Previous 11 - 20 Next
I don't always think its an establishment/non-establishment thing. Its the candidate himself or herself. We could have gotten rid of Harry Reid several years back with Tea Party candidate Sharron Reid. She was just a bad candidate....it doesn't mean that all Tea Party Candidates are bad, nor does it mean that all mainstream Republican candidates are. But I don't know the NC race as well and hope Tillis can somehow step up his game.
Its funny that all these liberals are flocking to red states and now making them purple...why....because conservative policies that they don't agree with are bringing about the jobs and opportunities they can't find in their blue states.
I didn't watch the debate, but judging the commentary provided here, it doesn't sound like Tillis performed very well. What is going on in North Carolina, a state that used to be solid red. Even it its purple now, given how pathetic Obama had done, and how much Hagan has voted with him, how is she even in this thing?
In response to:

10 Things to Know for Today

Future In Our Hands Wrote: Sep 05, 2014 8:38 AM
Here's a question for the townhall staff....what's going on with Scott Walker in Wisconsin. Polling out today has him down 4, and when you look at the trend lines, it appears his opponent has begun to peak at just the right time. I know Wisconsin leans a bit to the left, and his past races have been close, but if he has a good enough story to tell, I would think he would be walking away with this election. If he would lose this 2014 campaign, that severely damages his 2016 prospects.
In response to:

Ted Cruz 2016?

Future In Our Hands Wrote: Sep 03, 2014 11:55 AM
I don't think Obama ever had Presidential potential. He was good at giving speeches. He and Romney are polar opposites....Obama seeks out extreme positions and would rather increase partisanship to pass something his way than try to reach across the aisle. He likes the campaigning and speechmaking/celebrity side of the position. Romney on the other hand hates campaigning and is not good at it. He just wants to get his hands dirty and get to work, which is what he has done his whole life. When I look at Cruz, I see a man that is more into himself than his country, that likes the attention like Obama, and has staked out territory at the extremes to appease his most ardent supporters while alienating the middle. That is a good strategy to continue winning in deep red Texas for Senate, but not so much for a national campaign.
In response to:

Ted Cruz 2016?

Future In Our Hands Wrote: Sep 03, 2014 9:38 AM
Walker has a much better chance of winning a national election than Cruz....if he can win this November. Polls have that race tight currently. Cruz is just so far out there that he may appeal to hard core extremists, but would not be taken seriously on the national stage. Plus, Walker has been able to get results in Wisconsin with a highly Democractic legislator...Cruz has shown no ability to work with others in Washington and has chosen a path of self-promotion any chance he can get.
What? So you spend time bashing Romney only to then say you support Paul, who would be less hawkish on world affairs that Obama has been? Not only has our standing in this world declined, we are at greater risk now than anytime since 9/11 of being attacked in this country. I prefer a President who is willing to be tough against enemies, and go on offense. Not one who will cower to the enemies like Paul would.
In response to:

Ted Cruz 2016?

Future In Our Hands Wrote: Sep 02, 2014 2:44 PM
The mainstream media and lefties would be salivating over a Ted Cruz nomination. He's taken virtually every extreme position possible, and demonstrated a complete inability to work with others to get things done in Washington. He is to the right what Obama is to the left, which is not a good thing for this country.
So do you honestly think someone like Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin would draw in more votes. That would alienate moderate Republicans and Independents along with blacks, Hispanics, gays, and women. There seems to be a thought process on this site that the candidate with the most extreme views will somehow magically get the support of a majority of the nation that does not agree with those extreme views.
Annfan-Give me a break. You are arguing on marginal items like whether he went on a talk show with Rush or worked with Sarah Palin? Really? That is your litmus test to a candidate running on a Conservative Platform? If you look at my original comment (below), I said that Romney took more Conservative positions than any candidate since Reagan. So that would be Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43, and McCain. Are you disagreeing with this? ORGINAL POST While I agree that Romney was not a natural campaigner, he ran the most Conservative campaign since Reagan, and was able to articulate that Conservative vision very clearly in all 3 debates. Just a few positions he took that should resonate with all Conservatives: 1. Eliminate Obamacare 2. Favored standard marriage 3. Opposed amnesty (remember self-deportation) 4. Pro-growth anti tax fiscal policies 5. Sought to reduce government's role across the board 6. Argued for a tougher foreign policy and was right about many events happening abroad today. If you ask me, this was a pretty Conservative platform he ran on. Which of these issues do you not agree with his position on in the campaign?
Please elaborate on what he did not have the balls to do?
Previous 11 - 20 Next