‘But then he went on to say that human cloning is ?dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society, or any society.? Why exactly?’

Or another example of Obama putting his oratorical skills to good use. Smoke and mirrors.

“Have you looked around you? College kids on campuses wear torn-off jeans and flip-flops. The work place is now casual, and the country is slowly but surely becoming more liberal and open-minded.”

Some do, and some dress that way becasue it’s comfortable yet are open to conservative ideas. Have you heard of Morton Blackwell and the Leadership Institute. They’re addressing the “young liberal” problem by training young Republicans to become campus leaders and local leaders who can counter those liberal ideas with convincing, conservative ones.

“The GOP is in complete disarray.” And that’s new?

Gingrich: ?Anybody who does not want the President of the United States to succeed is irrational?. And anybody who thinks his policies are the road to anything but serfdom is even less rational. Do you support those policies, Newt? If not, you want him to fail, in the same context that Rush made his statement. You’re suffering from Chuck Schumer syndrome, Newt.

The question is, “When will his failure become evident to the majority of Americans?”

“You can?t buy the type of credibility you?re looking for. And blaming these problems on the media isn?t going to solve anything.”

That’s leftist talking points. Don’t try to apply what I wrote about one small part of the problem (PR) to the rest of the article. And you CAN buy PR. The left doesn’t have to, because it’s freely given by the SCUM.

“THE PARTY HAS TO CHANGE, SIMPLY BECAUSE TIMES CHANGE. That?s just fact.”

The fact is, right and wrong are immutable, within the context of a society. The society of Republicans, and particularly conservative Republicans, has a pretty well defined concept of right and wrong. So the Party may have to change in certain respects, in techniques, in language, in posture, but not in principle. But having flirted with flexible principles we have given up the high ground of being known for what we are, rather than for what the Democrats want to define us as when it suits them to do so.

“150 years ago, public hangings took place, and that was OK. 50 years ago, black people had to sit in the back of the bus and had separate restrooms, and that was considered OK.”

I don’t claim to be competent to comment on the other parts of this paragraph, but for this part, I point out that Republicans led the way to overturn those practices, while the Democrats resisted. If you’re not aware of that, then you should be able to understand what I wrote about PR. The Democrat PR machine has tried to do the same today with the concept of “who is responsible for the mortgage mess.”

“the core beliefs of the party will have to get altered to cater to the new generation of voters. Otherwise, the GOP will continue to bleed numbers.

The GOP will have to embrace the fact that times are changing. It will either change with them or become a minority party as time passes.”

That works for Democrats, or anybody whose beliefs are founded on the vagaries of public opinion, but not so well for Republicans. In fact, it doesn’t make any sense for Republicans. To make it crystal clear, Democrats pander to the public’s whims, misrepresenting themselves to get elected, whereas Republicans SHOULD convince the public to choose to follow conservative principles. See the difference? To do what you suggest is to become a Democrat in a three-piee suit.

The GOP will continue to bleed numbers as long as potential converts have no idea what they’re being asked to convert to. And we’re already a minority party–time doesn’t have to pass. Continue current PRACTICES and that won’t change. About that, I agree with you.

“I don?t agree with everything liberals do, nor with everything conservatives do. I believe that global warming is a problem, and I also believe you?ll take my gun from my cold dead hands. I believe the war in Iraq was wrong, and I believe Obama?s stimulus plan makes as much sense as the tooth fairy. I believe in a strong national defense, small government and the right to basic health care for everyone. What does that make me?”

It makes you a person who’s been willing to take a position on certain issues, probably wrong about some and right about others, with the argument being about which is which. But some of your decisions are based on principles and some on your evaluation of evidence and its sources.

“Give moderates who lean right more of a voice, instead of muzzling them.”

Which voices have been muzzled? Which ones should we listen to? I suspect that some of the voices you want us to hear have profoundly counter-productive messages.

“Begin harvesting change inside the party to grow the base. The GOP brand is not a brand young voters support.”

Do you suggest we change the name?

I didn’t miss your point. It’s simply wrong, IMHO.

your comments about “two societies” is interesting because you posit that the majority leans center-right. I sense the same thing, but I’m not sure the data would support it.

Here’s why. I see the two societies differently, being split along the line separating tax-payers and welfare-recipients (in its broadest sense). We have reached the point already where plenty more than half of the electorate has no real direct interest in tax rates or policies. This makes the producers and wealth-creators of the country, a minority, beholden politically to the majority, who control policy through the ballot box.

In the past the separation hasn’t been so stark and the welfare-recipient society has tended to vote in smaller numbers and smaller percentages than taxpayers. But in an Acorn infested world, it won’t be long until there will be nothing to stop the welfare-recipients from demanding so much from taxpayers that the economy will revert to stagflation (which I believe is what the market is currently preparing for, again) or worse. One society will be able to exploit the wealth of the other without impunity.

Cutting out the fancy rhetoric, I’m saying that if we don’t get our stuff together, pretty soon anybody with wealth or means to earn an income will be at the mercy of others who want it for themselves, and they’ll be able to get it legally, with the help of elected and appointed officials.

This means we have to do a better job of convincing the have-nots and have-littles that it is NOT in their own best interests to take rapaciously from the haves by governmental intrusion. It also means that whatever else we may be in disarray about, we had better be in agreement as to what our message is. And the message better be good.