Weekdays at 12noon on 770 AM: The Truth
 Michael Medved
Most popular
Help us build a Fisher House
Bonneville Seattle is raising funds for the construction of a second Fisher House at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Tacoma and we need your help.

Good News for GOP: The Party of Grownups

November 14, 2012 @ 12:30 pm

Buried within dismal election night tallies, conservatives can find some encouraging numbers. Sixty percent of all American voters were married, and married people chose Romney overwhelmingly, 56 to 42 percent.

Meanwhile, voters in households making more than $50,000 a year - a full 59 percent of the electorate - also went Republican by a big margin of 8 percent. And a full 78 percent of voters identify themselves as Christian-Protestant or Catholic - preferring Mitt Romney by more than 10 percent.

So how did Obama win? By piling up big majorities of the single, the poor, and the twelve percent who say they have no religion - all characteristics primarily of the young. But most people don't want to stay single, poor and irreligious as they get older, so the GOP remains the party of grownups and the American dream - a dream that's still overwhelmingly popular.

More Michael Medved

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (113)


  • Add A Comment

  • Forrest wrote...
    A country with over 8% unemployment
    November 14, 2012 5:58 pm
    Chose Obama over the Republican candidate. Why? Because the loony right, dominated by ultraconservative nutjobs (like you Medved) force the party's nominee to run so far to the right to get nominated, that the rest of the country is to terrified to elect right wing Republican candidate. Republicans need to get rid of Grover Nordquist, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Colter, Bill O'Reilly,....and wannabes like you Medved.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • fedral way, rick wrote...
    A country with over 8% unemployment
    November 14, 2012 8:19 pm
    Forrest will said spot on a ole SCHOOL RIGHT ON TO YOU ,good luck Forrest to you and yours.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Hey, forrest - O'Reilly is an OK guy.
    November 14, 2012 11:16 pm
    Otherwise, you may well be right (sorry - correct). Thinking back to the days of Ronald Reagan, none of those you name were of any note - except Rush who was a bit of a joke even then.

    The party of Ronald Reagan - and of Jack Kemp - would have won the past election with over 60%.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    I agree with you Ron
    November 15, 2012 6:40 am
    Republican fear tactics and frothy mouthed evangelism is no longer going to work.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Golfer66 wrote...
    Forrest....
    November 15, 2012 10:24 am
    Perhaps you did not pay attention to the election or the campaigns that led up to it?? Please cite and define "republican fear tactics" and "frothy mouthed evangelism." Thx....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    Golfer666,
    November 15, 2012 10:54 am
    How about conservative right wing fundies complaining that Obama is a foreign born, brown skinned, anti-war socialist that gives away healthcare and food to the poor. I think you fundies are thinking of Jesus and not Obama.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Golfer66 wrote...
    Forrest...
    November 15, 2012 12:04 pm
    That isn't the GOP platform, and was not used in Romney/Ryan campaign ads. But to squelch you hyperbole, allow me to point out that Herman Cain (among many others) is a "brown-skinned" conservative who "complains" about the encroachment of the federal government and a massive entitlement society. That is not "fundamentalism" by any stretch of the imagination.......Jumpin' Jehosiphat, and you guys think Medved is stretching to make a point? I think that is called projection.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    Who said anything about the Republican Platform Gopher666?
    November 15, 2012 1:27 pm
    Your problem is most of America doesn't think like you crazy right wing nut jobs. Hence you lost the election. Example: God wanted a raped woman to become pregnant because it's God's will. Example: Start two unfunded wars and don't include them in the budget. Then claim to be a fiscal conservative. Example: Start a unfunded prescription medicare plan that won't allow the government to negotiate price and call yourself a fiscal conservative. Example: Start bailouts to financial institutions and then blame Obama for them. Example: State that we have to cut spending but we must increase military spending while claiming to be fiscally conservative. Example: Should be worrying about the deficit but would rather monitor what two consenting adults are doing behind closed doors. Example: Wants to outlaw abortion because life is sacred yet doesn't want to provide healthcare for infant. Would rather let unwanted newborn suffer rather than provide healthcare, food and shelter.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Golfer66 wrote...
    Such fertile soil you spread, Forrest....
    November 16, 2012 12:45 pm
    Who said anything about the GOP platform? I did, perhaps you missed it. It was mentioned because emotional people like yourself seem unable to prevent yourselves from attaching fiction, nonsense and lies to your political opponents as a means to not address the real issues they are presenting. Example: God wants raped women to get raped? Really? Is that the depth of your understanding of the issues? Example: What wars are funded? Example: Rape medicare for $800 billion to fund Obamacare and then blame conservatives. Example: Bush's bailouts of financial institutions was not a conservative thing to do, so applying it to the philosophy makes no sense...it is the confusion of political hatred over political philosophy. Example: spending must be cut (I hate to use the word, but DUH!), and our already-gutted military needs funding and modernization in an ever-increasingly hostile world, not additional cuts.....since national security is one of the few enumerated powers, this is both constitutional and prudent. Example: Conservatives would not be concerned about what happens in your bedroom if you stopped making it a national discussion. And the best example of all: Perhaps you are unaware of the danger and irony here, but the federal government should not be in the business of abortion or "providing" healthcare, food or shelter to anyone...totally out of scope, inappropriate and dangerous to allow it to do so. Now, you think my position of "crazy right wing nut job?" Let me tall ya, in my constitutional world, we would be equal as I want to take nothing from you and provide you the same, while in your world, you want to take things from me and call me names. And i'm the nut job? This world is becoming bass ackwards.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Gofer, the new left may have only stock answers, but let me tell you a story.....
    November 15, 2012 11:59 am
    After long work (actually since 1968) and having been a Reagan/Kemp delegate to Detroit in 1980, one of the proudest and happiest points in my life was election night 1980 when the map 'turned red for Reagan'. ... For all the joy, however, and knowing what was done to bring so many different peoples together under the 'big tent' that achieved victory, it was sickening to hear Jerry Falwell the next morning proclaim that it was ALL because of Moral Majority.. Now, certainly evangelicals were a part of the Reagan Revolution, but they lead it only in their own minds. Something about immigrants, auto workers and others who formed the Reagan Democrats played a slightly larger roll.

    Of course, Jerry Falwell also later stated that Berry Goldwater was 'no longer relevant' and strongly opposed the Supreme Court. ... And some of those 'fear tactics' were first employed against Republicans who wouldn't toe the line. And against Catholics, too. ... And (remember) even ran Pat Roberts against Bush I in '88. Of course, the Bush family changed a bit, but that's another story.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Golfer66 wrote...
    ron prevost...
    November 15, 2012 1:12 pm
    Good point and relevent story! Many people think the GOP should focus only on the economy and national security, but guys like Hugh Hewitt and others assert that they should also remain very vocal about the pro-life issue.... I think it is the pro-life stance of most conservatives that promotes this silly, broad-brush notion that conservatives are all radical religious nuts and are thus "scary." Frankly, the pro-life issue has nothing to do with our national woes, and yet is used as a wedge (i.e., your "stock answer" reference) to fan the emotional flames of distraction away from some really important issues and solutions. Add corruption, the media, Hollyweird and the dumbing-down of the populace and we have Obama's second term.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    I agree Ron
    November 15, 2012 7:00 am

    With the Reagan/Kemp team as a candidate. But they are both dead, let's move on and find someone with those same types of values who actually believe what they are saying (most people knew Romney was lying and flip flopping to get a job).

    Medved has to provide this BS in order to keep his base intact or he himself will be out of a job, because once people start seeing what a loser looks like, they are going to jump ship as well as advertiser's that pay his salary and move there money to a more moderate conservative base and Medved knows this. I mean he,lol, produced a book on why Obama would lose the elections. I suspect people are using his book right now to heat there homes.

    If they keep trying to alienate half the population with this BS, even there own base will start to move and that will be doom for the Republican party. They have a chance to move in a different direction but will they, will they hold on to there outdated philosophy?

    Time will tell and if they move on, Medved will have to find work somewhere else eventually because his philosophy is on life support.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Golfer66 wrote...
    Sportsguru...not political guru..
    November 15, 2012 10:28 am
    Please define and cite Romney "lying." Thx... Also interesting to note that Ryan is a Kemp guy right down the line, so all you folks lamenting the good old days are either insincere or missed the last several months.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @Ron....
    November 15, 2012 7:41 am
    Uh oh - I agree with Ron??? "The party of Ronald Reagan - and of Jack Kemp - would have won the past election with over 60%." You're damm right they would have won like that. The problem is that the extremists hijacked the party and ruined it. There's no way a sitting President with the economy like it is should have won. No way at all. Unless the 'other party' was so lost in it's own rhetoric, extremism and it's own stupidity that it blew itself out of the election. Heck - I know a lot of commentors won't beleive me, but back then I was a moderate Republican. Today - because the party has moved so far to the right, I am considered a dirty liberal. Go figure.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Thanks, guys. I appreciate the support of the rational Left.
    November 15, 2012 8:39 am
    There are Republican leaders out there who want the best for all the people. The American Dream for all. I just hope I'm not too old to see the rational right come back.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @FoMaSarge
    November 15, 2012 6:55 pm
    You ARE a dirty liberal. Mitt Romney's actual record reveals him a moderate that the party felt would be electable. Did you forget the bashing he received in the pundit world right up until his nomination? Calling him an "extremist" is nothing more than the culmination of baseless talking points applied to the other party's guy. The only reason Jack Kemp has escaped being branded as an "extremist" was because A: he's dead - and - B: he carefully tempered his conservatism with enough skillful racial pandering to keep that big-tent nonsense inflated.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @cigarillo...
    November 16, 2012 11:39 am
    I didn't call Romney anything. I was speaking to the overall Republican party. They have moved so far towards the extreme right that someone who used to be a moderate Republican is a blatant liberal to the rank and file Republicans these days. Romney was whatever people wanted him to be. Moderate when he was governor, Rigid, hard right conservative during the primaries and then flipped flopped back and forth depending on his audience and who he was trying to connect with at that moment during the final stretch against Obama. Romney was/is a salesman and was doing what salesmen do - presenting whatever look would let him close the deal at whatever point along the way. That fact was made even more clear in his 'gifts won Obama the election' talk after the election.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @SargeThe DirtyLiberal
    November 16, 2012 2:11 pm
    I agree that it wasn't prudent of Mitt Romney to let loose with the pundit talk ("gifts")whether it was the truth or not. Although Republicans have to a higher degree, both parties have gravitated toward the "extremes". Neither would do so without a constituency demanding it. The deeper question leads to the overall debate between the factions on this blog: Which conditions, perceived or real, have caused our present divisive partisanship?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Golfer66 wrote...
    Senor Cigarillo....
    November 16, 2012 9:43 pm
    In what way did the R/R campaign gravitate to any extreme? Are you suggesting that sticking to principles and avoiding moral dilemmas is radical? Attempting a balanced budget and fiscal restraint is radical? Adhering to the constitution is radical? Obviously not, and you may agree, but the left (via the media and pathetic education system) is dictating the context and rules and establishing norms, so the drones don't know any better.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @Golfer
    November 17, 2012 5:31 pm
    The R/R campaign, as well as the O/B machine, hugged the middle with the formulaic vague platitudes necessary to garner votes in our nightly news sound bite culture. Add in a carefully worded (too dull for the mainstream media) tidbit to the base once in a while and hope the pundits gets some mileage out of it. All cynicism aside, I had great hopes for the Romney /Ryan team. Mitt Romney’s track record as an effective manager had me hooked back in the primaries for the 2008 election. I believe he could’ve selected and steered a more effective team than the present academic-in-chief. His selection of the house’s fiscal flag-bearer indicated that he may actually be serious about getting a handle on D.C.’s spendthrift ways, although the cynic in me cautions that this may have been simple pandering to the large number of us that long to get off our headlong train ride into financial ruin. (And isn’t the VEEP seat the quickest road to obscurity?) I have no problem with the Republican Party gravitating in the direction that its constituency thought they were to begin with. You’ll get no argument from me on any of your points. I think they’re a well thought out breath of reason on a blog full of baseless rants.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @Sarge (one more thing)
    November 16, 2012 2:19 pm
    Q: What do you call a guy who modifies his stance to suit his audience? A: A successful political candidate. We tend to ridicule and not vote for guys that have an opinion and stand by it. The best of all techniques is to appear as an unknown blank slate and let the voters project whatever they want. President Obama successfully coupled both techniques with the incumbent advantage this time around.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @cigarillo....
    November 17, 2012 8:11 am
    Q: What do you call a guy who stands by his ridiculous rhetoric, 'the party line and nothing else', partisan lies, believes that everything anyone who's not 'right wing enough' does is not only wrong, but massively and entirely wrong and lives in an alternative reality where only Obama's the greatest evil that's ever touched this planet and will lose the election no matter what' (the election part has morphed into 'won the election because of cheating/'gifts' to voters/an ignorant and stupid electorate')? A: Boze, Medved and many, many of the people who comment on here.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Golfer66 wrote...
    Forrest Gump
    November 15, 2012 10:23 am
    Please define what Republican platform policies are "ultaconservative" and how those policies would harm you or the country. Thx...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • fedral way, rick wrote...
    Michael how your books selling on President Obama
    November 14, 2012 6:13 pm
    Hey michael your book on president Obama selling like hotcakes? You missed the boat on that one your party is sooo messed up you keep blaming the wrong people,its your idea's,thinking and behavior that is sooo nasty and very misguided.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    "the GOP remains...a dream that's still overwhelmingly popular"
    November 14, 2012 6:22 pm
    except if you mean by popular, capable of winning an election.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @SeattleD
    November 15, 2012 7:44 am
    "the GOP remains...a dream that's still overwhelmingly popular" - you need to add 'They are a legend in thier own minds' because that's the only place that they are overwhelmingly popular. They can't be anything like 'overwhelmingly popular' in reality because they didn't even get close to a majority of the popular vote. The science is simple - you are only 'overwhelmingly popular' when you win at least a 'majority of the popular vote'. Otherwise it's nothing more than a lie.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Sort of like when counties get to vote
    November 14, 2012 8:04 pm
    They don't, citizens vote.

    When dollars, land masses or religions vote you win.

    Until then...................

    We do.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    lawn-voterswon the pres election but lets see if these same cats will fix our problems.
    November 15, 2012 2:40 pm
    $100 says nO WAY!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • fedral way, rick wrote...
    Michael Midved you very wrong About the PRESIDENT
    November 14, 2012 8:07 pm
    Michael you have been wrong about president obama every thing you say and write have been wrong. From nasty book to everything you say about the president. your black hateful heart has blinded you and your party of old nasty whitemen and jewish men like you.please stop move on try to help your party more by reaching out to blacks,latino's,asians,young people and single women . hahahahaha man i am just joking you and your party could not do that hahahaha ,you to hateful and blind with hate ,,please say the wig party.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • halfshaft wrote...
    Dude..........
    November 15, 2012 9:05 am
    ....you need to tone it down a notch. You are kind of providing evidence for some of the more negative things being said about us on the left.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    fedral way, rick
    November 15, 2012 6:19 am
    Love the racism, the left wing hate, and the stereotyping of your post.

    Where is Michael Medved wrong in anything he has ever said about the Dear Leader?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    It's me! Ha ha!
    November 15, 2012 7:06 am

    "Where is Michael Medved wrong in anything he has ever said about the Dear Leader"

    I can push an easy button on that question, he was wrong when he published a book on why Obama would not win reelection, ha,ha,ha,ha,.

    He was wrong about what the polls meant in the elections,ha,ha,ha,ha,.

    He was wrong about Obama's raced based support as Obama won half of the white vote,ha,ha,ha,ha.

    He was wrong about everything leading up to the election and what he who is suppose to be in the know predicted what would happen at election time.

    Medved's not very good at what he does apparently.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Golfer66 wrote...
    He was wrong about Obama's raced based support as Obama won half of the white vote,ha,ha,ha,ha.
    November 15, 2012 1:22 pm
    Virtually all pundits under-estimated the power of massive vote-buying schemes and vicious fear-mongering... Chicago style!! That said, WRT your comment about race-based support..... 90+% of blacks voted for Obama while half of whites did.... and you don't see racism in that??
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    They didn't give Herman Cain much love or Condi, or
    November 15, 2012 1:44 pm
    Allen West. Maybe Republicans should stop talking down to black people and then they would get some votes. Republicans are so condesending and they don't even get it; they have LITERALLY said "I'm not going to give you free stuff. If you want free stuff vote for the other guy." "I don't want to make black people's life better by giving them other people's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money." "Black people need to get off welfare." "I will go to the NAACP convention and explain to the African-American community why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps,” So the Republican strategy to get more black votes is to tell black people they're a bunch of lazy low lives and need to straighten up? Good strategy. Keep working it. I'm liking where it's going.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Golfer66 wrote...
    Republicans should stop talking down to black people
    November 15, 2012 8:45 pm
    So your strategy is to dumb-down, placate and purchase their vote rather than inspire them, treat them like adults and expect bigger things from them?? You seem to want dependancy. And that is better? And you like where that is going? You admit that you desire to take from those who are able to give to those who need. That is as bad of a parenting philosophy as it is bad governance. But you want it, eh? Tell me, where in the world and when in history has that EVER worked?? Seems you have sipped heartily from the self-destructive socialist trough.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    I never said anything of the sort.
    November 16, 2012 10:35 am
    You are an eediot. What the heck is wrong with people like you? Why is corporate welfare okay but not welfare that goes to help the working poor? Total federal spending on a safety net for the poor costs the average taxpayer about $400 a year, while spending on corporate welfare programs costs the same taxpayer about $1400 a year. Aaaand...that wasn't even my point. You think that 70% of Hispanics and 94% of black people are on welfare? Are you some kind of moron? It may be shocking to you, but A LOT of Hispanics and black people and asians and young people and single women actually have jobs (go figure) and for the right to be talking down to them and telling them to grow up and get a job is insulting.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Golfer66 wrote...
    A one-girl emotional journey???
    November 16, 2012 12:26 pm
    Calling me names and fabricating an argument that has heretofore not happened is a page right out of the liberal distraction play book. Change the subject, dismiss, parse and spew ad homiinems. Emotion over logic. Did I mention corporate welfare? No. Did I mention any particular group having a job or not? No. You asked what is "wrong with you people"....from your perspective what is wrong with me is that I disagree with you.....from my perspective what is wrong for me is the direction our nation is heading, and I've made that quite clear. It is simple, not personal, and has nothing to do with envy, skin color or wealth. While hysterically calling me an "eediot" and "moron" and fixating on race, you may have missed the basic truths of my posts. I'm seeing a pattern here....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    So...let me get this straight.
    November 16, 2012 2:05 pm
    Black people voted for Obama because they want welfare, Hispanics voted for Obama because they want green cards, young people voted for Obama because they want free college and young women voted for Obama because they want free condoms...holly shiittake! I think you're right. Sucks they got the right to vote huh? Hey, I gotta a joke for you. A CEO, a Conservative and a Liberal enter a room. There are ten cookies on the table. The CEO takes nine and whispers to the Conservative......that liberal is trying to take your cookie.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood
    November 16, 2012 5:03 pm
    lol, that's was pretty good.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Golfer66 wrote...
    straight????
    November 16, 2012 9:34 pm
    There is a word for putting words in the mouth of the opposition while ignoring the words that actually come out. Do you know what word that is? But lets say your simplistic analysis is partly correct. You're good with that? Envy and race and divisiveness dictate your philosophy? My philosophy does nothing of the sort, but you somehow fear mine. That is the dysfunction of the left, and by me saying so will fog your ability to respond with the intent to advance the debate. As for you joke.... not smart...the CEO bought the cookies for his employees, so he/she would have no motivation to take any of them....you would know this if you worked (there). But the joke does underscore your envy. You want to take things from me while I want nothing to do with you. So who is the dangerous actor here, GMCH?? Do you even get what I'm saying, or are you going to resort to ad hominems again as a way to avoid truth?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Hot dog! You finally said something I can't disagree with.
    November 16, 2012 9:53 pm
    You are indeed scary...and creepy, don't forget creepy.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Golfer66 wrote...
    thank you for making my point...
    November 16, 2012 10:35 pm
    ...in the final analysis, you are left with base name calling. It's about all the left has in it's aresnal, aside from redistribution of course... I again point out the obvious: my philosophy takes nothing away from you, and your's takes much from me...and you call me scary and creepy? Res Ipsa Loquitur....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Aw contraire. That was not my final analysis. This is.
    November 17, 2012 6:39 am
    Your merda taurorum animas conturbit.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Goler66
    November 19, 2012 9:45 am
    Touché ! GMCH has been exposed to all as the Loud mouth, intolerant hypocrite epitome of the liberal left. Distract from the issue, twist the argument and then call names. If you spend enough time on this blog, you will see the reoccurring pattern on a daily, no hourly, basis...Go Golfer66!!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @Lord Ha ha!
    November 17, 2012 10:52 am
    You write "Where is Michael Medved wrong in anything he has ever said about the Dear Leader?" How about the book Medved is selling to right wing suckers about Obama losing the election?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    I feel so cheated. I voted for Obama. Where's my goody bag?
    November 15, 2012 1:28 pm
    Obama’s win was bigger than John Kennedy’s in 1960 (303 electoral votes, popular vote margin of 112,827), bigger than Richard Nixon’s in 1968 (301 electoral votes, popular vote plurlaity of 512,000), bigger than Jimmy Carter’s in 1976 (297 electoral votes, popular vote margin of 1,683,247), bigger than George W. Bush’s in 2000 (271 electoral votes and a popular vote loss of 543,816). Obama is the first President since Ronald Reagan in 1984 to win a majority of the popular vote in consecutive elections and only the third Presidential candidate to do so since Franklin Roosevelt. So suck it Medved. By yourself a tin can and a cigar and take your show on the road. Only the sourpusses are going to drink your bitter cup of joe. America has spoken; love it or leave it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Phil B wrote...
    Really?
    November 15, 2012 2:50 pm
    I haven't seen a whole lot of "grownup" behavior here, and in the news coming from Conservatives. Howls of "I hope America fails!", petitions to suceed, and insistign the only reason Obama won was because "Those people" elected him. Hardly the behavior of adults. More like spoiled brats who kick and scream because they didn't get what they wanted.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Golfer66 wrote...
    Really, Phil??
    November 15, 2012 8:56 pm
    Please tell us which conservatives have called for America's failure?????? And what is a "insistign?" Are you not capable, as others here have proven, of comprehending the rational concerns of people opposed to Obama's agenda, philosophy and rhetoric??? You bemoan the lack of "grownup" behavior here, yet ignore rational thought and honest debate, and instead resort to emotional and baseless dismissiveness. Are you advancing the conversation????
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @Golfer66
    November 16, 2012 1:35 pm
    Google your question ...you'll see Limbaugh comes up quick.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Golfer66 wrote...
    Senor Cigar...
    November 16, 2012 10:40 pm
    Limbaugh called for Obama to fail, not the country. That people are confused by that distinction only proves many of the points I've been making on this topic.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sambra27 wrote...
    roughly translated
    November 16, 2012 9:06 am

    If you put Medveds column here into Google translate and select any language, the output is:

    Blah blah blah blah blah? Whine whine blah blah whine! Whine whine whine whine whine whine, blah blah blah (whine), whine blah whine blah whine? 52 percent! Whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine Romney. Blah blah blah blah blah.

    It's fascinating.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Man oh man I can’t stand people like you.
    November 16, 2012 1:43 pm
    You delude yourself into thinking you sound rational because you don’t swear and you use words like please, but it doesn’t matter how politely you say stupid things. They’re still stupid. I said Republicans should stop talking down to black people. You said my “strategy is to dumb-down, placate and purchase their vote rather than inspire them, treat them like adults and expect bigger things from them” and that I seem to “want dependency.” That kind of thinking is what makes your party look like a bunch of sore losers. Who purchased whose vote? What money exchanged hands? There were policies debated and the majority of America agreed with the President. But maybe someone from your own party will convince you “We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything,” Bobby Jindal told POLITICO in a 45-minute telephone interview. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.” He was just as blunt on how the GOP should speak to voters, criticizing his party for offending and speaking down to much of the electorate. “It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments — enough of that,” Jindal said. “It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.” Calling on the GOP to be “the party of ideas, details and intelligent solutions,” the Louisianan urged the party to “stop reducing everything to mindless slogans, tag lines, 30-second ads that all begin to sound the same. “
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Frogsplash wrote...
    GMCFH ....
    November 16, 2012 2:28 pm
    I am not sure if you are writing your post to a notepad, then doing a copy/paste over, or if your browser is all messed up, but your posts have all sorts of crazy symbols that make your stuff extremely difficult to read.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    I know huh? But they don't show up like that on my end...
    November 16, 2012 2:53 pm
    Weeeiiiirrrd...it was to golfer666
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Golfer66 wrote...
    not showing up on your end??
    November 16, 2012 10:23 pm
    Seems odd font characters isn't the only thing...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Golfer66 wrote...
    Dearest hatefilleddronefromcalifornia...
    November 16, 2012 10:23 pm
    I understand when you acknowledge your intolerance for opposing rational thought...because actually addressing that thought would shatter the liberal worldview which must be uncomfortable. I also know that by me saying so you will not be able to focus on the rest of my retort. Fine, my posts are really for the peanut gallery anyway.. I also wish I knew how to quote, cut and paste particular passages here as it would make the point-counterpoint a whole lot easier. In any event, isn't it pathetic that "not swearing" and "saying please" is now "delusional??" Unbelieveable, really, the interworkings of the liberal mind. Whatever... Let's discuss your post, although it is so disjointed it may not be possible. Perhaps I'll focus on this one point: Your envy aside, Jindal (and Medved and many others) are articulating ways to better spread the rational position of the conservative philosophy! That is a good thing, as any other philosophy is historically a dead-end street with misery as the curbs. I'll have to address your self-described lack of understanding of the complex vote-buying schemes in another post... please focus me in that direction with a direct post on the subject, as currently there is too much nonesense and distraction to have a meaningful dialog via this blog formatting. Last thought... while I acknowledge the obvious marketting failings of the serious minds on the right, I must say that your focus on the marketting, and not the philosophy, is akin to focusing on the box of Cracker Jacks and not the product inside the box....this is illustrative of liberals who use such shallowness to dumb-down their constituents (which obviously works) and equally illustrative of the conservatives who took the high road and assumed that those same constituents would be smart enough to understand what is in the box. In sum, voters were impressed by the colorful box, and have not a clue what is inside. you call this "talking down"....I call it being truthful and hopeful that people have not yet had too much of the Kool Aid. In other words, its about high expectations vice the soft bigotry of low expectations the libs are famous for. I'm not yet optimistic, but the Medved piece is merely an attempt to flesh out the idea. You find all this "radical" which negates any gravitas one might otherwise find in your posts.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Yeah, I know your posts are for the peanut gallery. They're
    November 17, 2012 7:10 am
    the only ones that could take your moronic psychobabble seriously. I kind of disagree with the marketing thing though, Mitt Romney's message came through loud and clear. "I'm going to take away medicare from everybody under 55. I'm going to cut medicaid for everybody by about a third, and I'm going to that in order to finance a giant tax cut for me and my friends and the reason I'm doing that is because half of Americans are a bunch of lazy, government dependent losers who contribute nothing." It's not the democratic party who has a clash of moderates vs. lunatics dear, that would be your party. My favorite line this week was Bill Krystal on Fox News who said, "You know what? It won't kill the country if if Republicans raise taxes a little bit on millionaires. It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000. Make it $500,000, make it a million. Really the Republican party is gonna fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile to Republicans." Man, the look on that panel was priceless. My opinion is that the right relied way too much on people who hated Obama and unbeknownst to them there are not enough people out there who hate Obama. As for envy which you seem to have an obsession with, I envy no man who thinks like you. I pity the fool.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }