There are nearly a dozen candidates for the US Senate (some incumbents) who have decided it might be better for their careers and election chances if they basically thumb their nose at the Republican Party that sustains them. They are considering not attending the GOP convention in Minneapolis. Evidently they are so terrified of the “Republican” brand that they are quaking in their boots about being identified as Republicans. It leads to the question: Why the H-E-Double-tooth-pick are they even running as Republicans? Why not just follow Bob Barr and don’t let the door hit you in the rear on your way out? I don’t know how you feel about it, but I am furious. If they can’t put in an appearance at the national convention then they need to be contacted by someone with the you know whats to knock them in line.
That’s the whole problem. Right now the Republicans in the House and in the Senate have no real leadership. That’s why we lost in 2006. There is such a lack of leadership in the GOP right now, no one is banging heads together – or leading. They are all so busy either pandering to the heard line right or trying not to pander to the hard line right and appear more appealing to the left, that they are forgetting they are Republicans.
Alaska
does not like McCain
Susan Collins
Maine
working on campaign – McCain Loyalist
Bob Schaffer
Colorado
running for Senate
Roger Wicker
Missisippi
running for Senate
John Sununu
New Hampshire
Elizabeth Dole
North Carolina
so tied to anti-immigration she can’t think for herself
Gordon Smith
Oregon
John Kennedy
Louisiana
running for Senate – may attend
Steve Pearce
New Mexico
running for Senate – may attend
The National Journal has their excuses:
“…Stevens, for example, is focusing on Alaska’s Aug. 26 primary, which will take place during the Democratic convention, and will stay at home to campaign the following week when Republicans gather to anoint McCain. Because of the timing of the primary, Democratic candidate Mark Begich, the mayor of Anchorage, will also miss his party’s convention.
Collins will spend the week campaigning, said spokesman Kevin Kelley. Her opponent, Rep. Tom Allen, will be in Denver. Asked if Allen would attend, speak or raise funds at the Democratic gathering, spokeswoman Carol Andrews replied, “Yes, yes and yes.”
And while Schaffer eschews Minnesota to campaign in Colorado, his Democratic foe for the Senate seat, Rep. Mark Udall, can keep campaigning while attending his party’s convention, since it is in his home state.
Kennedy’s opponent in Louisiana, Sen. Mary Landrieu, is bound for Denver, as are Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley; Sununu’s challenger, former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen; and Pearce’s foe, Rep. Tom Udall.
While Wicker, the newest senator, has not officially sent regrets, his opponent, former Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, is definitely staying away from Denver. “He’s not a delegate or an alternate delegate, and it’s more important for him to spend the time in the state campaigning,” a spokesman said.
Dole’s Democratic challenger, Kay Hagan, has not committed to attending the Denver convention, but an aide said the campaign has discussed the possibility of a brief stay.
So who among the top targeted Republicans is going to St. Paul?
For starters, Senate Minority Leader McConnell will be there, as will Sen. Norm Coleman, who pushed to bring the GOP bash to his home state. His campaign is already promoting a fundraiser at nearby bar for 40 convention attendees under the age of 40….”
ALL POLITICS ARE LOCAL
I may not have control over what goes on in Washington, but I can sure put my foot down in my little corner of the world. Last week I was asked to sponsor a table at a fund-raising dinner for Steve Pearce. I was thinking about it, but now I am not going to do it. If he does not have the courage to be loyal to the GOP, why should I help him raise money? Unfortunately it’s either he or Democrat, Tom Udall, so I’ll end up voting for Pearce, but I’d rather be voting for Heather Wilson who has proved time and again that she is loyal to the GOP. Frankly, I think the fact that Pearce is thinking about not attending the convention is a betrayal of the Republicans in the 2nd District, where he is still our seated Congressman. It makes our district look bad. How dare Pearce even consider being the US Senator from New Mexico if he cannot represent our state at the national convention.
I am also circulating this specific entry to several local Republicans. With luck Steve Pearce will “see the light”. I want a US Senator I know will work with our next President, John McCain. By not attending the national convention, is Pearce signaling that he is going to be a problem for McCain? If so, we should have known that before the primaries, not afterward.
July 26th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
The GOP got booted from their control of Congress because they’ve become worse than the Democrats on almost every issue, including spending.
According to the conservative Heritage Foundation, total federal spending under Bush and his GOP Congress has increased a whopping 60%, after adjusting for inflation. Most of this spending wasn’t for national security. It was for the largest new entitlement since the Great Society (prescription drug benefit), the biggest federal intrusion into the classroom in history (No Child Left Behind), and a drunken orgy of pork barrel spending that gives new meaning to the phrase “waste, fraud, and abuse�.
Let’s not forget about Bush’s demented foreign policy and his affront to civil liberties at home with his TSA police state, warrantless spying on Americans, etc.
Lyndon Baines Bush has ruined the GOP. Hopefully, the coming November massacre will give you guys a big enough wake up call to pull yourselves out of the gutter.
July 26th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
The first thing I would ask is “Do you think Bush is a republican?” Maybe that is part of the problem as someone, or several ones, wreaked the republican party as we knew it so I am not sure what we have now. McCain seems more like a right of center centrist in many ways with a few conservative inklings, but he does pass the common sense test, which is something obama and his handlers fail given the recent spectacle of grabbing the world stage. I guess they do think the American public is pea brained and wants image over substance, once again(Clinton years). But the Bush years certainly won’t go down as republican years, but instead go down as “the Bush years.” Even the congressional republican leaders have been an assorted embarrassment and they seem tone deaf when interviewed on tv. Maybe its all the spin and staying on message, but frankly the American public sees right through all of that after 16 years of Clinton-Bush. Why that’s near a generation of flim flam. I think the republican party has badly lost its way and in some ways McCain is more like the party of old than this modern born again spin generation group of so-called republicans that can’t even speak straight, about anything. And I think they have hurt their credibility by en-masse going on this religious revival under pressure by the “evangelicals” power hungry set who wouldn’t know Christ if he was sitting next to them. At least McCain isn’t lying to you like so many of the others, and he isn’t obama grandiose, and that might be a good place to start.
July 26th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
It’s like the Brian, you are not going to like the post I just did for The Pink Flamingo, then again you might.
SJR
http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/7/26/3811292.html
July 26th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Even Sean Hannity claims to be a conservative first, and Republican second. Now Sean in reality is no conservative, perhaps a neo-con. I would ask you what is more important party or principle? Party or Country? Party or Ideology? Party or Candidate?
I am a strong Republican, an elected District Leader in Washington State and an even stronger conservative. I am an elected Alternate Delegate to the National Convention, and even I know that John McCain is NO REPUBLICAN, nor is he a conservative in the least.
I will be voting for Principle, for Ideology, and for my countries best interest both at the National Convention as well as in November. Hopefully the Republican Party realizes that McCain will not earn the votes of the true right, and will opt for the better candidate whos campaign is currently suspended, and as it happens will be just a few miles away during the National Convention — Ron Paul.
July 26th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I’m sorry, but I do not consider that Republican. Ron Paul is an embarrassment to the GOP, plain and simple.
I’m sick and tired of “true right” zealots who are destroying the GOP. It’s that simple
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
July 26th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
When sean hannity speaks I change the channel as his drivel isn’t worth the ear time. He’s like a little kid with a television show and not weighty enough to swim in the circle of neocons. He’s a misplaced suburban gym teacher and should be taken as seriously. Plus he manipulates viewers. Coombs is actually tougher than Hannity if you really look and he is anything but a liberal. Plus he’s great at heaping disdain on guests and chewing the up when he wants to and he is definitely a company man. He is the straight man to Hannity’s clownishness. Classic pairing. Ron Paul isn’t tough enough to be president and he is way too green on international affairs and three generations out of date. We can’t just disengage and hide from the rest of the world. I think he makes more domestic sense as an idea man to shake up the sclerotic establishment. But his libertarian origins conflict with his claim to be a republican, though I agree its a murky subject given the bush years at spinning the party out of itself. For example, given the huge and growing size of the American underclass, there is no way abolishing government is going to do them or the rest of us anygood. It might help you but it won’t help teaming numbers of people in our inner cities and rural counties. Like it or not we live in a quasi socialist managed economy with those in the top tier free to make a lot of money off of everyone else with minimal real regulation, otherwise the subprime, siv, bank, housing crises would never have occured. So those at the top make hefty profits off of the current system. Socialist state in the bottom income lawers, mega-capitalist state in the highest levels. And a whole governing elite of professional beuarocrats, judges, and lawyers, that control the police arm and military wing of the state. So we today are neither liberal or conservative, it just depends on which tier of the layer cake your on. The entire Hannity and Coombs thing is a myth, an entertaining fantasy that gets people’s buttons pushed and worked up. Its not real. They have everyone going after each other taking their eyes off of the real ball moving down the course. The US is simply a bilevel society and those in charge love it that way as its “so darn profitable.” If you get beyond the fake ideologies or fantasy’s just follow the money, the power and you will see more clearly what we really are as a “nation”. Remember when the constitution was written 95 percent of the population were farmers with land. Now less than 5 percent are farmers(really corporate farms) where no individual owns the land for the most part. Big city megalopolous’s didn’t exist back then, nor did the industrial revolution. The really smart and rapacious ones of today are scooping up as much of the nation and globe as they can and putting it in their sock. The connected, the leveraged, the protected, and the clever entrepreneur. The rest are as socialized as it gets and Ron Paul has no solution to sanely fix that problem.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Maybe some will attend the Ron Paul convention, which has drawn so much interest they had to move it to the Target Center.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
are talking about “the” ted stevens, fourth in line for the President? The crusty old guy who yells when he’s supposed to be talking like he’s about to be in a bar fight and his face is about to explode? Does he have some condition?
July 26th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I’m sorry, but I do not consider that Republican. Ron Paul is an embarrassment to the GOP, plain and simple.
Yes, you are right. Paul stands for limited government, and as such, he is does not fit in today’s Republican party.
I wonder if even Ronald Reagan would be a Republican today.
July 27th, 2008 at 2:47 am
One big problem with the Republican Party is that they have officially decided that they want feminists to be at home there. The victim feminists, who say that every man is a rapist and every prostitute a victim of “sex trafficking”, fit in well with the Chritian evangelists for instance. Thus we have Sam Brownback uniting with Hillary Clinton and Dem Spinster Senator Maria Cantwell on the new VAWA (socalled Violence Against Women Act) which is completely unconstitutional in that domestic violence is not an enumerated power of Congress nor should be. They combined to persecute any American businessman who might look at a foreign college student via the IMBRA law…which claims that all foreign women are “mail order brides” and all dating sites that feature less than 50% American women to be “marriage brokers”. This law forces American men to be background checked before saying hello to a foreign woman.
Once you look into the new alliance between Christian evangelists and feminists, any non-castrated male would forever turn his back on both the neocons and the socons.
July 27th, 2008 at 3:10 am
SJR, the problem is so few people besides you are willing to stand up and say these things out loud. The GOP is running scared from the Paulians, the immigration obsessives, and various other screechy demagogues with small minded, one-note agendas. We have allowed the screechies to become the face of the GOP. It will be an absolute miracle if we can get John McCain elected, given the damage done by our own.
Instead of supporting our president, the Right Wingnuts decided to use the last four years to make individual power plays aimed at raising money and establishing credibility they could never earn apart from the GOP. They apparently got addicted to this M.O. and will not reverse course, even with our national security at stake. And our “leadership” is running scared from these people, or they have in some cases joined them. That is why I pray fervently for McCain’s victory… because it will be a two-fer. Mac will have beaten the rabid socialist Dems *and* he will not be beholden to the rabid Right.
My hat is off to you. I believe many more Republicans agree with you than you might think.
July 27th, 2008 at 4:09 am
“This law forces American men to be background checked before saying hello to a foreign woman.”
ummm … that law prevents violent sexual offenders from using mail order bride agencies from bringing in more victims.
July 27th, 2008 at 6:29 am
I’m sorry, but no matter what Ron Pauls qualifications may be, whether you like him or not the guyis just plain scary.
The man does not appear to have control of his facilities at times.
I think it was at the SC debate when confronted on foreign policy the guys veins in his neck were pulsating and he looked like Barney Fife on meth getting ready to crap down his leg.
This is not the guy I want having access to nuclear weapons.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Once upon a time the GOP had standards and a credo and an actual list of who and what a Republican was. This has become lost in all the “conservative” rhetoric about who worships Reagan more and most dogmatically.
THE REPUBLICAN CREED
I do not choose to be a common man.
It is my right to be uncommon.
If I can seek opportunity,
not security,
I want to take the calculated risk to dream
And build, to fail and to succeed.
I refused to barter incentive for dole.
I prefer the challenges of life to
guaranteed security,
the thrill of fulfillment
to the state of calm utopia.
I will not trade freedom for beneficence,
nor my dignity for a handout.
I will never cower before any master,
save my God.
It is my heritage to stand erect,
proud and unafraid.
To think and act for myself,
enjoy the benefit of my creations;
to face the whole world
boldly and say, “I am a free American.”
Now, I see nothing in it about not allowing feminists to be part of the party. Anyone who believes the above is a Republican. The problem is that the followers of Ron Paul, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity don’t appear to know this.
Deal with it.
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
July 27th, 2008 at 11:43 am
after reading these responses I don’t have a clue as to what a republican constitutes, looks like, or is supposed to be. Too much fascination with power here, but not with work product. I think a republican should be able to put out real work product that is common sense, addresses real problems, is fair, and goes home at the end of the day and eats a cassarole and leaves the public alone.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:44 am
do you think obama is about to leave us alone?
July 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Maybe I won’t go either. Wait. I am not a Republican. But maybe McShame will realize that the war in Iraq was a War in Error and pull out. Quickly.
July 27th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
[“This law forces American men to be background checked before saying hello to a foreign woman.�
ummm … that law prevents violent sexual offenders from using mail order bride agencies from bringing in more victims.]
So you would be OK if a government agent stood in every bar in the USA making sure that every woman a man talked to was able to sign off on his background before being allowed to speak with him? That would stop violent sex offenders from bringing in more victims wouldn’t it?
Why don’t you want to protect American women, many of whom are murdered by Internet dates? Statistically speaking, it is more dangerous for a lower class American woman to speak with a lower class American man than it is for an upper middle class foreign woman to meet an upper middle class American man online.
Oh yes, that’s right. You WOULD want total Internet regulation. In court, the Bush Administration government lackey defended IMBRA saying that they ultimately wanted everyone on the Internet identified and background checked before they could talk with women.
And you wonder why McCain is polling so poorly?
I agree that Ron Paul concentrated on nutty things, but he and Bob Barr are right that a new alien brand of Nanny State regulator has temporarily taken over the Republican Party.
Never mind that all this talk about forcing men to be background checked before talking to women was always considered pure left-wing Marxist feminism before the Bushies decided to ally with such people.
There isn’t anything conservative about being anti-male and/or suspicious of the “male stranger”. And of course there is nothing conservative about ignoring non-feminist college graduates in other countries in favor or the 67% of women who are Democrats in the US.
Also, there is no such thing as a “mail order bride”. If you really wanted to understand why Sam Brownback allied with Hillary Clinton and her feminist cabal on VAWA and IMBRA, just Google his radio interview with the gay Charles Collins of Radio Vaticana where he said that he really wants to stop men from going to other countries to “fulfill their sexual fantasies”.
The Republican Party, if it ever wants to win again even at the municipal dog catcher level, has got to stop trying to regulate people’s sex lives and especially not regulate their heterosexual marriage choices while bowing to their friends on the left about gay marriage choices.
Considering that only 0.4% of American males have the money to travel to Paris, Munich and Moscow on a regular basis…we (0.00001% of whom are sex offenders) are an easy target for cowards in the Republican Party who are too afraid to combat the gay and feminist agenda.
July 27th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
now when anyone in America thinks of a male they will think, “hmmm, they must be getting the mail order brides, and be predators, and mcshanes” etc etc. Just think of every negative thing you can think of and apply it to all males, except obama of course as he is pure and sancrosact and perfect and african and oh my….! Aren’t we all originally african but people like obama just moved on out more recently? I guess that makes him cutting edge better. oh boy! why don’t you grow up in hawaii and get a harvard law degree too and you can be just like the rest of us. Its all bogus, a sales pitch, to put the next boatload of refugee’s in power. And instead of drinking belgian bud they will drink french chabliss! there is so much gradiosity and arrogance in this scheme you could say its sectarian.
July 27th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
[Now, I see nothing in it about not allowing feminists to be part of the party. Anyone who believes the above is a Republican.]
Do you even see that what you are saying?
Feminists should be welcome in the Republican Party? WTF?
Do you even remember what being Republican was all about even 4 years ago?
No. Marxist feminism that claims that men lose all their rights when they marry (VAWA allows any woman to financially benefit by falsely accusing a husband of abuse) and that men do not have an intrinsic right to say hello to women is NOT Republican and never was.
And, yes, a Dem judge actually upheld IMBRA at the district level (Atlanta) saying that men had no more right to say hello to women than they had to own a gun.
You do believe men have a right to own a gun do you?
Or is it now OK to welcome gun regulators into the big tent (and consequently shrinking) Republican Party?
Nor do these laws have a chance in the courts (competent challenges have not yet been launched – incompetent challenges don’t count).
All the Republicans consistently voted against intrinsically anti-male victim-feminist initiatives until Sam Brownback decided to make a deal in 2005 where Maria Cantwell (D-WA) agreed that she would not filibuster the appointment of Sam Alito to the bench if he convinced his Republican allies to give her a yes votes where she and Hillary wanted them.
It is also well known that the Republicans let the Democrats have carte blanche on social regulation issues so long as the Dems voted with them on the War on Terror (which I support, including the Iraq War).
They might have asked the Republican voters if they agreed to such deal-making.
I might have said yes to the Republicans dropping their stance on gay marriage in order to keep the Dems on board for fighting Islamofascists…but I never would have agreed to the Bushies completely folding to the feminists like they did.
If anyone had any clue in 2004 that the Republican Party was going to welcome Clintonites and ignore veterans who live overseas…we would have had President Kerry.
July 27th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Plain and simple anyone more concerned with electing a candidate with an “R” or “D” (if thats your preference) next to his name with no regard to what the candidate believes is not someone who should be voting, however in our society you have that right and unfortunately that is how we ended with 8 years of Clinton, and 8 years of Bush. That is how we’ve come to find ourselves with McCain as the potential nominee, who is even worse than Dole 12 years ago.
Had the voters used their brains instead of their televisions and newspapers we would have had Robert Taft as President in 1950, Goldwater as President in 1964, Reagan as President in 1976, Pat Buchanan as President in 1992 or 1996. Now we are faced more lousy choices and most of us are forced to vote third party or abstain all together.
The Republicans had a redeemer in their midst this year in Ron Paul, but unfortunately they decided to sell their soles yet again, and now we have McCain.
July 27th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I think one of the very real problems here is there are “conservatives” who are mistaking the Republican Party for the Libertarian Party. The GOP is not LIBERTARIAN. It is REPUBLICAN. There is a huge difference.
Quite frankly, I wonder about the character of anyone who continues to support the likes of Ron Paul who took money from known neo-Nazis or Pat Buchanan who is decidedly revisionist when it comes to the Holocaust. I find the very mention of the name of Ronald Reagan in with these people insulting, to put it mildly.
The real problem is this pathetic false religion and revisionism of Reagan. He would never support either Paul or Buchanan. Never, ever. And – a real Republican does not constantly denigrate their seated President.
I think some of you people need to re-consider the GOP and maybe switch to Libertarian or even the Constitution Party. You would feel more at home.
But – quit mistaking your libertarian tendencies for the GOP. It is not, nor never will it be one in the same.
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
July 28th, 2008 at 2:15 am
There is a good chance that McCain will be forced to chose Sanford or Palin as VP, which would effectively give the Republican Party back to the libertarians who deserve to control it.
This is McCain’s only chance of winning. It would be especially good if McCain chose Sanford and then resigned his own candidacy for “health reasons” in September.
I am glad, by the way, that SJR just admitted that she or he envisions the Republican Party as something that despises libertarianism and supports feminism (an ideology that is not about equality but about regulation and special privileges).
It is refreshing to see supporters of the new Nanny State style of Republicanism come clean.
But…the Republicans will never ever win again without embracing the huge number of libertarians in their midst. Please read the book “The Elephant in the Room”.
It isn’t as well written as I could have done (it ignores the new neocon Nanny Stater phenomenon), but it does a decent job of showing how socons dominate the Republican Party only in the south and midwest while libertarians dominate everywhere else, especially the Rocky Mountain states and Alaska.
And we all know that there are enough libertarian Republicans in Georgia to punish McCain for ignoring them.
Ron Paul’s big mistake was in being too anti-war…using left wing arguments as well as right wing arguments against war, while not seeming to understand the difference.
Ron Paul also failed to understand that you can’t just imply that you will destroy the IRS and the Fed in your first 100 days in office…people are looking for someone with a sound idea of how to really get things done.
Ron Paul also failed to pull the brilliant stunt that Obama just did: nobody can deny that getting the conservative King of Jordan, the conservative Sarkozy and 6 other world leaders fawning over you…was anything but a coup for any candidate for the US presidency.
McCain’s people would just say “why should we care what those foreigners think and why should any American ever leave the US? That’s unpatriotic.”
But Ron Paul’s nemesis and past associate, Eric Dondero, is working with Bob Barr not to see the same mistakes happen with Barr’s campaign. Check out the LibertarianRepublican blog.
Plenty of “Christian evangelists” backed Ron Paul, and not on the war but on local civil rights.
Yes, Christian evangelists were saying “I don’t like pornography but if we let the government regulate that, they will be regulating the Bible soon.”
There are plenty of Christians who understand that banning strip joints could easily lead to banning churches or taxing church revenue.
Christian evangelists (who, like the libertarians, are being shut out by the McCain campaign), can get along just fine with libertarians as long as they show humility and remember that others think differently.
As long as they remember that someday their contact with each other can be regulated and their members persecuted by a Nanny State, Christians and libertarians can maintain their old alliance and win elections.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:20 am
SJR,
If your main problem with Paulians and big L Libertarians is that they concentrate on being anti-war and against the passive wiretapping of terrorists, I and tons of other small l libertarian Republicans agree with you. Please Google “Eric Dondero”.
Eric is working to see if Republicans can finally come to an agreement whereby the Presidential candidate and his or her VP candidate talk true small government while keeping the anti-war and anti-passive-international-wiretapping loonies at bay and the anti-immigration fanatics at bay (and while keeping most of the druggies at bay as well, except maybe the medical marijuana patients).
What is non-negotiable are the more reasonable demands such as a hands-off policy for the Internet, no more secret deals with the Democrats to agree to their social regulation schemes in return for their cooperation on the war, and putting an end to treating male heterosexuals like predators.
Otherwise, once Obama is responsible for winning Republican cooperation on *his* war on terror in the Middle East, maybe we will see the Republicans demanding that the Democrats compromise on social issues instead of the other way around.
As the opposition, the Republicans might stop selling us out.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:10 am
I have a big problem with VAWA that I think anyone would have. A foreign immigrant spouse can scam an American man, marry him for ulterior reasons and then run away to a shelter and claim abuse. She gets automatic permanent residence, a shelter, medical coverage, free education for herself or her children (from prior marriage(s)), subsequent housing, and the poor slob who got scammed doesn’t even have the right to attend the hearings! Foreign men don’t get the same privileges, as there are no “men’s shelters” nor is there a “Violence Against Men Act” giving them the same protections. This is tantamount to LEGAL illegal immigration! We don’t want our marriage, divorce and spouse abuse laws to be a free gateway for foreigners to bypass our immigration laws and come to the U.S. for free, on the backs of taxpayers. This is an outrage, and any Republican who supports this is not a Republican at all — he is an embarrassment to the Conservative movement and a disgrace to people like Ronald Reagan.
At the same time, an American citizen can’t even write to a foreigner’s personals ad without being “frisked and finger printed” via. the IMBRA law. He is presumed guilty until proven innocent, and denied the basic right to freely say “hello” to somebody. No true Republican prior to 2000 would have sponsored or even agreed with such an outrageous police state law! Yes, people should be protected, but they also have the responsibility to make their own choices and face the consequences thereof. That is the message of every conservative talk show host I’ve ever listened to. Government is not your babysitter or your mother. A true Republican would honor our constitutional rights and freedoms, and offer protection by imposing swift and severe justice on those who abuse them. THAT is the message that today’s “neocons” have forgotten. Ronald Reagan is rolling in his grave.