Jay- I tend to agree with you. I wouldn't be surprised in a year to be forced to pick from two losers on the major party ballots.

Shameful that none of them had the courage to condemn the booing while onstage - at all three debates. And your hero RP didn't even say anything afterwards, talk about someone that needs to grow a pair. Even that fool Santorum said something the next day, even though he used the excuse that he couldn't hear the crowd. BS.

This is the same Newt Gingrich who claimed during Thursday night's debate, direct quote now, "We went from $2.2 trillion projected deficit over a decade to $2.7 trillion projected surplus when I left." Cleverly, there is no outright lie in this quote. What he didn't mention is that that surplus was a result of the budget submitted to Congress by President Clinton, which body passed that budget without a single Republican vote.

I will give him credit for coming up with the strategy of extortion by threat of government shutdown. Of course, in his case, Clinton didn't blink, the voters blamed Gingrich and his Repub colleagues, and that was the end of his political career (He didn't "leave," he resigned under pressure from Repub leaders.), which he is now trying to resurrect, fruitlessly, I would guess and hope.

I give Ron Paul credit for being passionate and honest, which I can't say about many. I would be more inclined to support him if he were a true libertarian, who really wanted the gov't out of our lives. But then all those social issues crop up, like abortion and Church/State, about which all candidates must follow Repub orthodoxy if they have any hope of being nominated. In fact, I find it odd that all these supposed disciples of Ayn Rand don't acknowledge that she was vehemently pro-choice, and an atheist.

Not many economists agree with Paul's views on gold and the Fed. But I'll admit this is open to debate, and I would even be inclined to vote for him in spite of what I consider some of his "wacky" ideas, if only just to see what he could actually accomplish. I would, that is, if he were a true libertarian who was as committed to keeping the gov't out of my bedroom and doctor's office as he was to keeping it out of the boardroom.

I agree that indecent exposure is offensive, gay or straight. Beyond that, though, I think this desire to "keep homosexuals in their place" is reminiscent of opposition to other historical social movements, and ultimately doomed to fail. Actually, I think Repubs are missing a chance to expand their party. I have a neighbor who is gay and a successful lawyer. We were talking politics awhile back. He said, "I'd be a Republican if they didn't hate me so much." Ironic, don't you think?

I may have been a bit arch when I suggested that Repubs are missing a bet by ignoring LGBT's as possible supporters. OTOH, I've seen estimates that they're 10% or more of the population. Under the right circumstances, that's enough to potentially sway election outcomes. (Oh, and... who would've ever thought the Repubs would aggressively court Latinos?)

I didn't hear Newt say anything about bipartisanship Thursday night. Whether I did or not, you have to know that it's Obama who's been taking a lot of flak from his left flank for wussing out to Repubs "my way or the highway." If anything, his attempts to compromise in the spirit of actual bipartisanship have apparently ended up weakening him—for now—to the obvious delight of some. Accusing O of not being bipartisan is hard to justify, which could be the reason I didn't hear Newt say it.

Just in passing, some pundit recently pointed out that a third-party president would feel very alone, basically powerless, with zero support from an entrenched two-party Congress. Even those of us who might welcome the weakening of this "two-party dictatorship" haven't heard a solution to this continuing problem.

Marriage... I might have to go with Ron on this, in some way. When Bush the Younger talked about "the sanctity of marriage," I couldn't help wondering what the gov't was doing in the sanctity business. But as you note, marriage is a legal contract, and the problem with marriage laws on the state level is—like so many other topics—what happens when you move? A federal basis for contract law, like for all other laws, is what makes us the U SA. We can argue about how much federal vs. state basis there is, just like we've been doing for more than 200 years. Or maybe just a new internet prenup startup, if it doesn't exist already.

Gold standard, "Cross of Gold," etc, etc. These are things I dimly recall from high school. I also remember stories about 19th century "panics," what we'd call crashes today. I was taught that's why we created the Fed. So, whaddya think? Can printing money—especially when, like now, there's no inflationary demand—ever be a good thing? How about lending money to private banks? How about varying the interest rates we charge those banks?

"Statist," huh? Am I hearing the voice of a true Objectivist?

george,

all we hear from the republicans, and newt gingrich, is how they contributed to the surplus when Clinton left office.

newt loves to take credit for that, and repubs here and everywhere else love to give newt the credit.

thanks for sharing that juicy tidbit on how it REALLY got done!

just another example of obstructionism from the repubs.

Suzette, thanks for noticing. What I might have added is that "without a single Republican vote" has now become, in the words of Sen. McConnell and the rest of the Repub echo chamber, "rammed down the throats of the American people."

So, yeah, I guess that means the Clinton surplus was rammed... But wait, now Newt and the rest take credit... So I guess ramming's a good thing, right? Or it used to be a good thing, but isn't anymore? Or it's a good thing now if we end up agreeing with it, even if we didn't at the time? Right? I'm so confused!

More to the point, how'd this "ramming" happen—then and now? Uh, elections? Majority rule? You talked about American people, right? They outvoted you now, they outvoted you then, right? "Ramming" sounds to me like "sore loser." Right?

Boo-hoo. Right.

Fred you're making a great deal of sense to me. Think that there solutions out there but we keep getting stuck on the same old talking points from all of Washington. A good healthy discussion on the real issues would actually be refreshing. A little honesty wouldn't hurt either. I often wonder which side is right or is either? I wonder if this ultra left "Progressive" group isn't just the mirror image of the "Tea Party".

You seem to be a level headed guy, I often wondered how 60 Tea Party members can control 535 members of Congress (House and Senate). What are they doing voting more than once? Or maybe the real issue is that the middle of the road Dems and GOP are playing politics and blaming it on others. The whole thing is silly isn't it.

A bit confused here. What do you mean by voting twice? On what? Most of the TPers either vote no or not at all. Well, at least it's becoming quite apparent that most of them will not be around after the next election.

How do 60 members of a body of 535 actually make a majority? Not a "Tea Party" supporter and don't agree with thier views but believe we are being sold a lie. Marc has an issue with any view that isn't his but at the same time he can't address how less that 10% can generate more than 50% of the vote require to pass anything. How do you do that Marc? Or maybe, just maybe, that the majority of Congress (all of them) are playing politics and are actually at fault not just a faction or next month when the "Tea Party" is voted out the "Progressives" will be the target. We need to break up both political machines and get back to the real issues which should be you not them.

By the way Marc, a little racial

Poor Herman Cain. He has joined what amounts to be a hornets nest. I hope comes out of this with some self esteem left. Ever compare the TPubs to the members of the Nazi Party. Interesting..