“The major parties offer unwanted candidates who fan the hate flames distracting voters from the real issues that the massive financial syndicates are slipping past us.”
Huh? I think people make the assumption that because he was elected in a liberal state he must be a RINO. He governed as a conservative - and that’s why I like him. Under this line of thinking Ronald Reagan wouldn’t get elected today because he was Governor from a state of fruits and nuts. I judge the man and not the state.
Your assertion is unsupported by the evidence, FRiend. Please explain Romneycare, and the over-the-top methodology of his implementing the court-ordered gay marriage situation.
California has always been a trend setting state and the trends have definitely been more liberal. In recent years, the state has been liberal like Massachusetts. But California was no always so malignantly liberal. Massachusetts has always been so. It would be disingenuous to imply that Massachusetts has been anything else but far liberal. That being said, I also judge the man - and the results of his work. In Mitt, I see an obscure politician with questionable conservative credentials, who was elected governor of a very liberal state and projected on the national scene behind a big advertising campaign. His only appeal seems to be that he claims not to be a liberal and claims that he can beat hillary. Here we go again, right out of the chute with a dull candidate, with no broad base of support, depending upon the "hate hillary" strategy.