What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[M14 Shooter]

Well of course not - but one -does- expect his opponent to debate honestly, address the questions asked about his positions, and support his positions with substance. WC apparently doesn't want to do any of those things.

You don't actually expect to get honesty from a liberal, do you?

I do from honest liberals.

And yet, you continue to engage WC.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I never saw an explanation that addressed his question either.

That's because there was none, and he knows it.
Apparently, he enjoys lying to himself.

He's caught, but he'd rather stick to his guns and his party than admit the blatant hypocrisy.
In these sort of instancs I don't know why the posters don't just leave the thread, rather than come back and pretend everyone else has the problem.

Blatant hyprocisy as well as balatant disonesty.
Dunno - it's either a personality disorder or a genuine defect in his mental processors.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Foxfyer wrote, "One has to ask why you would so strenuously object to keeping the voting process honest? For what purpose do you want to make it easier for special interests to corrupt the system?"

I do support free, open and honest elections. Do you recall Harris/Florida and Bush v. Gore? Do you support CU v. FEC and its impact already seen in Iowa? If you and I so value our right to vote, why would be go out of our way to disenfranchise others?

Again, if it only 'disenfranchises' Obama supporters with a requirement to identify themselves, isn't that a really pitiful commentary on the sort of people who voted Obama into office? Doesn't that even call into question the legitimacy of his election?

No, your side needs to arrest, detain and charge those without 'proper' ID with attempted election fraud. Try them and if you can prove fraud, fine or imprison them.

You'll have to show how a requirement to identify oneself in order to cast his/her vote disenfranchises anybody who is eligible to cast that vote.

People who rely on medicare, social security and other federal programs are not pitiful, I suggest you consider how such comments frame your brand of conservativism.

You might consider how your inability to be honest frames your brand of liberalism.

 

[bripat9643]

You don't actually expect to get honesty from a liberal, do you?

I do from honest liberals.

The term "honest liberal" is an oxymoron.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Foxfyre wrote:

And in my opinion as a 21st century American conservative, the ONLY compelling state interest is determined by affirmative answers to:
1) Is it necessary to provide the common defense?
2) Does it promote the general welfare (that is for everybody and not any targeted group)?
3. Does it secure the rights of the people?

The common defense is a term open to interpretation; within the context of your writings I infer you interpret that means defending the United States against all (human) enemies, is that correct?

When I read those words, I see the meaning a bit more broadly - hence our different perspective on our Constitution. I see the Federal Government has a role in protecting us from disease; from such a perspective I see the role of government in providing preventative protections to all citizens as part of providing a common defense.

Such preventative protections would be provided to all citizens, high born and the poor meeting the general welfare condition of available to all of the nation.

Finally we get to securing the rights of all citizens. Given the effort by the Republican Party to root out voter fraud, many states are in the process of changing the laws on what ID must be presented by a person who wishes to vote. Everyone - at least every honest person - understands this is an effort to unlevel the playing field and exclude voters who are likely to vote for Obama.

Which leads us back to the beginning. Is not the right to vote an issue worth defending? It is a slippery slope which allows for the disenfranchisement of the few in 2012 to the disenfranchisement of the many in 2016?

The United States Supreme Court already ruled in an Indiana case that supported (by a 6 to 3 decision) the concept of photo ID for voters [ U.S. Supreme Court upholds voter identification law in Indiana - The New York Times ]. If it's the Constitutional right of a registered voter to be able to express their decision on electing a representative who supports their choice of direction this nation is to take, should that individual right NOT be compromised and with some added certainty protected? If you support the concept of a government system that can provide someone with a free cell phone who can't otherwise afford one, why not a photo ID to vote? Are the priorities of importance rather skewed, distorted, or otherwise out of place? The left supports wealth re-distribution, a bombardment of government regulations imposed by Washington bureaucrats onto others, but of something as important as the Constitutional right to vote they NOW want to start to harp and complain about "government enforcement".

A basic, essential, necessary concept attached to the right to vote that you, the potential voter, are who you say you are - the right to vote has no meaning unless this is assured.

As such, even if requiring an ID violated your right to vote (good luck with -that- argument), it is impossible to argue that the state has no compelling interest in said requirement, and that a simple ID check is the least restrictive means to that end.

That's been my point. Such an important Constitutional right should be "protected" with the assist of an effective standard, that creates an electoral outcome that's beyond reproach to compromise. With the politics surrounding illegal immigration as a means to attain added votes, and liberal states (like California) over it's leniency towards harboring (rather than enforcement against) illegals, voter integrity is not without question. Those who would argue that voter fraud is an impossibility or myth, may also believe that taking anti-counterfeiting measures are a complete waste of time. Yet the circulation of worthless currency is a reality that today is still taken seriously by our government. Why is this same importance, of adding measures to eliminate voter fraud, are somehow viewed as simply "irrelevant" by the left?

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyer wrote, "One has to ask why you would so strenuously object to keeping the voting process honest? For what purpose do you want to make it easier for special interests to corrupt the system?"

I do support free, open and honest elections. Do you recall Harris/Florida and Bush v. Gore? Do you support CU v. FEC and its impact already seen in Iowa? If you and I so value our right to vote, why would be go out of our way to disenfranchise others?

Again, if it only 'disenfranchises' Obama supporters with a requirement to identify themselves, isn't that a really pitiful commentary on the sort of people who voted Obama into office? Doesn't that even call into question the legitimacy of his election?

No, your side needs to arrest, detain and charge those without 'proper' ID with attempted election fraud. Try them and if you can prove fraud, fine or imprison them.

You'll have to show how a requirement to identify oneself in order to cast his/her vote disenfranchises anybody who is eligible to cast that vote.

People who rely on medicare, social security and other federal programs are not pitiful, I suggest you consider how such comments frame your brand of conservativism.

I fail to see how your comment addresses in any way the point that I made. However, those who receive Medicare, Social Security, and other federal monies are absolutely required to show positive ID in order to get them. Providing the same positive ID to vote should not be a problem for them. But if you are so concerned, how about conducting a fund raiser to pay for photo IDs to the unlikely few who can't afford those but who want to vote? Hell, I'll kick in my $20 that should take care of all who are eligible to vote but can't get an ID to prove it.

Re voter fraud, the 21st Century American Conservative wants reasonable rules and processes to ensure the integrity of the system and that everybody gets a fair chance to qualify. That means everybody is treated the same, by the same rules, and judged by the same criteria. That promotes the general welfare and protects our right to do what we can to have the government we want. If you don't want Republicans bussing in out-of-state voters to rig your election, you should be willing to apply the same rules preventing that to your own constituency.

Having witnessed voter fraud in two elections in New Mexico myself—a ‘dead person’ was noted to have signed in to vote prior to somebody who knew that person arriving at the polls—and the number of mysterious ballot boxes that invariably show up here in really close elections—I imagine that New Mexico is not unique among the states. As indicated in the following article, the lack of convictions for voter fraud is no indication that it is not occurring—we know that it is—but an indication of how hard it is to intercept and correct. Much has been said about the Mickey Mouses and Donald Ducks signed up to vote by ACORN, but for every one of those, how many fraudulent registrations slipped through with a name that was then used to vote by somebody?

Voter fraud is so rare it isn't worth addressing? Really? For every drunk the cops take off the road, I can guarantee you there are 50 who aren't apprehended. For ever speeder who gets ticketed, I can guarantee you there are a 100 who get away with it. Ditto for jay walkers, red light runners, and people who cheat a bit on their income taxes.

In my opinion, the ONLY people who want lax and free wheeling rules to apply to voting are those who know they can’t win if the election is kept honest and as fraud free as possible.

For one, under the previous Wisconsin law — which didn’t require voters to demonstrate who they were — vote fraud was virtually impossible to prove. If someone wanted to vote more than once, all they needed to do was know a name on the voter list, then use that name. That name could belong to a legitimate voter who didn’t show up to vote, or to a voter who doesn’t actually exist. Laws relaxing voter-registration requirements may have allowed groups like ACORN to stuff the rolls with names of fictitious people, which could then have been used to cast votes without any identification. Once that vote is cast, it is impossible to track down who came in and voted using that name.

In 2008, the Milwaukee Police Department issued a report detailing vote fraud that occurred during the 2004 presidential election. The police task force that issued the study said they believed 16 workers from the John Kerry campaign and third-party groups “committed felony crimes” that went unprosecuted.

The MPD found one property where 128 individuals were registered to vote — all of whom signed up for the 2004 election. Twenty-nine voters were registered at a county office building that featured no residential living. The MPD report found instances of double-voting, unopened absentee ballots appearing after the election, and deceased people voting. None of these are counted in the Brennan Center report, which has an extremely narrow definition of “fraud” — people voting who know they are ineligible to vote (felons, for instance).

The MPD task force also questioned the validity of several homeless shelters — one featured 162 registered voters, another boasted 136. As pointed out by the report, many of these homeless individuals were registered at multiple locations — and since identification wasn’t necessary to vote, anyone could have used these people’s names to vote. According to the police report, “this vote portability and the abject poverty that defines homelessness, make these unfortunate individuals vulnerable to become the tools of voter fraud by those who would exploit the homeless.”

Furthermore, the areas where vote fraud is most likely to occur are also those where it is least likely to end in prosecution. Vote fraud is most prevalent in big cities with large populations — which are almost uniformly represented by Democratic district attorneys.

There likely aren’t a lot of Democratic DA’s who wake up every morning and say, “Gee, I wonder if I can demonstrate to the public that my party is engaging in vote fraud, and in the process, cost myself votes.”
If a Fraudulent Vote Falls in the Woods . . . - By Christian Schneider - The Corner - National Review Online

All of the following are linked on this ABC News site:
Voter Fraud News, Photos and Videos - ABC News

Sep 13, 2011 8:02pm
Dead Voters in NY-9? Turner Obtains Order Sealing Paper Ballots
Bob Turner, left, takes a question from Garrison Beach Fire Dept. Chief John Czap during in a small business forum in the Brooklyn borough of New York in this Aug. 31, 2011 file photo. David Weprin speaks during a UFT endorsement rally in Queens, New York in this Sept. 1, 2011 file photo.

Claiming a handful of deceased voters have been mailed absentee ballots for today’s special election, an attorney for Republican congressional candidate Bob Turner told ABC News that he has obtained a court order to seal all paper ballots in New York’s 9th Congressional District, pending judicial review.

“We found five dead people, confirmed, who were mailed absentee ballots,” said Turner’s attorney, Grant Lally. “Some of these people have been dead for years.”
Lally said he also knows of at least one person who came to the Turner campaign claiming he or she had been sent an absentee ballot, even though the voter had not filled out an application.

“They just got it in the mail from the Board of Elections,” Lally told ABC News two hours before the polls closed Tuesday in the tight race between Turner and Democratic state assemblyman David Weprin.

“Either it is a massive failure at the Board of Elections, or someone is fraudulently filing absentee applications,” Lally said, suggesting that the number of absentee ballots known to have been sent to deceased voters may just be “the tip of the iceberg.”
Dead Voters in NY-9? Turner Obtains Order Sealing Paper Ballots - ABC News

The Washington Times’ Dave Boyer: “Obama’s campaign muddled in name game” President Obama’s re-election campaign has appropriated for its voter-registration operation the name of an existing group, Project Vote, that has been the target of voter-fraud complaints tied to the much-criticized and now-defunct activist group ACORN.
The Note’s Must-Reads for Monday, August 29, 2011 - ABC News

 

[Foxfyre]

You don't actually expect to get honesty from a liberal, do you?

I do from honest liberals.

The term "honest liberal" is an oxymoron.

I strongly disagree. While I do believe Leftists are more prone to intentional and intellectual dishonesty than are most modern American conservatives, I know a lot of liberals who I would trust that I could take to the bank what they were telling me to be the real deal. Among them:

The late Molly Ivans
William Raspberry
Michael Kinsley
et al

and. . . .

among our USMBers I implicitly trust

EZ
Care
Nosmo King
George Constanza
Rightwinger

and a few others that I'll probably think of after I hit the send button.

I'm not saying that I agree with all these people even most of the time on most social or political points of view. But I trust them to not intentionally misrepresent the truth as they understand it and to have a reasonable basis for what they understand.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

have a reasonable basis for what they understand.

if liberalism is stupid how can it have a reasonable basis? PLease give us a substantive example. Thanks

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no objection to showing an ID to vote; I simply pointed out the obvious. This is an attempt by the Republican Party to disenfranchise likely Democratic Voters. There must be provisions in the new laws for citizens who do not have a proper ID and cannot get one in time, to vote. Ballots submitted by those without ID may be provisional, and subject to verification of there being legally cast, but no one should be disenfranchised by a part time government employee.

The laws are supposed to be focused on rooting out fraud; they must not be used to disenfranchise legally entitled citizens to exercise their right to vote. I am making an allegation that the Republican Party has conspired to disenfranchise voters in the next election. I don't have to prove it, the evidence that the right to vote has been denied, restricted and made more difficult in our nations past is well known and given the few arrests and convictions from 2008 it's pretty obvious voter fraud is not epidemic.

If that was true you should be able to explain why SCs new law, which the DOJ shot down, is more burdensome than the old law which gave fewer options for a person to prove they are legal residents of the state.

No where in the US Constitution does it require a voter to provide Identification. If the GOP and those who support this effort want that to be the law of the land, amend the Constitution.

If it was the Original Intent of the founders to require voter ID, cards would have been invented and each white man of majority age would have been provided with one.

No where in the constitution does it mention drivers licenses, does that make them unconstitutional, or are you simple trying to prove how stupid you are by assuming I am a textualist in interpreting the constitution? You certainly are not winning any intelligence points by ignoring my question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No where in the US Constitution does it require a voter to provide Identification. If the GOP and those who support this effort want that to be the law of the land, amend the Constitution.

If it was the Original Intent of the founders to require voter ID, cards would have been invented and each white man of majority age would have been provided with one.

One has to ask why you would so strenuously object to keeping the voting process honest? For what purpose do you want to make it easier for special interests to corrupt the system? The Founders probably didn't consider the ability to bus large numbers of people into highly populated areas and pay them to vote a certain way. If some were not entirely legal who cares. Other than those who don't want the candidate who is manipulated?

Voter ID protects my unalienable right to have my vote count as much as the next person and to have an honest election. Here in New Mexico, for instance, the margin determining the outcome has been as few as 500 or so people. It wouldn't take a huge initiative to cheat by 500 votes.

I take my privilege to vote very seriously and want my vote to count. I highly resent those who are paid to vote a certain way or who would intentionally skew the natural results of an election. I personally would like to return to the system where you had to get yourself to a specified place to register to vote at least two weeks prior to the election, had to have a positive ID and proof of address in order to register, and then make the effort to get to the polling place on the specified election day. That way we had only mostly people who cared about the process, cared about our Republic, cared about who would lead the nation voting.

Again when it is only "Obama supporters" who probably won't vote if they have to identify themselves, don't you think that is a really sad commentary on Obama and the people who elected him to office?

"The Founders probably didn't consider the ability to bus large numbers of people into highly populated areas" nor did they consider an armed student going to a University Campus and killing 30 + students.

Quite true, no one back then ever loaded up a bunch of wagons in order to protest something, and I bet no one ever went crazy and killed people either. You are losing the debate on points alone, why throw in outright stupidity?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Foxfyer wrote, "One has to ask why you would so strenuously object to keeping the voting process honest? For what purpose do you want to make it easier for special interests to corrupt the system?"

I do support free, open and honest elections. Do you recall Harris/Florida and Bush v. Gore? Do you support CU v. FEC and its impact already seen in Iowa? If you and I so value our right to vote, why would be go out of our way to disenfranchise others?

If you support free, open, and honest elections you should have opposed Gore trying to get the courts to rig the election for him by forcing them to count votes that clearly were not valid under Florida law. You should also know that a few media organizations got together, paid for a manual recount, and determined that, even with the most favorable count of hanging chads, Bush won the election.

As for CU, Iowa is free to limit campaign spending as much as they want.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Foxfyer wrote, "One has to ask why you would so strenuously object to keeping the voting process honest? For what purpose do you want to make it easier for special interests to corrupt the system?"

I do support free, open and honest elections. Do you recall Harris/Florida and Bush v. Gore? Do you support CU v. FEC and its impact already seen in Iowa? If you and I so value our right to vote, why would be go out of our way to disenfranchise others?

Again, if it only 'disenfranchises' Obama supporters with a requirement to identify themselves, isn't that a really pitiful commentary on the sort of people who voted Obama into office? Doesn't that even call into question the legitimacy of his election?

No, your side needs to arrest, detain and charge those without 'proper' ID with attempted election fraud. Try them and if you can prove fraud, fine or imprison them.

You'll have to show how a requirement to identify oneself in order to cast his/her vote disenfranchises anybody who is eligible to cast that vote.

People who rely on medicare, social security and other federal programs are not pitiful, I suggest you consider how such comments frame your brand of conservativism.

Nor do people who rely on those programs only vote Democrat. I suggest you consider how such assumptions frame your brand of liberalism.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Foxfyer wrote, "One has to ask why you would so strenuously object to keeping the voting process honest? For what purpose do you want to make it easier for special interests to corrupt the system?"

I do support free, open and honest elections. Do you recall Harris/Florida and Bush v. Gore? Do you support CU v. FEC and its impact already seen in Iowa? If you and I so value our right to vote, why would be go out of our way to disenfranchise others?

If you support free, open, and honest elections you should have opposed Gore trying to get the courts to rig the election for him by forcing them to count votes that clearly were not valid under Florida law. You should also know that a few media organizations got together, paid for a manual recount, and determined that, even with the most favorable count of hanging chads, Bush won the election.

As for CU, Iowa is free to limit campaign spending as much as they want.

In Iowa the Super PAC which supports Romeny has placed those ads which sunk Gingrich. Not that I give a damn about him, but some on your side of the asile supported him.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Again, if it only 'disenfranchises' Obama supporters with a requirement to identify themselves, isn't that a really pitiful commentary on the sort of people who voted Obama into office? Doesn't that even call into question the legitimacy of his election?

No, your side needs to arrest, detain and charge those without 'proper' ID with attempted election fraud. Try them and if you can prove fraud, fine or imprison them.

You'll have to show how a requirement to identify oneself in order to cast his/her vote disenfranchises anybody who is eligible to cast that vote.

People who rely on medicare, social security and other federal programs are not pitiful, I suggest you consider how such comments frame your brand of conservativism.

Nor do people who rely on those programs only vote Democrat. I suggest you consider how such assumptions frame your brand of liberalism.

That is likely true; some who rely on SS and Medicare fall prey to the propaganda. Sad but true. My brand of liberalism?

My Brand:

I believe in the Golden Rule;

I am a fiscal conservative, that means I don't spend beyond my means but will borrow when borrowing is cost effective. For example, If necessary I will replace my roof by borrowing to protect the house; not doing so is not being fiscally smart. I'll paint the house to protect it, borrow if necessary, change the oil in our cars, keep the tires inflated and do all the routine stuff needed that is cost effective (note to Tea Party, being cheap is not being fiscally conservative).

I believe in science and do not have faith in ghosts, holy or otherwise.

I don't mind paying taxes to provide social services, see number one first and then consider the consequences of number 2; when one neglects the proper maintenance of other human beings crime, disease and heart ache follow.

I believe in conserving our natural resources, keeping the environment clean and the principle of the Magna Carta, the Rights of Man and the Declaration of Independence. I believe our Constitution is a living document, one which must be read within the real world of the 21st century and in the context of over 200 years of the American experience.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Foxfyer wrote, "One has to ask why you would so strenuously object to keeping the voting process honest? For what purpose do you want to make it easier for special interests to corrupt the system?"

I do support free, open and honest elections. Do you recall Harris/Florida and Bush v. Gore? Do you support CU v. FEC and its impact already seen in Iowa? If you and I so value our right to vote, why would be go out of our way to disenfranchise others?

If you support free, open, and honest elections you should have opposed Gore trying to get the courts to rig the election for him by forcing them to count votes that clearly were not valid under Florida law. You should also know that a few media organizations got together, paid for a manual recount, and determined that, even with the most favorable count of hanging chads, Bush won the election.

As for CU, Iowa is free to limit campaign spending as much as they want.

In Iowa the Super PAC which supports Romeny has placed those ads which sunk Gingrich. Not that I give a damn about him, but some on your side of the asile supported him.

My side of the aisle never supported Gingrich.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is likely true; some who rely on SS and Medicare fall prey to the propaganda. Sad but true. My brand of liberalism?

Yep, the brand that thinks the other side has propoganda while your side is nothing but truth and light.

My Brand:

I believe in the Golden Rule;

What version of the Golden Rule do you believe in?

I am a fiscal conservative, that means I don't spend beyond my means but will borrow when borrowing is cost effective. For example, If necessary I will replace my roof by borrowing to protect the house; not doing so is not being fiscally smart. I'll paint the house to protect it, borrow if necessary, change the oil in our cars, keep the tires inflated and do all the routine stuff needed that is cost effective (note to Tea Party, being cheap is not being fiscally conservative).

Would you borrow the entire value of your house, spend it all on a fancy meal at an expensive restaurant on the other side of the world, borrow some more, spend it and all you make on really nice TV, then try to borrow more to paint your house? If not, your point is completely off because you are arguing for common sense in defense of conspicuous consumption. Not to Democrats, spending money like it grows on trees is not fiscally conservative.

I believe in science and do not have faith in ghosts, holy or otherwise.[What makes you think I believe in ghosts, complete or otherwise?

I don't mind paying taxes to provide social services, see number one first and then consider the consequences of number 2; when one neglects the proper maintenance of other human beings crime, disease and heart ache follow.

I don't mind paying taxes either, I just object to forcing others to agree with me by force because I would hate for someone to stick a gun in my face and insist that I pay more. As for your liberal misconception that if I don't force others to pay taxes the natural result is a rise in crime, can you explain the decline in crime during the recession we just experienced?

I believe in conserving our natural resources, keeping the environment clean and the principle of the Magna Carta, the Rights of Man and the Declaration of Independence. I believe our Constitution is a living document, one which must be read within the real world of the 21st century and in the context of over 200 years of the American experience.

Conserving natural resources is one thing, denying access to the is another. I do not know where you fall on that scale so I will let it pass for now. We have, however, already discussed the the living document fallacy. Your team wants to argue that rights are different now than they were 200 years ago, and that they will change again in the future. I prefer to believe that, since they are embodied in each individual, they are unalienable and immutable.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is approaching 1:30 a.m. in New Mexico; 2:30 a.m. in Iowa and they are now announcing that it looks like Romney edged out Santorum by eight votes out of more than 122,000 votes cast.

If that isn't a testimony for taking whatever measures are necessary to ensure an honest vote, I can't think of a better one. If that had decided an election between a Democrat and a Republican we would be weeks before somebody conceded and then there would always be accusations that somebody cheated.

And I'm going to bed and will be back to do battle for modern American conservatism again tomorrow.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is approaching 1:30 a.m. in New Mexico; 2:30 a.m. in Iowa and they are now announcing that it looks like Romney edged out Santorum by eight votes out of more than 122,000 votes cast.

If that isn't a testimony for taking whatever measures are necessary to ensure an honest vote, I can't think of a better one. If that had decided an election between a Democrat and a Republican we would be weeks before somebody conceded and then there would always be accusations that somebody cheated.

And I'm going to bed and will be back to do battle for modern American conservatism again tomorrow.

Romney did well, is this predictive of how the tea party will faire in November?

 

[Oldstyle]

It is approaching 1:30 a.m. in New Mexico; 2:30 a.m. in Iowa and they are now announcing that it looks like Romney edged out Santorum by eight votes out of more than 122,000 votes cast.

If that isn't a testimony for taking whatever measures are necessary to ensure an honest vote, I can't think of a better one. If that had decided an election between a Democrat and a Republican we would be weeks before somebody conceded and then there would always be accusations that somebody cheated.

And I'm going to bed and will be back to do battle for modern American conservatism again tomorrow.

Romney did well, is this predictive of how the tea party will faire in November?

I think it's predictive of how Republicans are looking for a candidate who can beat Barack Obama at the polls next November. Anyone concentrating on divisions in the GOP during this primary campaign runs the risk of misunderstanding that although Republicans do have differences on assorted issues, they are overwhelmingly united in their determination to take back the Oval Office from Obama.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is approaching 1:30 a.m. in New Mexico; 2:30 a.m. in Iowa and they are now announcing that it looks like Romney edged out Santorum by eight votes out of more than 122,000 votes cast.

If that isn't a testimony for taking whatever measures are necessary to ensure an honest vote, I can't think of a better one. If that had decided an election between a Democrat and a Republican we would be weeks before somebody conceded and then there would always be accusations that somebody cheated.

And I'm going to bed and will be back to do battle for modern American conservatism again tomorrow.

Romney did well, is this predictive of how the tea party will faire in November?

I think it's predictive of how Republicans are looking for a candidate who can beat Barack Obama at the polls next November. Anyone concentrating on divisions in the GOP during this primary campaign runs the risk of misunderstanding that although Republicans do have differences on assorted issues, they are overwhelmingly united in their determination to take back the Oval Office from Obama.

Do you believe all factions of the GOP will get behind the Republican candidate? Or, is a third party a possibility?
If Romney does not get enough to be the candidate before the convention in Tampa, I suspect the Republican Party will have a tumultuous convention. If he does I would not be surprised to see efforts to get a third party candidate on the ballots.