there is an interesting point in the title of the thread that has been missed by most. Two entertainers and a former governor lose an election, but a sitting president had no effect on two state contests......yeah, nice try!!!

That really is not unusual for a President.  President's get the blame for everything, part of thier job description. 

Iceman, the point of the title to this thread is that Palin and others CAUSED the GOP to lose that seat.  That seat had been held by a Republican for decades and decades (150 years?).  It would have been won again if the right wing nut cases had not interfered.

The Republican party is being split in half because of these extremists.  How can that be seen as a good thing when the goal is to defeat the Democrats in the future?  Why is their goal focused on defeating Republicans?   

You mean name calling is now OK? That is not what your other post said, as I remember it. It said rules were relaxed, but still no name calling or insults.

Or did I get that wrong?

I stand corrected on the sarcasm definition. I tend use it more as irony, not as an insult. But OK. 

I don't think anyone who has been the butt of your sarcasm Surveybob would agree with your ideal of what is irony and would most certainly consider many of your sarcastic responses definite and rather vicious insults.

 And as I said before, you can't have a no insults rule if sarcasm is allowed as sarcasm is insults.  I would have preferred to stay with the no insults rule, because we actually had some content then with some real discussions instead of all this back and forth useless nonsense, but I don't make the rules.  And, it was due to you, Magoo, and Iceman's complaints about the no insults rule that it was changed. 

You still have not told me what you considered was name-calling, because I did not find anything that looked like name-calling  when I looked to see what you were talking about.    I just found plenty of the back and forth insults bashing contest, that isn't hard to find since that is pretty much all we have on here.

 The name-calling rule does still stand.   So if I missed something you will have to point it out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ms, because she was a republican in name only, time to give the old party a big enema and get rid of the two faced members

Agreed Iceman, the party is in need of major changes in order to challenge the Democrats in the future.  However, appealing to the right wing extremists and forcing out everyone else won't work.  The base is simply too small to exclude everyone who doesn't agree with 100% of their beliefs.  They will need to loosen up to be successful in the future.

 

run to the right govern in the middle worked for Regan and others before and after

The demographics have changed since Regan.

then why the concern over the tea parties, me thinks the left doth protest too much if this is the minimalist problem movement they are trying to portray it as being.

It's not concern over the tea parties. It's the humor in the tea baggers. Extremism won't work. To defeat the Democrats in the future you will need more than that. You are making it too easy for the "liberals" to gain strength because the moderates will see them as less extreme and flow in their direction.

we see how they flowed in Jersey and Virginia didn't we?

How much assistance did the candidates get from Palin and the other right wing nuts in those races?

Right wing nuts wouldn't help the much, but it seems the logical conservatives pulled out the wins.

You're probably correct there surveybob. Keep the nuts out of it (Palin, etc) and the Republicans have a shot in off year elections.