAINST that candidate's opponent (the lesser of two evils choice). That's what I did in the last presidential election. I didn't like the Libertarian candidate, the johnny-come-lately Bob Barr, so I voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary (against Obama), and I voted for John McCain in the general election (against Obama again). If Hillary had won the Democratic primary, I may have voted for her in the general election (against McCain), though I didn't have to make that decision. And I was never a strong supporter of either Hillary or McCain. That was my version of the lesser of two evils.

And the upshot of it all is, I'm now registered as a Democrat, which I'm obviously not.

The Democratic Party….even when their candidates are less than stellar…has, in my lifetime, been the party of inclusion, the party of the people. The Republican Party, OTOH, has always been the party for corporate interests and domestic exclusion.

Those who say they are above the political fray as Independents…usually know little about politics or policy, and simply don't want to be identified with either one of the "crooked" parties.

For example: You, yourself, say you play both sides of the aisle on election day…yet you say this….

"..and if OB doesn't quit apologizing for his country and kissing up to our enemies."

Nothing Independent about that sentence. And no truth to it either.

". . . conservatives vote for Democrats? "

I take it you would never under any circumstances vote for a Republican.

Personally I would never wear any badge that required me to vote for the candidate dictated by that affiliation. I have cast more votes against Democrats and Republicans than I've ever cast for either party, and I suspect a huge portion of the electorate is like me. Just think: If ol' Bill had been able to keep his pants zipped up or if Al Gore had been more cognizant of public opinion in Tennessee, we wouldn't have had Bush. On the other hand, if we hadn't had Bush, OB would still be a junior senator, and if OB doesn't quit apologizing for his country and kissing up to our enemies, a lot of the anti Bush vote will become anti Obama vote. It's that middle third of the public who actually listens to both sides and thinks a bit before voting who actually make the difference.

I was also wondering why nobody responded to all the nifty liberal dream ideas I posted about in my Nobel speech. Perhaps it is because if all those liberal wet dreams were implemented, it would destroy this country quicker than you could say "social justice."

I thought Glenn Beck was the de facto leader of the GOP now. I wish y'all would make up your minds.

walter says, ""WH communications director: Fox News operates as ‘a wing of the Republican Party.’"

Yes, and MSNBC operates as a wing of the Democratic party, along with 80% of the rest of the media.

Rev says, "So, conservatives vote for Democrats? Is that the difference? "

You never heard of the Blue Dogs ? Sometimes, conservatives are Democrats, and yes, sometimes conservatives DO vote for Democrats.

I see that you have learned from Obama how to apologize to the world for everything the US has done that doesn't agree with those clowns from Norway. You did a great job of writing your speech and then you will go out and blow your shot at the 2010 award talking about conservative things. I don't think you can talk like that long, but ovbiously the lefties here really believed you since they failed to disagree with anything you said.

I thought that Obama bragging about doing away with nuclear weapons may have been one of the stupidest things he has said up to now. Somehow, he must not understand that when some head of state promised to destroy all his nukes you need to watch him do it instead of destroying yours so you can win that Peace prize. I suppose that there is a good chance that all the lefties like Chavez can make promises to people like Oba mao and he will believe them until they blow his butt off with the weapons they didn't destroy. How does he shoot back?

Think Rush votes for Democrats? How about Republicans….do they vote for Democrats too?

And if Rush, conservatives and Republicans all vote for, you know, Republicans…then…
what's the difference again? Cause I certainly wouldn't want to overgeneralize.

And I love how liberals keep labeling Rush Limbaugh as the "de facto leader of the GOP" and haven't realized that there is a difference between conservatives and the GOP; not all conservatives are Republicans, and not all Republicans are conservative. Way to overgeneralize!

Wiz says:

——————————————————————————–

Actually it is just the reverse, the Republican party acts as the political wing of Fox News.