Yahoo! Users can now send Free Text Messages

Yahoo! users rejoice… the email service provider and search engine has launched a new version of its web mail application that allows you to send text messages to mobile phones for free! At present, this service can be availed in countries like the US, the Philippines, Canada and India.

The new application also allows users to send instant messages from Yahoo! Mail to members of other messengers like Yahoo! and Windows. Apart from these features, users will also get advanced search options in their email accounts. This will help them narrow down results on grounds of sender, date, folder and attachments.

The traditional Yahoo! Mail interface shall continue to function alongside this new service. For users, it is time to spread their social wings on the horizon of emailing.

Beckham Sells Like Hotcakes Online

David Beckham sells. Recent visitor figures of mlsnet.com, the website of the US soccer league, vividly reiterate this fact. The site has attracted over one million unique visitors in the month of July, thanks to the arrival of the former England captain in the US. Moving out of Spanish football club Real Madrid, Beckham was recently signed by American club LA Galaxy for a reported $250 million!

The website has witnessed a rise in fortunes since the dismal figures of 2,30,000 unique visitors at the end of 2006. After the signing of Beckham in January, this number rose to 8,08,000 visitors, a jump of more than 252 percent. Despite 2006 being the Football World Cup year, Beckham’s arrival has made a greater impact on the website’s fortunes. Being an extremely popular star, he has single-handedly doubled the visitor figures for mlsnet.com.

With Becks’ signing, Europeans are taking renewed interest in American football, keen to watch their hero in action. A huge number of football-related websites are witnessing an increase in their page views as sport lovers clamour for every smallest bit of information about the footballer. How we wish there were more celebrities to contribute to this upsurge in Internet marketing fortunes!

Quickly Developing Websites With Assorted Web Frameworks, Global News Tonight

So much snare advancement encipher has been created outstanding the years that it would be feeling to renounce up that there are bits of encipher in behalf of equitable not not unquestioned when to stoppage from the aggregate. Frameworks con this theory and exhaust with it, and redress completing times uninteresting tasks a countless easier and quicker.
As the noted would indicate, Ruby on Rails, coach as RoR, is a framework in behalf of the Ruby programming patois. Ruby on Rails made a aristocratic disparage on the framework mise en scene times the framework showed how acquiescent it was to utensil java-script and other technologies into a snare sketch.
If you dissipate straightaway with with a framework based all PHP, odds are you settle upon ascertain a snare biggest more loving to the theory of adding a server module. Unfortunately, RoR has been known to be dim and less scalable.

PHP frameworks are fertile. Some of the most big whack would combine CakePHP, CodeIgniter, and Symfony. Most of all, you should outstanding the amount of documentation or fortify advantageous with the framework. Each framework has contrary syntax and erudition curves to outstanding, as closely as options they do column with.
Python has its own framework one-time the noted of Django. Django is especially in dernier cri since it was released extensive on the area before of the newer frameworks that are for the straightaway being coming dated, and has a extensive account of astonishing fortify.

In your search in behalf of a framework, don’t miss that you settle upon hankering a advancement dais that can fortify fresh technologies, and not equitable older ones. The however matter that would dissatisfy a snare developer is the syntax, which can be more onerous than other frameworks if anterior penetration with Python is not had. New technologies would combine java-based platforms such as AJAX. It would be a ascetic matter to plunge your straightaway in making the proper website, however to ascertain that it won’t climb altogether closely with newer technologies as straightaway goes on.
You don’t combine to learn a snare advancement framework all in one-liner age. Generally every unhampered commencement and generally supported framework stays up to current. If you don’t combine the straightaway currently, you could arouse a words or print-out that you could learn with outstanding a specified amount of straightaway.

Some frameworks could uninteresting however con different days to learn and arouse into manner, so you can arouse started sooner than you pondering.
Closing Comments
Try dated a not infinite contrary frameworks, whether you are no outlander to with the mother patois or not. It’s at least significance a look into, regardless of your place. Don’t be non-objective this start on in the erudition manage, or else you could maiden dated on a big framework that you didn’t contrive was significance your straightaway.
About the Author:
Learn more on Web Design Service and Web Design Toronto.

Lindens Developing Web-Based Social Network For SLers

The Lindens recently announced a community-driven support portal (a potentially useful resource when it propagates more), but to participate in it fully, you need to log in with your Second Life user name and password. After doing so, I noticed that “Hamlet Au” had his own page on the site, with a place for putting a profile photo and other info — there’s even a points-driven “leveling-up” stat, based on your participation rate on the site. In other words, this is the beginnings of a web-based social network for Second Life Residents, a feature the Lindens have suggested was in development in recent appearances. It is still very much in a construction phase, and few SL users seem to be participating yet, but will be interesting to watch it evolve. If it’s architected to work within Facebook and MySpace, and allow the embedding content from Flickr, YouTube, Twitter, Koinup, SL Profiles, and of course, Plurk, it could become a powerful community-building tool.

Ick Watch: Sanford’s Emails to His Mistress

Speaking of other shoes to drop, the State newspaper down in South Carolina has published a series of emails between Gov. Mark Sanford and the woman in Argentina with whom he had an affair. The woman, identified only as “Maria,” refused to talk one of the paper’s reporters today when approached at her home in Buenos Aires, but the governor’s office doesn’t dispute the content of the emails, which date back to roughly one year ago. In the story, the State discloses that it’s been in posession of the emails since December. (Oh really? What’s the backstory there?) Warning: These emails are super cheesy, even for your Gaggler who will own up to watching the occasional episode of Days of Our Lives. (The guy who played Chris Kositchek now playing Roman? What is that about?) Here’s an excerpt of one Sanford love email to his beloved. Don’t say we didn’t warn you:

Two, mutual feelings …. You have a particular grace and calm that I adore. You have a level of sophistication that so fitting with your beauty. I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificent gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curve of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of the night’s light - but hey, that would be going into sexual details…

Three and finally, while all the things above are all too true - at the same time we are in a hopelessly - or as you put it impossible - or how about combine and simply say hopelessly impossible situation of love. How in the world this lightening strike snuck up on us I am still not quite sure. As I have said to you before I certainly had a special feeling about you from the first time we met, but these feelings were contained and I genuinely enjoyed our special friendship and the comparing of all too many personal notes…

Lastly I also suspect I feel a little vulnerable because this is ground I have never certainly never covered before - so if you have pearls of wisdom on how we figure all this out please let me know… In the meantime please sleep soundly knowing that despite the best efforts of my head my heart cries out for you, your voice, your body, the touch of your lips, the touch of your finger tips and an even deeper connection to your soul.

Is Obama Falling Off the Smoking Wagon?

At one of the lighter moments of today’s Presidential Press Conference, McClatchy Reporter Margaret Talev asked Obama something we’ve all been wondering: Is he still smoking? Obama seemed a little testy at first, replying that the tobacco bill he signed into law yesterday wasn’t about his own episodic addiction. But he soon simmered down. Here’s his response, via the White House transcript:

“As a former smoker, I constantly struggle with it. Have I fallen off the wagon sometimes? Yes. Am I a daily smoker, a constant smoker? No. I don’t do it in front of my kids, I don’t do it in front of my family, and I would say that I am 95 percent cured, but there are times where — (laughter) — there are times where I mess up. And, I mean, I’ve said this before. I get this question about once every month or so, and I don’t know what to tell you, other than the fact that, like folks who go to AA, once you’ve gone down this path, then it’s something you continually struggle with, which is precisely why the legislation we signed was so important, because what we don’t want is kids going down that path in the first place. Okay?”

So it seems possible that we’ll be discovering the odd cigarette butt in the woods at Camp David. Does it matter? I’m normally anti-smoking, but in this case, I’m inclined to be lenient. After all, Obama arguably has the most stressful job in the universe. What happens if he doesn’t have an outlet for his anxiety? We’ve seen what transpires in the White House when Presidents have more salacious appetities. If, during this time of large scale uncertainty, cigarettes are the President’s worst vice, then I’m prepared to give him a break. Et vous, dear Gaggle readers?

Talking Jesus: Obama vs. Bush

There’s an important article in the Politico , titled, “Obama invokes Jesus more than Bush.” President Barack Obama, says the article, has mentioned Jesus Christ “in a number of high-profile public speeches,” more so than did President George W. Bush, and in much less “innocuous contexts.”

Obama has done so in order to promote certain policies, especially his economic policies, and “to connect with a broader base of supporters.” He does this via various “targeted messages.” Most remarkable, the article considers whether Obama is using the bully pulpit to pursue “an even larger goal” of resurrecting the Christian left, of appealing to disillusioned conservative evangelicals, and to attract “swing Protestants” and “swing Catholics.”

In other words, Obama is doing the things, faith-wise, that Bush was angrily accused of doing.

That’s not surprising. Obama will pursue these goals with the secular-liberal media’s acquiescence, silent approval and encouragement, and warmest appreciation. To cover for this political recruitment by their president, liberals in the press will ignore the activity, and certainly not expose it in their news coverage.

Among the claims in the Politico piece, I was struck by the one that’s most verifiable: the frequency of the mentions of Jesus. Within about a year, we will be able to tabulate these through the Presidential Documents as they become available on-line.

I did those tabulations for George W. Bush compared to Bill Clinton. I ran the data because I sensed that Bush’s references to God—which sent liberal journalists into fits of irrational rage—were less frequent and considerably more benign than anything I heard from Bill Clinton, not to mention a long line of Democratic presidents and politicians. Revisiting those findings here is worthwhile, since they tell us much about how Democratic presidents use faith and, far more important, how the liberal media manipulates public perception.

I searched The Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents , which are the exhaustive, official collection of every public presidential statement. I compared the mentions of “Jesus,” or “Jesus Christ,” or “Christ” by Bush and Clinton. (Hereafter referred to as “Christ.”) Clinton, of course, won handily.

Most telling, however, was the how and when. Bush’s biggest year was 2001, when he mentioned Christ in seven statements, typically relating to September 11 memorial services. In 2002, Bush cited Christ five times. Most interesting, in all of 2003, the Presidential Documents display only two statements in which Bush mentioned Christ: Easter and Christmas messages. This downward trend continued, suggesting that the hostile press reaction to Bush’s mentions of Christ pressured him into silence.

Such pressure, naturally, was never placed on Bush’s Democratic predecessor. President Bill Clinton’s biggest year for Christ remarks was 1996—the year of his reelection campaign—when he spoke of Christ in nine separate statements. For a single year, Bush never outdid Clinton in references to Christ.

Generally, Clinton’s biggest years for references to Christ were election years: nine statements in 1996, seven in 1998, six in 2000, and five in 1994. In total, Clinton mentioned Christ 27 times in the four election years, compared to only 14 times in the four non-election years. He mentioned Christ twice as much in election years.

Also, the way in which Clinton employed these references would have scandalized the press if Bush had used them. Clinton openly said that his personal “ministry” as president was “to do the work of God here on Earth” (Temple Hills, Maryland, August 14, 1994); declared that “God’s work must be our own” (Newark, New Jersey, October 20, 1996); cited the teachings of Christ in support of federal legislation (July 26, 2000); said that his attempted impeachment was “in God’s hands” (December 18, 1998); and constantly exhorted congregations to vote for him or Al Gore or other Democrats (Alfred Baptist Church in Alexandria, Virginia, October 29, 2000, and the Kelly Temple Church of God in Christ in Harlem, October 31, 2000, to cite just two examples).

Never heard this before? Of course, you haven’t. It was never reported. It was left to researchers to dig it out years after the fact.

I could go on and on with examples. Vice President Al Gore sounded like a Baptist preacher on the 2000 campaign trail, and Hillary Clinton obliterated any propriety with her breathtaking statements in dozens of New York City churches during her 2000 Senate campaign. ( See my article, “Rev. Hillary Takes the Pulpit,” National Review , October 4, 2007. )

What I’ve noted here is the tip of an iceberg. I’ve devoted chapters and books to liberal Democrats’ extremely expressive public expressions of faith. A core element of that story is how the press embraces these expressions but then, on a dime, turns and blasts conservative Republicans for much milder statements.

Thus, I fully expect President Obama to talk about God in much stronger terms and far more often than did President Bush. Liberals will not politically crucify him as they did Bush. When the double standard is pointed out—strictly by conservatives—liberals will cover their ears, wink, and move on. At best, when confronted, they will conjure up the usual excuses as to why the reaction is different.

‘Slaves to Industry’

The coal belt of Appalachia isn’t exactly fertile ground for environmentalism. Mountaintop mining is big business in states like West Virginia and Kentucky, where companies dig up more than 1 billion tons of the fuel each year. It’s a process that pumps lots of money into the economy by way of the large number of people who work for the industry. But further down the line, the process isn’t as lucrative. Particulate matter, which is a byproduct of the mining process, can often end up in the air and groundwater, according to Environmental Protection Agency monitoring.

Former U.S. Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill famously stated that all politics is local. In many cases, the same is true for environmentalism—a reality that puts coal-mining communities in a tight spot. In pursuit of clean air and clean water, how does a community transition away froman industry that employs many of its residents and drives the local economy?

Part of the answer lies with people like Julia Bonds, the daughter, granddaughter, sister and ex-wife of Appalachian coal miners. Despite her pedigree, she is codirector of the watchdog group Coal River Mountain Watch, which pushes for an end to mountaintop mining and an investment in renewable energy to power local communities. Her family understands why she speaks out, but finds it hard to support the cause, primarily because the coal industry is the only job in town, a problem she refers to as the “mono-economy” created by the state. Bonds, who lives in Boone County, W.Va., calls her region the epicenter of coal’s effects on human health.But she says it’s also the site of a budding environmental movement. Bonds spoke with NEWSWEEK’s Daniel Stone. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: You’re an environmental activist in the coal belt of Appalachia. How did you find that job listing?
Bonds: It didn’t take much more than a couple summers full of bad air and bad water experiences. I remember seeing my grandson standing in a stream full of dead fish. Then black water started running down the river. I knew that [the coal miners] were poisoning the towns around me. I was witnessing with my own eyes the state of our children’s future.

It seems contradictory to advocate for the environment when the livelihood of your family history is intertwined with this industry.
The people in my family were mountaineers before they were coal miners. We have been managers of the land for centuries. In the mountains here, God gave us everything we need. It wasn’t until the rest of the country realized that there was coal in them there hills that they came and stole and conned our ancestors out of the land. That made us homogenized people rather than the self-reliant people we were. The Industrial Revolution turned us into slaves to the industrial world.

In a community like yours, people have shaped their lives around this industry. It powers the local economy. How can you ask people to boycott and turn their backs on it?
I tell them that it’s not OK to blast and poison your neighbors and your own children to make a living. There’s a better way. We’re pushing renewable-energy jobs that last forever and don’t involve blasting your neighbors.

Is that a tough case to make in a community with deep roots in coal?
Of course it is. But I’ll say this: the most ardent and passionate activist is the one who’s just been blasted or flooded. You have some people out here who are really angry about breathing all that silicone and that taste in your mouth. The problem is that after you’ve been blasted for so long, you start to get used to it. We have to activate people to let them know there’s a choice.

How do you combat the notion that environmentalism is only for those who drink lattes and drive Prius cars?
I’m not a latte sipper, I’m a hillbilly, man. That used to be true, but what we’re seeing now is a groundswell of people on the ground. We’re talking about environmental justice. It’s about people whose homes are being invaded by dirty oil refineries and coal-fired power plants. What we’re seeing is poor Latinos in some communities around Chicago who had a Special Olympics this month with masks on because of the particulates coming from three coal plants in the area. We’re seeing people who are being damaged by coal plants. The industries are taking advantage of poor people. It’s real. It’s happening.

How can you gauge whether your movement is gaining momentum?
We gauge from the expansion of our mailing lists and the numbers of letters and e-mails that are being sent to the EPA and the Obama administration. We are looking at the number of protests going on about mountaintop removal. Also, we can see how many new documentaries and books talk about mountaintop removal in Appalachia. Years ago that wouldn’t have happened, and now this region is becoming the poster child for dirty coal.

You say there’s a better way with renewables.
There is a better way. For one thing, there’s more jobs. Here’s the problem: they talk about prosperity, that [abandoning coal mining] would take away so many jobs for West Virginia. But West Virginia is last in terms of income. Where is the prosperity? The problem is that we’re mining more coal in Boone County today then we ever have before, but yet the poorest counties are the coal-producing counties. Explain that. The transition I’m talking about, it’s inevitable. But are we going to do it while we still have time, or will we wait until it’s too late?

But to the people around you, there’s still big money in coal. Isn’t that a reasonable motivator for them?
There are very few people here in West Virginia who enjoy the large paycheck they’re getting from strip mining. The rest of us are living off minimum wage.

So why isn’t it easier to turn the page on coal mining in areas like Appalachia?
The phenomenon is a lot like battered-wife syndrome or Stockholm syndrome. The state has allowed the coal industry to create a mono-economy in West Virginia, which takes away a person’s choices. They feel that the only thing they can do is mine coal. That is absolutely a conspiracy because these people think they have to. If these men had a choice between a good factory job and what they’re doing now, they’d probably take the job. They do have a choice, but it’s very little of a choice.

Truck Bomb Kills Dozens in Northern Iraq

BAGHDAD — A suicide truck bomb exploded in a volatile region of northern Iraq on Saturday, killing at least 68 people and wounding nearly 200 more, even as Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki pledged that attacks like it would not stop or slow the withdrawal of American troops.

Also on Saturday, the British government said the bodies of two men, believed to be among five Britons kidnapped by Shiite militants in 2007, had been turned over to British authorities in Baghdad.

The truck bombing, the worst single attack this year in Iraq, occurred shortly after noon prayers in a residential neighborhood near a mosque in Taza, a town south of Kirkuk, the capital of an oil-rich region that lies on the tense ethnic fault line between Iraq’s Arabs and Kurds, according to officials and witnesses.

The force of the blast gouged a crater in the ground and badly damaged dozens of homes, burying victims in the rubble, people and officials at the scene said, expressing fear that the death toll would rise even more.

The area is populated largely by the Turkmen, the third largest ethnic group in Iraq after Arabs and Kurds, who have their own territorial claims in the region.

The bombing took place only hours after Mr. Maliki spoke before a daylong conference of Turkmen political leaders at the Babel Hotel in Baghdad to discuss territorial disputes in Kirkuk and other issues ahead of national elections scheduled for January.

Mr. Maliki called for unity among Iraq’s ethnic groups and warned that “those who move in the dark” wanted “to affect the upcoming elections on the behalf of malicious motives and destructive goals.”

As he has in recent weeks, he also championed a June 30 deadline for the withdrawal of most American combat forces from Iraq’s cities — though he referred only broadly to “foreign forces” on Saturday, as he has been wont to do lately — and called the date both a day of “national unity” and “national challenge.”

He vowed that the latest attacks would not force Iraq to reconsider the deadline for American withdrawals, negotiated under the security agreement that took effect this year and affirmed by President Obama when he visited Iraq briefly in April, even if attacks continued.

“Even those who were talking about getting the occupiers, start to call for keeping foreign troops,” he said, without specifying whom, “but we are saying to them that those forces cannot stay.”

He urged Iraqis not to “be upset if a violation happens here or there” and pledged that the government would maintain security. “We will not retreat,” he said.

In London, the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, said officials were trying to identify the bodies, which were handed over to British officials late Friday.

Five British citizens were captured in May 2007, including a computer consultant, Peter Moore, who was working in Iraq’s Finance Ministry, and four bodyguards. There was no word on the fate of the other three kidnapped men.

Mr. Miliband said that the remains had not been formally identified, but that the families of the hostages “fear the worst.” His reference to their “remains” suggests that the men might have died some time ago.

The announcement comes on the heels of the release by the American military earlier this month of a high-profile Shiite militant affiliated with the group believed to be responsible for the kidnapping. The release was part of a broad effort to persuade Shiite militant groups to put down their arms and join the political process and many hoped it would spur the release of the hostages.

Two Shiite leaders said the release was part of a deal that could lead to the release of the Britons. The United States did not confirm any link between the release of the militant and the hostages.

The group, Asa’ib al-Haq, spun off from the movement linked to the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr after he embraced a cease-fire. It is believed to have strong ties to the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, according to the American military.

Although violence has declined significantly since the worst of Iraq’s sectarian conflict in 2006 and 2007, attacks continue almost daily against Iraqi and American forces, while an intermittent pattern of major attacks continue to wreak havoc, often aimed at civilians in markets, mosques and other public places.

On June 10, a car bomb killed at least 28 people at a market in Al Batha, near Nasiriya in largely Shiite southern Iraq. On May 20, a car bomb struck a popular takeout restaurant in a Shiite neighborhood in western Baghdad.

Many of the attacks appear intended to stoke sectarian tensions, and all have raised concerns — and increasingly anger — that Iraq’s security forces are not prepared to provide more security as American support steadily diminishes.

In Taza, Jenkiz Burhan, a taxi driver, said he lost his wife, his mother and his father in Saturday’s blast. “I blame the Iraqi government and the multinational forces,” he said.

Mustafa Abdullah Zain al-Abedeen, 28, a farmer, said he had returned home for lunch near the site of the bombing when the windows shattered and part of the ceiling collapsed.

“Then I got out of the house to find my neighbors’ house had been damaged,” he said in a hospital in Kirkuk, where many of the wounded were taken. “Smoke, fire and dust were everywhere. It was the first time in my life I saw such a scene.”

A police official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media, estimated that the truck carried two tons of explosives, which accounted for the extent of the damage. All of the victims appeared to be civilians.

“Our neighborhood is full of blood and bodies,” said Fatma Abdul Hussein, a resident. “Why? We do not want anything except to live in a secure and stable town.”

The GOP’s Paranoid Foreign Policy

Listening to the paranoid Republicans, you’d think that Barack Obama is working night and day to give away what’s left of U.S. power. He’s exposing America to a mortal threat from … Nicaragua. Setting up the dollar to fall as the premier global currency. Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton recently said, in all seriousness, that “people close to” the Obama team are conspiring to cede U.S. sovereignty to a world government. Former GOP leader Newt Gingrich sees a “weird pattern” in which Obama administration lawyers have sought to defend the terrorists that Bush tried to put away. One GOP congressman after another complains that Obama himself is aiding the “enemies of America”—Hugo Chávez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—by talking to them, and is setting the country on the road to -European-style socialism.

Not so long ago, the GOP was dominated by seasoned foreign-policy thinkers like Brent Scowcroft and James Baker. Now the mainstream of the party has a paranoid world view that sees America’s rivals plotting with ruthless efficiency against a weak-kneed president. Former vice president Dick Cheney recently said he no longer considered Colin Powell a GOP member, because in the presidential elections Powell endorsed Obama, someone who in Cheney’s view is making the nation “less safe.” Cheney cited as a real Republican the popular radio personality Rush Limbaugh, whose has this to say on foreign policy: “I’m telling you, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are disasters. Russia, China, Third World communist countries are all on the move—and we’re doing nothing other than begging them to talk to us by telling them it’s a new era of diplomacy.” Leslie Gelb, a foreign-policy expert who has worked in two presidential administrations, calls the new GOP tone “worse than paranoid, it’s cynical.” That is, a desperate attempt to shore up a failing party by defining itself in sharper contrast to Obama.

The new GOP line represents the triumph, if one can call it that, of the party faction that has always been hostile to multilateralism, and to global institutions and treaties like the U.N. and the Geneva Conventions. This faction dates at least as far back as the 1940s, and over the years it has clashed repeatedly with the party’s internationalist, business-oriented wing. Ronald Reagan managed to unite the factions, briefly. His successor, George H.W. Bush, was a multilateralist—a businessman and ambassador to the U.N. After September 11, the business—oriented wing was shunted aside.

The new Republican paranoia is thus a sign of decay. Moderate party members in the Northeast and Midwest have drifted away, and the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans dropped from 30 percent in 2004 to 25 percent in 2008, with a further fall in the first four months of 2009 to 23 percent, according to a Pew survey. “This leaves a vacuum, and this vacuum is filled with the Rush Limbaughs of the world and with Cheney as the remaining spokesman,” says James Mann, whose books have chronicled GOP foreign-policy thinking.

Facing a world in which it is increasingly difficult for the U.S. to ignore allies and the U.N., the conservative Republicans insist more loudly that this is what must be done. The global nature of the financial crisis, climate change, terrorism and pandemic threats have convinced just about everyone else, including the dwindling breed of moderate Republicans, that America can’t go it alone. “This nonsense that if we cooperate with the world and if we form alliances that somehow this is going to be subversive to our sovereign interests is crazy,” says Chuck Hagel, the recently retired Republican senator who identifies himself with the more multilateralist side of the party. “It makes no sense.” Today’s conservatives still hail Reagan as a hero, while forgetting how aggressively he engaged with the Soviet Union to help end the Cold War.

As the Republicans grow more paranoid, they grow less popular. Obama is reaching out to the world, and after 100 days in office, his approval rating hit 73 percent, higher than the younger Bush or Clinton at that stage in their terms, with particularly high marks on foreign policy. More than half of Americans think Obama is striking the right balance between pushing U.S. interests and taking its allies interests into account, according to Pew. Fewer than a third disagree.

The GOP is in danger of losing its reputation, firm since the Richard Nixon era, as the party of national security. A few weeks ago, members of the Republicans’ more internationalist wing, including Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush, began a campaign to temper the party’s image, but their one-page national-security plan said so little, it was hard to tell where they stood. Unless the GOP gets a grip on America’s place in the world, its place in American politics will continue to slip.