Magox

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.

Honestly, I think you have a problem with comprehending what you read. That's not what he said. Re read it again, and I'm not going to spell it out for you, just read it and comprehend. I provided the link for you. And you believing that this litmus test somehow is the determining factor is vapid TMZ style. I'd agree with you if he were someone who wore this issue on a sleeve or had red hot rhetoric on the topic or proposed legislation that restricted gay marriages to occur on a federal level. But that simply isn't the case. My parents, who aren't bigots are Catholics. They believe a gay couple shouldn't marry in church. That's what the bible says and that's what they were taught to believe. I disagree with them, mainly because I'm not a religious person. Although I disagree with their position, I respect it because that's what the bible that they followed all their lives taught them to believe. That's the adult thing to do. That's what well-reasoned people do. They agreeably disagree and the vast majority of people don't see this as the or one of the defining issues that help them determine who is to be the next president. Specially when the argument for traditional marriage is done in an amicable, non offensive way such as: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/marco-rubio-defends-gays-attacks-gay-marriage And please, can you not at least have one complete post that is well-reasoned and doesn't contain any mistruths?

Oh, so it was ok if you held that position a few years ago, so that Obama could get elected (was his calculation) but not so today? Do you really not see how ridiculous that sounds? You aren't making sense...

Gay marriage? It's the same stance that Obama had just a few years ago. Over gay couples that give immigration rights? Sorry, you are going to have to dig deeper than that, specially considering that it was a just recently held position by the president. No, that's not what he said. Again, I have to correct the record. This is becoming very common for me to have to do with alot of you. You really should do more research before you post. Seriously.

For many reasons. He is universally known on both sides of the aisle as a policy driven person. I keep up with this ****, and I've seen him in Q&A's and he has absolute mastery and command of anything to do with policy. That's his strong suit and he'd much rather be discussing policy than getting on the stump and delivering one-line zinger red meat that appeals to the base.

A few things. Rubio isn't your Huckabee, Santorum or Cruz sort of pol. I don't know where you guys are coming up with this. This is actually the first time I've really heard anyone attempt to put him in that category of a religious conservative. I can tell you right now, that wouldn't be what derails him. You can bet on that. In regards to running to the right of Jeb, well....he is to the right of Jeb. That's not a bad thing, that's just who he is. Don't get me wrong, I believe Jeb is the most thoughtful and policy driven pol running, but I realize the distinct possibility that he probably won't win the primaries, and even if he did many conservatives would sit out the elections much like they did with Romney. So i'm probably not going to hitch my wagons with him for that reason alone. I'm curious to know, which social conservative stances does he have that are too far out there? In regards to a bruising primary, I don't see this one playing out that way. Sure, the last one was damaging to Romney, simply because the other candidates weren't viable and the incoming he received made him awkwardly position himself to the right of where he really stood. I happen to believe that in this very contested primary filled with quality candidates that the cream will rise to the top. I see them coming out of this battle-tested whereas Hillary will most-likely continue to be a very rusty candidate.

For the record, I do think Scott Walker will win the primary, unless he continues to flub much like he did about a month or so ago. I just see a very difficult path to the nomination for Rubio. My argument is that he is the best suited to beat Hillary in a match up and that most people who are policy makers and people who actually follow this stuff know him to be a very substantive person. No, the only posts you made were false. You said he was against immigration reform, which is wholly untrue. And you made another untrue claim that is refuted by most people that he lacks substance. You aren't to be taken seriously. Let me rephrase what I said, Hillary will be the weakest Democratic politician nominee since Mondale. She comes across as very stiff and phony, yet the fact that she is a well-known politician and a female, will make her more formidable than she really should be.