I just ran a quick search for "permanent Republican majority," and picked one out of the many, many choices.

I have no idea where you're coming from in terms of the word "principles." I don't think you have the same definition that I work from. Free-market ideas are not a principle in themselves, but they are the consequence of a particular set of moral and ethical ideas based on the rights of the individual. Not many people want to go there.

Contrary to the face-saving rhetoric of the right these days, it is not because your ideological principles are insufficiently conservative. (That, I have to say, is one of the most breathtaking bits of self-delusion I've ever seen come out of the right. How can you possibly believe, after losing an election [badly] to somebody you attacked relentlessly as a "liberal", that what the country wants is less liberalism and more conservatism? Whatever you're smoking, I want some!)

The 2006 election was the result of Rahm Emanuel's targeted attacks on leading Republican officeholders and key districts, combined with running "blue dogs" against them in conservative districts (this is already coming back to bite the Democratic left).

Barack Obama was greased into the presidency by a media that thoroughly scrubbed decades of his leftist Chicago background, and mercilessly attacked any sign of conservative activity on the part of Republicans. He was painted as "post-partisan," a "deficit fighter," and above all, someone with an intellect far beyond that of a mortal man.

All Obama had to do was lie there and not screw up while the media passed him forward like the audience at a rock concert.

For a good time, compare his election rhetoric to what he's actually done. Heck, compare his current rhetoric to what he actually does. I have noticed that nobody has run one of those polls asking if people would change their vote now. I suspect nobody will.

And running against him? A "Republican" that has spent most of his time "reaching across the aisle," stabbing Republicans in the back in the Senate, and whose grasp of actual conservative principles is miles wide and a millimeter deep. To be honest, while Palin talks conservatism better than McCain, her own philosophical foundation for her rhetoric seems to be just as shallow. McCain knows what a conservative should sound like. He doesn't know why. Small wonder he ended up drifting left whenever he lost his moorings. And as long as we run "socialist lite" people for election, the real socialists will win.

Newt Gingrich would have cleaned up in the debates.

The greatest electoral victories the Republicans had in recent times were 1980, 1984, and 1994. In all these cases, it was because we had leaders who were solidly conservative, knew what that meant and what the philosophical and historical foundations for it were, and because of that, could articulate it to the American people.

The Democrats and their pals are telling us all now that Specter is the wave of the future, and until the Republicans become "reasonable," (do whatever Democrats want), they won't win again.

You think this is an accurate assessment from people concerned about the health of the Republicans? Or is it a fast one being pulled by people who would just as soon see all this annoying political opposition disappear?

Carville is as selective with his history as most Democrats are. If the past eight years were such a huge load of crap, why did Bush and the Republicans get re-elected in 2004? I've also noticed a deep silence on current Democratic ethical issues.