I believe that you mean GFYWAIR.

M'tard.

Oops, I meant to reply to the personage above you, CP.

I should note, (hic) I'll be happy to buy you the adult beverage of your choice whenever the opportunity presents itself.

;)

Oh my head, it's spinning. Unfiortunately, with a bee a sip is as good as as a barrel

Probably shouldn't even go there, but now I'm curious... after clicking through Genghis' link below, bee, I've got to know: what does the "B" at the end of your acronym stand for?

Yez.

so be kind to your mother, though she may seem an awful bother, and the next time she tries to feed you collard greens, remember what she does when you're asleep

G'night moon.......

No, I meant "crapping" all over the articles like the one cited...

Yeah, I know:

GOP = bad, Dem = good

meanwhile the other side is claiming

Dem = bad, GOP = good

Is it any wonder a huge chunk of the country decides there is no difference between the two?

So many here would rather hear their own views repeated back to them, rather than think a bit more deeply.

In addition, you had a really narrow read of what I wrote: learning the ways of the other side, will make your own campaign stronger.

Time to go read THE ART OF WAR.

But okay, so what are the great ideas in this GOP agenda that you think we should borrow?

Good question. I can't think of a single one, which I do believe was the point of this post.

The GOP has gone from reasonable conservatism to radical and slavish corporatism. They are exactly what Eisenhower warned about, the dreaded MIC. They are largely responsible for the sucky state of affairs we have now, nor do I hear anything new from them. It's "God, gays, and guns," the "politics of fear", and the wagging finger of "class war!"

Frankly, the best thing I could hope to happen is that the GOP implodes, dissolves, and oozes back under the rocks it came from. Then perhaps the reasonable 'conservatives' can form a new party worthy of being taken seriously.

It's utterly ridiculous to whine about "listening to the enemy" when we're busy demonizing about half of our own party. Frankly, having a common enemy will likely do more to heal that rift than anything.

CT, surely you know that I'm no Dem hack.

Of course not. Believe it or not, I do take your posts seriously (or at least as seriously as they are meant to be taken).

If "more domestic energy production" means energy industry tax incentives to explore domestic fossil fuel sources, as it meant under Bush and the Republican legislature, then no, it's not a good idea.

This point will soon be rendered moot in my view. As the impending crisis of energy grows, every nation will do what it needs to do to look at resources within it's borders. There will be no environmental concern. There is nothing to suggest that Americans are greedier than any other part of the world.

Similarly, streamlined terrorist surveillance would be great, but that was Bush's idea. That was why Homeland Security was created in the first place. Some streamlining.

Fair is fair here. One of the few things that Bush really got right (albeit for the wrong reasons) is that initially he was against the formation of the DHS. It was Congress that pushed for it -- and the Dems were part of that.

Bush was against it because the neo-cons (remember them?) really wanted to whittle government down, and the DHS would only bring more government in. (Ironically, only Bill Clinton - a Dem - was able to reduce the government size in the modern era.)

DHS does need significant streamlining. What happened was that monies that used to be dispersed to all type of Federal agencies for security issues (including US Forest Service, Coast Guard, and plenty more organizations that don't usually pop up when people think about the government) got funneled to DHS. DHS then had to have a "master strategy" to spend this money. Well, this type of centralized planning was dopey when the Soviets tried it, and it's dopey now.

Instead, we bloated the infrastructure, and now spend much of that money for the bureaucracy of the DHS. To make matters worse, DHS has done so poor a job, in general, that Congress had spank them in public last year...and cut their budget.

Okay, now we have even less money going to homeland security than we did before 9/11!

Moreover, the bureaucracy at the DHS is so dizzying, that there are week long mini-courses for Congressional aides to understand how DHS is organized. These mini-courses aren't for the student interns, but the seasons legislative assistants.

So, yes, the DHS needs serious streamlining. You are less well protected today than before 9/11 in many aspects. And all because Congress lumped all of government under one bin. Interestingly enough, it was one time when Bush was subjected to a certain action because of political fear-mongering.

You will see similar twists and turns regarding energy issues -- when enough of the public demands something, politicians listen; regardless if it makes sense or not.

I did friend him. In fact, I hadn't known about the 'friend' feature before I friended him and so now he is my only friend there. And yes, that is scary. I think I feel much less afraid if you are my friend too.