Define Radical, (correctly).

A common claim of many liberals is that they don’t have any real problem with Republicans as a group and would love to take part in bipartisan business. Instead, it is the “radicals” that they blame for continued strife. However, when they are put into a position of acting on their bipartisan rhetoric, the pool of radicals grows, and soon there is no one apparently capable of forming serious policy. Sadly, we have once again witnessed the smelting of semantics to promote personal interests. The term radical used to be reserved for murdering dictators and a few openly communist Americans. Now anyone can be sidled with this moniker. The problem is the sly way this is presented to appear self-deprecating by liberals. “I realize there are radicals on both the right and the left but we need to come together in the middle” actually translates as “you all are so stupid that I will appear to admit fault for my party to gain your sympathy (i.e. support).” Here’s the question to ask your liberal friends: Name radicals on both sides. The likely answer is as shocking as predictable. For the left, the astute person will likely list the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) responsible for blowing up many things in the name of the environment. For the right, they will proceed to list Sarah Palin, members of the Tea Party Movement, and a litany of Talk Radio Hosts. The failure of this logic is that the right wing ‘radicals’ listed have never destroyed anything or advocated violence. There are real radicals out there on both sides but they are not the ones gaining national support. Lets reserve ‘radical’ for those who truly are and respect the fact that the rest of us really do care about our nation and want what is best for our citizens.