Discussion in 'Politics' started by JoeB131, Jan 1, 2013.
Irrelevant to the fact that he ran and won on a relatively strong conservative pretext.
He had a Democrat Congress to deal with
He also defeated Soviet Communism and jump started the economy
Weeeeeee!!!!!! It's always happy fun times in PsychMed Land!
they had no chance although I liked some of Paul's platform, he was too old AND the military industrial complex ($) wouldn't allow him to turn off the spigot of tax-$ going to the pentagon ($ 100's of BILLIONS). And Newt? Come on. His record (hypocrisy @ adultery) & a potential First lady being an adulteress in a Repub WH?
Seriously though, Frank's alright
I heard on the radio that a Rep said that 75% of House seats are safe/gerrymandered so the Repubs have to legislate as faaar to the Right as possible or they'll be challenged in the Primary like that guy in Arizona. He got challenged by a t-partier, lost, & then a Dem won the Gen'l
All? You're a fucking idiot.
Focus now, Frank!
This is about "always" nominating the most conservative candidate.
It's probably not "always" a good idea, eh?
Unless one thinks losing is good.
You guys are both right. I guess he was as conservative as he could have been given the circumstances.
Compared to ANgle, O'Donnell, Murdoch, Akin, Walsh, West who lost office...
Here's the dirty little secret, The GOP is the mad doctor, the TEA Party is the monster.
Separate names with a comma.