Yes there is, he could quit in disgrace,

*OR* ,

ask to be the ideological spokesman for "conservative" Republicans, as he appears to be the perfect representation of everything they stand for.

It's hard to imagine that intelligent people, in an apparently enlightened coutry such as the USA, would even think to have such conversations as this, but here it is. Not that talking about these things are wrong, it's more like being there, over and over again.

I'm not saying that this country is any better but the PM recently said that he would not open up the abortion debate to a private members bill, and that Canadians don't want it opened up. We also settled the gay marriage thing a few years back with really little or no fanfare. And it's a done deal.

Do right wing religious groups want it back on the burner? Hell yes, but we tend not to pander to religion here. Maybe to Quebec by times but not this sort of emotional, time waisting, retoric. ( not here, I mean in the public arena )

The most right wing Province in our Confederation would be Alberta and they're not that interested either. Of course, we don't have vast areas of the country under religious domination, politicaly speaking, either by State or region, so there's far fewer voters to push these agendas.

Some people tend to like politics here but for the most part it's left to politicians. Why does everything seem to boil down to politics in the US? I'm not trying to be critical here but as someone who watches from afar, it seems to me that a whole lot of energy gets expended over often very little things. I understand the importance of these issues but find it hard to comprehend the evel of ( shall I use the word ? ) hatred that both, or either side, shows towards the other.

To be honest, you may find this here in what I'd call spot issues but they tend not to last that long and it's generally by a small segment of the population. However, you won't see anyone blowing someone away because they're a Conservative, Liberal, NDP or whatever. We may not like them or their policys but they are generally tollerated. Even the seperatist party in Quebec ( which I'm sure the average hoser has little or no use for ) held seats in Parlament. In the US they would have been tried for treason.

Interesting how different we are and yet how similar we are at the same time. I wouldn't want anyone else living this close to me though.

Radio TV Correspondents Dinner
March 18, 2010

Biden brought down the house with some of his remarks:

On being attacked in the press: “When Dick Morris is quick to point out every time I put my foot in my mouth, at least I can say it’s MY foot.”

Foot in the Mouth Fetish

David,
There is a certain clear logic to your statement.

Here's another silver-tongued devil: Michael Baumgartner, Washington GOP Senate Candidate, Admits Telling Reporter To 'Go F--- Yourself'

OTOH,
How much will any of these social issues impact voters? Is there anyone who votes social issues, who doesn't know how they will vote? I cannot imaging a single voter who will change their vote based on what anyone might say.
This discussion only diverts from the real issue--the economy. If yesterday's CBO projections mean anything, we need radical ( meaning non-Obama) changes or we are in deep doo doo. ( Pardon the economic jargon.) If taxes go up, then unemployment goes up and we all suffer.

I believe there are multitudes of people whose vote can be swayed by social issues.
And why is the 'real issue' the economy? Because that is what's most important to you? or the Romney campaign?
Everyone has their own hierarchy of important political issues, and not all of them are economic.
I believe the the republican talking points regarding the economy are their best guess for trying to unseat Obama.
If they thought they could beat him by focusing on dancing ponies, Romney would be wearing spurs.


What kind of taxes cause increased unemployment? Do you have any basis for this statement?

So we cut taxes on the wealthy and then our economy magically recovers? And us middle class slobs pick up the tab again.... no thanks.
Smoke and mirrors. It will give more money to the wealthiest, do nothing for the poorest, and poke the middle right in the seat...

Of COURSE it's a diversion. The MSM is only too happy to overemphasize ANYTHING THEY CAN, in order to divert attention away from B.O.'s miserable economic failure.

It's working too. You can get ready for four more years of B.O., that is if the country lasts that long before going over the cliff into total pandamonium. Exactly what B.O. wants, so that he could build the new country out of the ashes in his own image.

I am guessing that you have not sen the CBO projection--it was just released.
My last statement was a summary of that report. It was not meant as cause & effect--just 2 results as the CBO sees it.
You may choose to not believe it.

you've said this dozens of times, honestly, do you really believe that Obama wants to build a country out of "the ashes in his own image"?

disagree or agree with his politics, but at no time have I seen anything from him that doesn't respect the rule of law. Id like to know how you came about this idea

I guess as long as you don't consider the constitution as "rule of law," then you MIGHT be right. He has circumvented the congress on so many things it's ridiculous.

I only vote on social issues. Yes the economy is more important but the election has nothing to do with it. I do not believe that Romney will make any improvement in the economy at least not so far as the middle class is concerned. No conservative has improved the economy so far as I can remember. I am sure the rich will do better but I am not really worried about their well being. So that leaves me with the social issues. There might be an opening or two on the SCOTUS and I really do not want another Roberts, Thomas or Scalia on the bench mush less any more of them in the rest of the federal bench vacancies. I have no interest in more people like Ryan and Akin passing laws that deprive poor women of control over their body.

So yes, I vote on social issues.

I guess you are not on "the" email list where all this information is readily available.

If I said that people do not vote on social issues, I failed at what I was trying to communicate.
People who do vote on social issues are generally not "undecided"; they have a pretty good idea on how they are voting, and a bone-headed statement by a candidate will not deter then from voting for him if they were predisposed to vote for him.
You may be the rare person for whom Aiken's statement changes your vote, but I rather doubt it. Are you in Aiken's State?

Akin did not make a bone head statement. He made a statement that he and Ryan believe in. It reinforces his base. His base would vote for him regardless of what he says. The independents are what he has to worry about as that seems to be where elections are won and lost. If there were people who were on the fence, that type of comment could push people one way or the other.

I would never vote for someone like Akin. I support a persons unfettered right to control their own body. In my mind that right is absolute and government has absolutely no right to intervene.