This is how media should have written about McCain all along

Umm. I think you missed the point of the Onion's sarcasm. It was attacking those so enraptured by Obama that they don't even discuss McCain and did so only when noticing they were ignoring him.

I'm sure you're being tongue in cheek by suggesting that the media should only pay attention to Obama and ignore any alternatives since "they are demonstrably wrong on everything." But one would hope you'd see the problems inherent in that.

"why should a Republican be considered when the topic is politics, policy, foreign policy, economy, health care....?"

So those who disagree can debate them or offer rebuttals?

Because we live in a liberal democracy, Bora.

I know, why don't we just ban the Republican Party as if it were the NSDAP after WWII? (sarcasm)

Bora,
I seem to remember the collapse of a Soviet something-or-other a few years back. The Democratic position of dealing with an inevitable was... superior? to the Republican concept of confrontation and economic challenge- right?

I especially like the jab that they are"demonstrably wrong" in *politics*. If that is the case, why do they keep winning *political* contests?

Most European countries have many parties spanning a very broad spectrum. Parties with the platform similar to our GOP are so far out they are either ignored by the media or banned as 'neo-fascist' in countries with a degree of historical sensitivity.

USSR crumbled under its own weight. Reagan postponed it by a few years by consolidating the Comm Party leadership's power there with his stupid warrior rhetoric.

Oh, other nations have a spectrum of parties so much more broad than America's that they legally ban parties? How... enlightened. What is it about the GOP that makes them bannable, Bora? Support for school vouchers (like in Belgium)? Reduced taxes? Easier access to foreign markets? Opposition to abortion (like Poland and Ireland)?

It is Germany who bans neo-fascist parties. Read the 2008 GOP platform and tell me it is not batshit crazy, anti-democratic, authoritarian, dictatorial, fundemantalist, fusing religion and government, fusing industry and government, thus, by definiton, neo-fascist. This is not about school vouchers, it is about their wish to deny freedom to millions of Americans.

Let's see: the GOP platform opens with;

"This is a platform of enduring principle, not
passing convenience the product of the most open
and transparent process in American political history.
We offer it to our fellow Americans in the assurance
that our Republican ideals are those that unify our
country: Courage in the face of foreign foes. An optimistic
patriotism, driven by a passion for freedom.
Devotion to the inherent dignity and rights of every
person."

Yup - that's pretty sinister, what with that talk of "...the inherent dignity and rights of every person"

Well, let's look at the actual platofrm, where we find;

"Republican leadership has made religious liberty
a central element of U.S. foreign policy. Asserting
religious freedom should be a priority in all
Americas international dealings. We salute the work
of the U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom and urge special training in religious liberty
issues for all U.S. diplomatic personnel."

Yeah, that pretty obviously means a christo-fasscist... uh. What, freedom to practice *any* religion? Bora, could this be a misprint?

OK, how about;

"Republicans will uphold
and defend our partys core
principles: Constrain the federal
government to its legitimate
constitutional functions. Let it
empower people, while limiting
its reach into their lives.
Spend only what is necessary,
and tax only to raise revenue
for essential government functions.
Unleash the power of
enterprise, innovation, civic
energy, and the American spirit and never pretend
that government is a substitute for family or community."

Sorry, but that does NOT sound like Mussolini's Corporate message *or* Hitler's state-controlled industry.

Maybe if we keep looking?

Nope: I just don't see a call to limit voting, or to increase the size and power of the central government,or limit elections, or the establishment of religion. So much for "...anti-democratic, authoritarian, dictatorial, fundamentalist..." etc., huh?

Or is this like those female voters you mentioned where it isn't what they *say* or *do*, but your insight into their inner thoughts that only you can discern which is important?

This is ridiculous - I see people on the right come up with 'lists' for why Democrats should be banned rather frequently. Not to mention, one has to have their head pretty far into the sand to deny that the democratic party has some authoritarian tendencies, themselves.

"authoritarian tendencies of the Dems" is an RNC talking point.

Scary:

"Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendments protections apply to unborn children.

We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to
extend health-care coverage to children before birth.

And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life."

Scary:

"We strongly support the long-held policy of the Republican Party known as the Mexico City policy, which prohibits federal monies from being given to non-governmental organizations that provide abortions or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other countries. We reject any treaty or agreement that would violate those values.

That includes the UN convention on womens rights, signed in the last months of the Carter Administration, and the UN convention on the rights of the child. For several reasons, particularly our concern for US sovereignty and Americas long-term energy needs, we have deep reservations about the regulatory, legal, and tax regimes inherent in the Law of the Sea Treaty.

To shield the members of our Armed Forces and others in service to America from ideological prosecutions, the Republican Party does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Americans."

Scary:

"We acknowledge and appreciate the significant contributions of all of Americas First Responders, who keep us safe and secure and who are ever ready to come to our aid. The security of our country is now everyones responsibility, from the Department of Homeland Security to state and local first responders, private businesses, and individual families. The fact that eighty percent of our critical infrastructure is in private hands highlights the need for public-private partnerships to safeguard it, especially in the energy industry.

Three decades ago, in a world as dangerous as todays, Americans of all stripes came together to advance the cause of freedom. They had witnessed the wreckage of inexperienced good intentions at the highest levels of government, the folly of an amateur foreign policy. And so, in defiance of a world-wide Marxist advance, they announced a goal as enduring as the vision of Isaiah, to "proclaim liberty to the captives," and summed up America's strategy for achieving that end in a timeless slogan: Peace through strength"

Scary:

"To protect our servicemen and women and ensure that Americas Armed Forces remain the best in the world, we affirm the timelessness of those values, the benefits of traditional military culture, and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service."

Scary:

"Because our childrens future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it....Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage. "

Scary:

"Forcing religious groups to abandon their beliefs as applied to their hiring practices is religious discrimination. We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault, and we call upon the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to reverse its policy of blacklisting religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples."

Who is authoritarian now?

We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it.

So does Joe Biden. He said it on Meet the Press today. Not sure if they have transcripts up yet but you can probably find it.

"Forcing religious groups to abandon their beliefs as applied to their hiring practices is religious discrimination. We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault, and we call upon the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to reverse its policy of blacklisting religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples."

Letting people believe what they wish and act on it? Fascists!

C'mon, Bora - 'Dems are authoritarian is a Republican talking point' and 'Republicans are fascists' is a a Dem talking point.

I sympathise - it must be sad being a conservative these days, watching the GOP degenerate into this idea-less freakshow, watching all the conservative ideas going on the ash-heap of history. All you can do is deny, try to change the topic, lash out, or,if you are smart, take stock and abandon ship and join the Modernity.

The reason why I post this, and have been for four years, is because a lot of Americans do not have the cultural frameworks into which to put the modern conservatims, nothing to compare it to. Most of them did not grow up in Europe, having to study European history in great details. Most of them did not grow up in an anti-Communist family in a Communist country. Most of them did not lose 42 family members in the Holocaust. Most of them did not see the greasy-bearded Radicals chanting "Ser-bia, Ser-bia" wrapped in the flag, carrying crosses, EXACTLY the way these hyper-nationalists chanted "USA, USA" last week in St.Paul.

I want to give them warning, help them realize that this is how fascism starts. Proto-fascism, not fascism yet, but getting there.

Perhaps, but...

Tom Wolfe, Mauve Gloves & Madmen, Clutter & Vine, 1976:

"...Jean-François Revel, a French socialist writer who talks about one of the great unexplained phenomena of modern astronomy: namely, that the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe."

And it has at least twice so far, in the post-WWI period and the post-Cold War period. Milosevic, Lukashenko, Putin. And I'd keep an eye on the electoral fortunes of Western European parties like Belgium's Vlaams Belang, the Swiss People's Party etc. There is a lingering blood and soil mystique among our European counterparts. It's France that has riots of ghettoized and seemingly permanently marginalized immigrants. Also, until very recently children born to legal immigrants in Germany (mainly Turks) did not have automatic right of German citizenship.

So which polity is really more ideologically immature: America's or Europe's?

That is a good point and something that Europeans will have to grapple with. One advantage they have is historical memory, thus likelihood that many of their citizens will (and already do) recognize this and work to stop it. What worries me about fellow Americans is their historical ignorance and naivete - the "It Can't Happen here" attitude which is so wrong and so dangerous. By early 1991, we had that "It Can't Happen here" attitude in Serbia and we were proven wrong. I hope NOT to see the same happen here.

Of course, being a Conservative often has little to do with being a Republican. I speak very little of the GOP and defend Conservatives, not Republicans, from unfair attacks.

As a member of a family that has left its members in France, Italy, Belgium, Okinawa, Sicily, and a dozen other nations, usually trying to save Europeans from fascists elected by other Europeans, I do, indeed, have an awareness of European culture. I see the same conciliatory attitude toward Putin that was shown to Mussolini and other thugs. I hear them promoting the same tired Socialist economic theories that have been failing them for generations while they use American-designed computers and watch American films and listen to their iPods.

Further, rather than 'changing the topic', I am asking you (again) why you think the quote I repeated above, a call for religious freedom, is a sign of fascism. I want to know, clearly, how you can claim that this;

"And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement."

is "scary" evidence of fascism. Don't talk about the ash-heap of history, or European culture - explain how freedom of religion and providing care to living infants is 'fascist'.

Because it is protection of ONE religion, breach of the wall between church and state, and an anti-abortion (thus anti-woman) screed. Wrapped in legalese pita-bread.

I don't agree with Bora on the proto-/neo- fascism thing, but Jesus, the GOP is turning into the Antiabortion Party. (Or the Fetus Rights Party.) It's becoming a singular exception, the overriding litmus test. Of course, if the GOP advertised that even more openly, beyond the Palin-adulating base, it would never win another national election.

Sarah Palin's answer to Eagle Forum questionnaire: "I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctors determination that the mothers life would end if the pregnancy continued."

No other exceptions. I mean, come on, even some who lean pro-life must think that's cuckoo. What if the pregnancy would result in blindness, paralysis or amputation? Not good enough? I don't know. Maybe Palin herself will have an opportunity to answer that question.

I meant to write "singular obsession," not "singular exception." That was weird.

Is this more of that 'code language' where although people say 'freedom of all religion' and prosecute people who discriminate against Jews and Muslims you somehow *know* it really means' just Christians'? 'Cuz, as a native speaker of English, I know what the quote doesn't mention a specific religion, nor do the laws.

And, BTW, how is a law that prevents children who survive the abortion procedure are not left to die "anti-woman"?

Colugo,
But it isn't a litmus test (the other way) for the Dems?Heck, last I checked they won't even link to 'democrats for life'.

Deep Thought:

You're right; abortion has increasingly become the defining issue dividing the parties. Sure, they each have their laundry lists of issues reflecting their respective evolutions. (In the last 40 years, some highlights are the GOP picking up the Dixiecrats in '68, the exodus of neoconservatives from the Democratic Party in the 70s, the coalition of economic libertarians and social conservatives in 1980's Reagan revolution, the rise of DLC neoliberals like Clinton and Gore in the 90s, the influence of the netroots in the post-9/11 era.) But abortion is, besides some lingering deviationists, the big one.

From my view it's all a big categorical error, of attributing social humanity to a part of a developmental continuum for which such a designation is unwarranted. But the funny about abortion is that it is insoluble by objective means. Science isn't much use. Communism failed objectively; it literally did not work in the real world rather than having enough people being convinced that it was wrong. Abortion is solely about subjective values. But I fear I've drifted from the topic of the thread.

Wooo, Socialism with a captial "S". Scary!

At least it's not Liberal, fight for freedom against the liberal tyranny! Left is Right! The sky is green!

USSR crumbled under its own weight.

My ex (a moderate Republican - yes, there are a few of those still around) and I used to cancel out each other's vote all the time (and probably still do). In 1980 I was horrified to hear that he supported Ronnie Raygun, but he still had the Cold War thing going. He said to me, "My question is, can we trust the Russians?" I replied, "Can they trust us? To hell with the Russians. Russia is going to fall under its own weight." Didn't I take endless pleasure in rubbing his nose in it when it actually happened!

Coturnix, I greatly appreciate your perspective. Keep it up!