"The gay rights issue is a perfect example. You say that you're a conservative, presumably of the opinion that the economic policies et al of the republican party are generally more condusive to a better, more prosperous America."
Yep, but I'm more for the conservative economic policies than most of the Republicans. Difference is the current batch of Republicans have worked on the tax breaks for people, but they haven't done the job of cutting or even slowing federal spending.  Tax cuts have increased the amount of money to the feds, but budget busting spending under the Republicans and now Democrats in office has to be stopped. 

"But you disagree with them on Gay Rights. To chuck all of what you believe in just because there's a gay marriage ban on the same ticket? Certainly that would be unwise on a larger scale?"
In my state, there was no gay marriage ban on the ticket.  People running for office gave their positions of the issue, and that did weigh on my decision to vote for or against them. 

I do feel that gay marriage/civil unions will happen.  Many major businesses are offering benefits to same sex partners, and that's how it's going to start.

Jeff's most recent post sums up how poor a Republican George Bush has been.  Tax cuts without cuting government creat deficits.  Republicanism should be smaller national government and more state autonomy.  That has not been the case with the Neo-Cons.

Kevin - Kevin is an awesome name - Hagerman wrote: You just made my entire desk shoot out my nose.  What burning issues exist now that didn't exist in 2004, other than the lack of an incumbency to be protected?

Kevin - Yes.  Yes it is an awesome name. - Brown wrote: You obviously didn't finish reading my post... I'm not saying gay marriage isn't an important issue, just that there are more important issues.

My only reply here is that Brian's post at the top of this page sums up my thoughts exactly, and if I did misconstrue your post (awesome name aside, I am only human), Brian's words explain my thinking.  Gay marriage was not the issue.  Getting voter turnout in swing states was.

QUOTE: Come on, even Toby Keith is on our side this time...

Now I just feel dirty for liking either of them.  I don't like having anything in common with Toby Keith.

I don't drink...but this makes me want to start.

Todd:

I hear Hillary is buying.

I don't know if anyone watched the debate last night or not... but what a joke.

I just "loved" how they focused just on the issues and steered away from the hyperbole.   :rolleyes:

I thought the moderators were terrible.  I was continually bored watching the debate.  Which is only fair, at times the candidates seemed bored as well. I guess Hillary won the "battle of baggage."  Not something I would necessarily hang my hat on if I were her.

They can't force someone to be specific, but they can steer the debate with questions of substance.

Then there's Gibson's moment in which he addressed a question to "both of you," both waited for the other to reply first, then Gibson chided them for not responding.  Chuckles, it's your job as moderator to tell them which one you want to respond first.

Worst debate I've ever seen. But, that's what you get when the moderators are from a tabloid morning show and a former member of President Clinton's cabinet.

All they did was babble on about stale, pseudo-scandals and irrelevant wedge issues.