The MSM is always looking for the next “fiscally conservative/socially “moderate” Republican. Someday someone is gonna figure out that there are seats to be won in cities like Miami and Atlanta and New Orleans and St. Louis and more by Democrats who are fiscally “moderate”/socially “conservative.” It’s better to be a full-fledged conservative of course, but we could perhaps survive as a country better with more Daphne Campbells and fewer Nancy Pelosis.
Many fewer Pelousies, Boxers, Feinsteins, Wasserman-Schultzes, etal.
Democrats who are fiscally “moderate”/socially “conservative.”
??? isn’t that an oxymoron?
That's what we get a lot of in my neck of the woods, in the Chicago 'burbs. There are lots of blue-collar "Catholic" voters who prefer pro-life and pro-traditional marriage candidates, but they want government handouts and goodies so the Dems run "socially conservative" sounding marxists and win every time by saying the GOP will take away your kids school lunches and make grandma eat dog food. Most of the RAT politicians in southwest Cook County will claim to be "pro-life" or at least avoid being see as supporting abortion, a perfect example being Congressman Dan Lipinski and State Rep. Kevin McCarthy of Orland Park, IL.
Of course the mainstream media ignores this fact and keeps insisting the Republicans lose because socially conservative candidates scare away the "moderate suburban women". Any candidate who wins and doesn't fit their steroype will be promptly ignored (i.e. did you hear a peep from the media about how the vocally pro-life and pro-gun Dan Rutherford was elected Illinois State Treasurer last year and was the highest GOP voter in suburban Cook County? And that he won Mark Kirk's district where we were told for years that you "have to" be far left on social issues to be "electable" there?)
Funny how the Chicago machine approved Dems don't "need" to talk about how much they love Planned Parenthood and gay marriage, as the mainstream media tells Republicans to do.