Nothing should be left unturned....they hounded President Obama on his church, his wife, his race,

[demtenjeep]

his military experience, his kids, his education, his parents

They are making death threats, carrying weapons at or near rallies



so NO, nothing of Mitt is off limits.

always turning the other cheek makes one a LOSER


This is a fight for the future NOTHING is off limits


This NOT only about religion, it is about everything. Bullying, lying, out of touch, so much more than religion. We have to use everything.

[Politicalboi]

1. I agree

As long as it doesn't go too low. I'm not interested in immediate family matters so much, but I am concerned about bullying. I am concerned about the One man One woman coming from a Mormon. To me, that is fair game. But not his immediate family. Seamus is fair too.

[xtraxritical]

96. Be careful, Harry Reid is a Mormon too.

[CanonRay]

101. If the Rethugs want to use Reid's Mormonism against him in Nevada

good luck with that...if it would've worked, they'd have already done it.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

102. But no one's attacking Harry Reid.

and if he feels offended by comedy regarding his faith's sillier conventions, he can speak up.

[TheKentuckian]

106. How and who cares if they do?

I'm not decided if the tact will be effective or not (I'm not even sure if it wouldn't be a net negative) but I don't see how Harry Reid is a major concern as he isn't up for four years and isn't terribly fearsome as Leader.

My tendency leans toward being neutral on it because despite any discomfort I cannot help but notice the handwringers don't seem to do much handwringing when Democrats actually do Republican things. The assimilation of policy seems to be of no nevermind so what is the point about quibbling on tactics when actual outcomes are passed off and even cheered on.

I also think for this to work some subtly is best, tying the Mormons to the fundies in ways that cause both to react and expose their own differences. Sometimes both instincts are correct, perhaps here being assertive is required but running the ball up the middle is not.

The enemies are reactionaries, this will dictate their behavior because they must be what they are. The chore is finding the required levers to apply the necessary pressure to the right points.
Maybe the Liberty U situation will provide clues of their fault lines, how to stimulate them, and how they hold together in crisis (as to undermine that as well).

[sufrommich]

2. I think it's hilarious that DUers are actually

arguing that a minority religion that the majority think of as strange and scary should be used as a weapon ,without a hint of irony.

[jp11]

4. All religions are strange.

[we can do it]

36. +1

[Taverner]

39. Not strange - - all religions are batshit insane

Virgin births? Flying to heaven on a winged horse? Genocide, murder and misogyny not just being OK, but the law?

I'll take "none of the above" for one thousand, Alex...

[RoccoR5955]

99. You forgot about...

the talking snake. Give me a freakin' break already. Religions are nothing more than a means of controlling the masses. And remember that god ain't nothin' but dog spelled backwards!

[veganlush]

103. so,

snakes don't talk....?

[Taverner]

115. They talk alright, but reccomending an apple? Puh-LEAZE!

Snakes are carnivores

[Zax2me]

53. Strangest being those that are undefined.

[geek tragedy]

8. A minority religion that bankrolled Prop 8.

Screw them. When they stop supporting bigotry, we can consider whether it's troublesome that some consider them to be a pantheistic cult.

[sufrommich]

11. Many catholics and baptist hold the same view. You know

why we don't attack their religions for the views of some of their members ? Because they're majority religions.

[zbdent]

18. selective memory ... we attack Catholics and Baptists a lot here ...

[sufrommich]

21. We attack individuals who use their religion for bigotry.

I've never seen a whole religion attacked here.It's like saying that all catholics believe what Rick Santorum believes. Or all Baptist believe what Jerry Farwell believes. Or all Muslims believe what Osama Bin Ladin believes.

[bluesbassman]

52. Very few are that blatant. Usually just a bit more subtle but specific religions do get called out.

And their adherents tarred with the same brush as the more lunatic fringe.

It's unfortunate because there are certainly people of faith who are progressive in their political and social views, but are marginalized in some peoples eyes by the actions and dogma of fundamentalists.

[Politicalboi]

19. That's true

The catholic priests can molest young boys and they still exist. Is that faith, or perversion that they still have people coming to their pathetic churches. To me it must be perversion. They pass around a plate, and these morons support their perversions. I unfortunately was raised catholic. And I would erase all that shit in my head from every Sunday if I could. Fuckers.

[progressoid]

71. We attack the religious leaders that hold those views

And Rmoney is a leader in his church.

"But Romney, who was only about 30 years old, was deemed to possess leadership qualities beyond his years. Romney’s responsibilities only grew from there; he would go on to serve as bishop and then as stake president, overseeing about a dozen congregations"

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/02/mitt-romney-201202

[Politicalboi]

12. They started with Prop 8

I feel I can say anything I want about Mormons. They hate me and my kind, and since they are a religious outfit, they are taken seriously. Seriously when religion is a CHOICE. I can call their religion silly, or crazy. Hell I think ALL religion is silly and crazy, and these days scary. Especially if you're gay. To think religion rules over human rights is down right outrageous. But that's been the norm here for centuries. If we need to eradicate religion to have civil rights I will be first to sign up. I sick and tired of having my life run by religious freaks.

[eridani]

82. Two words

Jeremiah Wright

[Marr]

86. Campaign politics isn't nice.

In some things, nice guys really do finish last. If I were Obama's campaign manager, I wouldn't take anything off the table.

[JoePhilly]

89. If it upsets the fundies, I'm for it.

If it gets those insane whack jobs to question whether Mitt is a "real" Christian ... I'm for it.

If they stay home because they won't vote for the Muslim, or the Cultist ... I'm for it.

[azureblue]

107. I think it is hilarious

That you ignore the fact that the GOP attacks President Obama's (Christian) religious beliefs practically daily, and you say not one word about it, but come here to defend Mitt's religion. Now that is Irony.

[quinnox]

3. I think his policies and politics are fair game

I think family members or religion should be off limits. I know I'm in the minority but that is my opinion.

[demtenjeep]

6. so when repukes call Sasha and Malia Malaria and Sasquatch

you just smile?

I am damn tired of them it is time to fight!

[sufrommich]

7. What does that have to do with attacking a whole faith? nt

[Politicalboi]

15. That faith and many others

Attack a whole community EVERYDAY. I have no problem putting them in my sights. You preach hate, you get hate.

[stonecutter357]

112. You preach hate, you get hate.

[demtenjeep]

16. did I say specifically a whole faith? I said it is time to fight fire with fire

we gain nothing by being meek and it does not make us "better" it makes us losers


I am done being nice

[quinnox]

9. I really doubt they would do that in a nationwide ad or on a news show

maybe they say that shit on some stupid right wing venue like Rush limbaugh show or some moronic right wing blog, but I dare them to do something like that on a commercial, it would backfire on the repubs big time.

[freshwest]

26. Instead of getting personal, we can prove to the public what Mittens will do to them personally!

I'm thinking of starting an anti-Mitt thread, featuring all he's done in business, hurting the very same people the GOP reaches out to with their faux populist rhetoric.

I haven't decided what board it should go on, as it will have videos in it. I think this would be the most effective method, what do you think?

[RZM]

41. Anybody who says that is an ass

I however, am not one. Or at least I sometimes put up a modicum of effort not to be one.

[cali]

14. I don't think family members are necessarily off limits

Ann isn't. The hypocrisy of Nitt being pro-life from the moment of conception is illustrated by his son having three kids via a surrogate.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

17. When Romney's wife stops trying to influence an election and lauds their family life

to win votes then I'll agree with you.

[quinnox]

20. she is just doing what any wife would for her presidential candidate husband

I'm sure Michelle Obama racked up more than her fair share of votes for the campaign and will do so again. Nothing wrong with that.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

27. Nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with calling her out on that

Of course she has a right to get into the spotlight on behalf of her husband. She has absolutely no right whatsoever to expect any degree of immunity by virtue of signing a marriage contract with a candidate. A wife who is active in slanting and lying and deceiving on behalf of her husband should be afforded no greater deference than any other common supporter such as Ted Nugent. There's nothing sacred or special about being married to a candidate once a wife or husband becomes a player in actively using their opinions and unique perspective aggressively as a sword on the candidate's behalf. If she's trying to sway voters, we have every right to point to her lies as lies and to present facts showing her lack of credibility and hypocrisy. If she can't stand the heat... well, you know.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Yep. And the same goes for 'faith'. Once they use it in their politics, the same rules

apply. Once it is active in the campaign it is just another device of agenda. Plus, of course, each and every attack on marriage equality out of Willard and Ann is in fact them dragging millions of families into their agenda machine.

[tblue37]

33. AND she was constantly attacked--and still is. nt

[demtenjeep]

5. repukes are in it to win, they will stop at nothing

and neither should we.

This might be an ugly campaign, but we can NOT let them have it

[Initech]

10. I agree - they have openly threatened Obama far more than any US president.

I'm 100% for leaving no stone unturned digging up dirt against Rmoney.

[Dawson Leery]

13. Absolutely.

The Repugs play to win. Democrats can learn from them.
Obama has already gone on the offense to define the piece of horse manure that will run against him.

[sarcasmo]

22. Magic Undies

[RebelOne]

23. Why should we lower ourselves to the Repugs level? n/t

[demtenjeep]

24. because if we do not win, we will be fucked

for the next 25 years or more

[coalition_unwilling]

88. Because if we do not win, unemployment will increase to 25-30%. And

there will be mass suffering.

[StarryNight]

98. and if we do win, but we're no better than the repugs, then what have we won? nt

[SpartanDem]

25. Why should we keep bringing knives to a gunfight?

[jeff47]

28. Ask President Gore or President Kerry

They have experience taking the high road in an election.

[demtenjeep]

31. good point

very good point

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. To win. n/t

[Marr]

87. If you aren't actually running a campaign, that's a fine position to take.

But if you were managing someone's campaign and honestly expressed that opinion, I'd bet against them.

[StarryNight]

97. correct; but don't expect to find any support for taking the high road here. nt

[SpartanDem]

29. Screw the high road

Our motto for 2012 should be "just win, baby". If things have to get a little dirty, if the distrust of Mormons needs to be expolited I'm fine with it. I'm tired of playing nice, I'm tired of getting "swift boated".

[longship]

30. Sorry, pal. Can't go there with you.

You are correct. That is precisely what the Repukes are doing. But if we do the same, what of us? How are we better than the party whose policies fucked the world's economy? (Make no mistake, we're not out of it yet -- JP Morgan.)

You want ethical government yet you advocate no-holds-barred campaigning. Don't you realize that the ethics of the government we get is a result of the ethics of the campaign?

I will reject the Democratic party when I think it has descended so low.

I posted a response to one of your earlier threads in support. But as far as this one goes, Shame on you.

[jeff47]

32. So how many marshmallows are you going to bring to this gun fight? (nt)

[longship]

44. I didn't know that facts and truth were marshmallows.

Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et al might disagree.

Look at it this way. When you descend into the slop to fight a pig, the pig loves it. You're playing in its turf. Only now you have shit all over yourself.

Again, if that was what the Democratic party started doing, I'd be done with them.

Think about what you are advocating, and then consider how us Dems would be any different than those politicians who we all despise.

Think, before you post idiocy. That's what putatively sets us apart.

Again, shame on all of you who agree with the OP.

[SpartanDem]

47. You know what I despise?

losing and then whining how they didn't play fair. Screw all the philosophy, just win, baby.

[longship]

77. As a fellow Spartan

(I assume you mean MSU) I'll listen, but I do not agree.

I fervently believe that one has to pull back and look at what is happening. The big picture is very important.

Pay attention to the Repuke bills at the state level. Pay attention to what they've done in the House, and the Senate. Consider this. The party-not-named takes over the House in 2010. Since then the opinion of Congress has taken a nose dive -- a big nose dive.

Dems have a great opportunity this year, maybe the best in my lifetime, to make meaningful change. And I remember Eisenhower winning his first term.

Let the Republicans detroy themselves; it's what they're doing. Support Obama because he's running a great campaign, even in the first week. He's got our back and his appeasement team is long gone.

He played his hand brilliantly this last week. Whatta ya want? Egg in your beer?

[eridani]

83. Unfortunately they are marshmallows. Reread your Lakoff

Only a very small percentage of people vote on facts and data.

[jeff47]

92. Gore and Kerry agreed with you.

It's not me who isn't thinking.

Republicans will play dirty until we crush them with the same tactics. Taking the high road has never stopped them, and will not stop them now.

The only way back to the high road is through the mud. So we can either stand here dithering about icky goo, or we can dive in and get through it.

[quinnox]

34. agreed

If I see the Obama campaign start doing low and sleazy stuff like make fun of the guys religion, it would be a huge turn off for me. A huge turn off indeed. But I don't think they would ever go that route in the first place, so I'm not worried.

I think Obama has a sense of honor and it will be all business when it comes to the campaign, no sleazy junk allowed.

[eridani]

84. Obama and his campaign don't have to

That shouldn't stop the rest of us.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. No one's talking 'no holds barred' when they say his religious hypocrisy

is on the table. Your theory suggests that if one is attacked with a baseball bat, it's fine to defend yourself, but if assaulted with a large iron crucifix, one must defer to the nature of the weapon and go down willingly rather than sully the reputation of the cross. Very Sir Percival of you, but I'm not sure that sort of thing works out well in the end.

[longship]

49. I have strenuously objected to OP, but you have a point

I generally do not like religious arguments in politics, especially when it's personal, like Willard -- or need I say JFK.

However, when the candidate himself campaigns with explicit religious rhetoric, that opens the door -- make no mistake with the Repukes it will always be a tactic.

But we can't overtly walk through that door. They are already campaigning on a plank that they are suffering religious discrimation. To criticize them on religious beliefs basically falls for their Rope-A-Dope. Fortunately, Obama is no dope. He will not walk through that door. Not should he.

Nor should we. If we do that, it gives them precisely what they want. It validates the meme that they have already seeded into the country's brains with their ever present echo chamber.

There are dynamics happening here that go beyond the stand your ground rhetoric in this thread. Think before you advocate any such strategy as is advocated here.

Cromwell may have said it best:

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

Thanks.

[savalez]

56. It's quite possible that the Repukes

are "campaigning on a plank that they are suffering religious discrimination" -- not because they are -- but as a means to keep Mormonism from being talked about. If so, why should we fall for such a tactic?

[longship]

60. Well, because they've been saying that for years...

...well before Rmoney was a candidate. It's like a tic for them. It's a way to attempt to sneak their overtly religious agenda into legislation.

If you've paid attention this year to what the lunatics in the states' legislatures have been doing with women's reproductive rights it's never framed in other than religious freedom. In reality, what they want is freedom solely for their religion.

I've seen this happening for decades. I fought it as a party officer in KS in the 80's and 90's, a particularly exemplar of what's going on now.

Some of us here have seen these things for decades.

Thanks.

[savalez]

66. So how much longer do you suggest we let them

get away with using Religion as a weapon? How many more laws should they pass before we say enough is enough?

[longship]

81. Consider this and think

Which party owns religious partisanship?
Republicans! Correct?

Which party always plays the religion card?
That's right. Republicans

Which party is not willing to compromise on anything?
Yep! Republicans

Now, listen carefully...

Which party has been the most outspoken in the most extremist language, and put forth the most extremist bills, at both the state and national levels, bills that have profound effects on women, Hispanics, the middle class, Moslems, and any other non-white, non-male, non-fundementalist religious?
That's right. It's the Republicans

The Democrats don't have to say a word about religion, race or creed. The Repukes are saying it all. If you're not white, Protestant (or fundie Catholic), and native born, you are not only not welcome, you're the enemy. Which is precisely what the Republican party is, their very own worst enemy.

Fuck 'em. Fight 'em with policy. That's the one thing they have nothing to stand on.

And if they bring up religion, we pwn them. They're fucked.

We don't need to bring up Mormonism. Mitt's already making religion an issue. How many d'ya think don't know he's a Mormon?

Let it go. As the immortal Snagglepuss would say, he's committing self-inflicted bar-b-que. He's cooking his own goose.

Exit stage left.

[EFerrari]

43. There is zip shame in pointing out Rmoney's hyprocrisy

or the hypocrisy of the Mormon leadership.

In fact, shame on us if we don't point out how toxic they have been to our country.

[Taverner]

35. Yep. Of course I think all of Christianity is batshit insane with a double dose of moonbattery

[onenote]

78. So does that mean you can't support a candidate who is a self-described Christian?

Do you only vote for atheists?

I doubt it, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

[bluerum]

37. Agreed. That much seems obvious.

[spanone]

40. k&r...they will smear Obama mercilessly in the next six months...kick ass

[RZM]

45. How can anybody who condemned those attacks turn around and do the same thing with a straight face?

I really don't understand that.

If you wanna say 'all's fair,' that's cool. But people need to practice what they preach. Next time a conservative strikes a low blow, anybody who does the same thing in the other direction really has no business criticizing it. There's nothing wrong with refuting it, but attacking the fact that the criticism was made in the first place would be hypocrisy.

I'd rather show respect so I can have some moral authority when slapping down the bullshit we hear about the president.

[apocalypsehow]

46. Agreed, but likely all you're going to hear is a version of "but that's different." n/t.

[RZM]

48. Pretty much

The right does the same shit just as much too. The 'don't dish it out if you can't take it' stuff knows no political boundaries.

I keep coming back to Keith Ellison when I think about this. How many people who want to go after the Mittster for his faith are fine and dandy with a no holds barred approach to Ellison's faith?

[eridani]

85. It's different because we don't have to lie n/t

[apocalypsehow]

114. No, it's not. n/t.

[Maineman]

51. Kick ass with the truth. Repuks attack with lies and misrepresentations. That is the difference

between us and them. It is not about dirt, mud, or hogs. It is about truth versus lies.

[bluesbassman]

54. Question; how is that moral authority going to taste if Mitt sits in the oval office?

How much good will moral authority do when he appoints two or three or possibly four Supreme Court Justices?

I've been a Democrat all my life, but I gotta tell you I'm tired of getting my political ass kicked by knuckle dragging bullies who don't give two squirts abut fairness or morals.

The first punch was thrown years ago, and it wasn't us. That's enough moral authority for me.

[RZM]

59. I didn't say don't go after him hard

I said anybody who has ever whined about conservatives doing it (or will at some point in the future) is a hypocrite if they do it themselves.

Nothing wrong with dishing it out if you can take it. But plenty of 'dishers' make lousy 'takers.'

[bluesbassman]

64. I see your point now.

And that's precisely what we're seeing from the repugs right now.

[Doctor_J]

61. Your "moral authority" isn't going to do shit for you

if the WH, Senate, and House are all controlled by repukes next year.

[RZM]

69. See post #59

Nothing wrong with doing it as long as you respect the opposition doing the same thing.

Part of the argument here might be that going after faith just isn't my style. While I find the origin story of Mormonism and many Mormon beliefs to be very odd, I happened to grow up around a lot of Mormons and I gained a lot of respect for them.

That was what was so funny about that hilarious South Park episode about Joseph Smith and the Mormon family. While not every Mormon family is like the one depicted in the show, there are plenty that are.

[cr8tvlde]

76. No one is condoning making fun of the Mormon faith...and I never watch SP

...any more than a Baptist who is espousing family values while making whoopie with a local teen. Liberals don't judge or make fun of other's religions...RWers do. Liberals sin...RWers get quickly forgiven, but only when they are caught. Enough already. Liberals shrink at offensive tactics...that's why we're almost obsolete.

He needs to get off the one woman one man crap just as a Log Cabin Republican needs to stay out of the "gay fight". And yes, it's just fine to call him on it as his religion was no more of a choice to him than being gay or lesbian was to those he makes fun of.

[ctaylors6]

63. I agree ...

I think it's fair to ask if someone's religion will influence their decisions. I think it's fair to find out about the person's religious beliefs for similar reasons.

If for example a Catholic were running, I think it's fair to ask what he believes about abortion and ask how if at all his beliefs would affect his policy making decisions. I think it's totally fair saying that one feels uncomfortable voting for someone because one thinks the candidate's religious beliefs would influence his policies in a way that the voter doesn't agree with.

I think making fun of him because he's Catholic or making fun of the Catholic religion is sinking down to a level like those who show no respect. Why sink to that level?

[Gregorian]

50. As much as I practice civility, this is WAR.

What happened in 2000 should have sunk in by now. Reading through the Vanity Fair piece on Bush v. Gore, I realized they declared war on Democrats. They being the Republicans.

We cannot afford to lose this next election.

[Dawson Leery]

58. Certainly.

[Odin2005]

55. We must fight fire with fire. We must fight as dirty as they do.

Rile up the Evangelicals' suspicions of Mormonism as much as you can. Do ANYTHING that will make the nuts sit home rather than voting for Mittens. Make shit up as long as you think they will believe it.

[StarryNight]

100. better to fight fire with a fire extinguisher - like facts, logic, and morality. nt

[Odin2005]

105. Facts and logic don't work on the vast majority.

This notion that we can win over voters by a reasonable discussion of the facts is why we lose. People are not rational.

[madokie]

57. You dang sure got that right

Leave no stone unturned, no closet unchecked, no basement overlooked. After all this is about the future of our country. This is about the happiness of our citizens, our brothers, sisters, moms and dads. All nationalities all colors of skin. Kick the SOB down then kick the living shit out of him while he's down. He's a liar, a money grubbing greedy bastard. Exactly what America does not need any more of.

[kentuck]

62. I do believe...

that some folks would not play the religion card if they knew that was the only way they could win the election. They would rather let Romney and the Republicans win. It seems that way...

[Skip Intro]

65. Here's the problem - you're saying it was wrong then, but ok now.

Many here said at the time Wright was an issue that he shouldn't be an issue.

Many here were sickened by attacks on Obama because of things the minister of his church had said.

Now you're saying that it is ok to attack someone else in a very similar fashion because, to paraphrase, they did it first.

The problem is, if it was wrong then, then it is wrong now.

I'm not expressing a personal view on whether a person's religion/religious environment should or should not be fair game in a political context, but merely pointing out what some might call hypocrisy.

[demtenjeep]

67. I am not just talking about religion I am saying we need to use everything we have

in our arsenal

Look, I am Baptist and I am sure my church will somehow imply that the congretation vote repuke


but it is oh so much more than religion. We need to pull out all the stops to win this

[Gregorian]

70. I think the Wright episode was very different. This is hypocrisy. That was the media editing.

[cr8tvlde]

68. Obama had one great-great grandmother. Romney had 12.

They say it's a fact...saw it on DU. Personally, I could care less. The "specials" they ran on Obama's mother, grandmother, "supposed" father, siblings, relatives ... it would have never happened to a white politician, let alone president.

They were shameful attacks on innocent people ... by those without any shame, but now plead for "privacy and respect"????

But Mitt needs to get off the one woman-one man nausea to discriminate against gays. He should consider a policy of STFU at least about the "one" issue. He could have said between a man and a woman, still bigoted, but not personal ancestral hypocracy. I mean, didn't the Mormons invent modern geneaology?

Do I use it? Every chance I get. And no, it's not dirty. It's politics. They went after JFK...direct on...for his Irish Catholic religion. The Pope was going to run the White House...Beware. They went after Obama's black liberal pastor/church..the noisy black folk were acomin'. They went after and made endless fun of Jimmy Carter's Christian "adultery in his heart" ad nauseum.

Mitt is nothing special.

[RZM]

74. That's only true on the President's mother's side

His paternal grandfather had several wives.

Not that it matters, of course. I don't give a shit what their ancestors did. I care what the candidates did.

[cr8tvlde]

75. Unfortunately, that's the voting difference between R and D

you may be evolved, but it's why Rs win because Americans that vote still respect whatever it takes to win. As a number upline have stated, 8 years of Romney SCOTUS appointees alone, let alone the havoc he plans to reap on the 99% as he has proved himself most willing and capable?

Yes, I give a shit and don't have a lot of patience toward those still whining about "playing fair" and "being bipartisan". It's politics and the Rs have set the pace and are poised to win. Notice Wisconsin, if nothing else.

The Ds need to get some cojones for a change.

[Nye Bevan]

73. Hounding Romney over his religious beliefs will not make Obama more likely to win re-election.

That's the bottom line, quite aside from whether it's an ethically appropriate course to pursue.

[lumberjack_jeff]

80. This is the only relevant question, but I think you're wrong.

Romney's religious beliefs are consistent with his business practices.

The mormon church is amoral, creepy, rich, and less than 2% of the population.

Only two kinds of politics. Effective and ineffective. Few effective politics are nice.

[JustAnotherGen]

90. I'm in your camp

We can go back and judge him on how he behaved when he was in high school - because President Obama has had to endure the 'conspiracy' that he was born in Kenya for 4/5 years.

Fair game. Politics is blood sport. Let the games begin.

[noamnety]

91. It's a never-ending cycle of bigotry then.

They use bigotry, and so we justify using bigotry, and thus they justify using even more of it next election, and so do we.

Meanwhile the pool of independents and third party voters grows. And who knows, maybe it's a good thing if the major parties self-destruct from hypocrisy and the politics of hate. Is that the goal?

[Riley18]

93. How is it bigotry to question Romney's

ideologies with respect to how it would impact his policies?

So long as the criticisms are fact based and relate to governmental issues there should be nothing held back. If Romney were to take the White House, the people will suffer greater hardships. The way I see it there is a moral and ethical obligation to advertise everything about Romney because too many people only know him through his own commercials.

[noamnety]

94. What I've seen has gone beyond that already.

If the OP advocated questioning his "ideologies with respect to how it would impact his policies" I wouldn't have made my post.

I do agree that as long as the criticisms are fact based and relate to governmental issues there should be nothing held back.

[L. Coyote]

95. Elect Mitt Romney President

of a Cayman Islands Bank

[Zalatix]

104. The attacks on President Obama are divisive, our attacks should be in favor of building coalitions.

Republicans say things that utterly repel Muslim voters and multiracial voters. We should be uniting Mormons, whites and other Republican "target" groups against the GOP.

Hating on groups of people is the GOP's game, solidarity should be our game.

[cr8tvlde]

109. Think you're drinking the RW KoolAid. No one's hating. Just stating facts.

Facts. Mitt had 12 great grandmothers. Fact. Democrats don't "unite Mormons" They are no fools. Are we hating when we ask Mitt to reveal his tax returns? Are we hating when calling Mitt a rich guy? Are we hating when we point out he hasn't any plan for our country?

Accountability, character and past record and the liklihood of official positions/acts are PRECISELY what we are to do our due diligence. How many times can we say SCOTUS...it's worth getting out of our Liberal Comfort Zone.

People, mostly Progressives (who used to be called Liberals) are so judged by the faux labels "hating and Bigotry" . It's the RWs trick. They attack with hating and bigotry...and accuse D's of the same. So we back off, accepting their label.

[ErikJ]

108. Pension thief, Job cremator, Cultist, childhood Bully, Tax evader, animal cruelty

SOCIOPATH

[sulphurdunn]

110. You should turn the other cheek...

once, just like Jesus said, and once again when you moon the SOB you just laid out for trying to hit you twice.

[Gore1FL]

111. They lost, though.

It's important to keep that in mind.

[stonecutter357]

113. I will not vote for a cult member.