False choice. There's no conflict between those two goals.

There is within the Republican party.

That's great, which principle are you planning on moving toward, lower taxes or the protection of marriage?

False choice. There's no conflict between those two goals.

But really, when it comes to Ted Kennedy I pretty much have zero respect for the man.

And I still don't think congress should be a person's career.

Not a real job. And the one in congress has a hell of a lot more perks than the one I have.

I think you do Kennedy a disservice by suggesting he does what he does for "perks". He could have easily spent his whole life sailing and kicking it in the south of France. He chose to work to try and make things a little better in the country.

The fact that you have a different vision of what "better" is does not minimize the fact he devoted his life to public service simply because he thought it was worth doing.

Thank you. Exactly what I was after. And, exactly why a move toward principles... and more exactly, the application thereof, is required.

That's great, which principle are you planning on moving toward, lower taxes or the protection of marriage?

Because part of the party would accept higher taxes if they got a constitution amendment on marriage, another half would just as soon let gays marry in exchange for a reduction in capital gains.

Thank you. Exactly what I was after. And, exactly why a move toward principles... and more exactly, the application thereof, is required.

Why is that, do you suppose?

Because part of the party would accept higher taxes if they got a constitution amendment on marriage, another half would just as soon let gays marry in exchange for a reduction in capital gains. Part of the party wants less government intrusion in their lives, another part wants more government intrusion in the lives of everyone else.

You've got multiple factions within your party, each willing to sell the other's principles if it will benefit their own.

Take things like wire tapping, Gitmo, global-warming, immigration and same-sex marriage. Republicans can't agree on where the party should stand on these issues. You can't even find consensus on cutting taxes, which has always been an area of easy agreement in the GOP.

I'm going to openly and good naturedly bait you a little here... Why is that, do you suppose?

Let me save some time, here, by pointing you to my most recent Pajamas Media article.

Those are a fine set of Principles, but good luck getting people to agree on the implementations of them.

Take things like wire tapping, Gitmo, global-warming, immigration and same-sex marriage. Republicans can't agree on where the party should stand on these issues. You can't even find consensus on cutting taxes, which has always been an area of easy agreement in the GOP.

Right now there isn't a consensus as to what the Republican party's principles are

Well, let's say there's more of a consensus than the leadership is aware of. Let me save some time, here, by pointing you to my most recent Pajamas Media article.

True, but finish the description... he swung them to the right. Instead of simply accepting leftists into the party and adopting their leanings to remain relevant, he explained in terms both gandiose and precise, why they should move right.

I don't think he changed anyone's desires, he just explained how his implementation would satisfy those desires better than the implementations offered by Democrats. Gingrich did the same in 1994. And, for what it's worth, that's basically what Howard Dean did for the Democrats between 2004 and 2006.

Right now there isn't a consensus as to what the Republican party's principles are, so nobody can make the case for them to the American people. By losing Specter, the Republican party is essentially conceding to anybody that voted for Specter (as opposed to a caucus vote) that the Republican party's principles won't satisfy their desires.

Reagan won, not by moving the party, but by growing it. He didn't pick up voters to the right of the party, he picked them up from the left

True, but finish the description... he swung them to the right. Instead of simply accepting leftists into the party and adopting their leanings to remain relevant, he explained in terms both gandiose and precise, why they should move right. Instead of arguing that Republicans should be, as they have been, focused on the idea that we need to change in order to be relevant, he argued instead that our principles are already relevant.