Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mitt the moderate would have DEFENDED Perry when he was callously jeered for trying to explain the reasonable policies towards educating children of illegals he believed in. Mitt, fearing your radical right, moved to join the crowd.
Leaders lead, they don't follow/join.
A moderate would have admonished the "Let em die" cheer at the debate-Re: the uninsured question. When Mitt had his chance to speak, he said nothing about that impropriety.
Liberals don't know what a moderate is if it bit them on their butts.... Liberal definition of moderate is conservative with liberal beliefs.... The definition of a moderate is believes in conservative ideas but not to its extreme.... For instance, its not cut taxes for one and raise tax on the other.... A moderate would be cut tax for eveyone at 5% instead of 20%....
I thought that was a "compassionate conservative".
For 8 years we heard that George W. Bush was some far right guy. And he won 2 elections. So, was he a radical right that can't win or a moderate who the GOP won't run? .
I'm a fiscal conserv who realizes W could not win a GOP primary now, if eligible, and that's sad. He was comfortable with Latinos, that alone would make him a non factor with your wing nuts.
I used to be a moderate Republican. I left after the Iraq war began.
then why should you care who is in the Republican Party?
You're not a member.
They obviously can't win an election ever again because they are nothing but a bunch of old, white, racist men that want dirty water and want poor people to die so insurance CEOs can get rich. And they hate the blacks too.
They obviously can't win an election ever again because they are nothing but a bunch of old, white, racist men that want dirty water and want poor people to die so insurance CEOs can get rich. And they hate the blacks too.
So why do you care?
Perhaps because he/she, like I, recall the era when the party was sane, and quite capable of winning national office, as it had something to offer.
I'm a fiscal conserv who realizes W could not win a GOP primary now, if eligible, and that's sad. He was comfortable with Latinos, that alone would make him a non factor with your wing nuts.
W was comfortable with Latinos and won twice. Yet, his base won't vote for him because he is comfortable with Latinos? lols.
If you look at all levels of government, local, state and federal you will discover that more latinos are elected as Republicans than as Democrats. So why do you think Republicans wouldn't vote for someone that is comfortable with Latinos. They vote for Latinos more than Democrats.
And Republicans seem to want Marco Rubio to run for Prez. Don't tell anyone, but he's Latino.
It would be nice if just one time a leftie could make a valid criticism about the Republican nonsense instead of just repeating silly lies by that Racheal Madow fella on MSNBC. Just one time.
P.S. I'm not a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or moderate. But keep up the childish "your wing nuts" comments. It make you sound intelligent.
Perhaps because he/she, like I, recall the era when the party was sane, and quite capable of winning national office, as it had something to offer.
Yep, they don't offer anything now. I agree with that.
They are nothing more than a slightly less liberal Deomcratic Party. (Like they didn't want complete control over people's health care choices like Dems do. They only want about 95%. That's a major, major difference).
So why should people vote for 'em.
It would be nice if people had a choice as to the direction the federal government was going to take.
Typical leftie. Wants everyone else to do her work for her.
Typical righty or lefty, neither of which as any idea of the legitimate role of government. A moderate is just like asking for luke warm water. I am rather extreme and very specific about the role of government and I am not lazy about it either.
Government should establish a strict authority to establish market systems and to regulate or run natural monopolies while using general prosperity as the tax base for as little dead weight as possible on industry with no taxes for labor, or capital of which land and water are most certainly NOT capital. Capital must be defined as a product of human labor like of some kind like a tool to attach proper tax policy to it. The Federal government should shrink to allow state governments to fulfill many of those tasks. That creates a government market system of competing states.
But like I say, the people that agree with me are mostly dead geniuses . If I want to find someone to agree with me I have to read J S Mill.
W was comfortable with Latinos and won twice. Yet, his base won't vote for him because he is comfortable with Latinos?
In 2012, they would not have voted for him. What was left of the fading national GOP had moved radically to the right of W.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
