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.
Not to point out the obvious, YR but Mitt Romney was the face of the Republican Party...and he's about as moderate a Republican as you can find. The constant "slandering" of the GOP wasn't done by the Tea Party folks it was done by progressives with full cooperation from the main stream media. You should know that from WORKING on the Romney campaign. Mitt wanted to have a discussion about the economy but instead had to waste time defending himself from charges that he was waging a "war on women". The GOP isn't close to being as "extreme" as you mistakenly think it is. I'm very active in Republican politics here and I'm pro choice and have zero problem with same sex marriage. Granted there are those Republicans here that vehemently disagree with me on those issues but our views on economic issues trumps that because economic issues are what's most important to people right now.
The face of the GOP going forward will be people like Chris Christie...Paul Ryan...Marco Rubio...Nikki Haley...Mitch Daniels...it will not be Sarah Palin, or any political pundit like Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.
I have two pieces of advice to you, young man...first stop being so negative towards the GOP. We are on the right side of the issues when it comes to fiscal policy and that will only become more apparent as we move forward. Secondly...you're in college! Learn to present your ideas in a polished manner. You obviously know your spelling and grammar are atrocious...so do something about it!
I saw Mitt start out as a great candidate who had a serious chance at winning, but something happened to him in the midst of this election. He was forced to pander to the base because he was afraid he would lose their votes. He had great ideas on gun laws, same sex marriage and healthcare, but he was forced to be something he was not, a true conservative. I was ok with that, I didnt need a hard line conservative candidate for him to garner my support. Ideas like the Romney healthcare plan in Massachusetts was the Republican answer to the ACA,a brilliant plan to insure the poor on a state level. It was genius .However; he couldnt maintain that image because of the fundamental conservatives rejected anything that even remotely reminded them of universal healthcare. Its that type of attitude that lost this election.
I agree with you that those people are the face of the party as it relates to Washington, but they are not the ones out there spreading the message. It is the Journalists if you can even call them that who speak for the party, whether we like it or not. They are the people that the general public looks to when they want to get information on the party, and that is a shame. We are on the right side of the issues fiscally, but we need to be able to articulate it to a wider range of people.
P.S. I apologize for the grammar, it was a shorthand writing
With all due respect, "the message" isn't getting spread because conservatives don't control the media as progressives do at the moment. Mitt Romney lost that election because Barack Obama was allowed to shift the focus from his mishandling of the economy and the stimulus that left millions of Americans still either looking for work or working part time. With those kinds of problems how did we end up wasting so much time talking about Sandra Fluke not being able to afford her birth control pills and Mitt Romney having "binders" of women? Look at the debate format. Four moderators and all of them leaning to the left? Who set that up? Candy Crowley? You've got to be kidding me!
Thinking that AFP doesnt fund major Tea Party candidates is just not correct. AFP put 36 million into the 2012 election cycle, a lot of that money being put in TP candidates pocets. I can assure you that the younger Republicans do not see the Tea Party as an eclyctic group of people who just want to reign in spending. I dealt with a lot of the tea party types over the past election working for the Romney Victory Center and let me tell you, those economic policies arent the only things they want to talk about. I'd say the top things they said to me (thinking that i believed what they did) that were not related to economics, was all about Obamas birth certificate, his nationality, gay marriage, abortions, Michelle Obama being a racist and my favorite, Obama's dad being a kenyan murderer.
As Republicans we will get nowhere with this line of thinking. Its crazziness and its the reason the majority of my friends do not wish to join me on my conservative endevours. They tell me that I make sense when I talk about Republican ideas, but the minute they turn on a conservative talk show they cant listen to it. It is the type of people like the tea party republicans that turn off women, minorities and the youth from voting for us. Imagine if we could have gotten just 10 more percent from those groups? it would have been a landslide.
Bullshit! You r-wingers have perfected the ability to manipulate the 'media'. Just you look at president Bush's 8 years in office. The media turned against Obama from the very first debate when Obama looked pathetic against Romney. The media played that up, over and over thus Obama dropped in the polls like crazy. From there it was Romney's race to lose and he did exactly that... he blew it!
No, I'm talking about blocking and filibustering positions like Deputy To The Secretary Of State. What's the point, other than obstructing every Obama appointment? If that person ever was up for the SoS position they would have to go through a confirmation process first.Your ignorance is showing again, TM...
What the Founding Fathers designed was a system in which the rights of the minority were protected. They did so by making it difficult, even for a majority, to change the Constitution. That isn't a bad thing...that's a good thing.
Not at the expense of the will of the majority, they didn't.
They wanted the minority to be protected against being run roughshod. Against being run out of existence.
It wasn't designed so that a spiteful minority could hold up a nomination for some meaningless position, or play politics with national security.
I take it that you've now labeled wanting answers about what really happened in Benghazi a "meaningless position"?
The Founding Fathers were intelligent enough to understand that the "will of the majority" wasn't always the best thing for the country...hence their determination to purposely make it difficult to change Constitutional rights.
Think long and hard about making changes to that, Synth...what you want simply because this Administration is running into opposition to it's policies, is to alter something that has made sense for several hundred years. Wouldn't it make more sense for Barack Obama to simply be a little more forthcoming about things like Fast & Furious and Benghazi?
First of all the "Tea Party" is a loose collection of political organizations spread across the country with different agendas and different goals. You for some reason seem to think they are an organized group with spokesmen and a written charter of what "they" believe in, when that's simply not true.
As for the concept of economics freaking someone out? I think the average American that understands basic math understands that we can't continue on our present trajectory of debt without dire consequences. They are scared because the "numbers" that you sarcastically refer to ARE scary! They should be scared and so should you be scared...as should anyone with half a brain.
Ever here of the Koch brothers? Loose collection of political organizations is laughable at best. They are a highly funded, highly motivated radical wing of the GOP that preys on the elderly and frightened.
Do you remember the debt ceiling debate? I mean these guys wanted to let it fall on us. talk to any 100 economists and 99 of them will say thats economic suicide and the other one just got a fat check from AFP.
Get serious. The Koch brothers are a "bogeyman" used to scare little children and naive progressives. They in no way control the Tea Party movement.
As for the Tea Party being a "radical wing" of the GOP? First of all the Tea Party isn't comprised only of Republicans. There are a good number of Independents, Libertarians and even coservative Democrats that have joined with the Tea Party movement. Why? Because the Tea Party's main goal...government that lives within it's means...is such a simple common sense notion that it appeals to a broad spectrum of Americans.
The debt ceiling debate centered around whether or not we will continue to borrow huge amounts of money to fund entitlements that it's been shown conclusively we can't afford or whether we will start to FINALLY address the problem of our spending. The Tea Party is demanding that REAL cuts to spending be made. The Obama Administration did what they have always done...they kicked spending cuts as far down the road as they possibly could for someone else to deal with.
You're right that defaulting on our debt would have dire consequences just as not doing anything about our debt would have dire consequences. What most economists agree on is that we need to reform entitlements or the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. We got downgraded by S&P not because the Tea Party was clamoring for spending cuts but because the the ratings agencies were calling for meaningful spending cuts and none were delivered. They are cautioning us again that we need to make significant cuts or we may face another downgrade. So unless you think the ratings agencies are now controlled by the Tea Party and the Koch brothers, don't you think it's time to get serious about our debt and reform entitlements?
Not to point out the obvious, YR but Mitt Romney was the face of the Republican Party...and he's about as moderate a Republican as you can find. The constant "slandering" of the GOP wasn't done by the Tea Party folks it was done by progressives with full cooperation from the main stream media. You should know that from WORKING on the Romney campaign. Mitt wanted to have a discussion about the economy but instead had to waste time defending himself from charges that he was waging a "war on women". The GOP isn't close to being as "extreme" as you mistakenly think it is. I'm very active in Republican politics here and I'm pro choice and have zero problem with same sex marriage. Granted there are those Republicans here that vehemently disagree with me on those issues but our views on economic issues trumps that because economic issues are what's most important to people right now.
The face of the GOP going forward will be people like Chris Christie...Paul Ryan...Marco Rubio...Nikki Haley...Mitch Daniels...it will not be Sarah Palin, or any political pundit like Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.
I have two pieces of advice to you, young man...first stop being so negative towards the GOP. We are on the right side of the issues when it comes to fiscal policy and that will only become more apparent as we move forward. Secondly...you're in college! Learn to present your ideas in a polished manner. You obviously know your spelling and grammar are atrocious...so do something about it!
I saw Mitt start out as a great candidate who had a serious chance at winning, but something happened to him in the midst of this election. He was forced to pander to the base because he was afraid he would lose their votes. He had great ideas on gun laws, same sex marriage and healthcare, but he was forced to be something he was not, a true conservative. I was ok with that, I didnt need a hard line conservative candidate for him to garner my support. Ideas like the Romney healthcare plan in Massachusetts was the Republican answer to the ACA,a brilliant plan to insure the poor on a state level. It was genius .However; he couldnt maintain that image because of the fundamental conservatives rejected anything that even remotely reminded them of universal healthcare. Its that type of attitude that lost this election.
I agree with you that those people are the face of the party as it relates to Washington, but they are not the ones out there spreading the message. It is the Journalists if you can even call them that who speak for the party, whether we like it or not. They are the people that the general public looks to when they want to get information on the party, and that is a shame. We are on the right side of the issues fiscally, but we need to be able to articulate it to a wider range of people.
P.S. I apologize for the grammar, it was a shorthand writing
"Mitt Romney was forced to pander to the base because he was afraid he would lose their votes"
Tell me young man, if a candidate doesn't answer to his base, then who EXACTLY does he answer to? His competition's base? Who EXACTLY would Romney expect to vote for him, if not his "base"?
I truly suggest that you go to your local election board and change your party affiliation to democrat. You're no more "republican" than George Soros is.
I saw Mitt start out as a great candidate who had a serious chance at winning, but something happened to him in the midst of this election. He was forced to pander to the base because he was afraid he would lose their votes. He had great ideas on gun laws, same sex marriage and healthcare, but he was forced to be something he was not, a true conservative. I was ok with that, I didnt need a hard line conservative candidate for him to garner my support. Ideas like the Romney healthcare plan in Massachusetts was the Republican answer to the ACA,a brilliant plan to insure the poor on a state level. It was genius .However; he couldnt maintain that image because of the fundamental conservatives rejected anything that even remotely reminded them of universal healthcare. Its that type of attitude that lost this election.
I agree with you that those people are the face of the party as it relates to Washington, but they are not the ones out there spreading the message. It is the Journalists if you can even call them that who speak for the party, whether we like it or not. They are the people that the general public looks to when they want to get information on the party, and that is a shame. We are on the right side of the issues fiscally, but we need to be able to articulate it to a wider range of people.
P.S. I apologize for the grammar, it was a shorthand writing
With all due respect, "the message" isn't getting spread because conservatives don't control the media as progressives do at the moment. Mitt Romney lost that election because Barack Obama was allowed to shift the focus from his mishandling of the economy and the stimulus that left millions of Americans still either looking for work or working part time. With those kinds of problems how did we end up wasting so much time talking about Sandra Fluke not being able to afford her birth control pills and Mitt Romney having "binders" of women? Look at the debate format. Four moderators and all of them leaning to the left? Who set that up? Candy Crowley? You've got to be kidding me!
Bullshit! You r-wingers have perfected the ability to manipulate the 'media'. Just you look at president Bush's 8 years in office. The media turned against Obama from the very first debate when Obama looked pathetic against Romney. The media played that up, over and over thus Obama dropped in the polls like crazy. From there it was Romney's race to lose and he did exactly that... he blew it!
