well put however.....the entrenched power are the conservatives if you look at original definition. set in concrete if not stone with mortar, fortifying, unwilling to change or change more than slowly that now defines the left.

liberals are the opposite and usually define the outsiders....

Wonder how the left will spin this one.

A word of warning. Not time to celebrate yet. The Boehner Ouster was and inside the left. May have left a chink in their armor but it was an inside job and all the likely replacements fully support the GOP staying as the right wing OF the left.

Now if you take the handful that are not RINOs find out they are the majority of the GOP and Kick them out of the party or start a new GOP that are not lapdogs of the left. THAT would be a very liberal and bold move and mean something worth celebrating

Until then businsess as usual..

What would it take? Another Gingrich has been mentioned

Your personal policy is contrary to the guidelines of the forum. You do not "own" the entire thread. You are not supposed to be suppressing posts you don't like, let alone all posts by someone who wrote any post you don't like, which is what you are doing. There have been no off topic posts or "ad hominems", as has been explained to you several times. You do not tell people "get off my thread" and proceed to suppress everything they write. It's not your forum and not "your" thread to do whatever you feel like. Your behavior has become abusive and does not belong here.

You should be looking at what the Conservative Party there supports. Conservative", like "liberal", is a broad, imprecise term ranging from establishment status quo to religious zealots, with some tea party influence. The conservative movement in general has been very mixed at best.

Unfortunately they do inhabit the same universe -- and run it politically.

How do you know? He's an establishment Republican who has the power within the party. What will take it from him? They are all afraid of losing their power no matter what party they are in, but as long as they (or their equivalents) remain in Washington they have enormous power that no one should have, whether they are in the majority or minority party.

She already said how 'unpleased' she was, why, and what must replace it. She did not want to "fight for power"; she wanted to eliminate it, which requires a better philosophy.

Ayn Rand formulated and supported meaningful ideas over fifty years ago. They don't include religious conservatism, starting with the Buckleyites of her era, which she rejected. Those who are attracted to the sense of life in her novels should do everything they can to understand the philosophy of reason and egoism that made it possible and strive for a more educated and consistent electorate. The culture is determined by its dominant ideas. The progressive era (intellectually beginning much more than 100 years old) gradually overcame the Enlightenment and became entrenched hundreds of years later. Cultural change of this scope does not happen over night.

That depends on who is in his district and how many are willing to vote for something better. He may be fooling some voters with his rhetoric, but the sad fact is that some Congressional districts are dominated by philosophically corrupt voters who lean towards or support statism. The northeast is full of them.

There are a handful of religious agitators who are corrupting the purpose of the forum. Make a simple statement consistent with Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason rejecting religion and they become unglued in their snide and often hysterical outbursts. I know what you mean, but we don't need "warm fuzzies", only rationality.

An ad hominem argument is the logical fallacy of attacking a person's character as a substitute for addressing the content of his argument. Stating that the religious right is discrediting the tea party revolt by tying it to religion, giving credibility to the dismissals of an establishment statist like King, is a statement of fact, not an ad hominem.

This is an Ayn Rand forum, which fact needs no defense. Ayn Rand was not a conservative and explained in depth why not.

You stated that "I point to Leonard Peikoff who endorsed a known Marxist agitator over a supposed religious right bogey-man" as "proof" that the "Religious right is no where near the number, intensity, or danger that those who rail against it would have us believe" . Your assertion is both false and obviously not a "proof" of your claim.

You do not order people off this forum or any discussion within it. It is not your forum and not your thread. You started the discussion, you have no right to censor anyone for rejecting your apologetics for the religious right. Your frantic denunciations, 'down voting', and 'hiding' all posts by the author you are attacking despite the fact that they are directly on the topic are improper.

You have not proved anything and Leonard Peikoff has nothing to do with it. Every one of the leading conservative politicians is publicly harping on religion, including trying to turn the election and the Federal budget into a battle for their agenda to ban abortion. Even Donald Trump is loudly insisting that the Bible is his "favorite book", waving it around while campaigning. It is displacing rational debate over the state of the country and driving people away from the movement against statism, which is in turn being exploited by the statists like King.