Do you have to be an anti-science, Bible-thumping sociopath to be considered electable as a Republican?

Yes. But that is a recent problem that began with Bush II. All of the 20th Century Republican presidents were perfectly normal in that regard.In truth until recent times, Republicans and Democrats were both progressive - a belief that there were problems to solve and that government was a legitimate venue from which to attack those problems.

What differed was speed, methods and priorities. Now it is all about dismantling government and turning the hen house over to the foxes. Dismantling education to insure supremacy only among those able to afford education.

Dismantling the entitlements and social safety net because actions 1 and 2 above will end up costing them too much. Dismantling the revenue base so that the rich can enrich themselves and saddle you with the resulting debt. Man if I were a rich fat cat, I would hate government as much as they do.

While there is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism of government solutions, it is lunacy against your best interests to elect government haters to government - unless you are a rich fat cat unhappy at which the speed your wealth is increasing.

John Hunstman thumps the wrong bible for Republicans. And Ron Paul, on numerous occasions, has indeed thumped the bible as well. He's yet to fake being a New Earther, but he's played the religion card in the past, I'll point to his support of the paleo-conservative Constitution Party, which openly calls for laws to be returned to "biblical foundations.

No. You have to be anti-science to be a liberal. Everyone scientifically literate has found that obvious for decades now.As for being a sociopath, that, too, is a big bonus for a Democrat's resume.

Without crime, depravity or Treason among your hobbies, no Democrat will vote for you.

Tea party World domination and bought politicians are beyond their comprehension. Live in a bubble and you will see how much you like the world and going back to medieval times of repression. If they got their way who do you think will own religion?

Rome? You only have to go back into the 1800's for religious suppression. The Tea Party is telling people who the choices are.No Tea Party 2012!

No. Richard Nixon wasn't a Bible-thumping sociopath. He just wanted to stop leaks for national security reasons and got set up because he was making deals with the Chinese.

Huntsman is okay, Paul is a double talking thief just like the rest of their ilk.

Only in the primary, in the general you have to be skilled at backpedaling.

It's scary to think how easily they would have blanked out Ron Paul if it wasn't for the internet.

Beats the hell out of a Godless, leftist, anti-American, Liberal scumbag.

In a word, yes. To them, "moderate" is a dirty word.

You don't have to be a sociopath. The other two - yes.

No, just someone who honors the Constitution as The Rule of Law.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.