Well, I’d at least feel he or she had been honest. And I’d feel the same way about a conservative candidate who had run as a conservative. But I wouldn’t by choice vote for either of them.
Who would I vote for if an open conservative was running against an open liberal? I don’t know. I might sit that election out or vote for a third party candidate (which works out to the same thing). If everything else were equal and I had to vote for one of the two, I suppose I’d vote for the liberal on the theory that the large number of conservatives already in office would mute him out while the conservative candidate would find common cause and be more able to put his ideas into effect.
The overwhelming majority of people in the United States live in those cities and states cite. So the Democratic party is representing Americans.
The Republican party meanwhile is representing “Real Americans”. They’re trying to sell the idea that only a small minority of people in this country matter and the country should be run for them and not the actual majority of Americans.
Karl Rove is closer to being a liberal than a conservative. But an Alinskyite? Nah. You’d have to procure a national list of community organizers to find all those minions.
As for Glen Beck, I believe it was he who was responsible for outing all the Alinskyite/commie ideologues that were/are involved with this current admin.
And that’s why the Democrats are winning the White House. You can thank Bill Clinton for that, although Obama’s trying hard to piss on his accomplishments.
There’s a lot of truth to that. It’s not a universal opinion among Republicans, but part of being more conservative has been a disinterest in making big government work. But if you don’t govern well, you don’t get elected.
ISTM that it’s the Republican Party that is doing everything in their power to make the U.S. fail.
That’s a message the Democratic Party needs to spread. It’s happening, everyone who pay attention knows it’s happening, but the Democrats are not doing a very good job making it clear to the people who are still being duped into voting for the aristocracy.
:rolleyes: The rest of us (except maybe adaher) are posting from the Earth with the blue sky, Conservian. Blue, not red, and certainly not tea. Come over to the reality-based side, we have cookies.
More denial. The Democrats got two years to get things done and the voter response to what they did was to make sure they couldn’t do it anymore.
I’m sure voters would love the two sides to get more done together, but all I’ve seen is Democrats demanding to be allowed to do exactly what they were doing when they got booted out of office. Last time this happened they triangulated. This time they’ve decided to do more of the same.
If you judge performance by number of laws passed. Not sure why that’s a good thing. The founders made the system the way it is for a reason. Lots of veto points means it takes a lot more than 50% +1 to get laws passed, and even if they do get passed, they can be “sabotaged” if they require the states to do things they are not constitutionally obligated to do. See: Health care law.
BrainGlutton, in order to govern from the left, the public needs to be persuaded that that is the right course. Democrats won a historic victory in 2008, and governed leftward enough, that the voters decisively rejected them. It wasn’t incompetence or scandal, it was simply their legislative program. And I imagine you think that was a fairly centrist program. So imagine how YOUR ideal legislative program would be treated in the next election.
You seem to be saying that no matter what happens, you want gridlock/deadlock.