Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Changing the definiton of marriage, which has evolved over millennia, is a freakishly radical and liberal position. Hope that helps.Snippper, lezzes and gays are as American as you, deserve the same rights to have loving marriages. That is the conservative position.
Asking what's the message if Mitt Romney is elected is a rather silly question. This is not an open election. This is a reelection with a incumbent. It is, as all reelection campaigns are, a referendum on how well obama has performed so far. If obama loses the message is clear, he was a piss poor president.
That wasn't the question though. It had to do with choosing a moderate over the number of strong conservatives running and why that is.
Asking what's the message if Mitt Romney is elected is a rather silly question. This is not an open election. This is a reelection with a incumbent. It is, as all reelection campaigns are, a referendum on how well obama has performed so far. If obama loses the message is clear, he was a piss poor president.
But if he wins, then what? Was he awesome so far, or did Romney just suck that bad?
Or there are more people willing to settle for Romney than actually support any of the other candidatges policies and ideals. Sometimes folks vote against a candidate by voting for someone else.Asking what's the message if Mitt Romney is elected is a rather silly question. This is not an open election. This is a reelection with a incumbent. It is, as all reelection campaigns are, a referendum on how well obama has performed so far. If obama loses the message is clear, he was a piss poor president.
But if he wins, then what? Was he awesome so far, or did Romney just suck that bad?
The majority of voters were in favor of his policies and ideals. That's all it means.
Or there are more people willing to settle for Romney than actually support any of the other candidatges policies and ideals. Sometimes folks vote against a candidate by voting for someone else.But if he wins, then what? Was he awesome so far, or did Romney just suck that bad?
The majority of voters were in favor of his policies and ideals. That's all it means.
I think you miss read that. I was posing a question, "is it conservative to legislate morality?" I personally don't believe that it is, just like you. But much of the conservative base does like to legislate morality. Its the fork in the road for the party as far as I can tell.
All laws are a form of someone legislating morality.
Asking what's the message if Mitt Romney is elected is a rather silly question. This is not an open election. This is a reelection with a incumbent. It is, as all reelection campaigns are, a referendum on how well obama has performed so far. If obama loses the message is clear, he was a piss poor president.
That wasn't the question though. It had to do with choosing a moderate over the number of strong conservatives running and why that is.
Don't be dense!
There was a full primary campaign with each candidate fully vetted. There were no rules that only conservatives could vote, or only moderates could vote. The reason why Romney won is simple, he was not distracted by democrat bait. It's the economy, he stayed there and sat on the issue as if it was an egg. Then it hatched into the nomination. Democrats are prejudiced. They have prejudged and formulated the "average" republican voter, imbuded that voter with democrat picked interests, and attributed the whole construct to the republican primary. If democrats need to ask why a moderate was chosen over the strong conservatives, it means democrats haven't got a clue as to the process. Likely, since human republicans are far more complex than human democrats the strong conservative candidates were rejected for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with conservative values.
Of all the republican candidates running, only Romney recognized that the bait the democrats threw out was maggoty. The war on women, the war on dogs, the endless social issues that democrats dragged around like Achilles dragging the body of Hector around the walls of Troy. They were all distractions. Romney never bit, nor did he even nibble. Santorum did, not only did he bite, but he flashed a bit of anger when he realized that he couldn't stop the democrat lies. Gingrich became too personally involved and ended up disliked. Cain was deliberately attacked and taken out by a string of democrat operatives.
This particular election is not about social values. Social values are a luxury when things are going pretty good. This election is about the economy and the mess obama made of foreign policy. Democrats want to force the election into being about social policy, it won't work because the Republican candidate is Mitt Romney. That's why he's the nominee and not a more conservative candidate.
It's what happens when Conservative cook political pasta. They throw it against the wall and, if it sticks....Or there are more people willing to settle for Romney than actually support any of the other candidatges policies and ideals. Sometimes folks vote against a candidate by voting for someone else.The majority of voters were in favor of his policies and ideals. That's all it means.
I still marvel at some of the people that passed for 'serious candidates.' Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Santorum - it was a freakshow.
It's what happens when Conservative cook political pasta. They throw it against the wall and, if it sticks....Or there are more people willing to settle for Romney than actually support any of the other candidatges policies and ideals. Sometimes folks vote against a candidate by voting for someone else.
I still marvel at some of the people that passed for 'serious candidates.' Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Santorum - it was a freakshow.
When the real voters look at the policies of Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Santorum they do a collective forehead slap of incredulity. Those four hold some appeal to the wing nuts. But there just aren't enough wing nuts out there to make a genuine difference in the Republican Party (a fact we can all take some comfort in).
Obama has done well on foreign policy, much better than Bush, so we better concentrate on the economy, which is Mitt's strength. Katzndogz, let's not try to make something of what we don't have: a good attack on BHO foreign policy. Ignore it as much as possible.
If the Republican Party remains anchored to Grover Norquist, if they keep the wheel pulled hard to starboard on ideology, if they continue to repel boarders who happen to be women or Latino, that GOP ship has no hope but to fonder on the shoals.It's what happens when Conservative cook political pasta. They throw it against the wall and, if it sticks....I still marvel at some of the people that passed for 'serious candidates.' Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Santorum - it was a freakshow.
When the real voters look at the policies of Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Santorum they do a collective forehead slap of incredulity. Those four hold some appeal to the wing nuts. But there just aren't enough wing nuts out there to make a genuine difference in the Republican Party (a fact we can all take some comfort in).
I also take comfort in the fact that the Right moved soooo far right, not a few moderate Republicans were left without a party. Hopefully enough of them to pull the party back to dry land.
That wasn't the question though. It had to do with choosing a moderate over the number of strong conservatives running and why that is.
Don't be dense!
There was a full primary campaign with each candidate fully vetted. There were no rules that only conservatives could vote, or only moderates could vote. The reason why Romney won is simple, he was not distracted by democrat bait. It's the economy, he stayed there and sat on the issue as if it was an egg. Then it hatched into the nomination. Democrats are prejudiced. They have prejudged and formulated the "average" republican voter, imbuded that voter with democrat picked interests, and attributed the whole construct to the republican primary. If democrats need to ask why a moderate was chosen over the strong conservatives, it means democrats haven't got a clue as to the process. Likely, since human republicans are far more complex than human democrats the strong conservative candidates were rejected for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with conservative values.
Of all the republican candidates running, only Romney recognized that the bait the democrats threw out was maggoty. The war on women, the war on dogs, the endless social issues that democrats dragged around like Achilles dragging the body of Hector around the walls of Troy. They were all distractions. Romney never bit, nor did he even nibble. Santorum did, not only did he bite, but he flashed a bit of anger when he realized that he couldn't stop the democrat lies. Gingrich became too personally involved and ended up disliked. Cain was deliberately attacked and taken out by a string of democrat operatives.
This particular election is not about social values. Social values are a luxury when things are going pretty good. This election is about the economy and the mess obama made of foreign policy. Democrats want to force the election into being about social policy, it won't work because the Republican candidate is Mitt Romney. That's why he's the nominee and not a more conservative candidate.
Though I disagree with it that was a good response.
The only reason "social values" were brought into the primary is because the candidates themselves brought them in. It had nothing to do with the Dems. And your belief that it was somehow the Dems means that the GOP electorate is too stupid to realize when they are being manipulated by the opposing party.
No.....in my opinion this primary was a fight between the tea party vs conservatives vs moderates.
The moderates won.
If the Republican Party remains anchored to Grover Norquist, if they keep the wheel pulled hard to starboard on ideology, if they continue to repel boarders who happen to be women or Latino, that GOP ship has no hope but to fonder on the shoals.It's what happens when Conservative cook political pasta. They throw it against the wall and, if it sticks....
When the real voters look at the policies of Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Santorum they do a collective forehead slap of incredulity. Those four hold some appeal to the wing nuts. But there just aren't enough wing nuts out there to make a genuine difference in the Republican Party (a fact we can all take some comfort in).
I also take comfort in the fact that the Right moved soooo far right, not a few moderate Republicans were left without a party. Hopefully enough of them to pull the party back to dry land.
All those nautical terms and i live in Pittsburgh! A long walk from the beach!
Maybe the 100th anniversary of the Titanic and the Republican Party are just too similar to ignore?If the Republican Party remains anchored to Grover Norquist, if they keep the wheel pulled hard to starboard on ideology, if they continue to repel boarders who happen to be women or Latino, that GOP ship has no hope but to fonder on the shoals.I also take comfort in the fact that the Right moved soooo far right, not a few moderate Republicans were left without a party. Hopefully enough of them to pull the party back to dry land.
All those nautical terms and i live in Pittsburgh! A long walk from the beach!
Are you currently reading a nautical book, and it's seeping over into real life?
Changing the definiton of marriage, which has evolved over millennia, is a freakishly radical and liberal position. Hope that helps.Snippper, lezzes and gays are as American as you, deserve the same rights to have loving marriages. That is the conservative position.
Your opinion is archaic, unconstitutional, and in the minority. The generations 40 and younger accept universal marriage. So be snippy, Snipper, cause that is all you have left.
). However, it's worth noting that the anti-gay agenda is not exclusively a conservative position as people would have you believe. The DNC and Democratic politicians love to say they support gay rights, but unfortunately liberal voters don't. We see evidence of this in California and Oregon, just to name two examples among many, where measures were passed by the voters to ban gay marriage (In Oregon it was actually an amendment to the state constitution). Certainly one is not going to argue that it was only ultra-conservatives voting for those bans. Perhaps you could make that argument in Idaho or Wyoming...but California? Oregon? Sorry liberals.....you can't lay this all on the GOP. You do your share as well.
Obama has done well on foreign policy, much better than Bush, so we better concentrate on the economy, which is Mitt's strength. Katzndogz, let's not try to make something of what we don't have: a good attack on BHO foreign policy. Ignore it as much as possible.
obama's foreign policy has been a disaster of such proportions that there is no possibility of recovering, just fighting through it.
It isn't that he has made wrong decisions. It's that everyone of his decisions has been wrong. He completely misread the Arab Spring with the result that formerly moderate islamic nations are now controlled by the most oppressive of islamic sects. His policy on North Korea has been a disastrous failure. Hamid Karzai has been leading him around on a halter like a villager's goat. But nothing can compare with the utter disaster that is his policies with Iran. That one might be the worst of all.
