Again, you make my point for me...

"Leaping to extremes" is exactly what it sounds like when conservatives employ hyperbole when discussing what needs to change. If we are discussing what the GOP needs to do to win, then hyperbole and exaggeration need to be put aside and clear, measurable means to the end must be shown, especially when we are discussing things in an open, public manner.

Conservative voters and advocates in this nation are already two steps behind the left because of the biased media in this nation, so if we are clear and unambiguous in what we discuss for the platform of our movement, then there is less likelihood that someone is going to twist words in such a manner as to make the whole effort seem like a call to a Nuremberg rally.

Discussing fundamental conservative issues such as a reduction in the size and scope of government is NOT going to work... at least, not now. We need to show why the Obama expansion of government is bad, yes indeed, but hearkening back to the imaginary days when Reagan brought small government, lower taxes, and a balanced budget to the national agenda doesn't get the movement support from the middle... because it didn't happen that way.

How many liberals has Ryan completely dismissed from a conversation in a break room or bar because they started a conversation quoting "they said", or hearkening back to the heady days of the Carter Administration when we had an honest man in the White House, or complaining about how Bush only helped "Big Oil" and didn't care about the working man... these are liberal catch-phrases that are instant triggers to Ryan's "Idiot Meter" and will stop a discussion in its tracks (believe me, I've seen it).

Crying "Socialist!" while pointing at Obama, or shouting "Beware of socialism!" while pointing at the new health care reform may be accurate, they are not productive to the goal we were discussing... how to get conservatives back in some kind of power. This goes back to my point that, if we dig deep enough, we can find some action or policy by a past President that can be seen today to have been "bad for America", but no one here is arguing that the vast majority did not do anything with the intention of harming America, and I truly don't believe Obama is doing things to intentionally harm America. His ideas of "hope and change" are counter-productive and won't work, I agree, but then we should focus our attention to pointing that out, not slandering the individual(s) that are promoting the efforts.

My mistake was in incorporating Ryan into the example... old habit, and it wasn't fair. I'll make a better example of two extremes that AREN'T Ryan... Michael Steele and any conservative radio talk show host you care to point at.

The radio pundits are paid by the number of listeners, and since Howard Stern took to the air, almost nothing is sacred in the realm of talk radio when it comes to gaining market share. Conservative hosts are more tame then most when it comes to language, but the passion and emotion run damn high throughout their shows (at least the successful ones). Names like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Wilkow, Church, Imus, Savage... all evoke a level of anger and frustration that can be felt anytime one listens to the shows. Most will offer suggestions or guest speakers that provide alternative courses of action that could be followed by politicians today, and some even manage a little calm, rational perspective in their dialogue. Most, however, also make their bread and butter on making the opposition party look bad, any way they can.

Then you have the sitting Chair of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. Long time conservative, and someone with a lot of grey matter between the ears, he simply hasn't done a damn thing since being made RNC chairman, has he? He has spent less time make the conservative point since being made chairman than he did before he was promoted, in fact. Maybe I'm not giving the guy enough credit, but I think that he could have done a whole lot more to further the conservative, anti-liberal view in this country than he has. Giving key-note speeches at conservative-hosted events isn't winning new support for the conservatives, is it?

On the one side, you have hyperbole and emotion galore, on the other inaction and hesitation to present... neither accomplishing what we are trying to find the easiest path to: putting the conservative voice back into American politics. Neither side is doing the ones we WANT to see succeed any service, and that is the up-and-coming young GOP members that have the best chance of making that impact in America. The Jindals, Ryans (Paul Ryan, that is), Hoevens, and Pawlentys need to be able to articulate clear, conservative plans that can be presented to the people in rational and reasonable ways so everyone can see that the path we are on NOW isn't the one that is going to fix the problems we face.