"Far Right" can't win for GOP? ...BS!

[JakeStarkey]

What is ridiculous is that so many buy into the 'either left or right' argument and then immediately refer to the one they disagree with in terms of extreme (-wing, far-, etc.). This is exactly what the two party dictatorship manipulates so well. It is a malady that we would do well to be cured of.

You just described yourself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's just look at history to prove how wrong the OP is

1992 - George Bush Sr.'s closest, more conservative, opponent? Pat Buchanan. Buchanan vs. Bill Clinton?

1996 - Bob Dole's closest, more conservative, opponent? Again, Pat Buchanan. Other conservative-er competitors, Steve Forbes and Alan Keyes.

2008 - McCain's more conservative competition? Romney, Huckabee, Alan Keyes, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback. Which of those guys beats Obama in 2008?

2012 - Romney's more conservative competition? Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann,

see any winners in that crowd?

See any winners in any of the aforementioned conservatives?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I've heard this fantasy several times. The problem is, the data just doesn't back it up. The far right was a bigger percentage of the electorate in 2008 and 2012 than ever before. A higher percentage of those on the far right voted for the Republican candidates than ever before.

The GOP lost those elections because they lost the middle by a huge margin.

So if the GOP tacks even farther right, they have nothing to gain and even more to lose.

Sorry, but that's just what the data shows.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[MarcATL]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

# ROTFLMBAO

 

[there4eyeM]

What is ridiculous is that so many buy into the 'either left or right' argument and then immediately refer to the one they disagree with in terms of extreme (-wing, far-, etc.). This is exactly what the two party dictatorship manipulates so well. It is a malady that we would do well to be cured of.

You just described yourself.

?

 

[Boss]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh...

Would be?

Well it IS Rubio, Cruz, Tea Party wingers, and others who make the GOP look like a lunatic asylum

Well, again, you fuckwits keep on mouthing this but you aren't giving any examples. Is that the best you all can do? Mouth some smart ass shit that you can't back up? It doesn't take very many brain cells to sit here and accuse someone of being a lunatic. I've not seen such a strategy work since about 3rd grade, but good luck!

 

[Boss]

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

So you have the Left, Democrats, Liberals and Republicans calling CON$ervatives "the far Right."
It appears everybody except the "far Right" calls CON$ervatives the "far Right."
So why are you "far Right" CON$ervatives so ashamed of being so far right?

Well because "left, democrat and liberal" are all the same thing and "republican" is not far behind. Conservatives aren't "far" anything and not a single one of you has yet to provide any example of such. It's all RHETORIC!

 

[Edgetho]

There is no such thing as 'left' or 'right'

I did an entire thread on this just the other day. There's no such thing.

Try to be a little more specific when you refer to political ideologies. Please.

We're speaking different languages in here. It's like a tower of babel.

dimocraps are scumbags. They are radicals. They are the lowest form of life on earth. 'nuff said on that topic.

Republicans have a WIDE range of beliefs. Some are more liberturdian, some are strong on Foreign Policy (liberturdians have about the same FP platform as Code Pink) some put economics first and foremost, some are more law and order types, some are more liberal than others, some are in the middle, some are hard to explain.

Cruz has no chance but I applaud him for trying to get his beliefs out and into the Republican blood stream the right way instead of trying to fracture the Party like too many do..

I don't know what Far Right means. Neither does anybody else.

There is no such thing. It just doesn't exist except in the minds of rank amateurs and children....

For instance...... Is Castro 'right' or is he 'left'?

He's a collectivist and a redistributionist so that should make him 'left' right?

But he is authoritarian and dictatorial. So what is he?

What is the scum of the earth dimocrap filth?

They claim they want freedom for everybody but step outside their little boundaries and watch what happens to you.

Refuse to cater a gay buttranger wedding and watch out.

Don't toe the PC Line on a College Campus and say Goodbye Columbus, Portnoy.

''Oh'', they say, "We don't use the power and the force of the Police State to make you bend to our will!"

Only because they don't have that power -- Yet

dimocraps are the scum of the earth, people. That's all you need to know in this life

 

[Boss]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

Okay,

so name the more conservative candidates who could have beaten Obama in either 2008 or 2012.

Be specific and make the case for anyone you name.

LOL.. WTF? You're asking me to tell you who could have won an election they didn't win? AND, you want me to make the case for why they could have won what they didn't win?

I think I clearly stated that what Conservatives have been missing is a voice. Since you seem retarded and don't comprehend, that means in 2008 and 2012, the Conservatives didn't have a strong voice. The GOP, subsequently, did not nominate a Conservative. Coulda, shoulda, woulda... makes no difference now.

 

[candycorn]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh...

Would be?

Well it IS Rubio, Cruz, Tea Party wingers, and others who make the GOP look like a lunatic asylum

Well, again, you fuckwits keep on mouthing this but you aren't giving any examples. Is that the best you all can do? Mouth some smart ass shit that you can't back up? It doesn't take very many brain cells to sit here and accuse someone of being a lunatic. I've not seen such a strategy work since about 3rd grade, but good luck!

Basically all the GOP needs is another Jimmy Carter (who actually was more fiscally conservative than Ronald Reagan ever dreamed of being) and you'll win big regardless of who you roll out. The last President to fit that mold was W who turned peace and prosperity into a series of unwinnable endless wars and a $700B bailout.
It takes about 12 years to get the White House back after such a disaster....good luck in 2020.

 

[candycorn]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

Okay,

so name the more conservative candidates who could have beaten Obama in either 2008 or 2012.

Be specific and make the case for anyone you name.

LOL.. WTF? You're asking me to tell you who could have won an election they didn't win? AND, you want me to make the case for why they could have won what they didn't win?

I think I clearly stated that what Conservatives have been missing is a voice. Since you seem retarded and don't comprehend, that means in 2008 and 2012, the Conservatives didn't have a strong voice. The GOP, subsequently, did not nominate a Conservative. Coulda, shoulda, woulda... makes no difference now.

Yeah, he's asking you to name names....and you're scared or unwilling.
Newt Gingrich wasn't a conservative in 2012?

 

[mudwhistle]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

There is no such thing as GOP elites outside of Washington.

 

[Boss]

.

Hardcore right wingers say there's no such thing as the hardcore right, hardcore left wingers say there's no such thing as the hardcore left.

Commitment to a hardcore partisan ideology literally distorts perception, so it's quite possible that these people are being perfectly honest.

From their perspective.

.

AGAIN... (and I plan to keep point this out, over and over and over) It takes about two brain cells to bow up and call someone a name! What you are continuing to FAIL doing is showing something to indicate this "hardcore partisan ideology" that makes the "far right" so "extreme and fanatical" or whatever.

How about presenting some examples of "far right hardcore partisan ideology" for us? Balancing a budget? Controlling illegal immigration? Adhering to the Constitution? What exactly do you have to support your claim?

*CRICKETS*

 

[Pheonixops]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

Liberals also have a wide range of beliefs as well, in my opinion they have more than so-called conservatives. We can range from "believers" to "non-believers". Conservatism and conservatives do tend to have a backward ideology.

 

[mudwhistle]

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

So you have the Left, Democrats, Liberals and Republicans calling CON$ervatives "the far Right."
It appears everybody except the "far Right" calls CON$ervatives the "far Right."
So why are you "far Right" CON$ervatives so ashamed of being so far right?

The far-right is Muslims. Everyone else is to their left.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If Edgetho and Boss are the 'voices of the party,' the GOP will be badly drubbed. If the GOP mainstream ignores those types of shits and reaches out to women and minorities where they actually are, we will have a Republican president.

 

[candycorn]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

Liberals also have a wide range of beliefs as well, in my opinion they have more than so-called conservatives. We can range from "believers" to "non-believers". Conservatism and conservatives do tend to have a backward ideology.

I think Will Rogers said it best, "I belong to no organized political party; I am a Democrat."

 

[Boss]

Okay,

so name the more conservative candidates who could have beaten Obama in either 2008 or 2012.

Be specific and make the case for anyone you name

So sorry. Boss can't do THAT. It's a secret and if Boss tell us the secret candidate who COULD have won, then they may not be able to win the next election. SO soeey.

It has nothing to do with a secret, it's a stupid line of questioning that has no basis in reality. It's like asking for someone to make a case for who could have won the Super Bowl last year, other than one of the two teams who played the game. Obviously, any team I come up with did not make it to the Super Bowl!

 

[candycorn]

If Edgetho and Boss are the 'voices of the party,' the GOP will be badly drubbed. If the GOP mainstream ignores those types of shits and reaches out to women and minorities where they actually are, we will have a Republican president.

It's the difference between listening and internalizing....reaching out is great but when you start seeing pro-choice republicans, that is when you'll see a sea change...

And no, it doesn't have anything to do with sex; it has to do with equal rights.