bullets13

The results wouldn't affect me one way or another. I think you're right in your assertion that some things that a certain group would consider "scandalous" would have little or no beating in the eyes of a different group.

I don't mind at all. I attended East Texas Baptist University.

I honestly don't think so. I remember one particular professor that was very liberal, and maybe one or two more that pushed their beliefs, and about the same with the conservatives. For the most part they just taught the class (syllabus, read the book, turn in your homework, take the test, here's your grade)

I'm sure we could go on forever. What would be the point? I was merely suggesting that while the right still wildly criticizes Clinton, Newt has somehow re-emerged as a respected politician even after cheating on and leaving TWO wives after they were diagnosed with cancer and MS, respectively.

I agree. But I think the different dirtbag scales has much to do with the different ideologies. And when a large pillar of the right's message involves family values and Christianity, it really is important for them to live that lifestyle, especially when they're pushing legislation to enforce those beliefs. It's MY opinion that republicans will always be held to a higher standard in these types of matters because of what they say they stand for. I think in a way people in our country have come to expect political scandals, but they'll still backlash against someone they view as a hypocrite.

Beat me to it. Also not defending either, but gas went from about $1.50 to almost $4.00 under bush, then dropped back down long enough for people to say "When Bush left office, gas was under two bucks!" before going back up to where it was before.

IMO it's going to take a moderately conservative republican to win it, and the far right's willingness to vote for him. To have a chance against Hillary, which will be the 2nd democratic candidate in a row that will be taking a large chunk of a demographic based on something that has nothing to do with politics, the republicans have to find a way to do two things: avoid disenfranchising ultra conservatives, causing them to avoid the polls, and find a way to swing the moderate vote away from the left. I think their best chance is to choose a moderate who might swing the fence sitters to the right, while somehow convincing the far right that electing a moderate republican is better than having an ultra-conservative get defeated by Hillary.

Perhaps the conservative right, which takes so much pride in legislating morality, needs to make sure that the candidates it puts forth indeed have a strong moral compass. It's really funny to me that the same people who are quick to ridicule Bill Clinton for his improprieties then turn around and blame the "liberal media" for exposing the improprieties of their own candidates.

Considering how accountable many conservatives still hold Clinton, surely Newt was unforgiven and unelectable from his first scandal anyway.

I notice you didn't have a response to Gingrich's well-documented misdeeds. Does this mean you don't have a problem with what he's done?

. I believe I said two or three times that I wasn't okay with what Clinton did. I guess affairs only count if its a democrat. And I'd say that Palin did to that town what Obama has done to the country. I don't see how you can look at her record there and still think she would be a good choice, but that's your call.

I did not say it was okay. Nor did I feel it was okay when newt Gingrich divorced his first wife while she was being treated for cancer, and then cheated on and divorced his second wife after she was diagnosed with mutliple sclerosis. I think both sides turn a blind eye to their side's scandals, while jumping on the other side's. I mean Newt is still a respected politician who had a lot of support for president last go-round, despite his history of sexual impropriety, the first known instance coming WHILE he was leading the charge against Clinton for his relationship against Monica.

Please state why.

Do you have any problems with all of his sexual deviancy, including pushing women up against walls and groping them against their wills, as well as his multiple affairs and pattern of sexual harassment? Or should that be ignored because he's a conservative?

Steve, it was a joke that fit the conversation because Russia was involved. As for the town she ran up the debt as mayor, I'm with you but I'm not with you. I believe I'm on record on this site on many occasions as saying that I'm not happy with how our country is being run financially. But that doesn't change the fact that she had several scandals in her town and ran up lots of debt there. So, no, I'm not happy with Obama's economy, and no, I still wouldn't trust Palin to do any better.

I'm not saying what Clinton did was okay, but what Cain was alleged to have done was much worse. A pattern of sexual harassment, including unwanted groping and sexual advances, as well as affairs emerged after he decided to run. So regardless of whether you had a problem with what Clinton did, surely you can see the difference between an affair and sexual harassment bordering on rape.

I personally think it's a very loaded statement that could be applied to the bozos on BOTH sides that inhabit numerous elected office at this very moment. Just me though.

Yes, I could be. But in Palin's case at least, nothing she did before or since leads me to believe that she formulated that prediction herself. My biased assumption is that somebody smart around her told her to say that. But who knows... After all, she could see Russia from her back yard!

I'm just giving you a point of view based on what I've experienced. You seem to hold your experience in pretty high esteem. I guess mine can be dismissed because it doesn't jive with your worldview. Sorry I believe what I've experienced personally more than what western journalism tells me I should believe. I felt like I could offer a relevant perspective because I attended a college that was made up of predominantly conservative professors AND a college made up of predominantly liberal professors. And it was MY experience that MOST professors just teach the course without pushing their own agendas.

A quote you didn't post from the article: "It's hard to see that these liberal views cut very deeply into the education of students. In fact, a number of studies show the core values that students bring into the university are not very much altered by being in college."

I'm not sure how long ago LumRaiderFan went to college, but i know it's been a while since you were there.  i've only been out 8 years, and i went to conservative AND liberal colleges, and i didn't feel particularly pressed upon by professors of either school. So even if they were liberal professors, i generally experienced classes that stuck to what we were supposed to learn. No doubt there are professors out there on BOTH sides who do try to push their ideals on their students, but it was MY experience that most of them did not.

    having given a liberal viewpoint on here for many years, i call complete and total BS. 

    i actually spent 2 years at a regular, liberal(ish) college, and 2 1/2 years at a strictly conservative Christian college. It was my experience that the vast majority of college professors just teach you what they're supposed to teach you. Out of the however many professors i had (maybe 50 or so?), i'd guess less than 5 abused their position to try and push their views on their students, and they came from both schools. I also think that the college you choose is going to dictate how liberal your professors are for the most part. There are ultra-liberal schools, ultra-conservative schools, and most schools fall somewhere in between. Rutgers is obviously a very liberal school. I didn't agree with the war when we got involved however many years ago it's been now, but if i were the dean of a college i'd be happy to have Condi Rice speak to my students. But as i said in my original post, a super-conservative college would most likely complain about a very liberal speaker.

  he came and gave the most important speech of the year? or he dropped by for a tour? there is a big difference, and i don't know the answer to my question, but it wouldn't have been an issue had she just been visiting the campus.

  I'll give credit to the right for forseeing that, but not Palin or Romney themselves...