1 - 9
Harris v. Quinn was bad for women? Wasn't the plaintiff a... WOMAN??? So by ruling in her favor, the Court injured women?
With all due respect, Tom Tancredo is one of the few people I would say really is anti-immigrant, not just anti-illegal-immigrant. I remember hearing him on a talk show here in LA some years ago, and he not only railed against illegal immigrants, he even railed against legal immigrants such as those on H1B visas, calling them "job-stealers" who should be deported. Speaking as an immigrant who is now a naturalized American and who contributes to our nation's economy, I was infuriated to have him lump me and others like me into the same bucket as illegal immigrants. Tancredo's demonizing of immigrants of all stripes is the LAST thing we should be putting forward as the face of the Republican party.
Is that $10,000 in 1862 dollars or today's dollars? If it's 1862 dollars, then the situation is even worse when we compare that to today's tax rates.
My point was not about the merits of the particular bill. My point was about the absurdity of saying that if we want to win the presidency, we should not nominate someone who actually has a record on issues and instead nominate a blank slate like Obama was. Are we such cowards that we think a president should be someone who has never taken an unpopular stand on anything? Is that what you call leadership?
So Byron York thinks that presidential aspirants nowadays must be blank slates who avoid taking tough positions on issues lest it erode their popularity with voters? If that is where we are as a nation, we are too far gone. Would Margaret Thatcher be remembered as magnanimously today if that had been her approach to seeking the prime ministership? I, for one, want leaders and statesmen who actually try to address our nation's challenges, thereby demonstrating that they deserve to hold higher office, rather than blank slates with no achievements who spend their presidency floundering from one issue to the next.
I still do not understand how, if this was supposed to be a year of such energized Republican enthusiasm, Romney barely managed to exceed McCain's vote total by 1 million votes. Guy, Hugh Hewitt, and others repeatedly said that the pollsters' D+6 turnout models were rubbish given the enthusiasm on our side. Well, apparently they were not rubbish in light of the actual result. Where did all the supposedly "enthusiastic" Republicans go on election day? Why didn't they show up to vote?
The quotation in the article by Rob Seubert is exactly what my first reaction was upon reading of the original publication of names. I said to myself, "Great! If I'm a criminal who wants to rob a house, you just gave me a helpful roadmap of which ones will make the easiest targets." Can you say "backfire?"
"Conservative statisticians should develop their own modelers." How about the University of Colorado model that has been right in every election dating back to 1980 and predicts a Romney win: http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university
In response to:

WaPo/ABC News Poll: Romney 50, Obama 47

PhilipGOP Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 11:48 AM
If Romney ends up leading by 3 points or so nationally, is it possible to have a repeat of 2000 with a split result in the EC vs. popular vote? In 2000, Gore only won the popular vote by 500,000 votes, or 0.5%, and neither Gore nor Bush reached 50%.
1 - 9