Who are extreme conservatives.
Again, all a matter of perspective
Not really. We are as a nation to the right both by our own recent historical standards and by the standards of the world.
Are you claiming that we are being taken further to the right by our current administration 
Grab what you can between now and next November, when the rudder will be actually steered further to the right.
No; we were already far to the right.
I think you are right, but only because California likes moderate Republicans. Brown wins the coast going away, but he has no chance in the vast interior.
Don’t count out Tom Campbell in the Primary, however. He is a respected moderate Republican with long-term goodwill in Cal politics.
From Wiki:
Campbell was one of the more moderate House Republicans. He was very liberal on social issues (for instance, he was a strong supporter of abortion and gay rights) while conservative on fiscal matters. This was not surprising, as Bay Area Republicans tend to be somewhat more moderate than their counterparts in the rest of California. Campbell has maintained a significant libertarian following, due to his views and actions.
This is the kind of guy that California likes (e.g, Pete Wilson, Reagan, and the current Governator). Meg Whitman is trying to beat him with an early, full-on ad blitz that will put her name on par with his. She hopes that she can beat him with money and the cache of E-Bay. So far, the strategy is working.
A few notes:
- I do not think homosexuality is a “mental illness” nor is it something that someone can be “cured” of.
- Rather, I think homosexuality is something someone should recognize as sin and avoid it as much as possible.
You’re probably right. Even Reagan was a libertarian in many ways as governor (he even legalized abortion!). And as far as I can tell Whitman so far has had far more media exposure than Campbell.
There is no good reason to hold that position.
Well then you probably shouldn’t vote for Governor. The Governor has very little power over Abortion or Foreign policy. You might want to educate yourself on what a Governor actually does so you can vote for Governor based on issues that the Governor has influence over. Abortion is legislated at the Federal Level, and foreign policy is the purview of the President, not of a state Governor. State Governors do not appoint Supreme Court justices, and as such have no impact over whether Roe V. Wade gets overturned. If Roe V. Wade were overturned then it would be a relevant issue for the governorship.
Basically, drop the pop culture, and pick up the real politics.
But anyway, aren’t you pretending to be thirteen? Thirteen year olds can’t vote.
I know, I should have added that criteria is for all politicians. Plus I said “support” not vote.
Well if that’s your criteria for all politicians then you throw your support away. You illustrate the desperate need for real civics curricula in the classroom.
Personally I hope that Mayor Bloomberg will increase troops in Afghanistan!
Oh yeah, and ‘thinking fondly about’ is not support. Unless you are actually campaigning, donating money, or voting. You are not supporting. You are just having an imaginary relationship with a candidate that has no basis in reality. Support requires real world action.
Yes, yes I know. But if say a Governor is elected he has a good chance of being elected President or Senator and if from a major state or particularly outspoken a very much national figure thus their positions on foreign policy issues will be of interest to Americans.
So you base your support of politicians in a particular election based on hypothetical future elections that may or may not occur?
No, if the governors don’t say anything about foreign policy than I consider his positions on other issues.
If the candidate says something about foreign policy, you realize you’re being pandered to right? Like Congressman Hoekstra running for Governor in Michigan using the underwear bomber to raise money for his campaign. It’s a cynical ploy to get stupid people to support him. If you want to be that willingly gullible, then by all means. If you truly are thirteen, I hope that you’ll wake up from such a haze of gullibility and give your candidates some critical thought when you’re 18. Any candidate talking about foreign policy is specifically trying to get you NOT to think about his views on other issues. It’s an appeal to your base emotions, and attempt to get you to STOP thinking.
For governors I usually consider domestic issues first.
But what if they can see another country from their state?
Only on the SDMB would the likes of David Brooks and David Gergen be seen as spokesmen for the far right!
On PBS and NPR, what we get are, what Mark Steyn would call, the voice of the left and the voice of the slightly-right-of-the-left. As opposed to, say, CNN, where we get the voices of the slightly-left-of-center and the slightly-right-of the-slightly-left-of-center.
Who said David Brooks was “far right”? The phrase used was “moderate conservative”. Brooks himself states that he is not a liberal, although clearly he fails the One True Conservative test.
Well in that case they are a canny stateswoman who should be put into office post-haste. 