Agreed

I agree completely, with both of you. We do not need a moderator and compromiser in the White House, we need a leader. Obama promised that, and won the election.

Ryan sent me a text that (in short) said, by my very definition of the label, Obama is a socialist and to call him such isn't wrong, it is right.

I can't really argue against this, either... but is this something we should make the rallying point of the conservative movement? Will calling Obama a "socialist" enough times get our candidate elected, or does it make those that embrace a conservative political agenda look like "right-wingers" to the independents and moderates that will decide the next election.

Again, my main point (for more than a year now) is that McCain was a bad candidate because he didn't even have the full support of the conservative movement, let alone the fence-sitters. Obama managed to appeal to both the liberal AND the moderate voter, even more than Hilary (who admittedly had some Bill-baggage, I think). None the less, even if McCain had enjoyed the FULL support of the conservative wing of American politics... he couldn't have won given the sentiments of the country at the time... he didn't have the votes.

Offering a compromise candidate is a losing strategy from the start. The change can't come in the color/shape/sex/orientation of the candidate, it has to come from the position from which the candidate is starting from.

Either the GOP redefines itself so that each and every voter out there understands WHAT the GOP wants to deliver, and HOW they are going to do it, or we watch the liberal and progressive agendas win again and again and again.

Reagan redefined what being a Republican meant, and won the decade. Who is going to do that for the GOP now?