Just as in 2010 the party faithful show little interest in voting...but with one important difference:

Originally Posted by Huffington Post

WASHINGTON — Voter turnout numbers are pointing to a potential enthusiasm deficit for Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney.

In the four states to vote so far in the GOP nominating race, turnout has been strongest where people were energized to vote for somebody else.

In Florida, where Romney grabbed a commanding 46 percent of the vote this week, overall turnout was down significantly from four years ago. A county-by-county look at the Florida numbers shows that turnout was up from four years ago in counties where rival Newt Gingrich did well and down in counties where Romney dominated, according to Michael McDonald, a professor at George Mason University who runs the United States Elections Project to track election data.

Romney is winning, McDonald said, "but the fact that he's not really lighting a fire for these voters should be a warning sign for the campaign."

In South Carolina, where Gingrich trounced Romney, turnout was up considerably, from 445,000 four years ago to 606,000.

"Certainly the heat and energy in South Carolina was for Newt Gingrich," said Katon Dawson, a former state Republican chairman who backs Gingrich. "It takes heat and emotion to win a national contest." Whether Romney can generate the same kind of passion, Dawson said, "depends on how he campaigns from now on."

Turnout was up slightly in the first two states to vote: New Hampshire, where Romney had an easy win, and Iowa, where former Sen. Rick Santorum edged out Romney by the slimmest of margins. Democrats were quick to point out that independent voters helped set those turnout records, and President Barack Obama's campaign will be competing for those voters in the fall...


....McDonald, the George Mason professor, said Romney turns out more voters in large urban centers and suburban areas, while Gingrich shines in rural areas. No matter who gets the nomination, he says, "that candidate's going to have to heal some wounds within the party" to generate the broad kind of turnout needed to prevail in the fall.

I'll say (write) it again. The evangelical base of the Republican Party can not and will not vote for a Mormon for a top office.






http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1250601.html

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I'll say (write) it again. The evangelical base of the Republican Party can not and will not vote for a Mormon for a top office.

Well damn, they can't vote for Obama either! I guess they'll just have to stay home

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Just as in 2010 the party faithful show little interest in voting...but with one important difference:



I'll say (write) it again. The evangelical base of the Republican Party can not and will not vote for a Mormon for a top office.






http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1250601.html

That was sure proven in our state yesterday.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

In my opinion, the social and economic parting between left-right, progressive-conservative, the haves- want what you haves without the work and expense, the earners-the social entitled, the self proclaimed intellectuals and the so-called idiots who manage and are able to make intelligent decissions on their own or whatever terms apply is just a matter of time. I can already see the split with the millies between those who have earned and those who think/feel or have been taught that they're simply entitled is just a matter of time.

"More trickle-down economics"

Not that there's any hope for you, but time and again the falsehoods of your (yes, it's idiotic) free-market ideology have to be debunked and exposed. Gen Xers like yourself are more subject to this Reaganoid deception than any other generation, because you grew up with it; Millies are least so, since (unlike individualist and survivalist Gen Xers) they have a sense of institutional or social responsibility and network collegiality. Your ideology is on the way out; it's a matter of time.

Welfare and social security etc. are social insurance programs. They are not there to provide income to those who refuse to work. It is there for you and I and any of us who, through no fault of their own, fall on hard times; such as those who lost their jobs because the guys you so admire gambled with the American economy and screwed it up for all of us. It helps us, and helps the economy. Starvation on the street does not.

Most people don't go on welfare because they don't want to work; there is too little income from welfare for it to be an incentive. Most people on welfare are required to work. Most who receive assistance also work, but because this economy so favors the wealthy, and unions have been decimated, good paying jobs are too hard to find for most people today.

Having everyone pay a share of taxes for the commonwealth, makes sure that everyone does their share, instead of a few picking up the whole tab. This also makes it less expensive for each person, so people have more money to spend on other things, and thus boost the economy. This is especially true regarding health care. Bankruptcies due to high health insurance costs and uncovered medical problems does not help the economy OR the individual.

Most people who are "entitled" to "entitlements," are so "entitled" because they have paid for them.

Most people who get lots of income have not "earned" it; it is mostly unearned income, and even more, it is high salaries which they can collect because they have the power to do so.

Under trickle-down economics, those who work the most (the middle class) pay the most in taxes, compared to the income they need for living expenses.

Health reform was done because it will be better for businesses, who are going bankrupt trying to provide private insurance, which doesn't even cover our health needs.

Letting the rich have all the breaks, does not benefit the economy. That leads to concentration of wealth and power (oligarchy/banana republic), which is why we have an income tax. The economy grows when all classes and income groups have enough to spend, which provides customers for businesses.

Get it? I thought not. I guess you're not a "self proclaimed intellectual"....

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Are you kidding me, Canada is RICH in natural resources like oil, lumber, natural gas, minerals, fish, wildlife, ect.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in explaining why Canada has so few people for its area -- that it has so little land suitable for farming. The Prairie Provinces south of a line from about Edmonton to Winnipeg? Sure. A few patches of British Columbia? Sure. Southernmost Ontario and the St. Lawrence River Valley? Sure. Most of Canada has a small population because of the short growing (frost-free) seasons that generally preclude successful agriculture. The good growing areas have either Dfa climates (cold winters and hot summers -- like southern Ontario), Dfb (cold winters and long cool summers -- like Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Montreal), BSk (inadequate rainfall, cold winters and warm-to-hot summers, OK for farming but only if irrigated -- like Calgary), or Cfb (cool winters and mild summers, adequate rainfall -- like Vancouver). The rest is mostly Dfc (subarctic -- short summers that can allow slow-growing trees to flourish but little else) or ET (tundra -- too cold even for pine trees, let alone crops). The Cfc zone sounds nice until you recognize that most of it is on steep slopes unsuited to crops.

People generally live where the agriculture is good.

A country that has a small population and a huge base of resources to sell can have a nice GDP per capita -- like Libya or Saudi Arabia. Such countries usually have costly infrastructure for the population, high costs of transportation, and a tendency for leaders to loot the resources for show projects and the support of 'revolutionary' causes. Canada is too civilized to support 'revolutionary' causes, but transportation of natural resources elsewhere isn't as cheap as it is in the American South.

BTW, I'm not totally opposed to socialized medicine. The problem is that it's not economically feasible or viable or overall viewed as needed at this time. We can barely afford medicare. The issue with you and others like you is that you are unable to see or think in terms of the BIG PICTURE.

The private sector of our medical-payment business is a profits-first, cost-loading system. We have the most expensive system of paying for medical care in the world. Medicare and Medicaid operate at lower levels of cost per patient. As it is, Medicare is a godsend for the elderly. We have it because the medical insurance racket didn't want the high-cost elderly patients whose ability to pay premiums that generally overpower their incomes ensures that they would not otherwise get medical care.

Profits-first, cost-loading systems imply high costs and poor service. Such is so eve because our physicians have the lowest income taxes for people of the profession in the world. Of course physicians know that if they treat the uninsured they might not get paid.

Our profits-first, cost-loading system does not lead to innovative improvements. The innovative improvements in medicine come from medical research in universities and the federal government, and not from the insurance companies. Of course it is difficult to remove a lucrative layer of bureaucracy from an industry if that industry (which is nothing more than a for-profit bureaucracy) is to be bypassed.

The pharmaceutical cartel is incredibly lucrative, charging Americans far more than what non-Americans pay. I know of people who get their pharmaceuticals in Canada or Mexico, countries that don't allow the price-fixing that the stooge politicians deem appropriate for collecting funds for re-election. We do not have a free-market system in medicine; we have a system rigged for politically-connected entities that can maximize profit by charging monopoly prices.

Personally speaking, I prefer profit based over government because I believe that you get what you pay for. I also believe in individual control and freedom. I'm a very capable person and I don't mind taking on the responsibility of finding and providing affordable healthcare for me and my family. All I need to do that is have a true free market system in place. I will find it (it being quality affordable health insurance) or it will find me. BTW, the chances are more likely that it will find me than me finding it. I didn't find my credit cards. The credit card companies found me so to speak.

Inexpensive medical coverage will no more find you than an inexpensive mink stole will find you. Of course, you don't need a mink stole, but you will have much woe if you are priced out of medical care. You might DIE! Or you will be in so much debt that you will have to lose everything through bankruptcy or become simply a money machine for the service of lenders.

As for the 'perfect free market system', I can think of a 'perfect island' at 38N and 165W -- it would be a stable island resembling Oahu left over from a volcanic arc , only with the climate of San Francisco. Being perfect it also has the quality of existence, with which it could not be imagined. The problem is that there is no island at such a location. Neither do we have a perfect free-market system.

In my opinion, the social and economic parting between left-right, progressive-conservative, the haves- want what you haves without the work and expense, the earners-the social entitled, the self proclaimed intellectuals and the so-called idiots who manage and are able to make intelligent decisions on their own or whatever terms apply is just a matter of time. I can already see the split with the millies between those who have earned and those who think/feel or have been taught that they're simply entitled is just a matter of time.

Our economic system increasingly imposes responsibilities upon the Little Man to enrich the economic elites who get ever-increasing privilege with lessening responsibility toward the rest of humanity. I do not deny that the Millennial generation isn't already split between those who earn and get little and those who end up destitute. The working poor is the fastest-growing class in America. But the Millennial generation, competent as Howe and Strauss describe them, is not yet faring as well as Generation X is. Young Millennial adults either end up among the working poor or -- if they have middle-incomes, find those incomes saddled with increasing debt -- largely private debt -- for college and vocational training. They are not accumulating wealth as the middle class and even the semi-skilled segment of the working class used to. American workers are working harder and longer for less despite greater efficiencies in business and technological improvements.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

"More trickle-down economics"

Not that there's any hope for you, but time and again the falsehoods of your (yes, it's idiotic) free-market ideology have to be debunked and exposed. Gen Xers like yourself are more subject to this Reaganoid deception than any other generation, because you grew up with it; Millies are least so, since (unlike individualist and survivalist Gen Xers) they have a sense of institutional or social responsibility and network collegiality. Your ideology is on the way out; it's a matter of time.

Welfare and social security etc. are social insurance programs. They are not there to provide income to those who refuse to work. It is there for you and I and any of us who, through no fault of their own, fall on hard times; such as those who lost their jobs because the guys you so admire gambled with the American economy and screwed it up for all of us. It helps us, and helps the economy. Starvation on the street does not.

Most people don't go on welfare because they don't want to work; there is too little income from welfare for it to be an incentive. Most people on welfare are required to work. Most who receive assistance also work, but because this economy so favors the wealthy, and unions have been decimated, good paying jobs are too hard to find for most people today.

Having everyone pay a share of taxes for the commonwealth, makes sure that everyone does their share, instead of a few picking up the whole tab. This also makes it less expensive for each person, so people have more money to spend on other things, and thus boost the economy. This is especially true regarding health care. Bankruptcies due to high health insurance costs and uncovered medical problems does not help the economy OR the individual.

Most people who are "entitled" to "entitlements," are so "entitled" because they have paid for them.

Most people who get lots of income have not "earned" it; it is mostly unearned income, and even more, it is high salaries which they can collect because they have the power to do so.

Under trickle-down economics, those who work the most (the middle class) pay the most in taxes, compared to the income they need for living expenses.

Health reform was done because it will be better for businesses, who are going bankrupt trying to provide private insurance, which doesn't even cover our health needs.

Letting the rich have all the breaks, does not benefit the economy. That leads to concentration of wealth and power (oligarchy/banana republic), which is why we have an income tax. The economy grows when all classes and income groups have enough to spend, which provides customers for businesses.

Get it? I thought not. I guess you're not a "self proclaimed intellectual"....

True, you'll never convince me because I've done pretty well under voo-doo economics. BTW, the economy grows when the majority of people have confidence in their futures and most people have more than enough money to spend.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

"More trickle-down economics"

Not that there's any hope for you, but time and again the falsehoods of your (yes, it's idiotic) free-market ideology have to be debunked and exposed. Gen Xers like yourself are more subject to this Reaganoid deception than any other generation, because you grew up with it; Millies are least so, since (unlike individualist and survivalist Gen Xers) they have a sense of institutional or social responsibility and network collegiality. Your ideology is on the way out; it's a matter of time.

The "market miracle" is the wishful thinking of the Hard Right. If anything that Howe and Strauss say about the generational cycle is at all right, then the Millennial generation will insist upon social justice instead of having faith in the generosity of the selfish, the kindness of the cruel, the wisdom of the foolish, and the integrity of the dishonest.

Welfare and social security etc. are social insurance programs. They are not there to provide income to those who refuse to work. It is there for you and I and any of us who, through no fault of their own, fall on hard times; such as those who lost their jobs because the guys you so admire gambled with the American economy and screwed it up for all of us. It helps us, and helps the economy. Starvation on the street does not.

As reality proves, it is such welfare-state socialism as we have that has resuscitated the economy. Occupy Wall Street may have its cranks, but just imagine what sorts of ideologies would flourish if we had people dying of hunger and cold despite the ostentatious splendor of American elites. The welfare state is one of the most effective bastions against a proletarian revolution -- and far more humane than private, politicized militias that would shoot anyone on command.

Most people don't go on welfare because they don't want to work; there is too little income from welfare for it to be an incentive. Most people on welfare are required to work. Most who receive assistance also work, but because this economy so favors the wealthy, and unions have been decimated, good paying jobs are too hard to find for most people today.

As I said, the fastest-growing class in America is the working poor -- people paid a travesty of an income for real work. The elites of America have nothing to offer us but the command "Suffer more -- but be sure to count your blessings, all of which come from our noble selves!" As an aside, I once got the curiosity to look into the minds of the worst exploiters that America ever tolerated, the slave-owning planters. They never thought of themselves as the equivalents of Simon Legree even if they were. Most saw themselves as "benefactors" to "their people" (that is, their slaves).

Having everyone pay a share of taxes for the commonwealth, makes sure that everyone does their share, instead of a few picking up the whole tab. This also makes it less expensive for each person, so people have more money to spend on other things, and thus boost the economy. This is especially true regarding health care. Bankruptcies due to high health insurance costs and uncovered medical problems does not help the economy OR the individual.

We may yet go through an economic crisis that forces America to abandon profits-first economics. We will end up with very different arrangements. We have solved no economic questions whose non-solutions have only festered. Our economic pathologies have powerful backers. Think of how hard it can be to extricate a community from the Mafia.

Most people who are "entitled" to "entitlements," are so "entitled" because they have paid for them.

Most people who get lots of income have not "earned" it; it is mostly unearned income, and even more, it is high salaries which they can collect because they have the power to do so.

I have no problem with the idea that the only people (or almost the only people) who should get rich are capitalists. Maybe I concede that one needs to have ample rewards to get the best actors to Hollywood or the Broadway stage rather than find comfort in little theater, that athletes be paid enough that they not be tempted to throw games on behalf of crooked gamblers, that rock stars get paid enough to go on tour to places like Duluth and Lubbock, and that those who manage risk well and create profundity get amply rewarded.

The American economy ran better when executives were often workingmen made good instead of the sultans or pharaohs that they now are.

Under trickle-down economics, those who work the most (the middle class) pay the most in taxes, compared to the income they need for living expenses.

Health reform was done because it will be better for businesses, who are going bankrupt trying to provide private insurance, which doesn't even cover our health needs.

Private health insurance became a license to loot everyone else. Exempt from economic competition and entitled to cost-plus pricing, it has no incentive for either innovation or economy.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

True, you'll never convince me because I've done pretty well under voo-doo economics.

I imagine that's a good reason (if your own fortune is your only criteria, that is).

BTW, the economy grows when the majority of people have confidence in their futures and most people have more than enough money to spend.

I agree with that; that's the opposite state of affairs from what trickle-down, voodoo economics creates.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

True, you'll never convince me because I've done pretty well under voo-doo economics. BTW, the economy grows when the majority of people have confidence in their futures and most people have more than enough money to spend.

Oddly enough, I've personally done much better when Republicans have been in the White House than when Democrats have been there. The Clinton years, in particular, were one huge black hole for me employment-wise.

More recently, I landed my present job a few months before the 2000 election - and lost my health insurance about six months after Obama was inaugurated! (Kaiser dropped the group health plan we were on).

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Oddly enough, I've personally done much better when Republicans have been in the White House than when Democrats have been there. The Clinton years, in particular, were one huge black hole for me employment-wise.

More recently, I landed my present job a few months before the 2000 election - and lost my health insurance about six months after Obama was inaugurated! (Kaiser dropped the group health plan we were on).

I think individual circumstances can very. There are always outliers. My husband had his top earning year last year and the country is coming out of one of the worse economic times in my lifetime. Plus we, personally, have not suffered during the last recession. Truth be told, we did better in those years than we ever had. So I think you have to look around at how the average American's are doing at different given times.

I guess the way that the recession effected me was that I worried he might end up being laid off since there were a lot of people of at his company that did get the axe, plus his company was sold twice during the recession. So that put me on edge. I also did cut back on luxury spending and saved just in case something were to happen to his job. So even though we were doing ok financially, we weren't pumping money into the economy like perhaps we may have if there hadn't have been a recession.

Disclaimer: This is *not* in response to anyone here, it is merely something that needs to be said and then pondered by each and everyone of us. There is apparently no true left remaining in this country. We have bought into the very policies that we once protested under Bush and Cheney.

Progressive Hypocrisy?

The Democratic Party owes a sincere apology to George Bush, Dick Cheney and company for enthusiastically embracing many of the very Terrorism policies which caused them to hurl such vehement invective at the GOP for all those years. And progressives who support the views of the majority as expressed by this poll should never be listened to again the next time they want to pretend to oppose civilian slaughter and civil liberties assaults when perpetrated by the next Republican President (it should be noted that roughly 35% of liberals, a non-trivial amount, say they oppose these Obama policies).

One final point: I’ve often made the case that one of the most consequential aspects of the Obama legacy is that he has transformed what was once known as “right-wing shredding of the Constitution” into bipartisan consensus, and this is exactly what I mean.

When one of the two major parties supports a certain policy and the other party pretends to oppose it — as happened with these radical War on Terror policies during the Bush years — then public opinion is divisive on the question, sharply split. But once the policy becomes the hallmark of both political parties, then public opinion becomes robust in support of it. That’s because people assume that if both political parties support a certain policy that it must be wise, and because policies that enjoy the status of bipartisan consensus are removed from the realm of mainstream challenge. That’s what Barack Obama has done to these Bush/Cheney policies: he has, as Jack Goldsmith predicted he would back in 2009, shielded and entrenched them as standard U.S. policy for at least a generation, and (by leading his supporters to embrace these policies as their own) has done so with far more success than any GOP President ever could have dreamed of achieving.

UPDATE: The Advocacy Center for Equality and Democracy documents how much public opinion has changed on these issues under (and as a result of) the Obama presidency: “under the leadership of a President who campaigned with the promise to close the facility, . . . support for the detention center may be at its highest level ever.”

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repu...ive_hypocrisy/

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Aren't you one of those who are always advocating pulling a few trillion out of the economy to pay for what you want to add or would like to see more of as far as government services?

Not paying attention, are ya?

If what you mean is that I believe the federal govt needs to tax anyone more to gain the federal spending that I believe we need, then the answer is "no." You can check a host of my posts on the matter, but bottom line - we need more federal DEFICIT spending; increasing taxes kinda diminishes that outcome, no?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

BTW, under the gold standard, we wouldn't have to pay off the Chinese overlords with your real assets or loss of government services. I mentioned your real assets because the world knows that we will defend and inflict to high of a price in treasure and human life to aquire ours.

Maybe think about this a little more? Our current trade deficit with China results in their having a soverign account at our Federal Reserve. They change most of that from non-interest bearing securities (i.e. dollars) to interest-bearing securities (i.e. Treasuries) - in either case, what we owe them is paper that we alone have a monopoly to issue - as much or as little AS WE CHOOSE.

Now, go on the gold standard and the Chinese can demand payment in that commodity (see French, 1971). If we don't have enough gold to pay them, then we will have to get some by trading other hard assets for it. Under such circumstances, we will have to raise both taxes and interest rates substantially to avoid hyperinflation of our currency. Just exactly what do you think that will do to our economy?

This is not rocket science. That is why I am so astonished that so many people are so incredibly dumb enough to take a clown like Paul seriously.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Well damn, they can't vote for Obama either! I guess they'll just have to stay home

They will vote for whoever Dr. James Dobson throws his weight behind.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I growing tired of lofty intellectuals like yourself telling me that a $50.00 contribution towards a company provided plan costs more or will be better than the $200.00 they will be dishing out for the individual policey that will eventually replace their current plan. But, don't worry it's just the working class who is going to screwed at first. The majority of small business will drop Health insurance. But like all things set into motion, progression will eventually take hold and remove all existing plans that are currently provided including union and public sector employees. You're going to have a hard sell when reality takes hold.

i start at the beginning. Why does anyone have to pay anybody to get sufficent health care? I'm a single payer guy.

Barring that (because of the stupidity of about 1/2 the people in this country), then I'm about why anyone should find it difficult to pay the $200 - they should be gainfully employed or self-employed with wages far more than adequate to pay for sufficent health care coverage.

I don't buy into the premise of your overlords.

Originally Posted by pizal81

They will vote for whoever Dr. James Dobson throws his weight behind.

In all seriousness, is there anyone out there on the Republican side who would be acceptable to the social conservatives, the neocons, the Tea Party, and the GOP establishment?

Where is the next George W. Bush?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

In all seriousness, is there anyone out there on the Republican side who would be acceptable to the social conservatives, the neocons, the Tea Party, and the GOP establishment?

Where is the next George W. Bush?

They were digging this guy up -



- but realized with his previous tax raises, progressive immigration policies, compromising on entitlement, etc. etc. he was way way too liberal.

I think they're now going for this guy -



- yea, not as pretty as Romney but he does have his head out of the sand.

However, some of the Ron Paul types are believe to be moving naturally to this alternative -

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

In all seriousness, is there anyone out there on the Republican side who would be acceptable to the social conservatives, the neocons, the Tea Party, and the GOP establishment?

Where is the next George W. Bush?

This a trick question?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

In all seriousness, is there anyone out there on the Republican side who would be acceptable to the social conservatives, the neocons, the Tea Party, and the GOP establishment?

Where is the next George W. Bush?

Wasn't that supposed to be Fred Thompson or Rick Perry?

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

This a trick question?

No, not a trick. The GOP can't seem to coalesce around any of their announced candidates. GWB seems to have been the last person who could appeal to all of their factions.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

No, not a trick. The GOP can't seem to coalesce around any of their announced candidates. GWB seems to have been the last person who could appeal to all of their factions.

Which reminds me. .there have been whispers that JEB is giving the situation some thought. . . .

OMG, I've just read that Santorum is a member of Opus Dei. Another reason this creep needs to be kept away from the White House

Originally Posted by Odin

OMG, I've just read that Santorum is a member of Opus Dei. Another reason this creep needs to be kept away from the White House

I'm sorry Odin, but that's like saying that members of the Shriners are bad Masons & should be kept away from the White House.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I'm sorry Odin, but that's like saying that members of the Shriners are bad Masons & should be kept away from the White House.

~Chas'88

If he was a member of "Promise Keepers" I'd assassinate him myself. (Sarcasm) In case the FBI really is watching.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

In all seriousness, is there anyone out there on the Republican side who would be acceptable to the social conservatives, the neocons, the Tea Party, and the GOP establishment?

Where is the next George W. Bush?

One thing I've notice looking at evangelicals on the whole is they seem to be willing to sacrifice a lot as far as beliefs go as long as the person is pro-life and is some form of acceptable "Christian". Mormonism doesn't fit into this and they'll never vote for him. If he wasn't a mormon he would be money, though.
The funny thing is he can't just up and renounce Mormonism because it would be too obvious that he was doing it for votes.

Your point is right the Republican party is way too divided to have a candidate that garners a lot of support from the base. I think it is crazy though how much misinformation about Obama is out there or the right. As long as, people are talking like that and not even beginning to understand what a person is doing or trying to do we are hopeless to solve any problems whether one agrees with said person. Basically, the characterization of Obama on the right is one big straw man.

Originally Posted by pizal81

One thing I've notice looking at evangelicals on the whole is they seem to be willing to sacrifice a lot as far as beliefs go as long as the person is pro-life and is some form of acceptable "Christian". Mormonism doesn't fit into this and they'll never vote for him. If he wasn't a mormon he would be money, though.
The funny thing is he can't just up and renounce Mormonism because it would be too obvious that he was doing it for votes.

Your point is right the Republican party is way too divided to have a candidate that garners a lot of support from the base. I think it is crazy though how much misinformation about Obama is out there or the right. As long as, people are talking like that and not even beginning to understand what a person is doing or trying to do we are hopeless to solve any problems whether one agrees with said person. Basically, the characterization of Obama on the right is one big straw man.

Well, I don't think that his faith matters much to independants. Obama has a track record this time around. The independants will be voting on his track record as President. Romney will pull the trigger on terrorists so they're equal as far as that is concerned. I don't view Romney as being a threat to anyones religion or religious freedom in general. Obama has failed to control spending. Obama has failed to grow the economy. Obama has proven himself to be a rather weak leader. He has managed to gain no political pull or traction with those on the right.