Magox

So what you're saying is that you agreed with Obama and Hillary that the Russians could be trusted with the RESET button. And that you agreed that Obama should have made a clear Red line threat against Syria to only back peddle on his red line. And that you agreed with Obama that the status of forces agreement in Iraq should have played out the way it did, in that Obama pulling out completely was the right thing to do. And that you agreed with Obama that the Ukranians shouldn't receive any sort of support against Russia's proxy against them. And that you agreed with Obama in that the agreement we made with the Polish people to help beef up their missile defense system should have been null and voided because the Russians were to be trusted. And that you agreed with Obama's assessment of ISIS in that they were a JV team to not be taken seriously. And that you agree with Obama's view that as long as the Iranians don't get a nuclear weapon "on his watch" (which is what? 2 years?) is the right approach. We get it, you think Obama's Foreign policy has been successful. Got it!

That's great logic you have there.

You can certainly criticize G.W on the decision to attack Iraq. But he's spot on with his criticism of B.O and most foreign policy experts happen to agree with him.

Polls this far out are mere snapshots in time and are virtually meaningless this far out. However, there is value in the internals. The Fox polling also shows her seriously underwater in that department. It's hard to imagine her going up against a quality candidate with those sort of mistrust with the public and winning.

I don't have a problem with the benefits of the Medicare plan he had, it's that it wasn't paid for. That's where I had a problem with that. In regards to the health insurance voucher program, I for whatever reason can not remember the details of that plan, but I have no problem with giving lower to middle class folks assistance either through advanced tax credits or subsidies to help pay for their health insurance. I am now more on the side of expanding coverage than I use to be, it's a good thing that more people have coverage. Of course, it's the pay for's is where it gets tricky.

No, it's not that. It's that some people don't actually have opinions that go in lockstep with others that they usually attend to agree with 100% of the time. sprinkling a little conservatism around the periphery gives the impression that they disagree with their non "rhino" counterparts more often than not. Where in all actuality that simply isn't even close to being the case. It's ok to be disagreeable and have differing opinions. Perfect example is immigration reform. The numbers and math dictate that it is a logical decision to come up with a more efficient immigration policy that encourages a controlled inflow of immigrants. Also, reason dictates that we aren't going to deport the illegals that are already here. It makes sense to take steps to limit inflows of illegal immigration but at the same time providing a process that gives legal status to the ones that are here that would incorporate them to the system. There not only would be additional inflows of taxation but safety net programs such as S.S would benefit. Without immigration, the economy would have stagnant population growth. Stagnant population growth is a long-term killer for economic growth. This is an issue that should be ok to have respectful dialogue, rather than have the nativists attempt to purge members of the party they tend to support simply because they don't agree with them on this issue. Perfect example, can you actually believe that many of these same people believe Rubio is a RHINO? Yet if you look up the Heritage foundation's scorecard of conservatism, he rates extremely high and a perfect 7 for 7 (according to their scores) on the issues they care about. The point is if you want to expand the party and increase the size of the tent (which is what Reagan did) then in order to that, you have to have more differing points of view. It is unrealistic to believe that if the GOP had it let's say Dante's way and that they were all hard line tea partiers that somehow you would change the landscape of the constituents on the electoral map to be more hardline right wingers. That is simply fantasy. No one is saying abandon your principles, you can stand up for them advocate and make your positions known. The point is to not try to purge those that you don't always agree with simply because they aren't as much of a purist as some people would like. When you go into more moderate swing states, we have seen what happens when you purge those that you agree with more often than not but not all the time The more hard line candidate often loses. Obviously that's not always the case. It's largely dependent on the quality of the candidate. Ted Cruz is a perfect example, he espouses very conservative views, but he's a talented politician. He wins . But look at Angle from Nevada or the kook from Delaware. Both of these candidates weren't ready for prime time, yet the primary process and outside support purged the more moderate candidates. What was the result, another six years of Harry Reid, rather than someone who would have voted in the opposite direction of him 85% of the time.

Uhh, last I checked there are billions of dollars and teams of the best minds in the world to attempt to remedy heart disease, cancer etc. You're the dope.

The fact that you would compare the two scenarios says it all.

I don't know, he supported "amnesty", he raised taxes and increased regulations in California as Governor. Reagan was a whole hell of a lot more moderate than today's tea party supporters. There is no rationally denying that.

I agree. However, and funny enough I was just having this discussion with my father this morning about this is that one cannot discount enthusiasm. What do I mean by that? I mean if one person is unenthused and pulls the lever for that candidate vs someone who is super enthusiastic, it all counts the same, right? BUT, a person who is enthused is much more apt to want to help volunteer and campaign for that candidate. By helping canvassing and knocking on doors, working at a phone bank, urging friends and family members to go and vote for their candidate. So there is an added residual effect that comes along with that enthusiasm. Obama has his base of supporters that love him to death, Romney had far fewer. Hillary is not someone who has that grass roots strength that Obama did, and I don't see Hillary getting as many votes in the African American community, Hispanic, youth and hard core progressives that Obama had. Do you?

The term RHINO's are usually used by intransigent hard-heads who have no earthly idea of the concept of governing. Half the country is made up of those who are in the middle or lean to the left, the other half are those that are in the middle or lean to the right. Purists, who I consider to be toxic to the political process expect the government to be run completely to one side. So, when I see that the term RHINO is used for someone that these hard-heads disagree with on a few issues, yet on at least 85% of the rest of the issues they agree on, and then decide to sit out the elections or disparage these "RHINO's" simply because they aren't as pure as they are. Well.... I just happen to believe not only is it impractical but completely counter productive. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

The only victor here are the Iranian Ayatollah's . Success!!!

When you say Rhino's, I take that as the adults in the room.

My view on this issue has certainly evolved, specially after the birth of my daughter. My own personal litmus view of the matter is once it has a heart beat, then that's the cutoff. It would be murder at that point.

What do you believe the author would propose as a solution?

You mean to tell me that an anti war author editorialized his advocacy of no war with no named or identified sources other than " local tribesman"? That's some compelling stuff right there.

A GOP candidate or even president for that matter is about 12-20 years away from that happening.

I know you were being serious, I wasn't. But I actually like Scarborough and Rubin. I think too many people make caricatures of certain people because they aren't the "pure" pundits or pols that their peers perceive them to be. I think that's a shame, but it is what it is. I hadn't seen her views on Rubio, but I'd figure she'd support him mainly for a few reasons, he's reasonable, policy driven and a hawk. Rubin, is a hawk. Even though she does go overboard for her disdain for tea party people. I mainly think that is a reaction she receives from these folks with their negative comments that she must read in the posts on a daily basis. She takes it personally.

I don't know, maybe........ Nothing?? It seemed that way. I don't know if you remember or not, but there were some indirect but not so subtle comments that pretty much showed some of the receivers views of EJ.

Yeah, but she's a "RINO Establishment " type. So that doesn't count.

What say you, GreggyT?

Snopes is legit

Well now we know where the true resident conservative Baskin, gets his news. GAWKER

Can she be any phonier? Seriously, if you are a Democrat you've got to be concerned with how poorly they have been projecting Hillary. I'm sure there are some supporters that are sweating bullets right about now.

If Greg is from California, then that is exactly what he is doing. I can relate as that most of my friends pretty much everywhere I lived, be it Miami, Bolivia or California are uber liberals. It's easy to believe that society is reflective of your surrounding environment. Reality is that if you are a pro traditional marriage candidate, as long as you don't come out overtly offensive and propose restrictions that are seeing as hostile you can thread the needle. Don't get me wrong, most voting electorates are pretty ignorant and vapid and usually go with style over substance, but we aren't THAT vapid to make a determination of who is to be our president on that particular single issue.