The uncertainty of the election was holding back employers. They were poised to start hiring with the election of Romney/ Ryan. Now that Obamabots have ended that hope, employers will be laying back because of Obamacare and higher taxes on small business owners. Many are laying off people.You Obamabots have no idea what you have done.
Who is John Galt?

I agree jackie--well said.

I agree with Jackie. AND I'm hoping that we can all finally start working together on resolving issues. The politically motivated "red herring's" thrown out to get us off-track can hopefully stop now.

When did he invade Libya? That's a new one. And disapproval of that -- even if it happened, which it didn't -- is interesting given Romney's implied criticism of Obama for NOT invading Iran over the nuclear weapon issue.

***"Democrats need to hold Obama accountable"***

That is absolutely correct. And if Republicans would quit making stuff up about him, we would. Instead, we have to spend time defending him from bogus claims from Republicans.

Democrats didn't force Nixon out of office, good and decent Republicans who stood up and said "Enough!" did.

It's time for good and decent Republicans to stand up and tell their Party's leaders: "Enough - quit vilifying the man and quit making stuff up!"

Making things up ? Where were you in March of 2011 ?

I am pretty sure airstrikes on Libya are proof enough.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Bush OPENED Guantanamo Bay and wrote the language about detaining U.S. citizens. And he did not invade Libya. You are really dumb.

Obama issued an executive order closing the prison in Guantanamo on his first day in office; here is why that order never took effect:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/22/107255/how-congress-helped-thwart-obamas.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/01/09/135179/congress-rule-keep-obama-from.html
Yes, Congress made it impossible to implement the closure of the Guantanamo prison, so don't blame Obama.
And, of course, we did not invade Libya.
Maybe it's time to join the reality-based community.

Notwithstanding a discussion of the veracity of your claims, do you really think Romney would have closed Guantanamo or changed language?

Ron Paul is a good man and has many good ideas. Ron Paul does NOT go around throwing verbal bombs at the other side nor does he make stuff up about the other side.

His supporters should take note of that. It's not Ron Paul I dislike; it's his supporters that don't follow the example Ron Paul sets.

Awesome commentary, Watts! Thank you. I wish the local Teapublicans here would turn away from Fox, turn down Rush, and listen to what you and others are saying.

Overwhelming??? Hardly....it was 49.99 to 50. The good news for reps is the blood of this countries upcoming destruction will be blamed on you a**clowns!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! Voting for Romney would have been the same as Bush, but even worse. You obviously have NO reading comprehension skills and NO logical reasoning skills.

you should blame Karl Rove for running the worst campaign ever. He doesn't understand what the common people need and he never will.

- Karl Rove is apparently having to answer to big money donors who are a little upset that they gave him so many millions and he delivered barely anything at all (I think one race in Nevada that Crossroads GPS spent money on).

Rove, on Foxnews, is saying (among other excuses for failing so badly in his predictions - and for the massive amounts of money he threw away) that Republicans need to do a better job in reaching out to the Latino community.

Yeah - too bad Karl Rove didn't have some type of organization where he had hundreds of millions of dollars that he could have used to "reach out to the Latino community" given that apparently he knew it was a problem...

- As for defining Romney as something he wasn't - can someone tell us who Mitt Romney actually is? He took two or three sides of almost all of the issues (that he would actually take sides on) - and in others he simply refused to state what he believed - even if he previously stated it - he would act dumb and not say anything.

He refused to really answer any direct questions on Bain and his personal finances.

Romney had LOTS of time to define himself - during the Primaries he DID define himself as a "Severe Conservative" - on abortion when asked if he would sign legislation banning all abortions he said "I would be delighted to" - and then the General Election he was struck mute on abortion when it came down to what he said before - so when you can't define yourself its hard to complain when someone else defines you.

Rob, before the election I felt a duty to defend my preferred candidate. Now that he has failed me, I don't. You are absolutely right in your assessment of Romney. He was an even worse candidate than McCain, which is why he got less votes than McCain did.

Until the GOP starts getting smart about their candidates and focusing on expanding the base through better communication, we are done winning elections.

Nick - what specifically do you want Conservatives to communicate?

What concepts, that Conservatives ran on in the Primaries, needs to be changed or do you believe that those concepts are winning arguments for the larger electorate and Romney just wasn't delivering them strong enough?

Who, instead of Romney, would you have preferred if you could pick anyone (even if they weren't in the process this cycle)?

Do you ever think it's not the candidate, but the principles of a party that has changed since I tended to vote republican, Nick? Maybe the GOP should stop treating women and the middle class like second class citizens for starters. How about the idea that no republican seeking office can actually express him or herself honestly because they need to appease fiscal conservatives and the religious types who want to replace the constitution with the bible? The party would be much better off if they didn't spend so much time, energy and attention on abortion.

Randy, your comment is an illustration of how poor the communication has been.

Rob, the concepts don't need to be changed. They are winning arguments if presented and articulated the right way. I'll give some examples of how awry things have gone. I do not want to debate each and every one of my points; they are just generalizations made to illustrate the lack of effective communication on the part of conservatives.

Social conservatives are pro-life. The Left responds by calling us "anti-women". Instead of effectively communicating how this has nothing to do with women, and is about protecting precious and innocent life, we have Senate candidates in critical races peeing all over themselves talking about "legitimate rape", which makes us sound even more anti-women.

Conservatives believe that birth control is needed largely as the result of optional recreational behavior, and therefore employers should not be forced to cover the cost of insurance that pays for it. Instead of explaining this in an intelligent fashion, we have Rush Limbaugh calling women names on national radio. It just plays into the portrayal by the Left of conservatives as anti-women.

Conservatives believe that marriage should remain defined as man-woman. Instead of giving intelligent and articulate reasons why, we just allow ourselves to be branded "anti-gay", "bigots", and "hateful", and we are accused of wishing to impose our hateful religious views on all of society.

Sometimes the hat just fits, too, Nick. I hope this doesn't sound like I'm picking on just you here, but to say it's a lack of effective communication as the reason women don't vote republican is more than a little insulting and suggests they need to be spoon fed and can't see through the BS. All of those things you mentioned certainly did not help the cause, but I think it's also problematic to spend so much focus on supposedly protecting the sanctity of marriage when so many people espousing these views don't practice what they preach, either with traditional divorce or those literally caught with their pants down (far too many examples to mention). Even worse is trying to limit the availability of birth control but then doing nothing to try and prevent unwanted pregnancies (sex ed, for example) all while attempting to eliminate the social programs that could possibly prevent expectant mothers from aborting those fetuses in the first place. It's not a communications problem, it's a hypocrisy issue.

Continued...

On immigration, the Left brands the Right as being "xenophobic" and "racist". No one on the Right bothers to point out the difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration, and how legal immigrants are among this country's greatest assets. We have Romney promising to veto the Dream Act, and Rush Limbaugh calling Obama's immigration policies "a dictator's wet dream", even though dictators don't really allow immigration into their countries. We double-down on looking racist.

On welfare, the Left brands the Right as "hating poor people" and "racist" and "wanting children to starve". Instead of pointing out the great success of the bipartisan welfare reform of the Clinton era in reducing welfare costs while also reducing poverty, and working to continue to reform welfare, enable self-reliance, and articulate the value self-reliance as opposed to the cycle of dependence, we have presidential candidates denigrating 47% of the nation, without knowing or caring how that 47% number was arrived at.

Continued...

How many people know that conservatives are much more charitable people than liberals, not just in giving money and time, but even in the amount of blood they give? If liberals donated blood at the same rate as conservatives, the nation's blood supply would jump 30% overnight.

Instead, the Left gets to brand the Right as hateful, greedy, only caring about the rich, not wanting to feed the poor, being bigoted in every way possible, and no one responds intelligently. The only responses serve to play into these labels, rather than refute them.

The GOP seems unable to communicate. Once we get over this disability, we might actually start winning elections.

And as far as who should have run? A good start to make the appearance of the party be something other than the stereotype of old, rich, white males would have been good. Marco Rubio would be great, but he doesn't have enough experience yet. He is a great communicator, though, and I will be looking for him in 2016. Bobby Jindal is very young, and might be a great future candidate. I did like Herman Cain, but Gingrich took care of him with a character assassination.

We just didn't have a lot of good options this time around. We needed someone who didn't fit the mold of the rich white male from a rich family who the people can't relate to, and also someone who could communicate effectively, and we just didn't have it. Maybe next time...

Randy, I am not insulting women. Effective, intelligent communicating is not spoon feeding. Unintelligent people who need spoon feeding are the ones who respond to the name-calling. They are not the sort of people who will respond to intelligent articulation of conservative positions. To engage in this type of communication assumes an intelligent audience.

And yes, hypocrisy is part of the problem too. To practice what you preach is also a form of effective and honest communication. How is one supposed to effectively convey a set of values that they do not hold to themselves?

It sounds like you expect women and minorities to vote differently based not on the actual principles of the GOP, but rather fall for the spin control you are hoping the party is willing to embrace and communicate the next time around. It really sounds as though you feel the majority that spoke through voting on Tuesday did so erroneously rather than making an intelligent decision based on vetting the candidates and their platform. I find that more than a tad condescending, almost like a used car salesman peddling a bill of goods.

Randy, you are not getting my point at all. If you're pro-life, you're anti-women; if you talk about terrorism, your Islamaphobic; if you're for traditional marriage, you're antigay, a bigot, and a religious zealot; if you want welfare to be reformed, you're racist; if you're against amnesty for illegal immigrants, you're racist and xenophobic; if you're against higher taxes, you only care about rich people.

The GOP is sitting back and allowing this slander to become the mainstream opinion on conservatives. They are doing nothing to rebut these insults.

You wrote, "It sounds like you expect women and minorities to vote differently based not on the actual principles of the GOP". If the widespread belief of the public is that the principles of the GOP are racist and antiwomen, why would they ever vote Republican? The true principles of conservatives are not being communicated. What is being communicated is the misportrayal of them. If something is not being communicated, how can it be perceived?

Remember the "war on women"? You are pretending that was not a main Democrat talking point this election cycle. It was. If that talking point was so insulting to women, then why wasn't there a public outcry against it? There was no outcry because people believed it. People believed it because it was not successfully rebutted by the GOP.

And "fall for the spin control", Randy? Are you suggesting that there should be no control of the Democrat Party's spin of conservative principles? People either fall for the spin, or the spin control. The spin is that conservatives are intolerant, sexist, and racist. The spin control is the honest explanation of the true motives behind our principles. So, yes, I would hope that people would fall for the spin control rather than the spin. Personally, I find spin to be a lot more insulting and condescending than the intelligent rebuttal of that spin.

By the way, what you are doing to my comments is spin. You're spinning my explanation of the lack of effective communication on the part of the GOP as a condescending insult to minorities and women.

Like the GOP should not need to communicate its principles, because if the public was smart enough, they would just know them and the motives behind them. In the debates, should Romney have just stood there silent with a blank stare, refusing to rebut anything Obama was saying so as not to insult the audience, because an intelligent audience would know Romney's positions and rebuttal? To actually have to verbalize his rebuttal was very insulting and condescending to the audience. That must be why he lost the election.

Nick, check out this thread - religion and the bible are being used over and over:

http://stillwater.patch.com/articles/marriage-amendment-foes-claim-victory-in-mn

The problem is that there are so many in the Republican party that believe and follow people like Limbaugh, and then they go out and start preaching it themselves. I told one of those people on Wednesday that he should realize that all his preaching is what helped get Obama re-elected. If you preach anger, bigotry, and the bible, people will react appropriately...which is to fight against it.

For the record, I am not saying it is you, I am saying it is the millions who have been duped by the clowns in the public forum that your party leaders are too terrified of to reject or condemn in any public way....THEY hold too much power over the ignorant that believe their messages of anger and hate.

Yes, this is what I mean when I say that the GOP needs to be dismantled and rebuilt. The current "spokespeople" of the GOP and conservatives have failed. Blowhards and extremists get all the attention. The Left grabs ahold of this and uses them to paint the whole party with one big, hateful brush. Meanwhile, the GOP seems to try to rebut all of the spin simply by continually nominating wishy-washy candidates.

A successful rebuttal to being painted as racist, bigoted sexist religious zealots is not to nominate flip-flopping candidates. A successful rebuttal to these labels is to nominate a strong conservative capable of intelligently articulating conservative values, who can explain how conservative positions are not motivated by racism, bigotry, sexism, and religious zealotry.

Nick, you have to understand that being pro-life is not the only reason that terms like "anti-women" or "war on women" have come to be. When the ultra-conservatives argue that "forcing" employers to pay for birth control when they see it as immoral, which several have done here also, you need to realize that, with 98% of women having used birth control, these people are calling almost half the population immoral. A much better solution would have been to accept President Obama's compromise of the insurance companies paying for birth control, instead of the religious institutions. Instead of doing this, we are still hearing about Ms Fluke. Instead of offering different compromises, like the female employee paying that tiny portion of the premium that covers birth control, they want to continue to say that we (as women) want the tax payers to pay for our birth control, or even worse, to pay for the sex we are having!

Instead of trying to understand that liberals and homosexuals are not "forcing" anything on them, conservatives argue that gay marriage will be "forced" on them. Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? It sounds like we will force you to marry a man. We are not forcing our morals on you, you can still hold your morals, whereas your party wants to force your morals on the rest of us through legislation. THIS is the big difference, and although I love your honesty in the last couple days, I don't know that you are understanding this important point.

One other thing that I heard a lot of women say this year. If Conservatives believe that birth control (even abortion) is immoral, then they should not use it. Women feel that Conservatives are trying to push the "no sex before marriage" idea on everyone. Although this would be the best way to stop unwanted pregnancies, it is not a reality. You cannot stop people from having sex...again forcing your morals on others. Since this is wrong, I would think your party would embrace birth control as it does reduce the number of abortions, but instead, you fight for something that is unattainable...abstinence. Now, I know all the arguments about the specifics of this issue, but here's the problem....we can read between the lines.

As soon as the Republicans understand that they cannot force their morals (no matter how they justify it) on others, then they will again become relevant. Until then, the party does really look to be serving only white, heterosexual, Christian men. Embrace birth control and you will see a shift. Tolerate homosexuals....in other words, live and let live, and you won't appear so self righteous. Start (you have) denouncing the extremes in the party, and you will be back in play. Look to the members of your party that are more representative of the electorate to run for office, and your party will once again become strong. These things are hurting Republicans and hopefully more will come to understand this point.

Susan, I agree with most of what you say. I just have a few objections. First, there is no discussion of any laws against birth control, homosexual relationships, or premarital sex. Talking about the virtues of abstinence is not an imposition. No one is trying to impose it through law. But that does not mean that it should not be held as an ideal. ALL ideals are ultimately unattainable, but that does not mean that people should not hold them and personally strive for them, if they so choose.

I do not believe birth control is immoral, and if I was able to afford to provide health insurance for our employees, I would choose an option that provided that coverage, but I also respect the right of others to hold their opinion on it as well. If someone does see it as immoral, they should not be forced to provide access to it. You need to understand that the Republican Party does not see birth control as immoral, rather we respect the right of people to hold that opinion.

We do have a current definition of marriage, which is man-woman. That has always been that way, and no conservatives are trying to change anything about that. We are not the ones doing the imposing. Our position on that point is 100% defensive, not in the least offensive. As in the DEFENSE of Marriage Act. If you are in the defensive position, you cannot, by definition, be doing the imposing.

That said, I do agree that there needs to be a compromise on the birth control issue, as well as the GOP leaders making it clear that they are not anti-gay, that they do not wish to impose abstinence, and that they do not see birth control as immoral. They need to articulate that this is a religious freedom issue, not a religious imposition issue.

Nick, we all know why this amendment was put on the ballot, and that was to circumvent an eventual ruling by a judge allowing same sex marriage in Minnesota. This was proactive, not defensive.

I had an entire paragraph about birth control but I just saw your last comment so I deleted it. I will say that the sooner the republicans come to this understanding, the better. Birth control is a great defense against unwanted pregnancy....so is abstinence, but since abstinence is not right for everyone, we MUST consider what will work (in 2012) to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

Also, I did offer a realstic solution to employers who have objections to paying for the insurance (not birth control) and President Obama cleared the way for religious organizations to stand by their beliefs. The problem is that the leaders still fought against it. They played politics with religion instead of accepting this to be a logical solution. Believe me when I say that insurance companies would rather pay for birth control than prenatal care and the birth of a baby.

So many of the republican positions on social issues are based on "tradional" Christian values, which is fine for them, but not for everyone else. Keep your faith and morals, they are yours, no one wants to take them away. But forcing these things on others, in a time when America is becoming more tolerate (recognizing the bigotry of the past) is no longer feasible, as the election results showed.

Yes, absolutely, about birth control. About marriage, it might be semantics, but I would call it proactive defense. Kind of like the first day of the Six Day War, in 1967, when Israel destroyed the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian Air Forces before they got their planes off the ground so they couldn't bomb Israel off the map.

I understand your (proactive defense) point, and I know you don't mean it this way, but you are making the comparison between allowing gay marriage, and stopping people who want to kill you and your people.

This is an important point, because gay marriage is being held hostage by people who simply don't agree with it, not because there is a great threat to our country. I read your post about that man (his name escapes me now) and his studies, but I also found a lot of information discrediting him. I look at society now, at how real homosexuals live their day to day lives, and I see people who want the same tax and legal benefits as married couples currently receive, that's all. What I do not see is people who throw a gay pride parade everyday in their homes. Their children don't go to school and teach other children to be gay, they simply act like children. Some don't even know of the difference because they are raised with love and tolerance. Gay marriage will become legal, and the more opposition, for whatever reason, the more divided we become.

Rosco -- We have a healthcare problem that is only getting bigger in the US -- did the president truly attack the problem? Unfortunately, he attacked insurance companies -- not the real healthcare problem. The supreme court ruled that it was in effect a tax -- so you and I are the ones who are ultimately paying. I am for basic universal healthcare, but insurance does not help the raising costs.

You have also been sold a bill of goods that says if someone does not agree with you, it is their problem. A true bipartisan approach would be to attack the problem together -- not say 'get on my plan or I will label you as uncooperative'. It takes work and effort to get a majority on board.

Compromise comes from all, not just the ones that you disagree with. Calling people obstructionist's does nothing to promote working together -- it only promotes your way of thinking.

BTW, what does progressive even mean?

Well said, Rosco.

Then get out of my country.

Nick, exactly. Why do leftists continue to try to turn this country into another fiscally unsustainable hell when there are so many other "fine" examples of countries that they could move to? If you like socialized medicine - you havent got far to go -- move to Canada.

"Fiscally unsustainable hell"?

For "Socialized Medicine" - in recent history the only Party that pushed through a true expansion of Socialized Medicine was the Republican Party under Bush in 2003 (when Republicans controlled the Senate and the House) and (yes with Democratic votes but Republicans were in charge) pushed through the massive, unfunded Medicare Part D expansion that specifically eliminated negotiating drug prices - this program is adding Hundreds of Billions to unfunded liabilities and will be totaling trillions over the next few decades.

If we look as the ACA, if that is socialized heck - tell the Private Insurance Companies will be getting a lot of new customers...

Now, as for a truly Single Payer Plan - well - who knows - after all as Republicans like to always say "Elections have consequences".

Your comment is a complete and utter lie. Since you suggested Forbes, here is a link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/

A quote from the article: "As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any three years since World War II."

Everyone knows that there was a surplus during the Clinton years, so how you could say that Obama's deficits were less than a surplus is really quite something.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost about a trillion dollars. The cost of the Bush Tax Cuts will cost about a trillion dollars over the next decade. That is $2 trillion. The debt now is $16 trillion, and it was about $10 trillion when Bush left office.

Here's another article for you:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

Yes, I do have a receipt. It's called my birth certificate. And don't imply I am saying anything about Obama's. I know he was born in Hawaii. This is my country. All I was saying was that if Roscoe thinks that Scandinavia is so great, then move there. Don't try to make the United States like Scandinavia. The United States is the greatest nation in the history of the world. Scandinavia is insignificant on the world stage. They're nothing but an afterthought. If that's what the Left wants for America, then I truly fear for my country and the world.

Think about it; where would the world be without a 20th century led by America? Europe, including Scandinavia would have been overrun by Nazis. Communism would have spread over any country that was not Nazi territory. Where would the world be without Scandinavia in the 20th century? Pretty much where it is now.

And I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh. I don't know if he's really wrong, but he does have a very misguided method of communicating conservative values.

continued -
Gas will be 6$ to 7$ dollars a gallon. Businesses, will have an even greater difficulty doing business in the USA. We will be nothing more than a consumer nation that will leach off of the rest of the world. How pathetic have we become? 50% of you now own this yourselves, 100% of it! You are what you see in the mirror - In Obama you elected a self serving, lying, Constitution hating, Declaration of Independence loathing, racially dividing, class envying socialist. Nice work America. Good Luck.

Yes, please keep believing all of that and keep thinking that it was only lazy, ignorant fools that voted to reelect Obama, Increase the Democrat numbers in the Senate, Decrease the Republicans numbers in the House, Legalize Gay Marriage in 3 States, turn back the Constitutional Amendment in MN - yes, please, please, please keep believing this and please tell ALL of your Conservative friends that that is why Republicans lost.

The "lazy, ignorant fools" are the current leaders and spokespeople of the GOP. For those who don't know me, I'm a conservative Republican.

America has 2 parties; the Dangerous and the Stupid. I'm a member of the Stupid.

I agree that the Conservative movement is being crippled by people like Limbaugh and others that are on TV and Radio. However, (not to bash but IMHO explain what I believe happened), Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves they pushed these people out into the forefront of their cause and have bowed to them instead of denouncing them because too many Conservatives are simply afraid of their power - and people like Limbaugh were at one time a great asset to the Conservative movement however, they are now more of a liability.

Gay Marriage - originally gays (and their supporters) pushed for "Civil Unions" with full "Legal" equality however, Conservatives fought that (and some still don't support that concept) so after fighting that battle for a short period of time it made no sense for them not to go for full marriage equality (I believe that they would have ended up there either way but we will never really know since Conservatives would not allow Civil Unions to become reality). Conservatives fought Marriage Equality (successfully) for the better part of three decades, however, the tide has turned and Marriage Equality is winning in states and sooner or later the Supreme Court will no doubt declare it legally recognized in all states. So, on this one Conservatives really have no one to blame but themselves for a short term winning - long term losing strategy.

Regarding Charity - Conservatives do donate more however, if Charities were able to handle everything we wouldn't need any government assistance but that simply isn't the case.

If charities could handle everything, looking back on medical care Ronald Reagan backed by a Republican Senate and a Democratic House passed the horribly flawed "Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act" that forces ER's to help people without providing any means of reimbursement.

Further, Republicans would have never pushed through Medicare Part D - again - unfunded.

Then we end with the ACA that has issues but that passed largely on the fact that Republicans refused to deal with health care in the past other than passing massive government mandates - that are unfunded - to "push the problem down the road" and unfortunately for Conservatives they ran out of time and were blindsided by a Democrat who got through the ACA (for better or worse).

Once the ACA passed, Conservatives tried but were unable to convince enough voters to vote Obama out so that they can could work on undoing it. so now it is and will be the law of the land.

Again, IMHO, Conservatives took (horrible) short term strategies on health care and we somehow ended up with the ACA that (let's be honest) neither Conservatives NOR Liberals like.

But the long term Liberal fight to get Single Payer (IMHO) will eventually be successful due to Republicans not doing anything to fix the problems in the current system to stop what Liberals ultimately want.

Liberals view the government along with charities as the two large scale organizations to help the poor, hungry, sick so while they don't donate as much to charities they do favor increased government assistance and they know that taxes would go up.

You are correct that Conservatives need to be better messengers, however, I view it differently than you in the effect. I believe that Conservatives know that many of their positions are losing positions in a General Election and therefore obscure their beliefs and messages so their lack of communication is by design, not due to an inability to message their beliefs.

What I do hope for is in 2016 that Conservatives will send up a nominee who is a real Conservative and who will clearly and articulately express solid Conservative concepts (fiscal, social, etc...) and not back down or refuse to engage if the discussion becomes uncomfortable. Likewise, I hope that Democrats would field the same type of person from the other side.

Then we can have that debate and let the voters decide.

You have some well-written posts here, Rob, and I agree with the majority of your writing. I have only 3 points of disagreement. First and second, I think it might be a little early to call it on the inevitability of Single-Payer and the imposition of gay marriage by the Supreme Court.

Third, you wrote, "I believe that Conservatives know that many of their positions are losing positions in a General Election and therefore obscure their beliefs and messages so their lack of communication is by design, not due to an inability to message their beliefs." I would substitute only one word; that is I would substitute "know" for "believe". They believe their positions are losing positions, and I think that they are wrong. I think that if Conservatives put up a strong, articulate candidate in 2016 who won't back down, we just might be pleasantly surprised.

I agree with you, Heyitsme, with the only difference being that I think that we need to keep abortion legal because of all negative consequences if we make it illegal. Your side says that if we outlaw it, it will stop abortions. I say that nothing is going to stop abortions, it is just safer when it's legal. I would love to see some restrictions on a couple of the things you mentioned, but it is simply not the case right now. Work on reform, not making it illegal.

Religion is only being used as an example when religion has being used to force legislation.