Report: Palin parts ways with Fox News

FredHayek wrote: The Republicans try to run on fiscal responsibility and the press manages to divert small minds into focusing on a mis-statement. Low information voters being led around by their nose. "What he said about rape clearly disqualifies him even though he has a brilliant economic plan.

Interesting assessment.....lets not blame the people who say stupid things, lets blame the media or person who points it out.....I disagree that the statements made about rape and women's issues were mis-statements........what made them relevant was they really meant what they said, and in many cases doubled down on their statements before being convinced to walk them back. Social issues have been the vulnerability in the GOP for many years, not only does the message not resonate with voters, but more important, IMO, is how that message has been delivered by the Republicans.

"The Republicans try to run on fiscal responsibility" That is one of the most humorous statements yet by Fred. When was the last time that a Republican administration reduced the deficit? Or the last time that a Republican administration reduced the number of government employees?

I guess the operative words are "try to run" since obviously they can not factually run on that statement.

Something the Dog Said wrote: "The Republicans try to run on fiscal responsibility" That is one of the most humorous statements yet by Fred. When was the last time that a Republican administration reduced the deficit? Or the last time that a Republican administration reduced the number of government employees?

I guess the operative words are "try to run" since obviously they can not factually run on that statement.

But you don't seem to like the Tea Party which has been pushing hard for fiscal responsibility. Maybe it's just the name, but they are mostly Republicans and they do want to make the tough choices, even if it goes against what past administrations have done. Destroy the Tea Party movement, and you destroy the only hope for getting our fiscal house in order. Unless you can show me the relevant group of democrats that want to stop the madness.

It is like when someone refuses to vote for someone based on their abortion stance even though the candidate has no chance of overturning Roe V. Wade.

FredHayek wrote: It is like when someone refuses to vote for someone based on their abortion stance even though the candidate has no chance of overturning Roe V. Wade.

If we elect a president intent on overturning Roe v Wade, the simple act of appointing Supreme Court justices that have that same goal would do it. That aside, why should I, or anyone, vote for a candidate that is diametrically opposed to my personal beliefs?

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: It is like when someone refuses to vote for someone based on their abortion stance even though the candidate has no chance of overturning Roe V. Wade.

If we elect a president intent on overturning Roe v Wade, the simple act of appointing Supreme Court justices that have that same goal would do it. That aside, why should I, or anyone, vote for a candidate that is diametrically opposed to my personal beliefs?

Well, sometimes it is ether that or don't vote. (ex third party)

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: It is like when someone refuses to vote for someone based on their abortion stance even though the candidate has no chance of overturning Roe V. Wade.

If we elect a president intent on overturning Roe v Wade, the simple act of appointing Supreme Court justices that have that same goal would do it. That aside, why should I, or anyone, vote for a candidate that is diametrically opposed to my personal beliefs?

There have been three anti-abortion Presidents since Roe V. Wade and two of them had eight years to overturn the ruling and none did. Gov. Bill Ritter was anti-abortion did you vote for him?

Sorry guys, but Republicans talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. My main complaint with President Reagan was the " Deficits don't matter" that has now become the mantra of both parties. As long as we build bridges to nowhere, ships and planes the military doesn't want and fail to adhere to our budgets; we can't seriously claim to be fiscally responsible. Just being better than the other guy isn't good enough. Not for me, anyway.

Say one thing and do something else? The Republicans in power do seem to be that way. The TEA party was supposed to change that but it will take a while. They found many more politicians to sign onto the no new taxes pledge than the no new spending pledge.

Fred, hard as you try to make me into a one issue voter,I am not. Yes women's rights are important to me, that includes abortion rights, contraception, equal pay, equal opportunity, removing discrimination in healthcare,etc. Gay rights are also important.....as are environmental issues. On the economic side I favor balance....revenue along with spending cuts, and less corporate welfare....now does that sound like I will be voting for any of the current crop of Republicans? I do not care what a candidates personal beliefs are on abortion, or even other issues,I base my vote on what I expect they will do once in office, and that I base on their history, what they say, who their public friends are, what platform they put forward, and a whole host of intangibles.