Beck does have a point though, Bush was the first to start the bailouts, and while I did vote for him, he was no where near fiscally conservative. Bush also did nothing about sealing the border. Even Newt said that both Republicans and the Democrats are just the opposite wings of the same bird of prey. I for one, am done with voting for the lesser of two evils. As long as the Republicans continue to run candidates like McCain, and Mark Kirk from IL. who voted for Obama's cap and trade bill, I am voting for the Constitution Party. They may not be the biggest party but they are getting people elected in local offices in some states, and they stand for the things I believe in. Until the Republicans do they have not earned my vote.

With all due respect to wanting liberals and leftists to loose in '10 and '12, Mr. Prelutsky has a fatal flaw in his argument.

It is the responsibility of a citizen of this great land to vote based on an informed understanding of each candidate compared to first principles. The outcome with such an informed and educated population will result in the disciplined and conservative official being elected. Voting Republican and voting non-Democrat are not principled and informed votes.

I think he is also wrong about the state of the Republican Party. They are fighting back: it's about time. But are they fighting back so that the Republican Party wins and the Democrat Party loses? OR so that conservative principles that preserve the constitution win? I think it is the former. Were these same Republicans in a majority, they would abandon many of the conservative first principles in favor of an agenda. These Republicans might not make the same affronts to the constitution, but their affronts would not be wholly constitutional and just as detrimental to the country were the roles reversed. There are always exceptions, but most of these “representatives” have been around a lot longer than a couple of years and have voting records that are not very “first principled”.

Mr. Prelutsky is correct about the need for a truly conservative candidate. Who cares if that person is in a 3rd party? Why do we have parties anyway?! Maybe looks matter, but they shouldn't to a truly informed and responsible citizenry. I would put Mrs. Palin in the category of "non-electable". She is popular; she claims to be conservative. But TRUE conservatives don't jump on a bandwagon effort once it is popular. They are the initiators of the effort because they can communicate those great things and it makes sense. She is not the Tea Party leader. She jumped on when it got popular and claimed leadership. Where is the Ronald Reagan in that?

Vote as an informed and responsible citizen; let’s call it “Principled Voting”. The results are God's and to Him we are responsible for our actions!

Burt is correct in his assessment of the "third party candidate syndrome." Unfortunately, voting for a third party candidate does allow the freakish left into power. However, in the past the Republican party has morphed into the little sister of the looney left wing liberal Democrat party. That being said, it is up to us as American taxpayers and voters to ride herd on whoever gets voted into office. Part of the reason our big bloated blowhard of a government has gotten that way is through the complacency and blind eye the voters have turned towards those we have elected to lead us. WE must to be ever vigilant. The people who pay for government must not allow them to continue their irresponsible behavior. After all, you cannot let a child loose in a candy store and expect them to behave now can you? We need to be the parents.

The problem is that a good portion of the voting block is uninformed, does not know the Constitution, does not read, votes only for Democrats, is not willing to hear the truth for some warped reason, and votes for handouts. These are the very same people who put Obama in power and are likely to do it again because they outnumber logical, rational, knowledgeable voters.

Burt makes very valid points.

You can vote Constitutional Party all you want, you will garner a new victory for the Democrats in power and yes, Soros would love to sponsor your campaign.

In a perfect world we would recognize that the names Rebublican and Democrat no longer describe what the two partys stand for. We would abolish them and name the two partys Conservative and Liberal, because that is what the people look for in a politician. Is he/she a fiscal or soial conservative or is he/she a left wing progressive?

I belive that is what the Tea Party movement is looking for!

He does not say that there is no difference between the two parties. He says there is no difference between progressive Republicans and progressive Democrats. The key difference between saying there is no difference and what he said is the word progressive.

Thank you.

I also love Beck but your commentary is vital.

Former Democrat Tim Cahill's Third Party run at MA Governor may be a good hint of conundrums to come.

Is he a more serious fiscal conservative than the liberal Republican candidate? Or is he the current Democrat Governor's man, put up to split the opposition, because he knows his majority support has gone away?

Pay attention America!

No Third Parties!

Challenge the RINOS wherever they're vulnerable but keep the banner of conservatism IN HOUSE!

All these comments hit the same point--Not everyone pays attention to the canidate, they vote one way because they have always done so. They were raised in one party or the other. They are used to hand outs, or want more or just figure their vote dosen't count. How about the "I would have voted for them but I didn't think they could win" I love those people. OH don't forget to fill out your census and pay your taxes on time.

"Bob Risko" - Bob, Sarah Palin did not 'jump on the bandwagon' of the Tea Party when it got popular; and, she has never claimed any leadership of it. She has always espoused conservative principles throughout her public and private life. Sounds like you are watching too much of the wrong television. Do a little research before you try to besmirch others.

Dear Readers: I expected a good deal of flashback on this piece, but I asumed it would be from the Ron Paul faithful. I am happy that it's not. I agree that the GOP pols acted like a bunch of RINOs between 2000 and 2006, but that wasn't the case in the 1990s when Newt Gingrich was running things. However, it is silly to blame some vague "They" for nominating John McCain. With the able assistance of Mike Huckabee, he won the majority of GOP primaries. It's in the primaries that we conservatives must make our voices heard. However, in the general election, if you vote for a third party candidate just so you can feel good about yourself, you don't get to whine when the liberal wins. As for litmus tests, I always like to point out that even Ronald Reagan wouldn't have passed one these days. As governor, he twice raised taxes here in California and signed the most liberal abortion bill in the country. As president, he foisted the first amnesty bill on us, opening the floodgates to millions of illegal aliens.

Burt

Ileana

The problem is that a good portion of the voting block is uninformed, does not know the Constitution, does not read, votes only for Democrats, is not willing to hear the truth for some warped reason, and votes for handouts. These are the very same people who put Obama in power and are likely to do it again because they outnumber logical, rational, knowledgeable voters.

Ileana This is the reason that the NEA needs to be abolished. They have an agenda and it is to keep the people uninformed and uninterested by doling out all these social handouts. When the Republicans are in power do they rescind any of these policies? The answer is NO they don't. They just smile and say there is nothing we can do about it.

It does not matter which party is in power we are still heading down the path to collectivism and unless we change our way of thinking and voting it is not going to change.

There is a way if enough people get on the bandwagon, we can essentially eliminate both parties and take back our government.

http://goooh.com

From G Edward Griffin: The solution is simple. It is to take back control of the power centers of society, one-by-one, just the way they were captured in the first place. Replace the collectivists with people who have no personal agendas except to defend freedom. This will unleash the vast human potential for prosperity and happiness that can be realized only in the absence of government oppression. However, to reach that goal, it will be necessary for those who cherish freedom to do more than complain and far more than just casting a vote every few years. They must reach for power. That is the reason for the motto of Freedom Force: Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt, which is Latin for “Those without power cannot defend freedom.”

I respectfully request you visit www.GOoOH.com and learn about the plan to save our nation.

Will you help us fire the career politicians who are destroying our country?

Would you like to take the special interest money out of politics?

Have you had enough of BOTH of these political parties?

Are you concerned about any of the following?

 Out of control spending and debt

 Blatant government corruption

 Rising unemployment rate

 Failing education system

 A ridiculous tax code

 Illegal immigration

 Career politicians

The time has come to take action

A simple plan exists.

History is being written.

Will you help?

If you care about our nation, help others learn that a solution exists.

Visit GOOOH.com, G, triple O, H, dot com and learn how you can be part of the solution.

Burt, do not sing the praises of Gingrich. Gingrich for those who don't know is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR is the group that wants one world government, remember Bush 1 and the New World Order? Gingrich is a member of a foreign group that wants to over throw the U.S. Say isn't that the defintion of treason?

This is why I LOVE PatriotPost. Here we have a lively discussion of several important issues by a group of people who clearly do not agree, yet the discussion is respectful, educational, insightful and entertaining. There has been no name calling or mud slinging. How awesome is that?

There are excellent arguments on both sides of the third party debate. America has a long history of third party candidates, even successful ones (we remember reading about the Bull Moose party in high school, and other "dark horse" candidates).

When we talk about these issues it's important to remember that "should be" and "is" are two different things. We can talk all day about how third party candidates "should" be viable and how they "shouldn't" simply be spoilers in a given election. Of course they shouldn't.

But the reality is quite different. Third party candidates tend to tip elections the other way, regardless of political leanings. For example, in 1992, Right-of-center Ross Perot's stuttering candidacy drew almost 18% of the popular vote (if memory serves), pulling enough votes away from incumbent George H W Bush (41) to give Bill Clinton the win. Take Perot out of the race and most of his votes would go to Bush, and that would have given him a second term. Who knows what would have happened in 96, in that case?

Again, in 2000 a third party candidate shifted the balance when the far-Left Ralph Nader pulled enough support from Al Gore to give Bush a very narrow victory. Nobody can argue that a significant percentage of Nader's votes were pulled from Bush; Nader actually fractured the more radical Leftist base of the Gore campaign. If it hadn't been for Nader, it is undeniable that we would have had to endure President Gore. The nation really ought to thank Nader for the great service he did.

Mr Prelutsky's observation that an anti-American radical like George Soros would happily fund the campaign of a Constitution Party candidate is exactly right. Likewise, I would love to see another Green Party candidate or a Socialist Party entry.

In fact, there is a large deal of grumbling in Nevada right now, as GOP spokesmen complain that Harry Reid is secretly backing a Tea Party candidate in order to draw votes away from his GOP challenger and cling to his seat by his fingernails. According to news reports, "nobody in the Tea Party knows who this" candidate is. That's a clear illustration of the danger of third parties in today's political climate.

The GOP has a clear choice to make. We didn't lose two elections in a row because the Democrats had better ideas, connected better with voters, or outspent us in the media. We lost because we moved too far to the Left. When Americans are given a choice between "Democrats Lite" and genuine Liberals, they'll go for the real McCoy nearly every time. The GOP must offer Americans a true alternative, not just a watered down version of Liberalism. The GOP must run genuinely Conservative candidates.

Or they might as well just vote for Obamacare, cap & trade and everything else.

Ann Coulter put out an analysis of the 2008 election that was 100% correct. She observed that we allowed the media to choose our candidate. Might as well have let the DNC choose him. Rank and file Republicans said "we should nominate McCain. After all, the media seems to like him, maybe we can get a fair shake in the press that way." So much for irrational optimism!

She also noted that the media told us who our candidate SHOULD have been. "Who did the media attack relentlessly, even to the point of smearing his religion with phony 'news' stories? Our strongest candidate, Mitt Romney. Who did the media constantly suck up to? Our weakest candidate, John McCain." It was a clever ploy and Republicans fell for it -- hook, line and sinker.

The media is again telling us who our candidate should be. There is only one Republican in the country that the media constantly assails, mocks, attacks, smears and ambushes. They are showing us the candidate they are most terrified of. We should listen to them.

Unless someone better arrives on the scene, our clear choice is Sarah Palin. She never claimed leadership of the Tea Party; she was invited by a group calling itself the Tea Party, to speak at their convention. It's my understanding that none of the original organizers of the movement were involved in that convention, so it's really a moot point anyway.

A lot of Conservatives are excited about Mitch Daniels. Unless or until he starts making noises about running, my support goes to Mrs Palin. I would need to learn a lot more about Mr Daniels before I can get behind him. That doesn't mean I wouldn't. In fact, a Daniels-Palin ticket (regardless of which of them heads it) would be just fine with me.

One last thing about third parties. A third party has a good shot in 2012 if the GOP nominates another RINO like McCain. That would make the field ripe for an upset. I believe Americans are fed up with drunken spending and bizarre fiscal policy. The GOP looks to be keeping the utterly clueless Michael Steele, which does not bode well for selecting a genuine Conservative. As a party chairman, I'd rather see Michael Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty or a host of others who would lead as real Conservatives.

The next two elections are ours to win -- or ours to lose. The Left is totally self-destructing because they're making the lunatic mistake of actually telling Americans what they really believe, and Americans don't like what they're hearing. OTOH, as Conservatives we must do everything we can to show Americans what we really believe, and that's the key to victory.

Dear Mr. Last: Whatever group Newt Gingrich belongs to or doesn't belong to, he did a masterful job as Speaker of the House. And he remains one of the brightest people on the political scene, and I only said he should have the ear of the next Republican president, not that he should be that person.

Burt

What has not been mentioned is the Electorial College. It determines the Presidential Election and not the popular vote. Our Founding Fathers did this to give small states (population wise) a say. In my state, Wyoming, the republicans far outnumber democrats. My vote for Ron Paul made no difference in the outcome. I thought the election was between Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin. The popular vote for McRINO in Wyoming was much more than BHO. Likewise a vote for Ron Paul in a state like the Peoples Republik of NY amde difference because of the large number of democraps.

Don't let the statistics of small numbers lead you astray. It's true that one vote for Ron Paul doesn't matter in the overall scheme of a state's vote tally.

But we're not talking about one vote. We're talking about trends and results. It's undeniable that Ross Perot's third party run cost George H W Bush a second term (it's also true that breaking his promise re: taxes cost him too -- maybe Perot would have been irrelevant otherwise). Nobody can argue that Ross Perot's nearly 18% draw didn't change the outcome.

Likewise, nobody can argue that Ralph Nader's third party bid in 2000 was not a critical factor. I think he got like 2% of the vote, but would anyone deny that 2% came from Gore's base? Throw that support back over to Gore, and (perish the thought) we'd have a very different country today.

Living in one-party Massachusetts, I could argue that my vote does not count. If I were talking strictly about presidential elections, I suppose it would be difficult to argue that my GOP vote here counts for much in a normal year. But there's more to any given ballot than just the national race. There are Congressmen, state legislators, city councilors, school committee, and of course the ever-present ballot initiatives. Party has less influence as you get closer to the ground, and trends play a larger role. So it is with third party candidates.

All of this is irrelavent, or nearly so. If conservatives want to have a serious influence on the election they can't just vote in the primary or worse yet the general election and expect to have a voice -- you have to get involved at the local precinct caucus level and get conservative candidates on the ticket to start with and then the general voters will have a true conservative to vote for. If this is not done then the party machine will always put the candidates on the ticket that will bring in the most money and also get them back in power.

He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it. You need to understand how we got to this point. Then it will be easier to correct. (That should settle the whole T.R. / W. Wilson thing.)

Now who helpped get the stimulis passed.... Oh yeah all those so called Right Wing Republicans....... Except for a few cooks that voted against it. What the problem with the Repulbican Party is we have annunced the days of Ronald Reagan are done. Little do they know Mr. Reagan was right, and we need to bring the party back to those pinciples. People like John McCain is not one of them. Niether is Michael Steele.

Could not disagree more. I've had it with the establishment within the Republican party. I truly regret that I didn't place my vote with Ron Paul after Fred Thompson decided he didn't really want the ball. It's the last time I place any confidence in what "the establishment," party leadership, or commentators who feel the need to tell us that Candidate So and So hasn't a chance, has to say...

Today, I'm a proud, independent conservative. It will be a candidate's credentials as a true conservative that will garner my interest and vote, not whether there is a R, a D, or an I following said candidate's name.

re MichaelSSEC, "The [liberal] media is again telling us who our candidate should be...They are showing us the candidate they are most terrified of. We should listen to them."

Thank you, Michael, for that well thought out piece. The Patriot Post in general, and this discussion in particular, has been awesome, and your contribution strikes sparks on a flint.

I still wear my (struck-with-indelible-marker)/Palin cap, and I would love to be part of a swell of support that would lift Sarah Palin to real national leadership and I question, "Are my doubts the result of my own clear thought or am I FAILING TO NOTICE that I'm being told, 'Oh, well no, that bird really just won't fly?'"

Time will tell but I am going to continue my prayers for her. She may well be Diogenes' one honest man at last. What lack of Ivy League Sophistication trumps that?

I pray that she might do everything possible to show herself heir to Margaret Thatcher's mantle, and to make it impossible for her enemies to dismis her, whatever prejudices they seek to evoke.

I am on board with Glenn Beck and the TPP to the extent that they bring back conservative values to the Republican Party. I do not believe Ronald Reagan foresaw the Republicans selling out as they did so shortly after he left office. A third party would only split conservative votes. With a mostly unified democratic party, we do not need to be splitting the Republicans, we need to REPLACE them. I was once, too, ready to jump on the bandwagon with Beck due to my frustrations with my elected leaders, but we have too much at stake to just give up now. If the progressives spent the last 80 years destroying the once noble democratic party, we should have the strength and courage to spend the next 80 years rebuilding the Republican party.

Every body is focusing to much on Palin McCain or Obama, but you know they cannot pass any laws as the executive branch. We need to focus on the Legislative branch Congress and Senate. If we control those we run the show. We can override any vetos so it doesn't really matter who is President.

When an individual runs for office he needs millions of dollars to buy his way in, that means he will have to take money from lobbies who will in turn end up owning him. They can start off being honest and well meaning but will end up being a pawn to the lobbies doing there bidding.How many Honest Politicians do you know started off with good intentions but end up following the party line whether they want to or not. As long as there is only a Democrat or a Republican there will be no change.The whole system needs to be completely changed or we are wasting our time.1 or 2 or 10 good conservative politicians are not going to change anything. The overwhelming majority have to be changed to be able to control the agenda but they also have to be free of lobbies and big money bribery.

How do we do that???????

Wasn't it Tip O'Neil who said, "All politics are LOCAL." I never agreed with Mr. O'Neil on much of anything, but that statement is TRUE.

We, the people, working LOCALLY will bring about Constitutional Restoration, Keep a copy of the Constitution in your pocket like you read your Bible everyday (and I hope you do) The Bible and our Constitution, Keys to Liberty.

May the Lord deliver US from our "PRESENT WASHINGTON DISTRESS." Press on Patriots. "Little is much when God is in it."

For God & Country

Ruth Ann Wilson

In general, I completely agree with everything Mr. Prelutsky says, but I cannot agree with this one. I haven't completely read through all the posts, but has anyone acknowledged the fact that voting against the democrat, as seems to be advocated in this article, is what sticks us with the (very confident, power hungry) democrats a couple years later?

Voting for the republican, who is a democrat in sheep's clothes, just to keep out the card carrying democrat, only convinces people that "republicans" are bad for the economy and that we need "change," a la Bush for the past 8 years, because unfortunately, people refuse to educate themselves before they vote.

Maybe voting against BOTH of the bad candidates in favor of the true conservative will allow a democrat to be elected, but if the republican isn't much better, why not let the democrat win, let him screw up, and then hope for a better republican candidate (or even better, that people will open their eyes and become educated about the person instead of voting party lines) in the next election? I know lots of people in the past 8 or so years who have voted against one party or another, and we all see where that got us.

In general, I completely agree with everything Mr. Prelutsky says, but I cannot agree with this one. I haven't completely read through all the posts, but has anyone acknowledged the fact that voting against the democrat, as seems to be advocated in this article, is what sticks us with the (very confident, power hungry) democrats a couple years later?

Voting for the republican, who is a democrat in sheep's clothes, just to keep out the card carrying democrat, only convinces people that "republicans" are bad for the economy and that we need "change," a la Bush for the past 8 years, because unfortunately, people refuse to educate themselves before they vote.

Maybe voting against BOTH of the bad candidates in favor of the true conservative will allow a democrat to be elected, but if the republican isn't much better, why not let the democrat win, let him screw up, and then hope for a better republican candidate (or even better, that people will open their eyes and become educated about the person instead of voting party lines) in the next election? I know lots of people in the past 8 or so years who have voted against one party or another, and we all see where that got us.

We don't have time to vote a conservative in! We have precious time left to stop this takeover of our health insurance industry - once it is gone, it is gone forever.

You will not be able to reverse the socialized medical care because it will take two-thirds of a conservative Congress and a conservative republican president who will not veto the reversal. There are too many ifs that will have to happen in order to reverse such a law, encompassing 17% of our GDP. Name one such social program where the law was reversed because it was a badly conceived, passed, and executed law with disastrous results and resplendent with fraud!

I believe Beck's points are all valid. The two parties have each done their part to shift our government out of its constitutional republican form. Sure they may be resisting the Democrats now as they should be, but remember the Republicans have passed Medicare bills as well as bailout bills themselves! The parties are filled with those who do not follow principle. Don't be disillusioned by the Republicans' opposition; you will surely be disappointed when they again have majority. The party needs to be purged of your standard politician. Constituents must examine past voting records and political philosophies of those who are running for office and not be mislead by simple rallying cries. This political philosophy I speak of must be aligned with that of the Founders. Glenn Beck frequently teaches about the philosophy of the Progressives which must be learned in order to identify these types and to not elect them to office. Shame on you Burt! The Republican Party is not okay. You shall see bad governance by each party until one is regained by constitutionalists.

Dear Rob & Whitney: Right now, thanks to Obama and his various stooges and thugs, the Republic is on the brink of becoming a third world nation. In case you haven't noticed, the only people in Washington who are doing anything to prevent this ultimate catastrophe are Republicans. God knows they aren't all as conservative as I would like, and perhaps if they were in the majority, they'd be as rotten as they were between 2000 and 2006, but right now they are fighting the good fight. And instead of condemning them because they don't all pass some cockamamie litmus test, they deserve our respect for hanging together. Ronald Reagan, by the way, wouldn't pass the litmus test for some conservatives. After all, as governor, he raised taxes twice and signed the most liberal abortion bill in America; as president, he signed the amnesty bill in 1986, which opened the floodgates to the millions of illegal aliens who have poured over our border in the years since.

Regards, Burt

Burt,

1st) I do respect the stand that the Republicans in Congress are taking on the health care issue. However, I don't hear any ideas from them what needs to be done to restore the economy and the U.S. in general. This is the same tactic that the Republicans used until 1994 when power changed for a brief time.

2nd) It is our right and our duty to vote our conscience and our beliefs. We don't need to all believe the same thing (that would make us liberals). We need to have a collective direction.

3) Don't you or anyone else tell me that if I vote for a 3rd party candidate that I can believe in that I have no right to "whine" if another BHO is elected. If I cast my vote (as I have done in every election since I became 18), I cast "whine" and complain and cheer and criticize and support to my heart's content. I voted and that GIVES me the right.

4) I would rather support Ron Paul that ANY of the current crop of candidates that are making their mark in Republican politics. Ron Paul states his case and he follows his beliefs. Ron Paul is a Libertarian who believes that less is more (less government is more effective and beneficial)

5) MichaelSSEC is correct. The PatriotPost gives us the opportunity to express our opinions in a constructive way. We who post comments criticize and take criticism in the manner that makes us the better people. We respect everyone's right to speak their mind and we LISTEN to them. For even if we disagree, we may see some value in the contrary position.

Dear Duke: If your conscience doesn't dictate that you should do everything in your power to prevent leftists such as Obama, Pelosi and Reid, from turning this nation into a left-wing banana republic, I think you should trade it in for a new and improved conscience. Voting for a third party candidate who can do nothing but draw votes away from the more conservative of the two candidates who actually have a chance of winning an election isn't just a wasted vote, but is in essence a vote for the liberal. It means one less vote that he needs to win the election. But if your own purity is more important to you than the survival of the nation, I suspect you and I will never have a meeting of the minds.

Sincerely, Burt

Thank you Burt for your good sense and practical understanding of the task before us. It should be clear to everyone by now that it is ALL about the numbers - the numbers of republicans and democrats. Many are quick to arque that the republicans controlled congress and during the Bush years, but forget that although they won a one vote majority at the polls, the untimely death of Paul Coverdell (R) GA allowed the appointment - by a Democrat Governor- of the occaisionally conservative Roy Barnes -A Democrat. He was counted as a democrat, giving them 50 votes , and the overly generous Republicans agreed to share half the committee chairmanships. That error led in part to the failure of any reform of Freddie and Fannie to make it out of committee - and we know the result of that.

We must not allow Democrats to have any office, for they will always be counted as democrats and act that way. It is about the numbers, and if conservatives are divided, the Democrats will have the advantage. The best way to avoid that will be to make certain that committed Conservatives are the choice of every Republican primary. We have the power to make the Republican party the conservative party. (We sure as heck cannot shape the Democrat party.)

We can pick our own Republicans, and if WE do it, the media will not be able to do it to us again.

Burt,

1) NO ONE, not you, my wife or anyone else EVER tells me how to vote, how to think about and/or view the candidates. I am fairly certain that that is what is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. DO NOT ever call into question my patriotism or my commitment to the great Nation. You do not have the right or the authority to do so. NO VOTE is ever wasted; that is what our freedom means and that is what every person who lost their life (my uncle and a cousin) or was wounded (my father) sacrificed themselves to protect. And, lest I forget, the men and women who were captured and held prisoner by any enemy and those prisoners who have never been heard from since (5 members of the same company from my hometown survived the Japanese and Bataan-I proudly knew them all).

2) Having vented, I feel that supporting the candidate of my choice, at least through the primaries, is absolutely essential. How are the party leaders going to know what the faithful are thinking. Please, don't tell me to write them or to answer the myriad of surveys. The surveys are simply fund raisers and I cannot afford to waste my money on surveys (I haven't worked in 16 months). The party leaders don't pay any attention to anyone without money; that is the nature of 99.9% of the politicians in this country (both parties, by the way).

3) I am and have always been a proud member of the G.O.P. I have supported every G.O.P. candidate in every election since 1972. I proudly supported Richard Nixon and will continue to do so. I supported John McCain in 2008. Not because he was the lesser of two evils; but, because I truly though he would be the best candidate to lead this Nation. Your comment about supporting the lesser of two evils is what angers me so much. No member of the G.O.P. should EVER have to settle for "second best." I am beginning to think that is what we got with George W. Bush. I believe that George W. Bush is and was an honorable man and that he tried to do his best. I am, however, convinced that George surrounded himself with people who simply wanted to protect him from the outside world (spin doctors, if you will). His advisors did him no favors.

4) When push comes to shove, there really isn't a dime's worth of difference in any politician today. Members of the House and Senate are elected to serve THEIR constituents. I don't want or need any other congress person or senator speaking for me except for those in my district/state. I truly do NOT believe that there are more than a hand full of elected officials that would truly vote their conscience on any piece of legislation. All of them are too interested in re-election that holding to their principles and ethics. (Don't get me started on ethics)

You see, Burt, I know what sacrifice and suffering mean; I have lived with it my entire life. Those whom I mentioned above who were wounded or prisoners NEVER complained or talked about those facts. They were comfortable with the knowledge that they had a job to do and the job got done. This country owes these fore bearers and our current members of the Armed Forces a debt and a thanks for their efforts. I always thank them when I see them.

Duke

Burt, keep fighting the good fight, I'm sure all the well-meaning patriotic Americans will come around soon enough. I fear, however, it will take much more tragedy inflicted upon us. After all, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, "...and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Political Truth: They don't respect you unless they fear you. Both Beck and Dr. Paul are trying to send an important message to the GOP. If you don't govern like a Conservative and you betray the Constitution you will be recalled! No if's and's or but's! Until all of the GOP is fully aware of that we will not see the size of Government shrink.

Lesser of two evils is still evil.

Both Beck and Paul have done great things for the cause of freedom.

Political Truth: They don't respect you unless they fear you. Both Beck and Dr. Paul are trying to send an important message to the GOP. If you don't govern like a Conservative and you betray the Constitution you will be recalled! No if's and's or but's! Until all of the GOP is fully aware of that we will not see the size of Government shrink.

Lesser of two evils is still evil.

Both Beck and Paul have done great things for the cause of freedom.

I love the Glenn Beck show and I too watch it as often as I can. I agree with Beck, I cant tell the difference between the two parties anymore. When the Republicans were in charge there was out of control spending. Any of the laws that the republicans disagreed with while Clinton was in offfce...did it get changed when Bush took office? Nope, they screamed when Clinton signed it to law, but never changed it when they had control.. It is all a dog and pony show

Mike D.

Thank you for validating my position to Mr. Prelutsky. He seems to think that if we keep enough people who call themselves conservatives but function only half-heartedly as conservatives, that is a victory for the Republic. IT IS NO VICTORY!!!

You are correct, the only way any politician will ever respect any voter/constituent/ordinary person is if that politician fears the citizen. The only fear that ANY politician has is being out of office involuntarily.

I say we should elect 535 NEW, absolutely brand spanking NEW member of Congress in the coming years. We start in November with 435 new members of the House and 33 or 34 new senators (I am not sure if this is the odd count year for senators). If that could happen, I would hazard a guess that the remaining senators would toe the line in a big hurry. Or, their arrogance at now being the seniors members of that chamber, they would try to take complete control. If that were to happen, then we vote the another 1/3 out in 2012 and so on until the message sinks in. NO incumbents should be elected until ALL 535 voting members understand, perform as elected.

Duke