Yes, that is exactly what Bosstone said, except for the parts that were the exact opposite.
There are many ultra-liberals. The difference between them and the ultra-conservatives is that the ultra-liberals get ignored, while the ultra-conservatives get talk shows (or elected).
If there are, the electoral dynamics are different. When was the last time you heard of a House race where a Blue Dog Dem gets challenged by somebody with Dennis Kucinich’s politics, and as a result, the Pub wins?
You could make a case that was exactly what happened with Nader v. Gore in 2000, but it’s a very, very rare situation – even more so since then, and probably because liberals have learned from that experience. The conservative coalition, OTOH, has been showing signs of total systemic crackup between moderates and extremists (and between bizcons, neocons and paleocons) for at least two years now.
Ultra liberals don’t get on mainstream TV. Tv is so right wing that PBS which sits conservatives and liberals equally on discussions is seen as left wing. The left wing viewpoint gets short shrift on mainstream TV and none on right wing at all.
There is absolutely NO chance that Texas will elect a Democrat governor. Not for many years to come.
IF and when the Mexican voters become more numerous and more energized, the Democrats will have a shot at winning statewide office again. I don’t see that happening for at LEAST another 10 years.
I know- I mean, you’d NEVER see the left-wingers try to oust a guy like Joe Lieberman, would you? And you’ll NEVER see a Kos-ite try to challenge Arlen Specter.
We haven’t so far, at any rate. (Ned Lamont is no LW.)
Not that either, at least not in 2004. Nor in 2010, unless you think Joe Sestak is a “Kos-ite.” (He’s certainly progressive enough but I don’t know if he has any connection toe DailyKos.) Specter would be a special case anyway, since he only declared himself a Dem this year; his seat is fair game by any partisan standard.
I think you’ll find practically everybody but you considers David Brooks a conservative, and nobody but you considers him “Obama’s biggest fan.” (Not that being an Obama fan would make one anything but conservative, based on his track record so far.)
The sad truth is that gay rights just isn’t seen in the same light as, say, women’s rights or racial minority rights. Because of that, those demanding rights are not going to be viewed in a similiar light than the civil rights leaders from a few generations ago. Until more people stand up and demand it, then it’s simply not going to happen; gay rights have to take a back seat to the economy, health care, or the environment.
I agree with you that those who are against gay rights are bigots. The problem is, the bigots are more powerful than the non-bigots.
That’s because being a “conservative” is a good thing. Being a “liberal” is a bad one. You can thank 30 years of right-wing noise machine for that one.
“Ultraconservatives” are patriots. “Ultraliberals” would be Communists or (gasp!) Socialists.
I don’t bother reading his silly columns, but the reason NPR probably regards him as conservative is because he parrots GOP talking points every Friday. He just happens to do it with a little less froth than his brethren. Maybe that’s what makes him “not conservative”.
Maybe although Hutchinson will probably concede graciously enough. I certainly hope a Republican wins.
That’s definately true. Gay marriage will generally be left to the states from now on with victories by the homosexuals in some states and the moralists in others.
Wait Ginsburg has cancer? If she does step down than Wood will not be the next Supreme Court Judge. She is too extreme (I mean, late-term abortions WTF?). Millions of American citizens will barrage and bombard their Congressmen and women with threats, complaints, pleas, and demands to vote against Wood and she will be if Obama nominates her be defeated. I expect a somewhat mildly liberal Judge like Anthony Kennedy
Connecticut for a New England liberal states is fairly moderate and has elected moderate Liberals like Lieberman. Dodd will be defeated and a Rockefeller Republican will replace him probably Rob Simmons or Linda McMahon.
Probably true.
Probably true.
Ha ha ha ha. San Francisco and Hollywood are not all of California! Most real Californians-Democrat or Republican have had enough of the ultra-restrictive environmentalism especially with respect to jobs. Boxer probably is reelected but Whitman wins by a hair.
I doubt there will be significant immigration reform this time around.
True! Reid is most likely going down. Sue Lowder or Danny Tarkanian will be the next Senator from Nevada.
Democrats will keep the House but only by a hair which will be dispersed in 2012.
All in all a very biased article to try to avoid without outright lying shew the Republican victories of 2010.
I do which is why I am reluctant to support Meg Whitman for Governor. Usually abortion is the third most important issue (after the War on Terror/Afghanistan and economics).
Oh yeah because some sarcastic comment said half in jest is more important than abortion. :rolleyes: Plus Texas’ unemployment rate compared to the rest of the nation is low.
If I condemn adulterers as sinners also does that mean I’m bigoted against them? I call homosexuality a sin so homosexuals can repent.
Which is like calling a woman evil because she is a woman and then saying you aren’t a bigot because she can repent.
There is no moral justification for condemning homosexuality; no one is being harmed. And no, “God says so” is not sufficient reason; if God condemns homosexuality, then God is a bigot.
Pretending he’s a liberal won’t make it so. He’s a moderate conservative.
I guess that would depend on whom he’s being compared to…I can assure you however, he shares little in common with the typical conservative in the flyover region of the country.
