Why cant Hillary win?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I suspect the public is in the mood for a little 'fiscal liberalism', Vlad - they're tired of getting poorer, not being able to afford things like health care, and are in the mood to soak their betters.

A lot of people said the same thing around the time of the 1984 election. "Reagan will raise taxes and so will I! He Won't tell you - I just did". Welll...we saw how much good a little fiscally liberal spirit did Walter Mondale. I personally think that we already deal with fiscal liberalism. Spending has increased by over 60% since 2001 - with little to show for it. The people I talk to are clamoring for fiscal responsibility.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you're being a tad bit unfair here. Kind of like the muslim population, the extremist whack-job population accounts for a very low percentage of the community...there are plenty of socially tolerant Republicans in the world. They just don't run for office...this is why I'm really pulling for Giuliani.  Here is some stuff/people to look into.

Republicans for Choice
Log Cabin Republicans
Lincoln Chafee

Republicans for Choice - never heard of them
Log Cabin Republicans - didn't endorse Bush in 2004, even though they had previously always endorsed the Republican nominee for President
Lincoln Chafee - didn't vote for Dubya in 2004

These guys need to stop being in the party of hatred. It's time for them to become the next Jim Jeffords or David Eisenhower and get the hell out.

[adam]

I suspect the public is in the mood for a little 'fiscal liberalism', Vlad - they're tired of getting poorer, not being able to afford things like health care, and are in the mood to soak their betters.

A lot of people said the same thing around the time of the 1984 election. "Reagan will raise taxes and so will I! He Won't tell you - I just did". Welll...we saw how much good a little fiscally liberal spirit did Walter Mondale. I personally think that we already deal with fiscal liberalism. Spending has increased by over 60% since 2001 - with little to show for it. The people I talk to are clamoring for fiscal responsibility.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you're being a tad bit unfair here. Kind of like the muslim population, the extremist whack-job population accounts for a very low percentage of the community...there are plenty of socially tolerant Republicans in the world. They just don't run for office...this is why I'm really pulling for Giuliani.  Here is some stuff/people to look into.

Republicans for Choice
Log Cabin Republicans
Lincoln Chafee

Republicans for Choice - never heard of them
Log Cabin Republicans - didn't endorse Bush in 2004, even though they had previously always endorsed the Republican nominee for President
Lincoln Chafee - didn't vote for Dubya in 2004

These guys need to stop being in the party of hatred. It's time for them to become the next Jim Jeffords or David Eisenhower and get the hell out.

A lot of Republican groups didn't endorse Bush whether it be for social or economic reasons. As for Chafee I heard he wrote in "George HW Bush" as a protest or something. Not real sure.

[Lincoln Republican]

There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 

[adam]

There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 

Couldn't have said it better.

[opebo]

I suspect the public is in the mood for a little 'fiscal liberalism', Vlad - they're tired of getting poorer, not being able to afford things like health care, and are in the mood to soak their betters.

A lot of people said the same thing around the time of the 1984 election. "Reagan will raise taxes and so will I! He Won't tell you - I just did". Welll...we saw how much good a little fiscally liberal spirit did Walter Mondale.

Vlad, this is not 1984 - Reagan was a hugely popular president.  The public despises Bush, and is sick of Republicans generally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are they, fools?  The expenditures since 2001 have been solely devised to assist the elite - defense expenditures, tax cuts, and giveaways to the medical industries.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you're being a tad bit unfair here. Kind of like the muslim population, the extremist whack-job population accounts for a very low percentage of the community...there are plenty of socially tolerant Republicans in the world. They just don't run for office...this is why I'm really pulling for Giuliani.  Here is some stuff/people to look into.

Republicans for Choice
Log Cabin Republicans
Lincoln Chafee
[/quote]

Hah, these people are a tiny fringe in the GOP which is almost entirely made up of hateful intolerantes, Vlad.

[opebo]

There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 

Couldn't have said it better.

There is no place in the GOP for pro-choice persons, unless those persons don't mind that they are supporting a party dedicated to removing women's freedoms. 

[Lincoln Republican]

There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 

Couldn't have said it better.

That's because Winfield is the same sort of ridiculous airhead as you, Vlad.  There is no place in the GOP for pro-choice persons, unless those persons don't mind that they are supporting a party dedicated to removing women's freedoms. 

Opebo, Opebo, Opebo, buddy, you still don't get it.  Now, now, let us not resort to petty name calling.  It is so unbecoming, most immature, not to mention completely inaccurate.

As well, your assertion that the GOP has no place for pro-choice persons demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on your part to accept the fact that the GOP is in fact the party of freedom.  The GOP is, after all, the party that freed the slaves, all the way back in 1865, and is the party that has been championing the cause of freedom ever since.

[Boris]

There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 

Couldn't have said it better.

That's because Winfield is the same sort of ridiculous airhead as you, Vlad.  There is no place in the GOP for pro-choice persons, unless those persons don't mind that they are supporting a party dedicated to removing women's freedoms. 

Opebo, Opebo, Opebo, buddy, you still don't get it.  Now, now, let us not resort to petty name calling.  It is so unbecoming, most immature, not to mention completely inaccurate.

As well, your assertion that the GOP has no place for pro-choice persons demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on your part to accept the fact that the GOP is in fact the party of freedom.  The GOP is, after all, the party that freed the slaves, all the way back in 1865, and is the party that has been championing the cause of freedom ever since.

Comparing today's GOP to Abraham Lincoln is ridiculous. By that equivalent, the Democrats are a bunch of racist white southerners. The GOP today has been overrun but christian fanatics who don't care about any issue except abortion and gay marriage. The moderate wing of the GOP, which had consisted of great men such as Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon, has now pretty much ceased to exist.

The GOP isn't the party of freedom; it's the party of tired rhetoric. But then again, I suppose that's better than the Democrats, who really lack any rhetoric.

[adam]

There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 

Couldn't have said it better.

That's because Winfield is the same sort of ridiculous airhead as you, Vlad.  There is no place in the GOP for pro-choice persons, unless those persons don't mind that they are supporting a party dedicated to removing women's freedoms. 

There are plenty of pro-choice Republicans, perhaps not on the national stage - but the Republican party is moving to the center in terms of social views as the Christian fanatic movement dies down.

[opebo]

There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 

Couldn't have said it better.

That's because Winfield is the same sort of ridiculous airhead as you, Vlad.  There is no place in the GOP for pro-choice persons, unless those persons don't mind that they are supporting a party dedicated to removing women's freedoms. 

Need you be an asshole about everything - are you that insecure with your own intelligence (or lack there of)? There are plenty of pro-choice Republicans, perhaps not on the national stage - but the Republican party is moving to the center in terms of social views as the Christian fanatic movement dies down.

Seriously dude, I appreciate your input - but you are a total dick.

Sorry about being a total dick, but the point stands - the goal of the Religious Party is to ban abortion.  So if you are free to be a 'pro-choice' Republican under the big tent, but still all you're voting for is an anti-choice agenda, that is just pointless.  Of course anyone can be anything if they are willing to abandon their own goals, principles, and interests.

[adam]

There is plenty of room in the Republican Party for those who are pro choice and for those who support same sex marriage.  They are more than welcome, and, in fact, are needed and appreciated in the party.

The Republican Party is a big tent, and welcomes all.

The Republican Party is more accepting of pro choice members than is the Democratic Party accepting of pro life members. 

Couldn't have said it better.

That's because Winfield is the same sort of ridiculous airhead as you, Vlad.  There is no place in the GOP for pro-choice persons, unless those persons don't mind that they are supporting a party dedicated to removing women's freedoms. 

Need you be an asshole about everything - are you that insecure with your own intelligence (or lack there of)? There are plenty of pro-choice Republicans, perhaps not on the national stage - but the Republican party is moving to the center in terms of social views as the Christian fanatic movement dies down.

Seriously dude, I appreciate your input - but you are a total dick.

Sorry about being a total dick, but the point stands - the goal of the Religious Party is to ban abortion.  So if you are free to be a 'pro-choice' Republican under the big tent, but still all you're voting for is an anti-choice agenda, that is just pointless.  Of course anyone can be anything if they are willing to abandon their own goals, principles, and interests.

I think it's more of an issue importance thing. Economic conservatives that hold the economy as the most important issue are going to vote for other economic conservatives and thus (by theroy) usually vote Republican. Regardless of whether the said voter is socially liberal or not. On the flip side, if a candidate is economically conservative but happens to be focusing his campaign around a socially conservative agenda...than said voter is going to be wary of supporting him. (This is a lot of the reason why the Constitution Party hasn't taken off yet). Most Republicans hold security and the economy in higher regards than social issues and thus can over look pro-choice and pro-gay members. Our point with the Democrats is that they have a balanced focus of social and economic views (generally speaking) and are less likely to welcome a pro-life or and anti-gay candidate because they fear a tipped balance.