Mandark said:
efralope: I think you've got that backwards to a degree, unless you're making some "GOP aren't real conservatives" statement.
OK, see how you're just jumping GOP with conservative.
I would say, GOP aren't real conservatives on A PARTICULAR or SOME issues.
I would say, GOP are real conservatives on many issues.
To me, those two hold true, I don't see why that is hard to see.
It was the Republican party trying to uphold the sodomy laws
and while I disagree, the only candidate that has even taken a strong stance on the other side is Howard Dean. Same with talking about how Democrats shouldn't be afraid of attracting poor Southern whites to the party, and how White people need to talk to White people about race. It was refreshing to see him be so blunt on the issues. I was somewhat of a Deaniac and he was a phenomenal candidate IMO. Bush and Kerry haven't even talked about these issues, Dean was not afraid to talk about it, how awesome is that (too bad he was so anti-war). Heck, if Dean was a flip-flopper on the war, considering his support on these social issues, I'd be all excited about him. In fact, part of the reason I hate Kerry is because he TOTALLY ripped off Dean speeches and catch-phrases word-for-word. Totally lame that he couldn't even come up with anything so he had to go stealing around.
and they're certainly not worried about corporate tax loopholes.
the GOP isn't worried about loopholes, I think that's what I said in my first statement. Conservatives (libertartian side of the spectrum) disagree with loopholes and blanket incentives for corporations
Nader's not too keen on immigration
I guess in a way that's true, but he want to speed up the process, which in it's own way is good. The candidate who's got my most favored position on this is actually Harry Browne, the Libertarian Presidential candidate from the 2000 election. In an inteview with John Kasich (filling in for O'Reilly) back in '00, he totally bought me on the issue when he was going on about "bring us your needy" "we have open arms". It wasn't that simple, but he generally got across that message. Of course, there must be restrictions and control, but in general, I like his attitude that's at least positive toward increasing the US population through immigration.
Either way, the only Democrat I might have voted for (who I actually contributed money to because I was supporting him early on, maybe even over Bush) was Joe Lieberman. His abortion position bothered me, but on the off chance he would pull a "no litmus test on judges" and I saw that the Senate races were going good for Republicans (so they could hold up definite pro-choice judge candidates), there's a chance I'd have voted for him.
I fail to see why every party or "ideology" would have to have a line of issues, and unless you're 100% behind them all, that person "doesn't make sense"