Allen wins Wisconsin straw poll.

[adam]

Rudy only lost by one vote. He is starting to gain ground in the midwest. Before Rudy was being seriously considered as a viable candidate, Allen dominated the area.

[adam]

Rudy only lost by one vote. He is starting to gain ground in the midwest. Before Rudy was being seriously considered as a viable candidate, Allen dominated the area.

And before Allen was even considered a mainstream candidate, Rudy was usually one of the frontrunners with McCain. It's doubtful he'll win the nomination, though, unless the Republicans want to appeal more strongly to social moderates.

I honestly don't think the Republicans are as focused on social issues as they were in 2000 and 2004. Most of them want tougher immigration policies and fiscal responsiblity. Seeing as how Rudy offers both, I think they will over look his pro-choice and pro-gay rights stances.

McCain is dead though, he is to the left of Bush on immigration and has a very fuzzy fiscal policy. No chance for him.

[adam]

Rudy only lost by one vote. He is starting to gain ground in the midwest. Before Rudy was being seriously considered as a viable candidate, Allen dominated the area.

And before Allen was even considered a mainstream candidate, Rudy was usually one of the frontrunners with McCain. It's doubtful he'll win the nomination, though, unless the Republicans want to appeal more strongly to social moderates.

I honestly don't think the Republicans are as focused on social issues as they were in 2000 and 2004. Most of them want tougher immigration policies and fiscal responsiblity. Seeing as how Rudy offers both, I think they will over look his pro-choice and pro-gay rights stances.

McCain is dead though, he is to the left of Bush on immigration and has a very fuzzy fiscal policy. No chance for him.

Wrong-o.  McCain will do much better because for all his cloaking of it, he's actually a conservative.  Rudy will be dead because he's pro-choice, period.  There's no way in hell that we nominate a pro-choice candidate, only in John Wellsland does that ever happen.

Than it's fair to say that the Republicans are morons. If they would pass up a likeable candidate with leadership qualities over a pathetic nothing issue like abortion than they don't deserve to be in office.

[adam]

We consider abortion murder.  Thus not pathetic.

Learn to understand how the other side views issues.  It helps.  A lot.

Do you consider the evaporating of fetal matter to be more of a pressing issue than balancing the budget, national security, and border control? I understand how social right-wingers feel on the issue - I disagree, but I understand. The truth is that I don't care. Whether you are pro-choice or anti-choice, pro-life or pro-abortion...if you hold such a miniscule issue in higher regard to the economy and national security than you are an imbecile.

[adam]

We consider abortion murder.  Thus not pathetic.

Learn to understand how the other side views issues.  It helps.  A lot.

Do you consider the evaporating of fetal matter to be more of a pressing issue than balancing the budget, national security, and border control? I understand how social right-wingers feel on the issue - I disagree, but I understand. The truth is that I don't care. Whether you are pro-choice or anti-choice, pro-life or pro-abortion...if you hold such a miniscule issue in higher regard to the economy and national security than you are an imbecile.

Your statement, "The truth is that I don't care,"  is clear.  You obviously don't. 

However, your statement, "the evaporating of fetal matter," belies your statement, "I disagree, but I understand."  Your own words show you don't understand at all.  If you did understand, you would not be so callous.

And referring to anyone else as an "imbecile," as you have, demonstrates a total lack of respect, tolerance, and understanding of the views of others.

George W. Hobbes was simply expressing a valid point, and that should be treated with respect, not derision.

Everyone understands that any one particular issue is only part of a much larger picture.     

I didn't call anyone particular  an imbecile, it was a generalization of all "social voters" whether they be pro-choice or not. No direct connection to Hobbes there. I think it's a fair claim to say that people who vote on a social basis are imbeciles (which by the way - by modern usage is closer to goof than idiot). The economy should never take a back seat to the economy and security and I find it hard to take anyone seriously that would imply otherwise.

And yes I do understand, they believe it's murder. I happen to disagree and believe that it's the evaporation of a blotch of fetal matter. I can understand how they would believe otherwise...but I don't agree. So I'm not going wishy wash my stance to be nice.

[adam]

We consider abortion murder.  Thus not pathetic.

Learn to understand how the other side views issues.  It helps.  A lot.

Do you consider the evaporating of fetal matter to be more of a pressing issue than balancing the budget, national security, and border control? I understand how social right-wingers feel on the issue - I disagree, but I understand. The truth is that I don't care. Whether you are pro-choice or anti-choice, pro-life or pro-abortion...if you hold such a miniscule issue in higher regard to the economy and national security than you are an imbecile.

Your statement, "The truth is that I don't care,"  is clear.  You obviously don't. 

However, your statement, "the evaporating of fetal matter," belies your statement, "I disagree, but I understand."  Your own words show you don't understand at all.  If you did understand, you would not be so callous.

And referring to anyone else as an "imbecile," as you have, demonstrates a total lack of respect, tolerance, and understanding of the views of others.

George W. Hobbes was simply expressing a valid point, and that should be treated with respect, not derision.

Everyone understands that any one particular issue is only part of a much larger picture.     

I didn't call anyone particular  an imbecile, it was a generalization of all "social voters" whether they be pro-choice or not. No direct connection to Hobbes there. I think it's a fair claim to say that people who vote on a social basis are imbeciles (which by the way - by modern usage is closer to goof than idiot). The economy should never take a back seat to the economy and security and I find it hard to take anyone seriously that would imply otherwise.

And yes I do understand, they believe it's murder. I happen to disagree and believe that it's the evaporation of a blotch of fetal matter. I can understand how they would believe otherwise...but I don't agree. So I'm not going wishy wash my stance to be nice.

It is somewhat arrogant to believe that you are the only one capable of deciding which issues are important and which aren't. It's not "obvious".

Nice spin-job Karl. I am not saying that I am the only one capable...but if you were take a poll on the importance of issues...you'd notice the economic/security issues trouncing the social issues soundly. Which is why I believe that any one with the power to nominate a candidate should be smart enough to look at an economic/security record before taking srious offense to a few vague and un intresting comments about abortion/gay rights.