Well, duh. Just what we need. More liberals in the "conservative" party.
Question 1, will they pick up more liberals than the conservatives they drive out with their support for abortion rights, gay rights, illegal alien rights, gun control, etc?
Question 2, when was the last time you actually supported conservative candidates or causes? Do you even know what conservative causes are?
Thank you. Donation on the way.
Well, I would say that defeating Hillary is a prime conservative cause — along with lower taxes, smaller government, national security, protection of the Constitution.
Politics is the art of possible — if the personal view of the President about abortion were so important, why do we still have Roe v Wade, despite of multiple pro-life presidents? IMO, we need to focus on what the president CAN actually impact.
An example of how a less than conservative person really helped conservative ideas is Arnold, who is being bashed as not conservative enough and has some peculiar notions about global warming, BUT he vetoed the homosexual marriage bill, that the Dem Legislature passed and is about to veto it again, he vetoed the homosexual indoctrination in schools bill, he vetoed at least twice the drivers licenses for illegal aliens, passed by the Dem Legislature, he did not raise taxes, he also vetoed the government run socialized healthcare bill passed by the Dem Legislature.
Democrat Angelides is on record that he would have signed all those bills and couldn’t wait to raise taxes.
The choice was Arnold or Angelides and Arnold IS coming through for conservatives.
The same way, ANY electable Republican is orders of magnitude better than Hillary.
Just as an aside, FT and RG have the same opinions about homosexual unions, they both say they believe marriage to be between a man and a woman, but have no problems with domestic unions.
HANNITY: Yes. Let me ask you about gay marriage. What do you think about the definition of marriage? Should it be between a man and a woman?
GIULIANI: Marriage should be between a man and a woman. Here’s exactly the position I’ve always had. And it’s the same — and I feel the same way about it today that I did eight, 10 years ago when I signed the domestic partnership legislation: Marriage should be between a man and a woman. It should remain that way.
We should be tolerant, fair, open, and we should understand the rights that all people have in our society. And I thought the best answer was domestic partnership as a way of dealing with that, so that you’re recognizing the rights of people who are gay and lesbian and protect them. But marriage should remain between a man and a woman.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250497,00.html
WALLACE: Gay rights.
THOMPSON: Gay rights? I think that we ought to be a tolerant nation. I think we ought to be tolerant people. But we shouldn’t set up special categories for anybody.
And I’m for the rights of everybody, including gays, but not any special rights.
WALLACE: So, gay marriage? You’re against.
THOMPSON: Yes. You know, marriage is between a man and a woman, and I don’t believe judges ought to come along and change that.
WALLACE: What about civil unions?
THOMPSON: I think that that ought to be left up to the states. I personally do not think that that is a good idea, but I believe in many of these cases where there’s real dispute in the country, these things are not going to be ever resolved.
People are going to have different ideas. That’s why we have states. We ought to give great leeway to states and not have the federal government and not have the Supreme Court of the United States making social policy that’s contrary to the traditions of this country and changing that overnight. And that’s what’s happened in a lot of these areas.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258222,00.html