[Rick James]

Christian singles ads. Oy.

[SpardaSon21]

Wow.  Nuclear, you and I actually agree on what the Republican Party needs.  True conservatism.

[Blue Lion]

That's why I think the GOP needs to bite the bullet and just go with the plans now but stress saving money and such. The party may have a real change but people won't suddenly forget everything and say "Oh the GOP wants fiscal responsibility, let's vote for them"

Republicans aren't going to get credit for any of this really, so their best option to be constructive instead of whiny. Then when the next set of elections roll around they have an actual track record to play off of.

[SpardaSon21]

No, the Republicans shouldn't bite the bullet.  That would be giving ground.  The federal budget is the last place you should be retreating from.  They should however out together a plan of their own that stands up to some scrutiny that is in direct opposition to Obama's plans.  They need someone or something to rally around besides Rush.  He is too easy a target to denigrate.

[Blue Lion]

And then when they get ignored because they're offering an opposite plan?

[Turambar]

They need a good plan, they can't just have a 8th grader libertarian wannabe scribble 'cut spending' on a napkin and call it a plan and then whine when nobody pays attention.

[Solatar]

While I'm glad they chose Rush instead of Glenn or Coulter, they really need a true "leader" to rally behind. One who could actually run for president at some point. I know the US Congress doesn't work exactly like Parliament, but without an "opposition leader" for the "opposition" to follow, there's no opposition.

Their lack of leadership was what disenfranchised me in the first place. During the election, McCain and Palin were the best they could come up with? I've talked to plenty of people who just didn't have faith in either of them. Sometimes it's not the policies that get you into trouble, but the fact that you have no leadership to present them.

[Turambar]

Sometimes it's not the policies that get you into trouble, but the fact that you have no leadership to present them.

Except in this case, the policies sucked too, so they were extra screwed (plus Obama ran a really tight campaign)

[Solatar]

The policies weren't ALL bad, but if the GOP had known the race was going to be based on the economy, not foreign policy, they definitely (hopefully) would have fielded a different candidate. I don't think it was entirely the Republican's policies (a political parties beliefs are fairly general at times) but rather McCain's bad policy ideas.

Of course Obama hasn't really followed through with a lot of the "big worry" policies yet anyway (thankfully, we've got no NHS).

[Knight Templar]

While I'm glad they chose Rush instead of Glenn or Coulter, they really need a true "leader" to rally behind. One who could actually run for president at some point. I know the US Congress doesn't work exactly like Parliament, but without an "opposition leader" for the "opposition" to follow, there's no opposition.

Their lack of leadership was what disenfranchised me in the first place. During the election, McCain and Palin were the best they could come up with? I've talked to plenty of people who just didn't have faith in either of them. Sometimes it's not the policies that get you into trouble, but the fact that you have no leadership to present them.

McCain would have made a great GOP candidate 9 years ago...

[Slasher]

8th grader libertarian

This is kind of redundant.