Who are American politicians beholden to? The People? The Constitution?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Abortion is allowed after month 6 when the baby is viable.

Not in a majority of states in the US, and it is up to state legislatures to remedy that - Roe v. Wade makes it explicitly clear that states have the necessary compelling interest to prohibit or otherwise regulate post-viability abortion. You want the actual language, or would you like to steer clear of inconvenient facts?

I think your argument is insane. If I had a disabled/injured/etc person, that depended on me, it would be murder to kill them so that they couldn't depend on me.

And I think your inability or choice not to understand that "dependent" in a biological sense means something entirely different from "dependent" in common use or a socioligical sense may not be insane, it may be merely "special." If you're a caretaker of a "disabled/injured/etc" person, and YOU DIE, then a new caretaker can be found. If that one DIES, you can get another one. If you need help, and have the means or insurance coverage, then you can HIRE someone. There is no biological dependence whatsoever. Even if the disabled person, say a quadroplegic, requires mechanical devices to survive, there is no biological dependence on any specific individual. Get that? Like it or not, admit it or not, the disabled/injured/etc person is not biologically dependent on any specific individual.

A pre-viability fetus CANNOT be hosted in any other organism. If a woman is pregnant with a pre-viable fetus and she dies for whatever reason, the fetus will die, and there is no degree of medical intervention that can save the fetus. It will die, and nothing can prevent that result, i.e. it is biologically dependent. Just like any other part of a woman's body. Remove it, it dies. She dies, it dies.

Further, what I think is insane is how so many so-called "men" seem to view women as nothing more than sperm bakeries that they feel the need to compel women's own reproductive choices, many even to the extent of desiring to compel them to carry a pregnancy to term even if they are raped, molested as a minor child, etc. After all, they're just sperm bakeries to be "protected" from the ability to make their own decisions. When "pro-life" "men" can become impregnated, then by all means feel free to make your own choices.

But of course, all those noble "men" have to protect those dainty, delicate, incompetent women from making their own reproductive decisions. God know, they can't handle the responsibility of making a choice.

[DinoDoc]

Lindsey Graham: 'No confirmation without information'

Sen. Lindsey Graham said on Sunday he'll block President Barack Obama’s nominees for Defense secretary and CIA director if the White House isn’t more forthcoming about its response to the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

“No confirmation without information,” the South Carolina Republican said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Graham said he wants to know if Obama himself phoned his Libyan counterparts during the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi and what the results of such a call might have been. Without cooperation, Graham said he'll try to put a hold on Chuck Hagel, the Defense nominee, and John Brennan for CIA.

“I don’t think we should allow Brennan to go forward to the CIA directorship, Hagel to be confirmed for secretary of Defense, until the White House gives us an accounting," Graham said. "Did the president ever pick up the phone and call anyone in the Libyan government to help these folks?”

On the same program, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said he expects Hagel and Brennan to receive up-or-down votes in the Senate.

Graham said Obama could have saved the lives of some of the four Americans who died during the Benghazi attacks had he personally intervened during the crisis.

“Did the president at any time during this eight-hour attack, pick up the phone and call anybody in Libya to get help for these folks?” Graham asked. “Secretary [Hillary] Clinton said she was screaming on the phone at Libyan officials. There’s no voice in the world like that of the president of the United States. And I do believe if he had picked up the phone and called the Libyan government, these folks could have gotten out of the airport, to the annex and the last two guys may very well be alive. And if he did call the Libyan officials and they sort of blew him off, that would effect whether or not I would give foreign aid in the future to Libya. But if he failed to call on behalf of those people under siege, then I think that’s a massive failure of leadership by our commander in chief.”

Anyone care to give odds on Hagel being filibustered at this point?

[MichaeltheGreat]

I guess Graham needs attention. Apparently it's better for the US to be without a SecDef and DCI because one Senator feels entitled to have a little tantrum.

[Tupac Shakur]

Obama is damned good politician. Which, pretty much by definition, makes him a ****ty person. But he is a DAMNED good politician.

QFT

[Tupac Shakur]

I'm not saying he's a good President. I'm saying he's a good politician. He's good at the game.

QFT

[Straybow]

Wrong again. There is no difference between getting your entertainment from a sitcom or reality TV. There is a difference between swallowing the crap on the liberal networks and realizing how biased they are.

It's the old minoritarian "we're the guardians of all that is right and virtuous, and if people only knew, they'd always elect us, but that durn librul media got us again." mantra. If it helps you sleep, that's good, but it won't win you elections.

Not saying that at all. There are always a substantial portion of people who are liberal loonies.

The people who voted TEA Party candidates in didn't get to vote for Speaker, did they?

"The people" of any ilk have never voted for speaker. The people who they elect, however, do.

The point is that the people doing the electing can't directly change the process, and neither can the guys they elect until they have seniority. So far, too few have been able to stomach the process long enough.

First, the mainstream media never called him "wooden" on the evening news, or the headlines, or the front page articles. Maybe on the editorials and op eds or articles buried pages deep that most voters never read, and the late night CNN talk shows with negligible audiences, or on Maher and Leno and Letterman who are entertainers and not newscasters. Second, you seem to have forgotten that Gore won the popular vote. He just didn't have enough votes in a few battleground states, and though his organization blocked thousands of military absentee votes and kept calling for recounts it wasn't enough to steal Florida.

Hell, Gore's performance on the campaign trail was widely panned. Sorry you missed it. He won the popular vote? Really? News at 10. That doesn't get you elected President, does it? Nor does it negate that he inherited massive advantages and blew them.

Gore's performance was panned in the media shows that only the politically active watch, not the evening news, the headlines and front page, or anywhere else the majority of people would actually hear or read it. GWB was hardly more effective as a speaker or campaigner, except that he had a conservative message and Gore had a liberal/green message. The message is what killed Gore, and what elected Bush.

Because of the media bias that incessantly derides conservatism, just as you do. You have to have the ability to speak past the media (GWB didn't have Reagan's charisma or talent) or you have to come up with another way to sidestep the media's attacks.

I thought this was a conservative country (per your assertion) and those people don't listen to librul "lamestream" media? So why would Dubya have to soft-peddle his way away from the values of his majority conservative country to dance around the evil librul media that conservatives don't listen to in the first place? BTW, I don't have a problem with conservatism, I have a problem with social conservatism, conspiracy theory conservatism, and anti-intellectual conservatism.

... none of which has anything to do with what I'm saying. The majority is more conservative than liberal. However, many people are only exposed to mainstream news because they don't want to take the effort to educate themselves. Second, I contend that W didn't have to soft-pedal the conservative message. That was Rove and the political consultants. It was a successful end-run because the media couldn't think up an effective counter to it.

No, he pandered as a progressive because that's expected of the governor of the People's Republic of Taxachusetts. Then he tried to pander as something else this time around. Romney isn't anything ideologically, he's an etch-a-sketch.

I agree he is an etch-a-sketch, but he actively pushed the progressive healthcare policy that we call Romneycare. He still stands behind it as "right for Massachussets but not necessarily for the country," even after signing the pledge to repeal Obamacare. That makes him a progressive.

You think a candidate who isn't further to the right would somehow rally the conservative base who turned out in 2010 to paste the Dems in 600+ state legislature seats, a dozen or so state governorships, and 62+6 House/Senate elections? Really? How does that work?

Where was that "conservative base" in prior elections? Yeah, people react to partisan overreach. Misreading that as a mandate or a majority base is stupid on either side. National elections are decided in the center. Every base vote picked up by one side or the other's pandering = more votes in the independent or undecided column who flip or stay home.

Oh, you mean the conservative base that elected W twice? The conservative base that kept electing the nominally "conservative" Republican majority for 5 elections in a row until 2006? The conservative base that voted against Clinton in '92 and '96 but, because it was divided between Perot and the Republican, Clinton was elected with less than a majority vote? The conservative base that elected Reagan twice and GWHB once as Reagan's successor?

Wrong again, only a fifth of the media is right wing. Swift Boaters got their message out despite everything the media tried to do to quash it, using youtube, radio, and relentlessly repeating their message at grass roots level.

Uh, dood? youtube and radio are media.

When you're listening to your music station do they have youtube, Rush, or Drudge at the top of the hour, or is it mainstream media (ABC, NBC, CBS, AP/Reuters)? When you're watching your sitcoms and reality shows, what news comes on unless you bother to change the channel?

You are so wrong it is comical. How does, say, NBC, address their competitors at ABC? Not the way they address Rush. Why? Because although they compete for position they're on the same side: overwhelmingly Dem, overwhelmingly lib, and the bias comes across in everything they do and say. Look at the present scandal in NJ. Drudge and the conservative media have been on it for weeks. Has it even been mentioned on the mainstream networks?

They compete for the same audience. How does Rush address O'Reilly? Not the same way he addresses MSNBC or whoever. If you're competing for the same core audience, and the opposite audience won't touch you, you don't offend the core audience, and have nothing to lose with the opposite audience.

Ah, so you admit the mainstream is overwhelmingly Dem, overwhelmingly lib, and knows that the informed conservatives won't listen to them so they don't even bother to try to be unbiased.

a bunch of rationalization about why Romney lost

Uh, dood? The rest of us have moved on. Best focus on 2014 and 2016, cuz you ain't gettin' a do-over on 2012.

I was answering your question, which I suppose means you concede that my evaluation of why Romney lost is correct since you have no rebuttal. I am moving on, saying that conservatism sells while spineless moderation and liberalism does not.

Second, you are wrong about pledges. You conveniently forget that the Contract With America was used to unite the Republican Party (only two candidates did not sign). Republicans won 54 House seats and 6 Senate seats, then four Dems switched parties and two became independent. Conservatism wins when applied.

Then a few years later, it loses again after the media gimmick of the pledge loses its shine. You act like it was CoA that won, rather than Dem overreach and less focused messaging.

So, on what basis did the Dems "overreach?" Their progressive health care initiative and environmentalism. CWA was a direct conservative counter, the message is indeed what won despite overwhelming media bias against it. The nominally conservative Republican majority only collapsed after 12 years of incessant media attack that culminated in the Foley scandal. The conservative base was repulsed by the homosexual scandal, and the media and Dems made it a poster-boy issue to smear the entire Republican field. If the base weren't conservative the smear would've had no traction.

The Republican Party spent four years trying to keep the media from playing the race card against them. None of the leadership had the guts to stand against Obama. The Republican Party actively campaigned against conservatives as mentioned above. More people did vote for Romney than for McCain, but not enough to change the result. The psychological messaging by the voters is that both Romney and the Republican Party distanced themselves from the conservative base, despite the fact that conservatives showed in 2010 they could turn out for strong candidates and get many moderates and independents to come along as well.

You guys keep saying that.

So, again, you have no rebuttal for the facts I present. Conservatism won in 1980, 1984, 1986 Senate, 1988, 1994 House and Senate, 2000, 2004, and 2010, and will win when it is made the issue by a real conservative. No openly liberal, socialist, or progressive candidate has ever won the White House.

[Elok]

The Christian concept of the "resurrection of the dead" is only meant to apply to people.

[DinoDoc]

No openly liberal, socialist, or progressive candidate has ever won the White House.

Barack Hussein Obama II (44th President of the United States)

[Jon Miller]

I don't think he can be considered liberal or socialist.

Maybe progressive....

JM

[Jon Miller]

I don't think he can be considered liberal or socialist.

Maybe progressive....

JM

[DinoDoc]

I don't think he can be considered liberal or socialist.

Maybe progressive....

JM

Probably not socialist but he's most definately liberal/progressive.

[Sava]

Probably not socialist but he's most definately liberal/progressive.

Grover Nordquist says Obama is a centrist.

[DinoDoc]

I'll quote DaShi by saying So?

[Guynemer]

Probably not socialist but he's most definately liberal/progressive.

If he's liberal/progressive, then I would be a raging communist.

Do you think I'm a raging communist, DD?

[DinoDoc]

Do you think I'm a raging communist, DD?

If you're about to tell me that he's a conservative, then I would be an admirer of Hitler and Mussolini.

Do you think I'm a Neo-Nazi, Guy?