I know there are probably a lot of Romney supporters here, but is 'winning' all that matters? I know the score. We all know who is on Romney's campaign and what positions they hold in the Michigan GOP. Let's be honest for a minute.

On the Dem side, we all know who is on Hillary's campaign and what positions they hold in the Michigan DNC. To be honest, I don't personally believe this has anything to do with Edwards.

As usual, there is always more to the story. BOTH parties are guilty of this. It is a country club mentality in both camps. Unified Establishment Party.

The reason I am a Republican is that it is supposed to be the party of people power. We are supposed to disdain centralized power, yet we have an entrenched establishment right in our own party that will slam the door on your faces if they don't think their guy will win with primary voters.

As usual, I expect this behavior from the Dems. So bashing them goes without saying. What really worries me is what is going on within my own party right now.

Please John, tell me exactly what issues am I demanding of others that qualify me as wanting a "small tent"?

You complained that Saul wanted to keep Paul from being in the debates, and that "The only "big tent" that Saul allows is HIS."

You only need to see your own comments in this thread to see your "small tent" attitude.  Breaking Reagan's 11th commandment doesn't encourage an "all inclusive" tent - the opposite of a "small tent" party.  

As I said, hypocrissy doesn't become of you.  You and your candidate should carry on what Reagan truly fostered, not just a bunch of stale one liners and a couple of 25 year old pictures with the Gipper.

Abortion? Have I said anything on here contrary to the "official" GOP Platform?

Nobody said you did.  But you're the one who "quit" the Republican party because of one person - and joined another that fully supports Abortion.

War? I have stated numerous times that I support the war on terror. That's not why I support Dr. Paul. I am against further nation building. How is my position against the party platform?

Maybe you should read the party platform.  A search for the word "Iraq" comes up 46 times.

But I don't believe that someone needs to be inline 100% with the "party platform".  I disagree 100% with Bush on "No Child Left Behind", the Prescription Medicare entitlement, and his stance on immigration.  

The difference is, I'm willing to accept everyone into the Republican tent.  I'm NOT willing to let it be dominated by wacko piss-n-vinegar "i'll go to another party" whiners.

Immigration? I haven't commented on this site, but I'll say that I am NOT aligned with Hannity, Limbaugh, et al. on the issue. I probably fall more with McCain, if you must know. So, how is that "small tent"?

More in line with McCain?  One of the guys you would refer to as an "establishment liberal".  You're in line with him on illegal immigration but he's one of the guys you think you'll be forced to vote for.

So, exactly what is it that makes me a small tent guy? Please tell me.

You want to make the Republicans a "small tent" exactly by the way you dismiss other Republicans.  See your own original comments.  It seems to boil down to: "I believe I'M right, and aligned with the party - so everyone else isn't a real Republican"

Re: front runners. Guiliani is pro-abortion, and anti-second amendment. He also favors a national ID card. I am supposed to vote for him when his politics are so far left of the GOP platform? That makes me a small tent guy?

Nobody said you had to vote for him.  You're a libertarian.  Vote for the libertarian.  Besides, the party platform for the Libs includes pro-abortion... so there's one less problem with Giuliani, right?

Show me where I am being small tent in my party (oops, former party), and I'll repent and vote GOP. Truth is, we have a field of candidates who have mostly left the GOP philosophically.

It doesn't bother me if you vote libertarian.  I'm not here to convince you against voting libertarian.  This isn't some enticement - and i'm boggled why you would feel the need to toss it out there.  "oops, former party" - Is that some kind of insult?  

For being a "former" Republican, you seem to be doing an awful lot of frantic arm-waving and complaining about the Republicans.  Bask in the perfect glow of the Libertarian party.  Of course, they're pretty big tent.  Except of course the small contingent of atheists who want to take away the right to "freedom of religion"... and the militant pro-abortion contingent "it's our RIGHT".  Okay, so mostly "big tent".

But you were so upset with Saul's "small tent" that you quit - one guy going out on his own to join the other perfect conservatives.  Joining the small contingent of perfection - that's really inviting everyone into a big tent.  That's what I call your "small tent".

The establishment portion of the Party likes that. The Ford/Rockefeller/Nixon/Dole wing of the party has no use for the Reagan/Goldwater/Paul/Buchanan portion of the party

And the latter has no use for the former... hence your attitude and your own "small-tent" attitude.  You want to dismiss the Ford/Rockefeller/Nixon/Dole wing.  Mr. Small tent?  I think so.  It goes both ways.  The difference is, I'm pointing it at you - you're assuming all Republicans fit your own example.

This is why we have elections.  This is why we nominate the candidate and vote on these things.  It's always the whiners who want to split off their little "small-tent" fringe group and go somewhere else when they don't get their way.  

even though it was the latter who formed the current kick-ass and take-names GOP that won in 1994. Then the establishment took over, and we lost in 2006.

Funny that Newt Gingrich was in there... but he's not "republican" enough for dogster - a fellow Ron Paul zealot.  Newt's part of the CFR conspiracy! zOMG the sky is falling.

Our populace wants us to return to the latter's vision for America. To do otherwise isn't big tent, it is suicide.

I fully agree with this statement.  Now convince the millions of other Republicans.

As I've said before (and apparently marks me as John "Rockefeller") - The problem you and your candidate have are the extremist, small party, arm-waving advocacy that damages your credibility.  It has nothing to do with your or your candidates beliefs - but the way he expresses them.

People aren't convinced by being told they're not "real" Republicans, that they're not Republicans at all.  

If that's small tent, then you are right. I'm guilty.

Your entire attitude about how everyone else isn't a true Republican is what makes you Mr. "Small Tent".  

Oh, I see what you are getting at...silly me, I thought that you were interested in having a discussion...

Not when you're frantically waving your arms about how everyone except you isn't a Republican.  There's not much to discuss there.

Here's the point. Saul said in a post on this site that he needed us all. HE claimed to be big tent, all inclusive. I took exception to his claim to need us all...you see, if he needed us all, then he wouldn't have tried to exclude someone who has been a Republican longer than he has (Dr. Paul actually SERVED with Reagan).

Again, more small tent attitude - Paul is more republican than Saul.  He's been a Republican longer than Saul (even tho Paul's first attempt was as a Libertarian).

Just like you're more Republican than us all - and now you're a Libertarian.  You're so Republican that you quit.

ME? Well, I never claimed to "need" you all. I just wish Republicans would actually act like Republicans.

I see... the exception to the rule.  There's no hypocrissy because you're okay with a small tent, as long as it's you doing it and not Saul.

So, yeah! I can see how that would confuse someone like you. You've never proven yourself to be very bright.

That might be.  But at least I don't have 30 years of guilt supporting "big spenders" who never "eliminated a single federal agency".  Now that you've seen the light (30 years too late), anyone who disagrees with you is a "John Rockefeller" fake Republican.  

First, you were "leaving" the Republican party.  Then you're a libertarian.  Now the Republican Party left you and you're still a "registered Republican" - even though there's no place to "register"... so you're a declared libertarian with some kind of fake "registration" as a republican.  Just like a boy who thinks he's a girl.  You're a kind of confused "transvestite Republican".

It's not that I can't read.  I've read all of your posts fine.  You can't seem to make up your mind.  And now you want to vote in the Republican primary, even though you gave up and went Libertarian - and even though the Republican party left you.  I'm sure Ronaldus Magnus didn't think to vote in Democrat Primaries when they "left him".

Perhaps you can't read - there aren't going to be polls for the Republican Primary.  Good luck getting into the State Convention to cast your ballot.

You can toss "Hitler" around and sink to that level when it suits you.

Let's recount your flip-flopping:  you're a "former Republican", a "libertarian", and recently a "registered Republican" (with nowhere to "register") whose party left him... and most recently you're still a "registered republican" who may not be for long...

So when I compare your flip-flopping confusion on whether you're a Republican to the confusion Transvestites face... that's just "the lowest level" to you.  Comparing someone to Hitler is "okay", comparing someone to a transvestite isn't okay to you.