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.
republicans talk about many issues other than social issues....its the democrats and the liberal media that want to make it a central issue of the campaign and spend millions to discredit the opposition with lies.
Please... Both sides want to make it the central issue of their campaign, so it's not just Liberals. The problem is, Liberals are on the side with that has the most voters. The problem also is, even when some voters may actually believe in what Republicans are supposed to stand for and/or if voters are not happy with Democrats, they still will not vote Republican because they're Black, Hispanic, Gay, Nonreligious, pro choice, poor, etc...Either way, they need to start focusing on fiscal issues and leave the rest of the BS alone.
I actually think the main problems with republicans is that they have become too dependent on rich people and their money. That is why nominating Romney was such a disasterous choice. He was totally unable to relate to the common person.
McCain wasn't as rich. He lost the same exact states Romney lost. It is NOT the nominee that is causing this.
Please... Both sides want to make it the central issue of their campaign, so it's not just Liberals. The problem is, Liberals are on the side with that has the most voters. The problem also is, even when some voters may actually believe in what Republicans are supposed to stand for and/or if voters are not happy with Democrats, they still will not vote Republican because they're Black, Hispanic, Gay, Nonreligious, pro choice, poor, etc...Either way, they need to start focusing on fiscal issues and leave the rest of the BS alone.
Please... Both sides want to make it the central issue of their campaign, so it's not just Liberals. The problem is, Liberals are on the side with that has the most voters. The problem also is, even when some voters may actually believe in what Republicans are supposed to stand for and/or if voters are not happy with Democrats, they still will not vote Republican because they're Black, Hispanic, Gay, Nonreligious, pro choice, poor, etc...Either way, they need to start focusing on fiscal issues and leave the rest of the BS alone.
if that's the case why Republicans control congress and have the majority of governorships and state legislatures?........that don't count?......blacks, hispanics and gays don't vote at the state level? LOL
make up your mind, if the Republicans are being rejected why to they control other branches of government?
Presidential elections is a beauty contest, people vote for the most likeable person and who they like to have a beer.....State governors and state legislatures get more things done than a President that in my opinion is just a figure head.
if that's the case why Republicans control congress and have the majority of governorships and state legislatures?........that don't count?......blacks, hispanics and gays don't vote at the state level? .
Congressional elections have been gerrymandered..for decades by the party in power.
Governors, LOL, you fail to notice run most often as purely fiscal, not Social conservs. That avoids the gender gap. State reps also run mainly as fiscal conservs. People want cost control and low taxes, but they do NOT want social control by politicians.
Now if the mainstream GOP regains control of the asylum from the TP lunes, the POTUS nominees will also avoid the plague of Social Conservatism. It elects Democrats for POTUS, better than David Axelrod ever could!
PS, READ the Thread Topic. It says WHITE HOUSE!Stay ON topic.
Judging by Mittens many flip flops, he consistently lacked guts on many issues.
As the more pro choice vs Kennedy, he wasn't just Pro Choice..he was radically Pro Choice..allowing for virtually no exceptions. I lived one state away than.it was a fascinating campaign to watch.
Reagan was never radical in either case. He spent no political capital seeking an overturn of Roe v Wade.just talked the talk, knowing the ignorant in the party would not hold him accountable for that.
when did Romney campaign for no exception for abortion?.....when did Romney campaign to overturn ROE vs Wade?
keep drinking the left kool aid.......Rommney's position on abortion is no different than W BUSH, his father Nixon and Reagan.
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.
