It’s a shame that some “conservatives” were less interested in, at least some, fiscal restraint than in trying to prevent a gay woman from becoming mayor. Better to let the corrupt and connected Democrat “community organizer” win than the lesser of two evils.
And the SoCons wonder why many of us don’t think they’re interested in our cause.
Better to let the corrupt and connected Democrat community organizer win than the lesser of two evils.
How can you say such a thing? A corrupt democrap would do more long term damage. A gay conservative could promote good fiscal agendas and would be good for the public. I’d rather overlook one point (gay) than all of them (gay, abortionist, tax and spend, corruption, connected - we all know that that means -, etc etc)
[Better to let the corrupt and connected Democrat community organizer win than the lesser of two evils.]
I, as a “conservative,” don’t care if she is gay, because what she does in her house is NONE of my business! But, what she is going to do with my money IS my business, so that is the topic upon which many of us “conservatives” based our votes! Since our options were either a known corrupt lawyer or a gay woman, we just shouldn’t have voted?!?! What she does in her bedroom isn’t going to affect my taxes and cost me millions in bad, corrupt business deals! But Mr. Locke is a lawsuit and tax increase waiting to happen!
I am not sure where you get your “lessor of two evils” claim from, but the last I checked, we are fall short of the One! And he who is without sin should cast the first stone! Please, get off the soapbox and get YOUR priorities straight!