unlikely: GAT_00: But she'll still vote for Republicans across the board.

Independent is what republicans who are afraid to admit they're republicans call themselves.

In fairness, I still consider myself fairly Conservative, but the GOP is now firmly in the hands of radicals. The party has given up on any pretense of fiscal restraint, actively hates a fair amount of the population, and is adamant on fighting against anything resembling equity or the rights of individuals. I hung in for years, hoping to vote in sane candidates, but that voice was drowned out, and it just didn't help. I gave up my membership to the party after casting my ballot in the last Primary, and it didn't do a damn bit of good to keep Romney off the roster.

I'm not a Democrat, but if the choice is between a radical, and centerist with a plan for the future that doesn't involve shooting or jailing dissenters, then I have to go with the candidate with a sane plan for the future, and those are rarer and rarer within the ranks of the GOP. They've embraced radicalism, and still want to call "Conservative" in the same way that "Social Conservatives" hate their neighbors and want to establish a radicalized view of freedom of religion.

I want sane fiscal policy so my daughter isn't saddled with huge debts. I want sane domestic policy that doesn't demonize my neighbors for simply existing. I like our Constitutional protections, and that means I like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, I like the right to seek legal redress, I like both the Second and First Amendments. Freedom of religion isn't about liking only ONE faith or ministry, and that means that marriage equality is sort of an issue--not all ministries have a problem with same sex couples, and if folks don't want to marry gay and lesbian couples, that's their business, but likewise the folks who do want to perform those ceremonies, we can't really stand in their way, and likewise, it comes down to equality under the law. Marriage equality IS an issue, and it's one that good Conservatism should have stood for, rather than listening to a bunch of radicals who want to impose their faith on the rest of the nation. I want sane foreign policy, and that means scaling back our adventures overseas. That means encouraging the UN to step up to the plate, instead of just saddling ourselves with more and more debt to play policeman across the globe, because Germany and France and the UK are glad to have us send our men and women overseas to secure their interests, and NOT foot any of the bill. We need to stop embracing radicals because they happen to be fighting against the folks we have problems with today, and never mind what they might turn into tomorrow. We need to fulfill the promise of the Constitution for all our citizens, not just the ones who smile pretty.

Our freedoms aren't the freedoms to be pleasant and chatty. They are the freedom to piss each other off. To disagree, even vehemently, and STILL be united as a nation. To have a public discourse that doesn't demonize the other. Right now, the GOP isn't really interested in that. Not the leadership, not the vocal rank and file, and they are embracing the most radicalized voices as their champions, and that IS a turn off. It isn't remotely Conservative. We need thoughtful approaches to taxation, rational responses to threats to our domestic tranquility, thoughtful approaches to justice. We have folks who fear education, who fear progress, who fear science, and that has never been a particularly "Conservative" process, but that embraced by radicals who fear change. Conservative thought has been about thoughtful and care in the changes our society has wrought. Careful consideration to decisions that may have unforeseen consequences. And that isn't really what the last twenty years has been about, but increasingly radical voices, who put blinders on to consequences, and then try to paint those consequences as the result of "unforeseen circumstances." But that is sort of the point of a Conservative view--that you take the time to consider the possible fallout. Like, what might happen if you back a dictator over the duly elected government, like in Iran. Like what backing religiously motivated freedom fighters against the Soviets and then abandon those freedom fighters entirely to try to organize a shattered nation like in Afghanistan. This hasn't been a hallmark of the Republican party for some time, and that really is the issue. It has been moving far and away from Conservatism, while trying to retain the title, and what is occurring that folks are starting to pay attention, and realize that by bringing radicals under the Big Tent, we've pushed away those Conservative voices, and replaced them with the shrill squawkings of maddest and loudest, and called those voices "Conservative" because the title was more palatable than "Batsh*t Crazy."

unlikely: GAT_00: But she'll still vote for Republicans across the board.

Independent is what republicans who are afraid to admit they're republicans call themselves.

Mitt Romney's camp thought he was going to win the election because he was winning independents. What they didn't realize was that the "independents" he was winning were former republicans who at least had enough self-awareness to be too ashamed to call themselves republicans.

No one cares, Meghan. Now show your tits.

If the few moderate Republicans want real change in the party, they need to give up this bullshiat of "registering as an Independent" (and then voting Republican).

I think the only way to retake the party from the lunatics is to blow it the fark up. Republicans who are disenfranchised need to just bite the bullet and register as Democrats. The truth is that the Democrats have moved so far to the right in the past 45 years that most of their policies are already in line with the Republicans of the past, When the Democrats obliterate the Republicans in the House, Senate, Governorships, etc for a couple of cycles, the party might be weakened enough for the sane conservatives to retake it.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: If the few moderate Republicans want real change in the party, they need to give up this bullshiat of "registering as an Independent" (and then voting Republican).

I think the only way to retake the party from the lunatics is to blow it the fark up. Republicans who are disenfranchised need to just bite the bullet and register as Democrats. The truth is that the Democrats have moved so far to the right in the past 45 years that most of their policies are already in line with the Republicans of the past, When the Democrats obliterate the Republicans in the House, Senate, Governorships, etc for a couple of cycles, the party might be weakened enough for the sane conservatives to retake it.

This illustrates a common misconception.

Registering in either party doesn't mean that you have to vote a straight ticket. If you vote a straight ticket, without considering the merits of each candidate on their own, then you have failed your civic duty. What registering does do is allow you to help choose who is on the ticket. Nothing more. It allows you to have a voice on who gets on the ballot, but that never locks you into who you vote for. Well, unless you're some sheep who believes that EVERYONE in your party is inherently better than the OTHER.

Registering Democrat would mean that I got to help choose the Democratic candidates, certainly. But at this point, given the levels of Crazy Train that has infected my former party, that really doesn't give me much control there either. For me, it means that I don't align with either DERP Brigades, and can show to BOTH parties that their platforms aren't attractive enough for me to align with one or the other. Which means that centerists on both sides have the opportunity to show me if they're worth voting for.

I DID have hopes that the Modern Whigs would get themselves together enough to become a valid third party. That was sort of negated when the Astroturf that is the TEA Party came along, and more's the pity, because they had a platform I could get behind.

Just joint the Democrats isn't really an option. I vote for the sanest candidate, no matter the party. Registering just means that would have some impact on who the party chooses, and given that I prefer a far more Conservative approach, that means that my voice is likewise going to be drowned out in the Democratic as well as Republican Primaries. Better to be in that pool of what the media likes to call "undecided" voters so that candidates can expose their positions in bolder language so that I can choose between the less DERPy of the them, and let them show their hands.

GAT_00: But she'll still vote for Republicans across the board.

Independent is what republicans who are afraid to admit they're republicans call themselves.

unlikely: Independent is what republicans who are afraid to admit they're republicans call themselves.

It's about a third of independents who effectively identify with the GOP. Contrariwise, it's almost exactly the same fraction of independents who effectively identify with the Democratic Party. (Linky.)

kxs401: Mitt Romney's camp thought he was going to win the election because he was winning independents. What they didn't realize was that the "independents" he was winning were former republicans who at least had enough self-awareness to be too ashamed to call themselves republicans.

Looking at the CNN exit poll data, it seems perhaps worse than that. He barely won with independent voters, 50:45... but they were only 29% of the electorate, and Democrats outnumbered Republicans 38% to 32%. That looks like the independents he was winning were the former Republicans the GOP had driven out from the name, but that many of the Democrats Obama was winning were Independents who the GOP have driven into the Democratic Party.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Republicans who are disenfranchised need to just bite the bullet and register as Democrats.

Even leaving aside hubiestubert's sound objections, depends which type of Republican. Again, (Linky.)

At this point, the Tea Party and Religious Values voters are just shy of 50% of the party. There's a slim chance there would be a messy fission of the GOP, in which case there's a near-even chance that in the procedural and legal battle the TP&RV might lose control of the brand name to the other factions, and have to make a new one; but it could go the other way around. Odds are, the TP&RV aren't going anywhere.

The "Pro-Government" Republicans look likely they could get along with that coalition. They seem unlikely to go anywhere either.

The Old School Republicans might start defecting to the Democrats, but they have a problem: they're going to be the most extreme right-wing faction in that tent. In so far as they bring big money in their own pockets, a few may be able to get a few elected as "Blue Dog" democrats, and they might be able to have some influence there. However, they're going to be outnumbered by factions more to the left; they'd at most be moderating influences. The best they'd likely do is keep the tax rates from becoming punitive and business regulations unnecessarily draconian. They seem unlikely to be happy with their welcome. They honestly might have a better chance throwing the money behind the Libertarian party -- if they focus on regional elections in 2014, and if they can accept that in the short term the effect will be acting more as "spoilers". The real difficulty is that libertarians don't tend much saner than the GOP these days, with little principled objection to racism by non-government actors (and apparently principled objection to government attempts to counteract such), leaving what seems a significant chance the more racist Tea Party Crazies might follow into the Libertarians if the GOP becomes non-viable.

But the "Window Shopper" Republicans? Looking at the exit polls, and comparing it to the Kaiser data, shows how remarkably few Republicans voted for Obama, when so many "Window Shopper" Republicans were leaning that way. It's conceivable that Romney's brilliant performance at the end of the campaign herded them back into the fold (reading SF broadens your imagination), but it seems far more likely that the "Window Shoppers" are not so much going anywhere as already gone -- no longer identifying as Republicans.

FirstNationalBastard: AdolfOliverPanties: No one cares, Meghan. Now show your tits.

I think we're done here.

no we aren't. we need more pictures.

Once she inherits mommies beer distribution empire she'll go back. Then she will tell us about that boot strappy thing.

Sweetie; as long as you and your family register as Republicans, give them money, help them get elected, and vote with them once elected, you're part of the problem.

And if it takes you well over a decade to split with a group of crazies, you really got to ask if the problem isn't fully them and not you.

For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone not directly running for office would register for *any* political party.

Pappas: No she isn't. The only interesting thing about her is that she's a Republican.

Pretty much that. If she didn't have the "I'm a Republican, but I don't follow lockstep with the party" Maverick, Jr angle, no one would pay attention to her.

ManateeGag: FirstNationalBastard: AdolfOliverPanties: No one cares, Meghan. Now show your tits.

I think we're done here.

no we aren't. we need more pictures.

Meghan McCain is one of those women who really benefit from raccoon eye makeup. I don't know how the phenomenon works, but it does:

She'll see change, but there are decent odds the change won't be to her liking.

AdolfOliverPanties: No one cares, Meghan. Now show your tits.

I guess she hung in there because of her dad, but this is hardly a surprise.

I don't care what y'all say:



She's pretty.

I am an independent who is registered as a Republican. That way I can monkey with their primaries. Seems to me shutting yourself out of being able to vote in primary elections is not going to do much good.

Democrats, their primaries are not as interesting to vote in, at least where I live.

/danged Rohrabacher got reelected.

IntertubeUser: Damn there's a lot of misogynist kiddies in here.

Admiring nice bosoms does not a misogynist make. Does admiring a guy's package make me a misandrist?

Johnny Bananapeel: Time to drag this one out of the '08 subfolder again I see....

[i.imgur.com image 640x518]

Now, I know that hooters can subside when some weight loss kicks in, but given her mammoth mammaries we currently enjoy only in their teaserific cleavaged form and chubby-not-fat figure, I think 30 lbs of weight loss would give us a universally fappable specimen with still-full tatas to boot.

On another note: anyone that is as despised by Ann Coulter as much as Meghan is, has to be doing something right. Little Orphan Annie is like Bill Kristol in that if she has a hate on for someone, they really have to be doing something great...

Lionel Mandrake: MSFT: Isn't she the one who said on the Bill Maher show that she didn't know about history that happened before she was born, as in, who reads books like that?

She's not the sharpest knife in the draw, but seems decent enough, A true RINO.

But there's only one reason anyone cares about her. OK, two reasons. Two, huge, buxom, shapely, voluptuous reasons.

She does have beautiful eyes, I'll give you that.

We couldn't have linked to the Daily Beast for this? We had to link to some blog spammer?

Mikey1969: The Right just needs to dump the truly venomous assholes that have hijacked it.

That would be difficult in any circumstances, but it has become almost impossible because of the Conservative Entertainment Complex that some of the saner Republicans (like Frum) are complaining about. It's not in the interests of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh etc. to have a rational, reasonable GOP; there's an embarrassing amount of money to be made catering to the lunatic fringe.

jso2897: If we had a betting pool on prominent Republicans jumping ship, I'd plop a couple of bucks down on Chris Christie.

He may get pushed off before he jumps; but yeah.

Shut up, Meg.

jaytkay: The Republican-dominated Alabama legislature successfully adopted some change recently.

They voted to prevent Obama's communist mind-control UN takeover of America.

President Obama is using a Cold War-era mind-control technique known as "Delphi" to coerce Americans into accepting his plan for a United Nations-run communist dictatorship in which suburbanites will be forcibly relocated to cities. That's according to a four-hour briefing delivered to Republican state senators at the Georgia state Capitol last month.
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 545x388]

as much as I would LOVE to give Alabama credit for this, unfortunately it says "Georgia" right on the tin

/Atlanta-area resident
//even the local, heavily conservative-leaning news is laughing at them about this

hubiestubert: This illustrates a common misconception.

Registering in either party doesn't mean that you have to vote a straight ticket.

Of course not, but severely dwindling Republican registrations along with increasing Democratic registrations would highlight the problem and garner some media attention that would be harder to ignore than having registered Republicans voting for Dems or simply staying home. Hell, if moderate conservatives could influence the Democrats to move just a little further right, they'd be squarely where the Republicans used to be and it would be liberals who would find themselves looking for a party that represents them.

Personally, I like to take the opposite approach. I'm the leftiest leftist libtard who ever libbed a lib... since I live in a solidly blue state, I register Republican and vote for the least electable radicals during the primaries, but I'm kind of a dick.

I would have sexual relations with those juicy, juicy tits.

Small steps...