Romney has done his best to defend the culture of life on what is probably the most inhospitable terrain in the country.”\n–John J. Miller (National Review)\n“We couldn’t be happier with him.  Without Romney, we would have been slapped with a lot of new taxes.”\n–Barbara Anderson, Citizens for Limited Taxation (Massachusetts)\n"I could in very good conscience support Romney as a fellow social conservative on most of the issues we care about."\n–Charles Colson\n“He has been in fights with liberals on every social issue imaginable — gay marriage, cloning, abstinence education, emergency contraception, gay adoption. At times, it's almost been as if the conservative capital of America has been in that tiny slice of Boston occupied by Romney's office.”\n-Rich Lowry (National Review)\n“Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) has one very impressive thing going for him as a 2008 presidential prospect: the right policy priorities for the country.”\n –Mort Kondracke, (Roll Call & Fox News)\n\n"
126228
I like romney, I think he has some good views and has the ability to gain votes in one of the most liberal states in the union. \n\nOne thing I heard since you asked about what others were saying---  I heard on the glenn beck show, that a bunch of evangelical christian groups said they wouldn't vote for him bc he's a morman.  They were afraid he would listen to the church and not the people.\n\njust what i heard, not what I said.
475240
First let me address Hidden\n1.  the asker asked you to refrain from mindless bashing\n2.  bush is far from the only republican representing the party so your comments are meaningless\n3.There are even Liberals in the party god helps gee couldn't have that\nSorry folks had to get that off my chest most Democrats and Republicans are sincere folks that just differ in there views and outlook and that is there god given right!I  As a conservative I admired very much former senator Welsltone from From MInn. I disagreed with most of his views but the guy was open and honest and voted his conscience not the party line or the latest poll. Gee an honest politician who votes his beliefs what a novelty. \n\nno for my party I am a Republican but have constitutional party sympathies. Why? well partly because the party is more friendly to conservatives generally the party philosophy generally supports a more limited Govt. role fiscal restraint and a more constructionist view of constitutional law. While I am not particularly religious or a member of the Christian Right I do have strong views on the role of religion as a moral compass for societies  the world over hence have a strong aversion to  secularism. While i will be the first to admit the current crop of Republican congressmen have strayed from the course greatly especially in regards to fiscal restraint. That does not change the  tenants of most in the party.. the one most influential  Republican to me in my lifetime is Ronald Regan, No not for the tax cuts or rebuilding the military or the fall of the soviet bloc although I supported all of these. But simply put the man had a way of making people believe in themselves and their country at a time that we were very low and most thought in decline. In return the people believed in him it was a truly amazing thing to live through. The outpouring at his funeral from America some 15 yrs later is some measure of his affect. So because of the hope someday that we can come up with another Regan I tend to remain loyal to the party Despite  attractions to the Libertarian and Constitutional parties. No I would never vote party line just for the sake of it but all things being equal I would tend to support a republican. As a conservative I also respect another's right to disagree  or hold a diverging  philosophy this world would be an all to dreary place if we had a hive mentality  with all the drones dancing to the queen bees beat. I certainly would not demean your intelligence by implying  that because you believe differently that you are stupid or wrong. I may try to sway your opinion using intelligent discourse using logic and facts you may not be aware of.  But, To accuse you of being wrong is hubris in the extreme and denies the most fundamental right of all humanity the right of choice.\n\nSo sir that is a little window into at least this mans soul?
662862
I just finished Coulter's new book, a must read!  It really opened my eyes to a few new connections between liberalism and tyranny.  Plus I had to completely reconsider my views on Darwinism!  I really enjoy books that make you think!\n\nOh, to answer your question: liberals also like to protect any speech that is pro choice, pro gay, pro tax, probiggovernment, etc...\n\nhope that helps!
498777
I think by saying most... that's a bit of an overstatement... some were... and that's ok... I mean you're not going to get a SF liberal elected in Western NC... that's the way life is... \n\nsome are more financially conservative and socially liberal... others are the exact opposite... it comes in many different opinions... and hopefully we can all work together to get things done...\n\ntheir job is to represent their constituency in the best way they can... why should I be worried about that?\n\nmaybe I'm just not a "liberal" then?\n\nand Lieberman has said he's voting mainly Democrat... go figure... I guess he can forgive and forget...
462974
Those who know politics know what true conservatives think.\n\nBut here is the core contradiction in conservative philosophy that liberals (via historical data) recognize as the source of so much social dysfunction when conservative philosophy is implemented:\n\n"We believe that each individual is responsible for his development. We believe that family is the best support group for individuals. And we believe that private institutions like churches and synagogues, charities, private enterprises and so forth are best support group for families." (Mark Levin Fan.com)\n\nYou can't have it both ways!\n\nHillary was right, it does take a village, not only to raise a child, but to provide for adults, too.
520954
I like both Rush and O’Reilly, but for different reasons.  You really have to go through Rush’s orations closely to find the true meat and useful information.  However, he is a great spinner.  I remember his earlier days when people were actually asking him to run for political office.  His answer that was to explain “I am an entertainer, not a politician.”  I still look at him as an entertainer.  He is fun to listen to, but I make my own decisions.\n\nAs for O’Reilly, I like him because he has shown on several occasions, he is willing to bash the Republicans as much as the Democrats.  Yes, he is a conservative thinker, but if the Republicans or a specific Republican is doing something he doesn’t agree with, he has no problem with saying so.  In other words, he is a conservative thinker that does not hold to any specific party line.  If he agrees with something, he says so.  If he doesn’t agree with something, he tells you why.  \n\nSo, to answer your question, they contribute differently.  Rush contributes entertainment and makes you think about your beliefs regardless if you agree or disagree with him.  O’Reilly contributes commentary based on his belief that is based on less rhetoric and more on actually evaluating the issues.  \n\nI don’t completely agree with either of them, but I do enjoy listening to both.
353826
I would think that Mitt Romney is Pro-life.  Or maybe he is like me, Pro-life, and Pro Choice.  Let me explain my Pro-choice, though,.  I believe that every woman in Ameica has choices, alot of choices, Depo- Nuva Ring, The patch, ortho-trycyclien, other pills, Norplant, etcc.  There is also the choice to have your tubes tied. If none of the above work, since when does the woman have to keep the baby, she could always give it up for adoption.   And then there is the Most Effective Choice of all- ABSTINENCE.  You don't want a baby, Don't have sex.  Murder should never be considered a viable choice, since there are many other choices available to women.
368488
Limbaugh strictly follows party lines so since the Regans were Republicans he is probably for it, but personally  I could care less what he thinks.  I never have really liked him and his vilification of Michael J. Fox for his excessive movements, which is normal for a person with Parkinson's disease, during his ad to support stem cell research only fueled that dislike.   (We know from personal experience because my father-in-law had Parkinson's Disease)\n\nHe condemned him and made fun of him because  he was supporting a Democrat.  \n\n He is just lucky he doesn't have Parkinson's disease;  I bet if he did he would be singing another tune no matter what party was involved!!!!
423135
Didn't hear him but it is obvious that many responses here are from people who have no clue about him except for sound bites.  Rush is I think basically saying what he has said for a while.  That the Republicans have been acting like wusses, worried about political correctness and niceties while the Democrats and the press lambasted everything including the weather unabridged the whole time.  Nothing new in that except for how it was played by the sound bite news.
649518
I love the "unbiased" answers here.  It's a veritable no-spin-zone.\n\nCurrently or historically?  The answers differ considerably.  Historically, Republicans have supported State's rights, low regulations on economic ventures, a strong military, and conservative social initiatives.  \n\nDemocrats have traditionally supported consolidation of political power on the federal level, economic regulation, international diplomacy, and liberal social initiatives.\n\nCurrently, the differences can be determined by looking at their official public agendas.\n\nGOP:\nWinning the war on terror\nUshering in an ownership era\nBuilding an innovative, globally competitive economy\nStrengthening communities\nProtecting families\n\nDemocratic party:\nImproving national security\nImproving international diplomacy\nModernizing the military\nStrengthening the economy \nImproving public education\nProtecting social security\nProviding affordable health care\nEnsuring honesty in government\nReforming the election process\nProtecting the environment\nEnsuring justice and civil liberties\n\nOf course, a brief look at the front page of each party website indicates that thier PRIMARY concerns are in making one another look bad.
522544
I am a Conservative, card carrying Republican and I WOULD NOT vote for him. He is an entertainer.  He is over the top.  He would scare me.\n\nI am a traditionalist Conservative who believes in the values for our country that the founding fathers penned into the constitution.\n\nThe Republican party needs a good traditionalist to run.  Not a far right wacko... Leave that kind of politics to the far left Democrats.
515673
I doubt you always hear that.  I'm diehard conservative, and have loved John Stewart throughout most of his career.  Idisagree with him 99.9% of the time. As I always say to my friends, (I live in MAss so most of my friends are liberal lol) "I don't need to agree with you to like you."  I watch daily Show almost every day.  There are days when he is too bust screwing around with punditry to the point where I aint amused so I switch off, but those are rare.\n   As fo Colbert, I think he carved himself a hilarious nitch.  Often, his satirical right wing rantings are my actual opinion, and I feel I'm being personally spoofed.  I love it.  \n    So I don't know who is saying that as far as who you talk to, but I have a good guess your are making a presupposition and posting it as such.\n\nEDIT-I have seen more than one conservative on the Daily Show I might add. Rick Santorum comes to mind.  Joe Scarborough was on Colbert recently.  Stewart and Colbert , as a side note, treated conserative every bit as respectfully as any typical guest.
549330
1. We don't "hate gays".  We just don't agree with their lifestyle or their selfish agenda.\n\n2. WWI & II were both started by Democrats and we lost more in a month of either one of those than we have lost this entire war.\n\n3. Republicans were the first to jump on the "recycle" wagon.\n\n4. I make less than $30,000 a year and I saw my tax cut which was comparable to my income, just like you did.\n\n5. I may not agree with some of his decisions, but I still support our president.  Didn't agree with Clinton's decision to go into Bosnia, but we went and I supported that decision.  Did you forget that he got us into that???\n\n6. My father was a blue collar worker. All the blue collar workers I know vote Republican.\n\nBefore you start making generalizations, maybe you need to walk a mile in the shoes of one of these people you criticize and one of their supporters and see exactly what they do for us.
376520
He took money from the insurance companies for his campaign, yet tells us he'll do something about the rates....yea right!!!!.\n\nI wrote and asked how he stood on Illegal Immigration and his office said he supports stronger borders and funding the police in this State to go after them....yet he surely doesn't say much about it in public, therefore I feel he is once again pulling the wool over every ones eyes in order to get elected.\n\nI have written to Charlie about many issues that as Attorney General he had control over and he NEVER responded to me in any way shape or form.\nHe is a lying, cheating, 20 plus year politician who doesn't deserve to be anything but unemployed.\n\nHe did not get my vote for governor and neither did Davis.\nI voted absentee ballot, I want my vote to count and do not trust the machines.\n\nAs a veteran, Thank you for voting, even if it cancels out my vote.  :)
289171
1) He was voted, and depends on the support of, by the "Religious Right". As an atheist, well, I'm wary of supporting someone whose dad said atheists shouldn't be citizens.\n\n2) He opposes gay rights, affirmative action, and abortion. As a liberal, again, these go against my philosophy.\n\n3) He invaded Iraq needlessly, and without waiting for the rest of the world. And for what? WMD's were non-existent, and Iraq wasn't much of a threat anyways.\n\n4) Under the Bush admin, privacy has decreased dramatically. AT&T has already confessed to giving the NSA authority to monitor Internet communicatons, and by saying "protect the children" from porn, the Justice Department got search records of most of the Internet prooviders.\n\nAs far as what he did do right, he invaded Afghanistan after their gov. attacked us. He strengthened the economy, or at least didn't make it weaker. And I guess he handled 9/11 ok.\n\nSassyk : Wow, way to be detailed ;) Bush may be a crook, but then again, just about every politician, left, right, or middle is dishonest. That's just how politics was and probably will be 'til the Earth blows up.\n\nEDIT2 : thanks for the compliment, cadbury :)\n\nbuttercup : Whoa. I never got the "Liberals allow terrorism" memo. And DUH, of course liberals and Democrats hate Bush, it's called politics. Remember how much Republicans hated Clinton when he was in office?
276715
I am a liberal, and just like I have reached my political convictions through extensive consideration of issues and through allegiance to principles I hold dear, I have no reason whatsoever to presume that this is not the case for conservatives.  I am sure that like the vast majority of Republicans, you support the Republican party for a variety of worthy and noble reasons.  I hope you have a great night, and that you disabuse yourself of the notion that the people who may insult you online for your beliefs represent the generality of liberals.
578347
I laughed so hard at this answer.\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\nThe Republicans like him because he could hold together a majority and get laws they favored passed. He is know worse then any other politician, just much more effective. I'm a liberal, and I would love someone like him on our side, we just get flakes, \n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThat because all you libs are flakes.  \n\nAnyway to answer the question: \nFrom what has been disclosed to the public about the charges against him, there is no case.  He is essentially being charged with helping get a donation to the Republican party with the understanding that that much money would come back to him from the Republican party to help with his campaign.\n\nThis goes on all the time, it is why all the campaign finance laws to date are all ridiculous.  Let me break it down some for you.\nNow parts of this have changed with McCains idiotic campaign finance reform law that by some miracle got past the Supreme Court but that is after the fact and another discussion.  Delays issues come from before that.\n\nThe law says YOU can only give so much money to a person running for office i.e. hard money.\nThe law says YOU can give all the money you would like to the political party of your choice i.e. soft money.\nThe political parties then decide how much of the total monies they have to give to individual's running for office.\n\nSurely you can see how absurd this is, but that was the law, what you could not do "wink, wink" is give a big donation to a individual by washing it through the party, knowingly.  But this is of course EXACTLY what everyone did.  It is actually why the idiotic McCain bill came to pass in the first place because everyone did what DeLay was accused of.\n\nThis is all simply a political move to force DeLay to step down, because he was killing the libs in Congress.  He got things done, the way they are supposed to get done and he was good at it.  Much like Newt Gingrinch who was also very good at what he did, so they targeted him.  \n\nThe real discussion here should be campaign financing.  Any limits put on campaign donations, essentially restricts your right to free speach.  Which is exactly the type of speech the 1st Amendment was geared at.  The idiotic McCain bill, put even more restrictions of things, but like all politicians they left loop holes so that you could circumvent the laws.   What needs to be done and what ALL American's should be demanding (especially the libs) is no restrictions in anyway whatsoever on campaign donations, but also FULL disclosure of who donated and how much and when.