No one ever asks the Republicans to be specific.

[gulliver]

The devil is in the details, which explains why Republicans tend to keep their details to themselves. They need to be asked for specifics.

What are the exact regulations they want to eliminate? I'm tired of hearing that they want to eliminate "onerous" regulations on "health care, banking, industry..." I want them to pony up some specific regulations and explain why those regulations or the laws behind them are wrong. They can have a week or two to make a list and post it on-line.

And lets include the abortion laws. The Republicans shouldn't get to say that they are "pro-life" and they "want to protect the unborn." They need to give us the exact wording of the laws they want to enact, the enforcement mechanisms (police tactics and regulations), and the penalties for violators. Again, an on-line list would be best.

In writing is ok, right?

[TwilightGardener]

1. They trade on big vague ideas. No one expects "policy wonk" from them--that's the Democrat's burden

[HughBeaumont]

2. Silly people. Here's how modern media works.

Republican Dickhead: "Tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs. Offshoring jobs is good for America in the long run. Smaller government (well, non-existent government, preferrably, haw haw haw) equals BETTER government! We're winning these wars . . . can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs. Can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong!"

M$M Tool: "OK. Yeah. Can you explain for our viewers at home in detail how those ideas work, exactly?"

"Because shut up, that's why. NEXT question. Or not."

"Well . . . OK then. Moving on . . ."

Actually, I'm wrong. The M$M tool wouldn't even go THAT far . . .

[no_hypocrisy]

3. If asked for specificity, you'll get a Palin answer: all of'em.

[treestar]

4. The media will never make them

In the real world, try it. I found people who actually have a problem with the ADA. Yes, it is onerous on employers, and expensive, to put in ramps and elevators. It keeps people from going into business. They will claim to have a friend who could not start a business because of it.

[gulliver]

5. I think the Dems should work the ref more on it.

The media won't do it by themselves, I agree. But that's where the Dems need to do what the Republicans do so well, gripe about media timidity and unfair calls.

George the Better actually signed ADA into law. But today I would love to see the likes of a Rick Perry asked what he thinks of the regulations from it. Which regulations would he eliminate? Would he eliminate ADA itself? Are ADA regulations really regulations? Some regulations are good, Rick? It would be interesting to see him caught between the essential goodness of ADA and the essential meanness and inhumanity at the root of many Republican sentiments.

[ThoughtCriminal]

6. It's always possible to come up with nickle and dime stuff

Regulations that might sound silly and unnecessary, but really have very little impact on jobs and the economy. Those examples are used to justify the gutting of really important and essential regulations that protect the economy and thousands of lives.

[War Horse]

7. The Separation of Church and State?

They seem to want to get rid of that - seems kind of specific and at the same time all-encompassing to me... :)