• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

michaelskis said:
Sorry... my answer is Article 8 of the US constitution. It was drafted, approved, and ratified by each colony/state at the time and all new states were formed under its regulations. It provides a limited government and what is not expressly permitted at the federal level was intended to be the digression of each state. Furthermore the states had further control in that the two senators from each state were appointed by the state governments and were to oversee the money that was given to the federal government by the states. This was the structure until 1913 when senators became elected by the general populous, direct taxation to the federal was established with an federal income tax, and the whole thing was established using a cartel of privately owned banks (most of which are foreign based) that ran parallel but separate from the federal government. We call this the federal reserve. By then all of the founding fathers were long gone.... and well after the Louisiana Purchase.

So my answer once again is the opinion of the majority is the official opinion. No different that SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to Article 10?
 
Sorry... yes, Section 1, Article 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Click to expand...
What is not listed here, was intended to be done by the States. I also love how it says "Coin Money" as before this paper money called a "Continental" was printed without any inherent value and after while became meaningless. Thus the phase "Not worth a Continental." Jefferson believed that actual coin money would at least retain the value of the material that it was minted out of.
 
michaelskis said:
Sorry... yes, Section 1, Article 8:

What is not listed here, was intended to be done by the States. I also love how it says "Coin Money" as before this paper money called a "Continental" was printed without any inherent value and after while became meaningless. Thus the phase "Not worth a Continental." Jefferson believed that actual coin money would at least retain the value of the material that it was minted out of.
Click to expand...

That whole commerce clause is a little vague. I wonder if the supreme court ever ruled on that?

Or to take it a step further, how did that dang George Washington think the commerce clause allowed him to mandate all mariners have health insurance? He must not have been that knowledgable about the intent of the founders. Maybe you could set him straight.
 
michaelskis said:
You know, I had to think about that a bit more in detail, but in the end I think it is a little of both, and more. People will do what they want to do regardless of my personal, moral, ethical, economic, or religious beliefs. I understand it and it is their free will to do as they choose. But what gets me is when the government funds it.
Click to expand...

So what about coverage for Viagra? Do you think it should be covered?
 
imaplanner said:
That whole commerce clause is a little vague. I wonder if the supreme court ever ruled on that?

Or to take it a step further, how did that dang George Washington think the commerce clause allowed him to mandate all mariners have health insurance? He must not have been that knowledgable about the intent of the founders. Maybe you could set him straight.
Click to expand...

They have ruled on it, changed the ruling on it, changed it again, and yet again. The in 1936, during the Butler v. United States Case the majority opinion changed the definition op public good to mean heat is good for the nation as a whole instead of what is equitably good for each individual person. These two rulings are now the foundation for all the stupid crap that congress spends Money on.
 
Hmmmmmmm

libertarians_by_celestial_northkorea-d489pnb.jpg
 
btrage said:
[image snipped]
Click to expand...

I'm working in a verrrrrrrry conservative neighborhood on several wildlife issues, and had I seen that image I wouldn't have put in that party. Jus' sayin the party of personal responsibility is merely a phrase for other people.
 
Very interesting piece...

We Conservatives Need to Stop Blaming Libertarians
http://townhall.com/columnists/kurt...es-need-to-stop-blaming-libertarians-n1746487

Many of these libertarians are part of the “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” set that always, every time, invariably, ends up supporting the social liberal over the fiscal conservative. Every election year they tell us how their couple of million votes are totally there for the taking if we just exile the tens millions of social conservatives who actually do vote for Republicans.
Click to expand...

I think that it comes down to which is more important. If you ask me, would I rather shrink the federal debt or allow everyone equal rights, it kind of answers itself.

The piece is interesting though, in its conclusion:

We need to stop considering libertarian candidates spoilers who steal votes that belong to us. The only votes that belong to us are the ones we earn. We can earn some of them, but we need to accept that we are never going to get the vote of that tiresome, smug libertarian who read a couple Ayn Rand books back at Gumbo State before he graduated in 2011 and now has a website where he blogs away about how Republicans would try to stop him from having sex with his girlfriend if he ever got a girlfriend.

These dorks would happily see the election of a liberal petty fascist like Hillary Clinton, who reeks of nanny statism from every pore, just for the chance to tell the GOP “I told you so.” We are never going to win them over and we shouldn’t feed the trolls by pretending their opinions matter.

As conservatives, we need to leave the welcome mat out for our libertarian allies and earn their votes by addressing their concerns. But we should stop deluding ourselves by thinking they are responsible when we lose elections. They are not. We are, and acceptance is the first step to recovery.
Click to expand...
 
Republican Congressman busted for buying coke (no not that coke)

http://gawker.com/coke-busted-gop-congressman-just-voted-to-drug-test-foo-1468175133

Quoting from the story:

Trey Radel (R-Fla.), the freshman member of Congress arrested for cocaine possession late last month, backed a GOP plan to make food-stamp recipients pee in cups to prove they were drug-free and hence worthy of eating.

That debate culminated in Radel's vote for a bill that would have authorized states to withhold food stamps from applicants who didn't submit to a drug urinalysis. Which is pretty interesting, given that a similar plan in Radel's home state, championed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, ended up as a disastrous waste of taxpayer money and a violation of impoverished welfare applicants' Fourth Amendment rights.
emphasis added


This guy replaced Connie Mack, a very long-standing and respected statesman (not politician) from Florida. Trey Radel's background / experience that makes him worthy of this position? Radio & TV host. Way to go SW Florida!!!
 
Planit said:
http://gawker.com/coke-busted-gop-congressman-just-voted-to-drug-test-foo-1468175133

Quoting from the story:

Trey Radel (R-Fla.), the freshman member of Congress arrested for cocaine possession late last month, backed a GOP plan to make food-stamp recipients pee in cups to prove they were drug-free and hence worthy of eating.

That debate culminated in Radel's vote for a bill that would have authorized states to withhold food stamps from applicants who didn't submit to a drug urinalysis. Which is pretty interesting, given that a similar plan in Radel's home state, championed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, ended up as a disastrous waste of taxpayer money and a violation of impoverished welfare applicants' Fourth Amendment rights.
emphasis added


This guy replaced Connie Mack, a very long-standing and respected statesman (not politician) from Florida. Trey Radel's background / experience that makes him worthy of this position? Radio & TV host. Way to go SW Florida!!!
Click to expand...

People like this make me sick. Maybe his bill should be expanded to include all federal employees, elected officials, or appointed officials... starting with him.
 
Planit said:
This guy replaced Connie Mack, a very long-standing and respected statesman (not politician) from Florida. Trey Radel's background / experience that makes him worthy of this position? Radio & TV host. Way to go SW Florida!!!
Click to expand...

Voters outside the bubble know that drug testing the poors for welfare is a waste of money. But that won't stop them from causing the poors pain - where that is concerned, money is no object.
 
ColoGI said:
Voters outside the bubble know that drug testing the poors for welfare is a waste of money. But that won't stop them from causing the poors pain - where that is concerned, money is no object.
Click to expand...

Most of those politicians don't even believe half of what they say or vote for, all they care about is that the base wants the poors punished. I could care less about the guy using coke or being a hypocrit. There was an interesting article I read a while back about Ted Cruz and how people who know him from his work as an attorney know that he doesn't believe what he is saying out there right now, at least half the time, but that he knows that the nonsense and hate speech energizes the base. Nothing gets them fired up at the moment like taking away food from the poors.
 
imaplanner said:
Most of those politicians don't even believe half of what they say or vote for, all they care about is that the base wants the poors punished. I could care less about the guy using coke or being a hypocrit. There was an interesting article I read a while back about Ted Cruz and how people who know him from his work as an attorney know that he doesn't believe what he is saying out there right now, at least half the time, but that he knows that the nonsense and hate speech energizes the base. Nothing gets them fired up at the moment like taking away food from the poors.
Click to expand...

Politician = Hypocrite... I agree we need to stop electing politicians and start electing statesmen who will restore dignity to DC. I am going to say it again, they might go to DC with good intentions, but the system eats most of them alive.
 
Interesting... a super majority will not be required to stop a filibuster... all because of a simple majority voting for a rule change.

CNN Link because if Fox posted it, it would be a lie...

I am not sure how I feel about this. I see it both ways but in recent history the entire process has been total BS. But it does give a minority at least a little power. I am leaning towards thinking that it should be done away with... but I also think that the entire process needs to be restored.


What are your thoughts?
 
We should probably go back to how they did it prior to the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution. That's probably what the "founders" would have wanted.
 
Pretty astounding that the last couple weeks the GOP has outright said that they have no issues with some of the nominees but that they they would fillibuster anyways because President Obama should not be able to appoint judges, period.

I just saw a headline "Nation restores majority rule in legislature." Which is funny but not entirely true, since this rule only applies to judicial nominees but not supreme court nominees and the GOP said something to the effect of getting revenge by fillbustering everything else just for the heck of it.
 
imaplanner said:
Pretty astounding that the last couple weeks the GOP has outright said that they have no issues with some of the nominees but that they they would fillibuster anyways because President Obama should not be able to appoint judges, period.

I just saw a headline "Nation restores majority rule in legislature." Which is funny but not entirely true, since this rule only applies to judicial nominees but not supreme court nominees and the GOP said something to the effect of getting revenge by fillbustering everything else just for the heck of it.
Click to expand...

The GOP needs to pull their heads out of their backsides and do something a bit more productive than waste taxpayers time and money with this BS.
 
michaelskis said:
The GOP needs to pull their heads out of their backsides and do something a bit more productive than waste taxpayers time and money with this BS.
Click to expand...

If they would and offer something constructive maybe the dems would pull their heads out as well. But alas I think we are stuck for the foreseeable future in a country run by people with their heads up their backsides. But on the plus side well connected and cynical peeps are getting filthy rich!
 
I don't like it. Do I think the R's were playing politics, yes. The Obama could have nominated Solomon and the R's would have filibuster. However, the wheel always turns. This will come back and bite the D's. The R's will nominate someone that makes James Watt look like a saint and the D's won't be able to stop it.
 
imaplanner said:
If they would and offer something constructive maybe the dems would pull their heads out as well. But alas I think we are stuck for the foreseeable future in a country run by people with their heads up their backsides. But on the plus side well connected and cynical peeps are getting filthy rich!
Click to expand...

Plus side? You must be one of those connected or cynical peeps. ;)
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
I don't like it. Do I think the R's were playing politics, yes. The Obama could have nominated Solomon and the R's would have filibuster. However, the wheel always turns. This will come back and bite the D's. The R's will nominate someone that makes James Watt look like a saint and the D's won't be able to stop it.
Click to expand...

Look at the Supreme Court now. The dems weren't able to stop that crew with the filibuster in place. Should have been done long ago.
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
I don't like it. Do I think the R's were playing politics, yes. The Obama could have nominated Solomon and the R's would have filibuster. However, the wheel always turns. This will come back and bite the D's. The R's will nominate someone that makes James Watt look like a saint and the D's won't be able to stop it.
Click to expand...

This assumes that they wouldn't do it anyways.
 
Fast and Furious
Benghazi
Obamacare Website Rollout
IRS scandal
Security in Libya
Spying on German Chancellor
Spying on Journalists
Conflicts in Iran
…and more.


4kbp.jpg
 
michaelskis said:
Fast and Furious
Benghazi

IRS scandal

Conflicts in Iran
Click to expand...

I go back and forth and can't decide whether there is a mole in the RNC, planting stories to make us LOLz. Last week my favorite embarrassment for them was benghazi...BENghazi...BENGHAZI!!!!11one!11. This week may be how they "personalize" the memo about the ACA talking points. Next week? I can't wait.
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
I don't like it. Do I think the R's were playing politics, yes. The Obama could have nominated Solomon and the R's would have filibuster. However, the wheel always turns. This will come back and bite the D's. The R's will nominate someone that makes James Watt look like a saint and the D's won't be able to stop it.
Click to expand...

I think this is instrumental as far as the difference between how the two parties operate. It was difficult for the D's to get a majority to vote for abolishing the fillibuster just for executive appointments and non-supreme court justice appointments. Most R's are now saying that if they win the senate they will just get rid of the fillibuster for all legislation as well. But even knowing this the D's continue to hamstring themselves by continuing to allow the R's to fillibuster all legislation. Republicans might be cynical and terribly hypocritical but they get things done. Democrats are also hypocritical but they don't get things done and it seems like they don't want to - or perhaps they really value the process?
 
I agree. Corporations should not be deciding who gets access to birth control.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/26/opinion/wydra-supreme-court-obamacare/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

From the nation's founding until today, the Constitution's protection of religious liberty has been seen as a personal right, inextricably linked to the human capacity to express devotion to a God and act on the basis of reason and conscience.
Business corporations, quite properly, have never shared in this fundamental constitutional tradition for the obvious reason that a business corporation lacks the basic human capacities -- reason, dignity and conscience -- at the core of the right to free exercise of religion. Obviously not "persons" in the usual sense of the word, these corporations are also not religious organizations, which have historically received some constitutional protection and are, in fact, given exemptions from the contraception mandate.
Click to expand...
 
Hink said:
A decision by the SC to give corporations this right will only push us down the path further where corporations are people. This will again weaken our republic. I can't help but think that they want to review this case to make up for the "tax" decision they made earlier this year.

Hmm...:r:
Click to expand...

I'm pessimistic that the USC will allow women access to their s___ pills for safe sexytime via ACA. Let's hope the ladies on the Court can do some strongarm behind the scenes to bring these fossils (and Thomas) to a sensible decision. I won't wager on a positive outcome, tho. TBogg has the best take on this travesty, IMHO (no link to offend mods).
 
imho There was very good political news today: House Passes Budget Agreement in 332-94 Vote
Snippets:
Approval of the bill, which is expected to pass the Senate next week, clears the way for a less-glamorous stage of budgeting as lawmakers set out to make line-by-line spending decisions before current funding runs out Jan. 15.

That will be a laborious process, but less politically charged than what it has taken to pass a bill that raises spending limits by $62 billion in fiscal 2014 and 2015 to take the edge off the across-the-board cuts, known as a sequester, due to take effect in mid-January.
Click to expand...
It passed a one-month extension of farm programs, to allow more time for lawmakers to conclude House-Senate negotiations on a broader rewrite of farm policy. The budget bill also included a three-month extension of current Medicare doctors' payments, which were slated to be cut by more than 20% at year's end.
Click to expand...
House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) said the bill "is not everything we wanted." But Mr. Boehner, who has labored to keep his party from heading into a repeat of last fall's government shutdown, said that "our job is to find enough common ground to move the ball down the field on behalf of the American people."




House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) was also grudging in her support because the deal didn't include an extension of unemployment benefits. But she urged Democrats to support the bill and allow Congress to move beyond the budget discussions to address other issues such as immigration law, farm policy and raising the minimum wage.


"It's disappointing, yes, because this package is so limited," said Mrs. Pelosi. "But let's take it off the table and make way for the discussion we should be having."
Click to expand...
_________________________________________________

Now Paul Ryan is viewed as a too moderate by some of his peers:
Bipartisan Budget Deal Puts Ryan Under Fire From Fellow Conservatives
Snippets:
he struck a budget deal with Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, that affixed a new label to the polished veneer of Mr. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican: deal maker and, to some, traitor.

With a modest, bipartisan blueprint on taxes and spending, Mr. Ryan is taking a risk he has previously shied away from, putting what party leaders see as a crucial need — ending the debilitating budget wars in Washington that have crippled the Republican brand...
. . .
For the first time, the conservative wunderkind and former vice-presidential nominee is taking withering fire from movement conservatives who see the deal as a betrayal by a former ally. Potential rivals for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 immediately went on the attack, blasting the deal and challenging Mr. Ryan's status as the thinking man's conservative.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
As is my custom, I listen to right and left hate radio on my way to and from work and on the way home especially the were all so mad! Republicans think the republicans caved. Democrats think the democrats caved. No compromise! No surrender!

It reminds me of the job of a planner. If the developers and the public both are angry at you it means you probably did a good job.
 
imaplanner said:
As is my custom, I listen to right and left hate radio on my way to and from work and on the way home especially the were all so mad! Republicans think the republicans caved. Democrats think the democrats caved. No compromise! No surrender!

It reminds me of the job of a planner. If the developers and the public both are angry at you it means you probably did a good job.
Click to expand...

Yup in Washington these days if both sides are pissed it probably means that something is right. The budget deal isn't great, but it is sad that keeping things at the status quo is considered a positive in this environment. In the end I am glad that at least we won't have another government shutdown in January.
 
When I saw the news yesterday about the House budget passing I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop and find out that it wasn't real somehow. Sad that those are my expectations these days. :(
 
terraplnr said:
When I saw the news yesterday about the House budget passing I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop and find out that it wasn't real somehow. Sad that those are my expectations these days. :(
Click to expand...

It is funny when both parties work together. Everyone thinks there has to be some secret reason. We are all jaded.

Now the Senate gets to act, and it seems that we are going to have a fight there instead of the House.... yea!
 
By now, I think we all realize that Gov. Chris Christie is going to make a run for President.

What are your thoughts on the guy? Do you think that there is more behind the bridge situation than he is letting on? Do you think he knew about it? What do you think of the way he handled the situation?
 
michaelskis said:
By now, I think we all realize that Gov. Chris Christie is going to make a run for President.

What are your thoughts on the guy? Do you think that there is more behind the bridge situation than he is letting on? Do you think he knew about it? What do you think of the way he handled the situation?
Click to expand...

He was DOA from the start. He would have never survived the primaries. The bridge situation, while it didn't help, does not affect the ultimate outcome.
 
Just heard about H.R. 3854
FROM: $635 Million CSBG State grants/ $33 million Discretionary Programs
TO: $674 Million CSBG State grants/ $35.9 million Discretionary Programs

and

FROM: DOE Weatherization $137.9 Million TO: $174 Million

and

FROM: Head Start $8.1 Billion TO: $8.598 Billion

and

FROM: LIHEAP $ 3. 256 Billion TO: $3.425 Billion

LIKE A LIGHT SWITCH WENT ON AND A CERTAIN POLITICAL PARTY DECIDED OVERNIGHT (COINCIDENTALLY:r:) IN AN ELECTION YEAR TO TRY TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THEY DIDN'T JUST SPEND YEARS DECLARING WAR ON THE POOR:-@ AND SUPPORTING THE ULTRA RICH IN EVERY SINGLE MOVE THEY MADE:6:

Sadly, sheeple will forget all about it by the end of the year......
 
imaplanner said:
As is my custom, I listen to right and left hate radio on my way to and from work and on the way home especially the were all so mad! Republicans think the republicans caved. Democrats think the democrats caved. No compromise! No surrender!

It reminds me of the job of a planner. If the developers and the public both are angry at you it means you probably did a good job.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The method to getting back to civility is for democrats to learn the art of the poison pill. The GOP gets it and uses it as a weapon every chance they get. In the budget bill, they effectively limit the EPA from preventing several types of pollution such as mountain top fill rules and regulation of green house gases.

The democrats need to fight back. Give up and allow abortion bans but the top income tax rate goes back to 70% for those who earn more than a million, no deductions for anything. Do away with the department of education but also do away with any deductions or loopholes for corporations and raise their tax rate to 50%.

The point being that this idea of bipartisanship we are discussing is weird. If everybody hurts it must be good. Its hard to negotiate when the GOP is not negotiating in good faith. They have not since the summer of 2008. Yeah, both sides play politics. The difference now is that the GOP is acting in anti democratic ways trying to rig votes. The Democratic party had better get good in a hurry if they want to stay in the game.

Get rid of the rest of the filibuster. Its gone on the first day of a republican senate anyway.

Break the good faith rules of the judiciary. If they block their own nominations for judges, then let the administration do it for them. Leaves them with the choice of having choice or somebody else does it for them. It would lead to a properly moderate judicial process, maintain the existing process and not allow this goofy crap they are pulling now.

Things like minimum wage should be pegged to costs of inflation. They may be 2 years behind current, but that is better than 3 decades.

I am not a huge admirer of a lot of things the administration has/is doing, but I am done with this false equivalency crap. I am done digging up detraction's to seem equal. Selfish bastards need to be put down like rabid dogs. Maybe its the latest reading book that has me really annoyed. "The End" by Michael Hopf. I love a good dystopian end of the world book, but this one displays all the worst tendencies of the Teabager nostalgia and anti democratic beliefs. If the GOP can't win elections, they will rig them. If the people don't want them in control, they will destroy the system like spoiled children.

If the developers and citizens are pissed at the planner, it usually means double ignorance prevails, not necessarily a good job on the planning aspects.
 
DOD, while I don't agree with everything you posted, I do agree with eliminating the filibuster and the elimination of deductions and loopholes. I would go further and say that it should not only be for corporations, but for everyone.
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
He was DOA from the start. He would have never survived the primaries. The bridge situation, while it didn't help, does not affect the ultimate outcome.
Click to expand...

Not so fast. New poll shows it hasn't made much impact on his popularity.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...e-cruising-through-bridge-scandal-so-far?lite


As far as the primaries, there seems to be some indication that the conservative base is liking him more as a result of this situation.

Duke Of Dystopia said:
.

If the developers and citizens are pissed at the planner, it usually means double ignorance prevails, not necessarily a good job on the planning aspects.
Click to expand...

Most people are fucking idiots. And like in politics, alot of the developers that are not idiots are legitimate sociopaths. That's just the way it is duke. Look at the West Virginia chemical spill - the response from republicans and some democrats is that the regulations that did not require any inspections in 20 years actually should be loosened as a result. Seriously. And this works because as a population we are complete idiots.
 
Last edited:
imaplanner said:
Not so fast. New poll shows it hasn't made much impact on his popularity.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...e-cruising-through-bridge-scandal-so-far?lite


As far as the primaries, there seems to be some indication that the conservative base is liking him more as a result of this situation.
Click to expand...

We will see how long this last. He's a moderate from the East Coast. Both of those are anathema to the base. Romney was similar and look what he had to do just to get the nomination.
 
Back
Top