In which Steve thanks Tanya for making the case against universal suffrage

(She seemed like a nice lady and it was only an ag. race; is she still in jail?)

'Nuff said.

You remind me of a liberal because they tend to be very idealistic.

What a completely bizarre sentiment. Apparently non-liberals are marked by their lack of idealism. I'm not sure how you explain 1994, but I won't digress down that wormhole any further. If I remind you of a liberal, then I guess I thank you from the bottom of my Austrian school heart, but I daresay that's not the kind of liberalism you meant.

Since I get the feeling I'm the only realistic and rational person on here...

I'm not sure where you got the idea that realism, idealism, and rationalism are mutually exclusive. I'm also not sure how you can create an equivalence between realism and rationalism, but maybe you're not. In any case, I'm not inventing or philosophizing anything here. I'm just taking the GOP at its word, that being the word they gave me beginning in 1974 when I became a member: principle matters more than party. They seem to be able to talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk, they are woefully inadequate.

But you say that even though you disagree with the Simpleton-in-Chief, you're not ready to cut him loose. What does he have to do to earn that degree of ire from you? He has already grown the FederalNational government at a pace that would make LBJ blush. He has invaded and occupied a country that posed no discernible threat to us while completely abrogating any responsibility for securing our borders and allowing an invasion from our South. He has pandered to and triangulated on every left-wing agenda item the Democrats could cook up. He has tramped up and down the first and fourth amendments like some drunken Democrat on a power binge. He tried to appoint his secretary to the Supreme Court and tried to hand over management of our deep-water ports to Arabs, requiring rank-and-file conservatives to bitch-slap him back into line while the GOP leadership stood by slack-jawed. So what does he have to do to earn your ire? Shoot old ladies in the back for cheating at a bingo game? Fondle an intern in the Oval Office? How threadbare does this guy's sheep disguise have to become before you admit there's a wolf in there?

Why are you so obsessed with the GOP "so-called" leadership when you admit there was a revolt among conservative GOP members in the House...

You're new to this party politics thing, aren't you? Nothing, and I mean nothing happens without the leadership's blessing in a political party. The revolt was allowed because mid-term elections were on the horizon and the leadership didn't want a civil war to be in progress. They deferred, they equivocated, they stalled. As I said before, the full Senate bill will be passed if the GOP wins a majority in both houses of Congress. The leadership will toe the line.

I'm sure if these same conservative House members get reelected, there will be another revolt in the House.

They might try it, but they will be slapped down with extreme prejudice. Hastert and Frist have already shown that they can put down a revolt by conservatives. Oddly enough, they don't seem to be able to do the same with the "moderates." Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?

I've been there and witnessed party leadership in action firsthand. Heck, I was party leadership. Regardless of your impression that conservatives aren't idealistic, the people who achieve leadership positions in a party organization dislike them intensely exactly because they tend to put principle in front of pragmatism. In any case, every one of the members who participated in the revolt have now dropped into line and are singing party unity in four part harmony.

And there's your dose of realism, presented in the most rational way possible.