no mention of Rubio drinking water.................

Pretty funny Scot and dead, dead on accurate. Just from the perspective of someone who is always looking for new silly Republican statements and actions to ridicule, I can't wait for this fellow Rubio to start running for President. I think this guy is a treasure trove of "material" just waiting to be unearthed. I have a feeling he is going to provide us with more laughs, than Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Ron Paul (yes, I'm running for Pressident, but I'm really not interested in "being" president, and I really haven't given much thought to that possibiity) combined! "Waiting for Rubio" must be how Seinfeld felt about going to Tor Eckman's house (the holistic healer)for material for his comedy routine.

Here in Florida a few of us have attended local Republican meetings.  There were a few moderates at the last one I attended by they left the halls muttering to themselves.  Locally the active members remain a mixed bag of religious adherents, social conservatives, and for no other description people way off the reservation.  Folks with conspiracy theories, folks who as one person said to me outside the hall, "too many ill-educated, un-American's are allowed to vote."  As is my way I seldom get into long disucussions with folks I think a little on the edge.

While the pols themselves may wish to take the Party in new directions I don't see that happening until this what can be best be described as a sophomoric appreciation of "libertarianism" burns itself out. Very similar to the far lefts love affiar with "communism" back in the day.   At least that rabid core on the radical left. 

I would also note that the activist members here were very old, now that may have a lot to do with where I live here in Florida, but I somehow get the sense that it is a national phenom. Sadly it appears that if the "conservative" movement is to regain control of the party it can only come through a restructuring of the philosophy itself for the 21st century. I have not seen anything in the written word that expresses such a sea change.

So Scott, I think we are in for a long haul of "craziness" on the right and diminishing power for the Republican Party on the national scene.  Even here in the deep south I think the demographics are working against them and local power too will erode.  It's too bad because we need a strong "right" that can compromise with the left and center. 

And then there's Lindsey Graham. Just when I think he might be an "old style" Republican with at least a modicum of common sense, who is about to emerge, he starts going on his Benghazi rant again. Mike Barnicle hit the nail on the head saying "someone needs to give him a Snickers Bar" ...a la the commercial with Joe Pesci going crazy when his blood sugar ran low.

Scot's usual nitpicking about the GOP is getting kind of old.  The truth is that the GOP does have a solid philosophy and economics based agenda that is far better for the country than the uber liberal policies of our current president.  But the GOP has lost some opportunity because a scant few have said some really dumb things.  That is the reason Karl Rove has done a very important thing.  No candidate should be nominated unless they pass the test of electibilty.  Too many recent senate candidates have failed that test.

NEW PARAGRAPH:  Was inviting Ted Nugemt to the State of the Union any worse than putting Michael Moore in the VIP secion of the Democratic National Convention in 2004? Its about the the same.  The only difference is that the media is never critical of left wing affiliation with radicalism.

NEW PARAGRAPH:  Scot also pretends that "brinksmanship" is a GOP only affair.  This is easily disproven.  Recall, the sequestration, which is the next "crisis" which the president can blam on the GOP, was the creation of the White House, and then chief of staff Jack Lew.  Our future Secretary of the Treasury is the most partisan nominee ever nomiated to this cabinet post.  But, to Scot, his games in these issues are not a problem.  Of course, the behavior of the Dem leadership, from Harry Reid to Nancy Pelosi rarely get mentioned by Scot.  

That is the GOP's biggest problem-the media (Scot-that means you) treats the Democrat's behavior as acceptable, and berates the GOP for just about anything.

The republicans' problem is that they profess to love America while they hate a majority of their fellow Americans.

I recently heard a distinguished elder statesman of the GOP lament its takeover by what he called "Evangelicals."  And not just the religious kind.  Evangelicals are people who, when questioned, siimply reply with biblical quotations and prayers.  Sometimes SHOUTED prayers and unassailable certitudes.  They find allies among others similarly afflicted.  The gun-nut fringe, for instance, who claim the right to, and need for, assault weapons in case the the other amendments to the Constitution and the democratic process lead to a result with which they really disagree.  I listen to these people with utter amazement...and the fear that the political atmosphere they create is much too similar to Dallas in 1963.  Until fiscally conservative and socially liberal Republicans free themselves from the Evangelicals, both their Party and our country will suffer.

Salem Reader: Not true. The GOP did, of course, vote for the sequestration. But the idea came from the White House, and from Jack Lew in particular. It was a brash, political move, and one which the GOP should not have agreed to. But it was not their idea, it was the White House- trying to get an increase in the debt ceiling.

Obama has doubled down on his partisan rhetoric (and showing how petty he is by pinging Romney in his Inaugural speach and the SoTU) His plan is to demonize the right to try and take back the House. He has NO desire to compromise for the good of the country. Scot, you spent a year pointing out the the weaknesses of Romney and you are shocked when he loses? And, despite these, he barely lost. The country has changed. More people depend on the government then ever before. And what are those demographics  - Dems. Do you bite the hand that feeds you? No.

I love the, Bush spent money, the great recession and wars. Just curious if the Clinton level taxes were in place during the crecesion would we have collected more money during the great recession? WHat happened to receipts when taxes were cut when the economy was good?

We are entering another recession and some say we are there (you can't look at the market). Obama's policies will not get us out or help us grow. We are already seeing the disaster of Obamacare and now he wants more taxes, more spending and increased minimum wgae (The Teddy Kennedy wage).

You fail to pint out that under this President we have seen the slowest growth EVER and he has wracked up the most spending EVER. But it is the Republicans who are at fault. I expect yoj to blame Fox at some point today.

The hypocrisy of the left and Obama is striking for its in your face attitude and that he is still being protected by the likes of the NYT, the BG and other MSM outlets. You will say no, but that is just false. Jack Lew and Hagel? Please. Stop writing about the right and look in the mirror to what is happening around you.

After the 2010 elections, and for at least part of the 2012 campaign, there was much talk that the Tea Party had staged a hostile takeover of the GOP. Maybe it's time to let the whackos have it and establish a new one.

Nothing will change until voters who have sent tea party reps to DC to stop government get hurt enough to pick up a newspaper, find out what's going on and vote for reasonable people. 

Ooh, I want to be part of the gallimaufry! A tasty stew of all those who don't accept Barack Obama at face value, believe everything he says, think he can spend more without increasing the national debt, and want to spread the wealth around while cheering an imperial presidency that spends a lot of money on itself.

Scott, you could very easily make the same comparison of Obama's speech.  He said nothing new, used cheap emotional props (violence victims), and offered nothing more than the ususal doseage of bigger government, higher taxes and more spending as the solution to all our problems.  Maybe your time would be better served if you actually took a critical look at the claims Obama made and the actual costs of his proposals.  But, that would be somehting that an actual journalist or objective columnist might do... those people are few and far between at that Globe/NY Times. 

Once again, I'm amazed that no one on the RIGHT can possibly see anything the RIGHT has ever done wrong?  It's all Obama this and Liberal that!  The Dems took a beating in 2010 and at other points when Newt was around - they changed and the Republicans need to change as well!

The right's march into irrelevancy continues.  It seems inevitable that some reality-based, intellectually honest conservatives will have to break with the party and find a third way if they want to pursue practical and acceptable conservative policies.  Either that, or guys like Huntsman and Romney will need to become democrats and try to sell that party on a more conservative platform.  But the glide path of the current republican party ain't looking so good...

SCot, pulling my reply out of the weeds:

Factcheck.org

President Obama is falsely claiming that his administration’s policies are responsible for “about 10 percent” of the deficits “over the last four years.” The cumulative deficit during that time is nearly $5.2 trillion. Obama signed two bills — the 2009 stimulus and the 2010 tax cut — that alone cost $1.6 trillion during that time, or nearly a third of the cumulative four-year deficit.

How could he have been so wrong? Although he said “the last four years,” the administration tells us that he was referring to a Treasury analysis of a 10-year period from 2002 to 2011 — which includes all eight years of the Bush administration and excludes the 2012 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30 with a $1.17 trillion deficit.

• Deficit spending: It covers deficit spending only through 2011, ignoring the $1.17 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2012 that is about to close.
• Bush tax cuts: Treasury estimates the Bush tax cuts, plus interest, cost $3 trillion through 2011. All of that is assigned to Bush. However, Obama supported several of the Bush tax cut provisions, and he has continued those policies and even expanded them. Bush doubled the Child Tax Credit from $500 to $1,000 through 2009; Obama campaigned to make it permanent and, as president, extended it to 2012. Bush expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit; Obama expanded it again in 2009 and extended it for 2010 through 2012. The Bush tax cuts patched the alternative minimum tax, and so did Obama’s stimulus and 2010 tax law. Bush raised the standard deduction for couples to provide relief from the so-called “marriage penalty”; candidate Obama promised to make it permanent and extended the tax relief in 2010 through 2012.
• Obama tax cut: The 2010 tax cut legislation signed into law by Obama cost $797 billion, but Treasury assigns only $250 billion of that cost to Obama. Why? It excludes the cost of the legislation for fiscal year 2012 ($422.9 billion) because, as we said, the analysis only goes through 2011. In addition, Treasury assigned a portion of the 2011 cost to Bush — specifically $142 billion in tax cuts for taxpayers earning more than $250,000 — on the grounds that Obama opposed extending the tax cuts for the wealthy, even though he signed the legislation into law.
• Defense: Treasury assigns the entire cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — $1.4 trillion, including interest, through 2011 — to Bush. The Obama administration was authorized to spend $160 billion in 2010 (Table 1-4, “Defense-war related”) and $159 billion in 2011 (Table 4, “Overseas contingency operations”) on the two wars — each more than the $140 billion that was authorized in 2009, which was Bush’s last budget. Obama significantly increased troop levels in Afghanistan in both years. CBO says budget authority for the Afghanistan war jumped from $38 billion in 2009 to $87 billion in 2010 and $98 billion in 2011. Obama requested $115 billion for both wars in 2012. The cost from 2010 to 2012 is more than $400 billion, excluding interest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html

Begolf:

But there, you are still attributing:

1) the depressed revenues from the economy, which is large part of the deficit, to Obama.

2) blaming him for the entirey of the 2010 tax cut that Republicans demanded in the lame duck as the price of doing any business.

3) Ignoring the carrying costs of the debt for a war he opposed, & so on.

Meanwhile, you've ignored the rest of the economics ... 

If the GOP dropped its base and its policies and pursued the independents they could win in 2016.

I would like to see a non-partisan group do a real anlysis of tax rates and outcomes/behaviors. It seems that Dems believe tax rates have no impact on behaviors while Republicans believe they do. All things being equal, it would be nice to find out which is true or if you could get to a level where it was "fair" for all. Flat tax? Skew towards consumption? Regardless of side, I would hope it is evident that the current system is broken.

I find it ironic that Dems hate profiling or singling out of any group/person based on a behavior or charateristic but have no problem demonizing and penalizing the "rich" for working hard.

"PeterCall"

If you read my comment you would have noted I said the Party will die on the national level.  I did say at the local level there would be a slow degradation of the party as the demographics slowly turn against them. 

At 65 years of age I don't owe the senior set any apologies what so ever.  I have enough trouble explaining to them that Medicare is a government program.  They are however entitled to think anything they want, but that does not change the difficulties faced by the Republican Party.  It is not being anti-Republican to point out that it's tendencies towards libertarianism, towards relgious fundamentalism and just flat out kookiness is unhealthy politically. 

Now some folks such as yourself may not like it, but it is simply a fact.  Something as simple as the minimum wage the current Republican structure opposes.  Fine if you want "principles" not so hot politically.  A loser to oppose.  Now me I like winning and every pol I ever knew liked winning.  The party as currently constructed cannot win at the national level, of course unless they find a way to cheat.

Scot, you are relentlessly one sided, a virtual pied piper for the pseudo intellectual, morally superior, free stuff for all crowd that have suppressed common sense in Massachusetts and the Northeast.  But why not go all the way with your opiate for the masses?  Why not have government tax 100% of anyone who is still working's income, take what it needs to ensure that free stuff is given to everyone with their hand out, then re-allocates the rest back to the people - evenly, of course

As The Cable reported earlier this week, Kerry reached out to Lavrov after North Korea detonated a nuclear bomb on Feb. 11, as well as the foreign ministers of Japan, China, and South Korea. Lavrov, who has been traveling in Africa, is the only foreign minister who didn't answer or return Kerry's call. The State Department is trying very hard not to seem upset about the perceived snub.