It was my party and I'll cry if I want to

[Guest]

Yeah, I know I'm in Political. I know the territory.

I am a moderate. I am fiscally conservative. I registered Republican many years ago. But now, I am furious with the Republican party on so many levels.

And it looks like I will never send them $25.00 again. Not unless something changes drastically. Nope. No more $25.00 checks from me.

Even if I did get that picture in the mail of the happy couple dancing at the 2000 inaugural ball. Even if I did use my computer to put my own face over top of Laura's in that picture. Even if I did have that picture in my office. Nope. We're over. Unless something changes. A lot. But the problem is -- I'm a moderate.

This article is from Time magazine.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896588,00.html

Boomer

[Guest]

Yeah, I know I'm in Political. I know the territory.

I am a moderate. I am fiscally conservative. I registered Republican many years ago. But now, I am furious with the Republican party on so many levels.

And it looks like I will never send them $25.00 again. Not unless something changes drastically. Nope. No more $25.00 checks from me.

Even if I did get that picture in the mail of the happy couple dancing at the 2000 inaugural ball. Even if I did use my computer to put my own face over top of Laura's in that picture. Even if I did have that picture in my office. Nope. We're over. Unless something changes. A lot. But the problem is -- I'm a moderate.

This article is from Time magazine.


!

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896588,00.html

Boomer


Boomer, we share quite a bit !! First, we have lots of nerve coming to political with opinions and risking the flight of so many others !!

Second, I fit the same catagory and offer this advice ! Forget the R or D beside their name...we need those who will come to the center...that is my game plan......that and to rail against anyone I consider too far left OR right

[Guest]

media would have as many as possible believe, the Republican Party will survive.

Remember the Dems DID NOT win the election by a landslide....funny how that never gets pointed out by the supposedly sharp media cats....yes I am being sarcastic! There is no percentage in them presenting the facts for intelligent people to reach their own conclusion.

As much could be written about whether the Dems will survive, but that isn't a likely speculation as it is not consistent with the administratios or the medias intents.

Another example of selective reporting? Obama first day in office his ratings were around 80%. The ratings after 100 days are around 60%. Has anybody seen that in the media? Of course not. It is presented that his 60% are so far superior to the previous administration. Borderline (or maybe not) mis-information and managing the masses beliefs.

Ther I feel better already.

I do support the earlier comments that whether and R or D or what ever beside a persons name doesn't mean anymotre tha what religion they are...eh?

BTK

[Guest]

media would have as many as possible believe, the Republican Party will survive.

Remember the Dems DID NOT win the election by a landslide....funny how that never gets pointed out by the supposedly sharp media cats....yes I am being sarcastic! There is no percentage in them presenting the facts for intelligent people to reach their own conclusion.

As much could be written about whether the Dems will survive, but that isn't a likely speculation as it is not consistent with the administratios or the medias intents.

Another example of selective reporting? Obama first day in office his ratings were around 80%. The ratings after 100 days are around 60%. Has anybody seen that in the media? Of course not. It is presented that his 60% are so far superior to the previous administration. Borderline (or maybe not) mis-information and managing the masses beliefs.

Ther I feel better already.

I do support the earlier comments that whether and R or D or what ever beside a persons name doesn't mean anymotre tha what religion they are...eh?

BTK


Oh, let me agree whole heartedly with your comments on the media.

I will predict, and I am sure I am not the first, that the media WILL be called on what they have done in the last year.

My comments also BOOMER relate to the Time article you posted although there is a bit of disehelvement in the Rep Party as with the Dems a few years ago.

[Guest]

Seems like I heard something the other day, as I was passing by my television, about how the Republicans are going to set up something like town meetings where they ask what people want from the party. (I think I heard that. I hope I am not making it up. It sounds like a really good idea.)

So what do you think you would say if you got the chance?

Boomer

[Guest]

Seems like I heard something the other day, as I was passing by my television, about how the Republicans are going to set up something like town meetings where they ask what people want from the party. (I think I heard that. I hope I am not making it up. It sounds like a really good idea.)

So what do you think you would say if you got the chance?

Boomer

1. Get back to the basics...conservative fiscally

2. Insure that the party stays in the middle...not the extremism. Certainly listen to folks like the religious right but find common ground WITHIN the party.

3. Work very hard on who gets the nomination and the VP nod.

[Guest]

I too saw this report on one of the cable news channels. I think it's a great idea and just what is needed. Step back, take a deep breath and get some input from a wide variety of party members. Whoever came up with the idea should be commended.

[Guest]

Boomer, I feel exactly the same as you. I don't know if the Republicans moved away from me, or I've move away from them. Probably a little of both. I registered as a Republican when I was 21, and never changed over the next (nearly) 40 years. But I am so furious at the Bush Administration for so many things, that I'm seriously thinking about re-registering this year. Probably as an Independent, but I could go so far as to become a Demo. The two biggest things keeping me from doing that are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I suppose as long as those two bozos are in charge, I'll not be joining their party. Anyway, I can no longer associate myself with the Republicans. I think they will come back at some point, but I'm guessing it will be two or three presidential elections before they can completely come to their senses. And I'm likely to be dead and gone by then. Thanks for your post.

[Guest]

leaving the party...any party? Either party?
They are gone...and life is supposed to go on. Joining the opposition does not neccesarily assure satisfaction....or you would have done it years ago.
Help it get back to where ever you think it was before you got mad at somebody.
I personally have a hard time with the number of folks who would do or have done something other than they would normally do because they don't like Bush. That means y'all for the opposition...your just against Bush....he is gone for cryin' out loud!!!! If the pound of flesh needs to be gotten, that is the beauty of our system...you are entitled to do so.....for now!!

BTK

[Guest]

Why do you think conservatives need to move to the center and what is it that makes people think the right is so extreme these days?

Seems to me when the Republicans make a clear distinction and stick to pure conservatism they win. Soon as they move to the center they loose. i.e John McCenter.

IMO the left is a lot farther left right now than the right is right. Obama, Pelosi and Reid are a disgrace to their party and this country. These clowns make JFK look like a right winger.

There's no doubt that whenever we get a strong "real" conservative the media rips them to shreds unmercifully no matter who they are. You know why don't you? See my second paragraph. This whole moving to the center is just more media propaganda to keep conservatives loosing.

They also love to demonize Christians as being extremists as well. It's pure left wing media propaganda. You saw what they did to Sara Palin. Like her or not I really don't care but that was the most viscous personal attack campaign I've ever seen, even against her family. She didn't deserve that.

How obvious does it have to get?

[Guest]

I'm kind of shocked seeing the majority of posts to this thread- but it also bothers me. America functions best as a two party system. We're not really able to sustain a three part or more coalition system, so two it is.

But we lose our vibrancy without the duality. I thing much of it is Karma or a pendulum. When one party gets so entrenched into governing dishonorably, the public swings the other way. Then the "out" party works that much harder to get into power.

I see two major problems though:

1.) The revolution of the "Right," which started thirty years ago with Christians being told they should "infiltrate" locally and work their way up the system, and politically, as that power began to indiscriminately exclude anyone other than the narrow "moral" platform of the so called "values voters."

I grew up (in NY) with the age of Rockefeller, I campaigned for Lowell Weicker, and I remember many moderate-conservative Republicans who ran for and won office because they were concerned about taxes, government and providing government services as "leanly" as possible.

It was only after Reagan, and I certainly place the blame squarely on men like Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Rush Limbaugh and the like, who began to preach that up is down, fact is fiction. You are with us or with the terrorists. Republicans really had no place to go, and the right extremist wing just kept building up its power.

2.) The rejection of the powers that be in the Republican party to accept any one, or any idea, that does not fit into the ideological purity of the extremists who now control the party. Why was government sticking its nose into Terry Schiavo's life? Why couldn't conservatives be Republicans and still support environmental responsibility (Drill Baby Drill!)?

Why couldn't some accommodation for a mother's life be included in an anti-abortion platform. Are Republicans aware that, in its extremism, pro-life positions in the Catholic Church and the Baptist conventions require the doctor to sacrifice the life of the mother to save the baby- EVEN if the baby has little chance of viability? Talk about goverment intrusion into private lives.

My point: even as the regular guy or gal realizes the horrible pickle that the Republicans are in right now, the top influences of the Republican party are so out of touch with America that they genuinely believe that people just don't understand their call for extreme fiscal and social conservatism. "If we only could become MORE Ideological then people would follow us!"

It's time for Republicans to re-open their tent to allow other opinions and deep-felt convictions to have a say in the party's platforms and actions. "Regular" people, who may have voted Democratic, will undoubtedly become weary and even scared of all the expenses-fiscal and cultural- involved of the Obama goals. Personally, as a Democrat, and a strong believer in Obama and the platform of the Democratic Party, I hope that doesn't happen. But it will, it always does. And Democrats will invariably become arrogant.

I do believe, as I said, that this government needs the balance of powers- not only by branch but by political party to function best. Until Republicans powers-that-be begin to realize that moving even further right will cause damage to themselves even more, I fear that we may be in for one-party rule for a long time.

[Guest]

leaving the party...any party? Either party?
They are gone...and life is supposed to go on. Joining the opposition does not neccesarily assure satisfaction....or you would have done it years ago.
Help it get back to where ever you think it was before you got mad at somebody.
I personally have a hard time with the number of folks who would do or have done something other than they would normally do because they don't like Bush. That means y'all for the opposition...your just against Bush....he is gone for cryin' out loud!!!! If the pound of flesh needs to be gotten, that is the beauty of our system...you are entitled to do so.....for now!!

BTK

BTK,

Bush is not the issue here, not for me anyway. (I was just having a little fun telling about my picture.) My purpose in starting this thread had nothing to do with Bush bashing. I was hoping for a discussion of the future of the Republican party and whether or not there is any hope for moderate Republicans.

I am furious about the tone of the extreme right who claim to speak for the party. They make it clear that the Republican party going forward has no room for moderates. And, btw, Nancy Pelosi terrifies me. Seriously. That look in her eye scares me a lot. She is every bit as out there as the extreme right.

Even so, I have to wonder if we are going to end up with Democrats who are more moderate than Republicans.

Boomer

[Guest]

All of your posts accurately reflect my feelings and political experience exactly. While like you all I am a fiscal conservative, I am probably also a social moderate. In my mind that means that the federal government can and should exert its power in improving many of the basic needs and rights of U.S. citizens. Our national security and maintaining sound economic and social relationships with the world of nations are fundamental responsibilities of governance, as is an excellent education for our children and affordable healthcare for all, in my opinion. Of course, using every fiscal and financial tool available to assure that our economy remains competitive and our citizens employed are also pretty fundamental.

Like everyone who has posted to this thread so far, political party designation means little to me. Over the last couple of decades those elected to federal positions have performed far differently from their campaign promises, what their political parties are supposed to represent, and the political objectives I espouse. I'll pay a lot less attention to which party future candidates choose to belong to than their campaign promises and how they have fulfilled their previous campaign promises.

Other than sound character, I will have no specific standards which I feel would disqualify a candidate I might vote for--no litmus tests as it were. Certainly, I'll apply no standards that are based on particular religious beliefs. Our country was founded to escape any such influences. I think I'm realistic in knowing that no candidate will ever perform in a way that satisfies me 100% of the time. Was it Ronald Reagan who said, "A member of Congress who supports me 80% of the time is my friend"? If I can find a candidate that I can be sure will govern in a way that I agree with 80% of the time, I'd be ecstatic!

If there are lots more people out there who believe in the same way as those who have posted to this thread, there is hope. As I've said many times before, the ship of state changes direction very slowly, but in time it will turn to meet the desires of most Americans.

[Guest]

DKlassen. I am "Un-enrolled". In Massachusetts, some clown created an "Independent" party, thus denying the rest of us enrollment as "Independents."

I am a conservative as 60%+ Americans claim to be. I am a fiscal conservative and a social conservative. I am not a right wing radical.

I am pro life and pro choice . I do not want to pay for abortions. I am against partial birth abortion except for the immediate need to save the mothers life. I would take no action to outlaw abortion no mater how disgusting I may find it because I can envision conditions in which a woman may believe with all her heart that abortion is the only option. I am a conservative.

I believe in the constitution as our founders presented it. I like that it can be changed but for good cause and with a lot of effort. I am a conservative.

I believe in equality for all, not preference for some. I am a conservative.

I believe in guaranteed equal opportunity not guaranteed results. I am a conservative.

Some have said that the Republican party is dead. Perhaps is is in trouble but remember Obama won with 52% or 53% of the vote. Every where that there was a conservative issue on the ballot, it won. Conservatives are the base of the Republican party, don't knock them, we need them. There is such a thing as the religious right. It is not evil, just zealous.

Moderates in my opinion are just people with no fire in their gut.

Democrats never move to the right but everyone thinks Republicans should move to the left. Whatever happened to principles?

On the question of a third party: That will guarantee a loss for the Republicans.

What is the solution? I don't know. I think that we have to let the RNC know that they should follow the conservative principles that most Americans believe in.

Thank you for your time.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition.

[Guest]

Yeah Yoda. :agree: Correct on every issue.

[Guest]

of this thread:

Just why is it the only rhetoric is about the possible demise of the Republican party?
Why is it assumed there is solidarity in the Democratic party?
They did not win the election by a landslide.

I repeat what I said earlier; if the media were not thrumming on the so called issues of the Republican party, it would not even merit discussion.

Dems and Repubs have been throwing rocks at each other for years...just like opposing sports fans!!!! It is only the current angst and alignment of the media that generate topics like this thread is attempting to address (not a negative shot!!).

The party favorite pendulum will swing again....have no fear. Obama like every other POTUS before him will fall out of favor...popularity will drop. He, however will not attain the position of being the reason why voters will shift their attention to an opposing candidate....BECAUSE THE MEDIA WILL NOT LET THAT HAPPEN!!!!!!!

[Guest]

------------

moderates in my opinion are just people with no fire in their gut.

-------------------------

yoda

a member of the loyal opposition.

What!!!!

Yoda, I was reading along, actually agreeing with maybe a couple of things you said in your post, but then I got to this part.

I got fire!

Probably the part that fires me up the most is the Republicans in power who are hiding behind the chant, the rant, "No Socialized Medicine."

First of all, let me make perfectly clear that I am not in favor of socialized medicine either. But why don't these chanters realize that there are millions of hardworking (or unemployed but wanting to work) Americans who cannot afford to buy into a good group plan? (Even if there is such a plan available to them. Often there is no such thing.) Or is it that the chanters are covered and so they just don't care?

Those on welfare do not even enter into this equation because the lives of the generational welfare bunch do not change no matter who is in power. It's all the same to them. That gravy train just keeps on rollin'. They are covered.

It's those who have no access to affordable coverage that I am concerned about. And what's this I hear about healthcare not being a right? I keep thinking that I cannot possibly be hearing that one correctly. Are those who say that really saying that there are those who do not deserve healthcare in America? How can they explain the alternative?

This country needs to make sure that affordable access to good group plans is available to BUY into. I know of young hardworking families who simply cannot afford healthcare coverage. I know of those who want to retire early but have no access to affordable healthcare with a good group plan. Factor in a pre-existing and they better just hope they can keep their jobs so they can stay on the group plan.

"No Socialized Medicine" -- that phrase is nothing more than a button-pushing diversionary tactic. An excuse put out there to not solve the problem. Get that loud knee-jerk reaction and that way those in power can continue to roll around in bed with insurance companies and Big Pharma.

Well, I can't get out of here this morning without telling you a little story.

Several years ago all of us at work got a letter from our insurance company saying that they were going to issue an IPO and that we could have stock or cash. I took stock. The stock shot up. Split. Shot up again. And when the value against the cash others took quadrupled, I sold. I just did not want to own stock in an insurance company. Sure, the gain was a tidy one. But I did not want to own that stock anymore. The CEO was raking in multi-million dollar bonuses while claims were being denied. Somehow, making me, the stockholder, happy seems to work OK when it's just about toothpaste or mac and cheese. But where healthcare is concerned, I just did not want to own a piece of anybody. But lots of people own a piece of me. I am still under that plan.

Should stockholders and healthcare mix?

And yeah, I know. Abdicating to government control is bad, too.

But we moderates want to see the problem of healthcare addressed and the middle ground found. For the sake of so many Americans.

I do not make my decisions based on what I see in the media. I talk to real people.

And guess what the first thing is that I would want to ask about if I were to be invited to one of those Republican town meeting things that are supposed to come around.

Boomer

[Guest]

All of your posts accurately reflect my feelings and political experience exactly. While like you all I am a fiscal conservative, I am probably also a social moderate. In my mind that means that the federal government can and should exert its power in improving many of the basic needs and rights of U.S. citizens. Our national security and maintaining sound economic and social relationships with the world of nations are fundamental responsibilities of governance, as is an excellent education for our children and affordable healthcare for all, in my opinion. Of course, using every fiscal and financial tool available to assure that our economy remains competitive and our citizens employed are also pretty fundamental.

Like everyone who has posted to this thread so far, political party designation means little to me. Over the last couple of decades those elected to federal positions have performed far differently from their campaign promises, what their political parties are supposed to represent, and the political objectives I espouse. I'll pay a lot less attention to which party future candidates choose to belong to than their campaign promises and how they have fulfilled their previous campaign promises.

Other than sound character, I will have no specific standards which I feel would disqualify a candidate I might vote for--no litmus tests as it were. Certainly, I'll apply no standards that are based on particular religious beliefs. Our country was founded to escape any such influences. I think I'm realistic in knowing that no candidate will ever perform in a way that satisfies me 100% of the time. Was it Ronald Reagan who said, "A member of Congress who supports me 80% of the time is my friend"? If I can find a candidate that I can be sure will govern in a way that I agree with 80% of the time, I'd be ecstatic!

If there are lots more people out there who believe in the same way as those who have posted to this thread, there is hope. As I've said many times before, the ship of state changes direction very slowly, but in time it will turn to meet the desires of most Americans.

Well said. As usual.

[Guest]

Personally I think it would be great for everyone to have health care that needs it. That certainly will be my #1 issue when I retire and it weighs heavily on my mind.

But the simple fact and bottom line is, the government is flat broke. It's programs are flat broke and you can only raise taxes so far before it trashes the economy which only compounds the problem.

The only solution I can see is in the private sector along with things like TORT reform. We will never get TORT reform from the center, it will only come from the right where it's generally originated from in the past. You never here the left or center talk about TORT reform.

Our current center used to be the "left." Our new left is now the radical left. For me I'm taking a hard right and staying there.

[Guest]

........

I see two major problems though:

1.) The revolution of the "Right," which started thirty years ago with Christians being told they should "infiltrate" locally and work their way up the system, and politically, as that power began to indiscriminately exclude anyone other than the narrow "moral" platform of the so called "values voters."

I grew up (in NY) with the age of Rockefeller, I campaigned for Lowell Weicker, and I remember many moderate-conservative Republicans who ran for and won office because they were concerned about taxes, government and providing government services as "leanly" as possible.

It was only after Reagan, and I certainly place the blame squarely on men like Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Rush Limbaugh and the like, who began to preach that up is down, fact is fiction. You are with us or with the terrorists. Republicans really had no place to go, and the right extremist wing just kept building up its power.

2.) The rejection of the powers that be in the Republican party to accept any one, or any idea, that does not fit into the ideological purity of the extremists who now control the party. Why was government sticking its nose into Terry Schiavo's life? Why couldn't conservatives be Republicans and still support environmental responsibility (Drill Baby Drill!)?

Why couldn't some accommodation for a mother's life be included in an anti-abortion platform. Are Republicans aware that, in its extremism, pro-life positions in the Catholic Church and the Baptist conventions require the doctor to sacrifice the life of the mother to save the baby- EVEN if the baby has little chance of viability? Talk about goverment intrusion into private lives.

....

Regarding point 1: The "revolution to the right" began more as an semi-rural/rural-versus-urban backlash, with urban residents clamoring for (and getting) "entitlements" mainly paid for by semi-rural/rural America. "Right-Wingism" began outside the cities, grew outside the cities, and continues to center itself outside the cities. Even today, "Left-Wingism" is still predominately an urban phenomenon.

Regarding point 2: I find it strange that most who are pro-abortion are anti capital punishment. It's a peculiar irony that condones the killing of a being whose only "crime" is being conceived and unwanted, yet a convicted rapist-murderer should be allowed to live until "natural death" because his/her crime(s) apparently are not as serious as the crime of being conceived and unwanted.

The problem of abortion has always been "when" should it occur. During the first trimester, the second, or the third? How about within three months after birth, or six months, or any time up to age 18 years? Where is the bright line and who should choose it? Who at what age or circumstance should be subject to any individual deciding whether they live or get tossed in the HazMat bin? And if it's all right to dispose of a being with a beating heard and viable synaptic function prior to delivery (natural, C-section, full term or early), why not the same for a being with a beating heart and viable synaptic function residing in an old-age home? In both cases, the being is an inconvenience, drawing down on family resources, and creating emotional strain on family members. Hasn't that been the pro-abortion criteria for its position?

When the state decides life-and-death criteria - whether for children in the womb, criminals, the aged or the infirmed - we all lose, sooner or later. Kill them all or kill none - the justification used for any one of them is and has always been the same for all of them. We just seem to want to be selective in our application for whatever the reason.

Government intrusion into private lives in any manner - especially life itself - is political by virtue of being "government" intrusion. One would think we would have learned a lesson from the Nazis, the Sunni in Iraq, and others who used life deprivation as a means for eliminating unwanted from their dream societies. We, though, practice life deprivation with societal justifications which are no less abhorring for the one whose life is lost.

What an irony!

[Guest]

Personally I think it would be great for everyone to have health care that needs it. That certainly will be my #1 issue when I retire and it weighs heavily on my mind.

But the simple fact and bottom line is, the government is flat broke. It's programs are flat broke and you can only raise taxes so far before it trashes the economy which only compounds the problem.

The only solution I can see is in the private sector along with things like TORT reform. We will never get TORT reform from the center, it will only come from the right where it's generally originated from in the past. You never here the left or center talk about TORT reform.

Our current center used to be the "left." Our new left is now the radical left. For me I'm taking a hard right and staying there.
I've always been an opponent of tort reform when the reform is basically to limit what a jury can do.

Juries decide how much is justifiable compensation for a harm. The entire concept of a "jury of your peers" - whether you are plaintiff or respondent - being able to quantify what is fair and just compensation for a harming keeps "harming" from being reduced to a minor factor in risk management.

At the end of every jury trial where a decision awarding $XXX occurs, the losing side immediately motions to the trial judge for a "judgment notwithstanding the verdict" At this time, the trial judge can step in, reverse the jury's decision and substitute his/her "wisdom" instead. If such an action happens, the now-losing party can appeal the judge's decision to the next-higher court.

Capping medical malpractice awards has been the medical profession's goal for many years, and they justify it as a means for reducing overall medical costs to the consumer. It sounds noble, but will it just increase the risk of more Thalidomide, rupturing breast implant, asbestos, Ford Pinto, Agent Orange, Love Canal and a host of other situations occurring, because the financial risk of a bad product or procedure is lowered?

I trust juries more than I trust industrial risk management actuaries as the check-and-balance in personal safety. At least I know the jurist is not going to profit from the matter.

[Guest]

I prefer to think of a Moderate as one who considers both sides of an issue, considers each issue separately and then makes their own decisons.

Sometimes too hot of a fire can consume....

[Guest]

For many years, I have subscribed to a very simple philosophy when it comes to the parties (and was pleased to hear myself accurately quoted when my ex-wife called in to an NPR show on which an author was pushing his book on the changing roles of the parties in today's political landscape):

No political party has all the good ideas or all the bad ones, all the saints or all the sinners.

[Guest]

media would have as many as possible believe, the Republican Party will survive.

Remember the Dems DID NOT win the election by a landslide....funny how that never gets pointed out by the supposedly sharp media cats....yes I am being sarcastic! There is no percentage in them presenting the facts for intelligent people to reach their own conclusion.

As much could be written about whether the Dems will survive, but that isn't a likely speculation as it is not consistent with the administratios or the medias intents.

Another example of selective reporting? Obama first day in office his ratings were around 80%. The ratings after 100 days are around 60%. Has anybody seen that in the media? Of course not. It is presented that his 60% are so far superior to the previous administration. Borderline (or maybe not) mis-information and managing the masses beliefs.

Ther I feel better already.

I do support the earlier comments that whether and R or D or what ever beside a persons name doesn't mean anymotre tha what religion they are...eh?

BTK Some people must have seen that in the media. YOU did!! Unless you did this ratings poll yourself...

[Guest]

Boomer, I feel exactly the same as you. I don't know if the Republicans moved away from me, or I've move away from them. Probably a little of both. I registered as a Republican when I was 21, and never changed over the next (nearly) 40 years. But I am so furious at the Bush Administration for so many things, that I'm seriously thinking about re-registering this year. Probably as an Independent, but I could go so far as to become a Demo. The two biggest things keeping me from doing that are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I suppose as long as those two bozos are in charge, I'll not be joining their party. Anyway, I can no longer associate myself with the Republicans. I think they will come back at some point, but I'm guessing it will be two or three presidential elections before they can completely come to their senses. And I'm likely to be dead and gone by then. Thanks for your post. 30 years ago when i moved to Florida, I wanted to register as a Independent, but you don't get to vote in primaries here if you register that way. So, something to think about if you're going to be voting in Florida.

[Guest]

WOW! is right

I guess it's good for the Center to have the Right think there is no fire in the belly of a centrist. It's precisely that sort of thinking that makes it easy to dismiss the radical right as being out of touch. The extra millions of individuals who registerd to vote- and who actually voted- were not being milquetoast about it.

The enthusiasm that Hillary and Obama met on the campaign trail was not apathety. What is different, and I believe difficult, for the Right to realize is that being enthusiastic is not necessarily the same as being angry or venomous on the campaign trail.

Oh sure, I'll scream out "fascist" or whatever in a personal discussion or blog, but you won't hear phrases like "Kill Him!" at most Democratic/centrist rallies.. Do not confuse quiet reserve with lack of fire.

This country is in fact a rather Conservative nation. The center leans more to the Right than it does to the Left. How? Well, in comparing ourselves to the rest of the "Developed" world, we don't have general Socialism as a national goal. Our political parties are truly tame compared to the radical parties on the Left in Europe. Our relatively mild swings between Democrats & Republicans do not bring down entire governments. In fact, even the occasional "powerful" course correction- FDR, Kennedy, Reagan and Obama do not really alter the structure and function of government too radically, only it's desired outcomes.

TORT REFORM- Can someone explain- and I'm totally serious here- why it is that the same "Free Marketers" who chastise any attempt by the government to limit salaries or profits, suddenly jump to their feet and cheer at "tort" reform? Why shouldn't lawyers be permitted to make whatever living their entrepreneurial spirit allows them to? Certainly, I pay more for gasoline because the top 6 CEO's in the oil companies make almost $2 billion a year. Certainly, jobs are lost because Wal-Mart and others out-source their labor to countries using children or prisoners, and pay them slave wages.

So seriously, why is tort reform considered All-American when it is diametrically opposed to the concepts of a free market system? Wouldn't Capitalism and competition guide one to find the best lawyer for the most reasonable fee? Isn't this the whole excuse behind talking about privatizing Social Security or Health Insurance?

ABORTION-Finally, Steve says, "The problem of abortion has always been "when" should it occur. During the first trimester, the second, or the third? How about within three months after birth, or six months, or any time up to age 18 years? Where is the bright line and who should choose it?"

I agree with you. Unfortunately the radical right and the Catholic Church do not. Personally, I am not oposed to the death penalty, especially now that DNA can help clearly determine the guilty or innocent.

Both the radical right and the Pro-choice radical left have boxed themselves into ideologies that defy common sense or compassion. I'm pro-choice, but not in the sense that abortion is ok whenever the woman chooses to have one. Scientific viability has changed dramatically in the past ten years, and has outstripped our civic morality. My cousin had a 1lb. 5oz. baby girl who is now 3 years old and perfectly healthy. What is viable? Little Hailey is viable.

Even a few weeks is now viable. But a fertilized egg- two cells is not viable. It is potentiality. Consider that these groups don't even permit birth CONTROL let alone an overnight RU486 option, and you see the hypocrisy from the right. Talk about late term, whatever that means now, and you get ideologues on the left screaming, "Women's Rights!"

No clear answer for me. BUT it is irrefutable that since 1968's Humanae Vitae, the Church (including right wing Protestants ) has simply outlawed, outlawed completely, the use of any contraception- including that in the intimacy of a legally married heterosexual couple. The Church INCONTROVERTIBLY states that the mother's life should be taken to save the embryo. So what does that mean in our Brave New World? It means that a mother's life must be taken if it puts a 1lb 5oz. baby fetus at risk.

Unfortunately Steve, there is no when with these ideologues. You and I can rationalize and say, "Oh, come on, common sense says that you wouldn't sacrifice a mother's life for a two week old fetus." But that's not what they say. Their dogmas are not open to human interpretation. Period.

It's sad that both sides are so intransigent, but it is the reality of our culture.

Rob

[Guest]

Boomer, you don't sound moderate to me.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

...
...

Unfortunately Steve, there is no when with these ideologues. You and I can rationalize and say, "Oh, come on, common sense says that you wouldn't sacrifice a mother's life for a two week old fetus." But that's not what they say. Their dogmas are not open to human interpretation. Period.

It's sad that both sides are so intransigent, but it is the reality of our culture.

Rob
To me, there is no need to rationalize anything. I happen to agree with the Catholic Church's position that abortion and capital punishment violate the Sixth Commandment.

I don't think we're (humans overall) smart enough to say when killing any human is justified, nor is any scientific principle is by itself so infallible that terminating anyone's life based on "science du jour" is perfect.

Governmental killing, which is subject to political whims, is a very slippery slope. Each state has its own "rules" for state-authorized or state-condoned termination of life, and these "rules" have been very fluid. That doesn't say much for human ability to "interpret," as one would like to think that life-and-death - as absolute conditions - would not be treated as Will O' The Wisp concepts.

If anyone knows someone or some group smart enough to be infallible in life-and-death decisions, please let me know who s/he-they is/are.

[Guest]

I have been staying away from the political thread lately because I dont understand in my heart or my head how someone could support the ideas and ideals of the Dems and yet they won. I said before party trumps person. You dont only vote for pres but the winning side heads both sides of congress and the committees that actually make law.Maybe you like the direction we are going in but I'm concerned with the viability of our country with the people in charge ( both Dem and Rep ).
Two thing seem to come up often, abortion and socialized medicine. Even though I'm a member of the loyal opposition, I just cant think of anything more intrusive into some-ones life than any govt body telling any woman she must have a baby or not. I think it's her body and her conscience and her decision and no one else's period end of story.potwnrob say's he's pro-choice Except it's not okay just whenever a woman chooses to want one. REALLY? then who else chooses? thats not pro-choice. That's arbitrary.
It's really okay when it's okay with him.
As for socialized medicine I have been so disappointed with people here, our age, who have worked for almost everything we have and yet expect other people to go to work every day to buy our healthcare for us. Health care is not a right no matter what you say. Even though It's not an enumerated right given to the Fed govt my selfishness and compassion for people would allow me to support the taking of hard earned taxpayer money to subsidize the cost of a program that would help pay for some kind of coverage people could BUY for one under some age and over some age but only partially not completely. Remember though that slightly under 50% of people here pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits so there will come a time when net tax payers will feel like saps and will maybe stay home instead of working everyday for someone else's benefit.
I too think moderates have no fire in the belly. I think the just want to get along. What I'm looking for is someone on my side that will clearly spell out what I believe in. Not be ashamed or timid about it. Thats why Rush and Hannity and Coulter get traction, Their not wimps about what the believe and dont care what others think. You either like relatively more of one side or the other,not being a centrist but trying to convince people that one side or the other has more of the beliefs and ideals that you have and ask for your support. The needle doesn't rest in the center very often but shifts to one side or the other. Trying to please everyone never works.
Dems aren't afraid to voice their socialist views or their "Left Wing Extremism" why should Reps not champion what some consder "right Wing Extremism" And potwnrob or some other "enlightened" Dem please describe to me just what makes us Extremists either fiscally or socially PLEASE.
Lastly It's been my long held belief that if the people here now were the people who landed at Plymouth Rock we wouldn't have made it west of the appalachians. No fire in the belly. IMPO
Benj

[Guest]

Benj, I agree with you about the "mushy middle." I think they go along to get along. I never feel like they have any strong convictions, one way or the other.

[Guest]

I am sure you know Politico. And my guess is that you know this guy, Frank Luntz, who wrote Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear.

I find Luntz' ability to be eerily, terrifyingly fascinating. The ultimate spinmeister. The King of the Euphemism. A word wizard.

I think, somewhere along the way, this guy even convinced some people that the word 'Orwellian' means a good thing. How Orwellian is that.

When I read through his instruction on how to talk about healthcare, I felt like that's all it was about -- the talk. It looks to me like the goal is to talk the talk so they won't have to walk the walk. I could not see any actual talk about solutions, just more stonewalling. Frank Luntz programs brains.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22155.html

Boomer

[Guest]

1. Socialism does not bring about new drugs, innovation and research. The profit motive does.

2. Socialized medicine is very expensive. In order to keep it going, we will need to confiscate (through taxation) other peoples money at an unprecedented rate. It makes no difference who's money we confiscate the following quotation from Margret Thatcher will ring true. "The trouble with socialism is that we too soon run out of other peoples money."

3. Socialized medical care is rationed in most places where it is found. People often die while waiting for care. You and I may not get the care to prolong our lives because it is not an efficient use of resources to perform a procedure (let us say a cataract operation) on a 75 or 80 year old. Perhaps your dialysis treatment will be considered a waste of resources. I am not ready for that, are you?

4. Another thing that would be needed in order for socialized medicine to work for the people, is that everyone must be covered under the same system. Those who legislate socialized medicine must be recipients of the care that they legislate. Do you think that there has ever been any indication that our elite legislators would do this? If not, we would have a two tier system of unequal care. Who do you think would get the inferior care?

We have a limited socialized system now, I don't deny that. We care for the poor who cannot work. We care for the old who have produced our great society. The social security system is in trouble because we have expanded it beyond its intended purpose. Our president now wants to expand our social umbrella far beyond the point that was ever intended, desired or needed. It is not a question of fairness when you by necessity must take medical care away from one class to give care to another class. That is unfair to everyone. Keep in mind that although many people may not have medical insurance, none are denied medical care.

There it is. That's why I am against socialized medicine. You may think that I am wrong. I'd love to hear your argument.


Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition.

[Guest]

Yoda,

Never once did I say that I think socialized medicine is the answer. What I have been saying for a very long time is that Republicans need to offer a solution which will make access to group plans affordable and available to all. All the Republicans are doing right now is saying what it should NOT be. They need to think on it and not just push buttons to fire up the same old reactions that they can hide behind, status-quo.

I hope you do not think I am giving you some kind of assignment or something. But when I saw your post just now, I went back into the archives and found this link that I posted here in March. There are two parts to it. It's from NPR and maybe you could listen to it if you want to and it might give you an idea about why I am so concerned for so many people. Some of whom I know.

And I really am a moderate, Yoda. I thought I was a liberal Republican. Maybe I am a conservative Democrat. Who knows? I never could color inside the lines. But I am as passionate about my beliefs as you are about yours.

I invite you to listen to this radio show I am linking here and maybe it will help you to at least see some of what I see. I know we will likely never agree, but at least you could maybe see my point of view a little more clearly. (I like some of the stuff you say.) The first part is about the under-insured. The second part is about the economics of healthcare.

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=3-11-2009

Boomer (I have no idea why I am up at 2:00 AM hanging out in Political. I am so diurnal normally. Oh well.)

[Guest]

Hey Boomer you ask for the repbs to offer a solution to make group plans affordable and available to all. Whats the Dems plan? and what is your solution? And come on, you want us to go to NPR for fair and balanced view points?. This is moderate?
Benj

[Guest]

Hey Boomer you ask for the repbs to offer a solution to make group plans affordable and available to all. Whats the Dems plan? and what is your solution? And come on, you want us to go to NPR for fair and balanced view points?. This is moderate?
Benj

Awwww, Benj, c'mon, did you listen? It just tells you something about what bothers me about this mess. The Repubs refuse to even try to find a solution. They have access to think tanks. There is middle ground somewhere in this mess. Why do they insist upon stonewalling. Could it be $$$$$$$$$ from lobbyists?

You could just listen to it while you look around on TOTV this morning. You might hear one or two things you will agree with. Can't hurt anything to listen. Aw, c'mon, Benj. Please listen. That's what real discussion is all about. You know that.

Boomer

[Guest]

Boomer
Okay so the answer to my question is the Dems dont have a plan and you dont have a plan but it bothers you that the repbs dont seem to have a plan. Last time I looked they weren't in control. At least I came up with an idea.
Benj

[Guest]

Actually, there seems to be 3 health plans under discussion, not counting the "Don't Change a Thing" plan.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30648497/

[Guest]

Benj, I agree with you about the "mushy middle." I think they go along to get along. I never feel like they have any strong convictions, one way or the other.

You are wrong. In fact, I feel VERY STRONGLY, YOU ARE WRONG!!!!

What nerve you have to presume how strongly one feels, just because one is a moderate!

I feel VERY STRONGLY, that I don't want the government to own businesses that can be better run privately.


Yet I fee VERY STRONGLY(!!!!!!!) that certain industries, although run privately, should be regulated, because they impact so heavily on lives of so many.

That's about as moderate as you can get. It is squarely between the the ultimate capitalist view that private industry, regulated only by the markets, should be left to do their business, and the ultimate Communist (Socialist, Leftwing) view that the government should run everything.

It is only out of a VERY STRONG FEELING OF RESPECT for others on this board that I don't use foul or abusive language in this post to show you exactly HOW STRONGLY a moderate can feel.

I hope I have helped to change your thinking that one does not have to an extremist to FEEL STRONGLY about their political beliefs.

[Guest]

........

I am pro life and pro choice . I do not want to pay for abortions. I am against partial birth abortion except for the immediate need to save the mothers life. I would take no action to outlaw abortion no mater how disgusting I may find it because I can envision conditions in which a woman may believe with all her heart that abortion is the only option. ..........

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition.

Hello again,

I have been trying for the last 5 minutes to quote both Benj and Yoda on abortion. And I can't figure out how to do two quotes in the same format as Yoda's here above.

Anyway, heeeeeeeeere's Benj.........

"Even though I'm a member of the loyal opposition, I just cant think of anything more intrusive into some-ones life than any govt body telling any woman she must have a baby or not. I think it's her body and her conscience and her decision and no one else's period end of story." (quote from Benj)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Well, I just have to say......... even though this word does not exactly roll off my tongue....... even though I am not sure my left hand can help type this word....... I really do have to say it..........oh dear.......how can I say that word......oh my.......but it is the perfect word for what I want to say about what Yoda and Benj have to say here about the abortion issue.....

So I have to just say that word I guess........here goes.......

Yoda and Benj, you know what I want to say about what you said about abortion?

I say, "Ditto!"

In the last election, when the abortion issue was brought to the front, I saw it as a diversionary tactic.

(I will be back in later to talk about health care.)

Boomer

[Guest]

Benj, you are not going to believe this, but I just wrote a big long thing about health care and this :cus: internet connection faded out on me and I lost it.

Anyway, I had quoted your post about health care.. But I had a question about the word "selfishness" that is in it. Did you mean to say "selflessness"? Was that a hazard of spellcheck? It happens.

At the risk of sounding like I am giving out another assignment, please look back at that and let me know. Benj, if I am reading you right in that post, I think we agree again. Are you saying that even though you do not like it that the taxpayers will have to subsidize health care for more people, you realize that some help is needed? But not a government takeover. (I am not trying to mess with your words. I am just looking for a clarification on what you meant there.)

And if that is what you are saying, well that's what I have been saying all along. It does not have to be either/or. I have said many times that the people I know are not looking for a free ride. They just want to be able to afford to buy a ticket to ride.

And then I went off on a little tangent about the greeniacs and how while I think we certainly must respect our environment, I think we are being had by some who are just in it for the cash cows to be herded up.

And then I said to a few in the thread enough with calling moderate, practical me "mushy middle" and saying "no fire in the belly." C'mon those are media generated buzzwords. I can hear and read those lots of places. It's part of the language of the far right who ran me out of the party. Those words again. Chants.

So I cannot recreate here the post that I lost, but please let me know Benj if I read you right. And did you look at the link I did about Frank Luntz and how he teaches politicians to manipulate with words so they do not have to do anything about health care? And did you listen to the vile NPR show? At least give the first segment a chance. That is the part that tells one of the reasons why this is indeed a crisis.

And Kayaker, thanks for the link about the plans.

Goodnight.

Boomer

[Guest]

I listened to NPR. A sad case indeed. We can never protect everyone all of the time from everything that could happen. Then, you throw in a sleazy insurance company and that makes it double never.

The present system protects most of the people, most of the time, from most of the things that could happen. Is it better to protect all of the people, all of the time from some of the things that can happen? We cannot protect all of the people all of the time from everything that can happen. That's socialized medicine. It does not work. It never has. There is a plan that is used in Massachusetts. It is very expensive but is an improvement. Mitt Romney caught he.. for it. I think it was his baby. Everyone is required to provide proof of acceptable health insurance. If they do not, they must pay into an insurance pool. If you cannot afford health insurance, Massachusetts will provide it. If you can afford it you must have it. This forces the maximum number of people into the insurance pool in order to spread the cost of health care over the largest number of people. I think that is a better way to approach health care than what Obama has in mind.

Boomer. What is your plan?

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

..........
As for socialized medicine I have been so disappointed with people here, our age, who have worked for almost everything we have and yet expect other people to go to work every day to buy our healthcare for us. Health care is not a right no matter what you say. Even though It's not an enumerated right given to the Fed govt my selfishness and compassion for people would allow me to support the taking of hard earned taxpayer money to subsidize the cost of a program that would help pay for some kind of coverage people could BUY for one under some age and over some age but only partially not completely. Remember though that slightly under 50% of people here pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits so there will come a time when net tax payers will feel like saps and will maybe stay home instead of working everyday for someone else's benefit.---------------

I too think moderates have no fire in the belly. I think the just want to get along. What I'm looking for is someone on my side that will clearly spell out what I believe in. IMPO
Benj

I know I am doing this backwards, but here is the part of the quote I am asking about in my post above.

I should never type after midnight and now it has been two nights in a row so no wonder I am losing stuff and leaving stuff out.

Goodnight again.

Boomer

[Guest]

I listened to NPR. A sad case indeed. We can never protect everyone all of the time from everything that could happen. Then, you throw in a sleazy insurance company and that makes it double never.

The present system protects most of the people, most of the time, from most of the things that could happen. Is it better to protect all of the people, all of the time from some of the things that can happen? We cannot protect all of the people all of the time from everything that can happen. That's socialized medicine. It does not work. It never has. There is a plan that is used in Massachusetts. It is very expensive but is an improvement. Mitt Romney caught he.. for it. I think it was his baby. Everyone is required to provide proof of acceptable health insurance. If they do not, they must pay into an insurance pool. If you cannot afford health insurance, Massachusetts will provide it. If you can afford it you must have it. This forces the maximum number of people into the insurance pool in order to spread the cost of health care over the largest number of people. I think that is a better way to approach health care than what Obama has in mind.

Boomer. What is your plan?

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Oh Yoda, I am soooo sleepy. My plan? Yoda, I am not among the elected. I do not get to have a plan. I just want them to admit it's a crisis and try to do something. Try to figure it out. Bring on the thinkers. Stop bamboozling people into thinking it has to be status-quo or socialized medicine.

An early buy-in to Medicare would help quite a few people I know who cannot retire. Think of the jobs that could open up. I bet we all know people our age who are slouching toward Medicare.

Make something affordable and good and available to the self-employed and to small business. We have friends who have a business. Just the two of them. They do display work. One has diabetes. Type I. The only plan they could find was $17,000 a few years ago because of the diabetes. And the cost just goes up each year. Good group plans just aren't out there much. You have to be with an employer with some size. And even then it costs a fortune.

We just finished building an addition onto our house. Hardworking, great guys who do their jobs well. But do you have any idea what these guys go through to try to insure their families? One of them just told me that his wife may lose her job because the company is slow on business. Her paycheck covers their insurance cost through her employer and the cost of a babysitter and that is pretty much it. Now, what happens if she has no job?

I see their faces, Yoda. And I think there are too many who do not want to see the faces.

I keep saying and saying and saying that somebody who can nail down the intricacies needs to come up with a plan that makes affordable access to good group plans available to BUY into. How hard should that be to figure out? Yeah, they might :cus: off a few lobbies. Those lobbyists have been sloppin' those DC hogs for years. That needs to change. Lifers up there in DC. That needs to change.

You see, Yoda, the Republicans that ran me out do not see it as a problem because it is not their problem. They are covered for life. And they can have all the slop they want. And they have Frank Luntz to manipulate the language and program it into those voters who don't want to see. And who are willing to let others think for them and tell them what to say. Repeated phrases. Over and over. Mind-numbing phrases.

So that was my what and why, Yoda.

And now, goodnight for the third time. (Been up late two nights in a row. And hanging out in Political. I must be losing my mind.)

Boomer

[Guest]

Boomer, your posts in Political have really made me think and it is obvious that you are much better informed than me. To become informed is to subject myself to really reading and really listening to what is happening now, and when I do that, I get so stressed that I can't sleep and my health suffers. I can't eat. I get all nervous and jerky. (Mostly jerky)

I appreciate your keeping an eye on the world and on Cincinnati and I would appreciate it if you can tap me on the shoulder and tell me when I should act.

[Guest]

The problems with socialized medicine are twofold.

One - the public expectation of what that care shall provide can never be met at any cost. There will always be situations where care is administered too little, too late or not at all, simply because there will be a finite amount of resources trying to satisfy an infinite demand.

Two - no matter what delivery system is set up to provide care, there will always be a segment of the population which will exploit it to the detriment of others. The best current example is hospital emergency room service - go into any emergency room at any hour of the day, and there are people seeking "clinic" type care for everything from runny noses to gout, and the ER has no chooice but to service them. Add to that fact is that in many of the ERs the a significant percentage of patients are illegal aliens - a problem most obvious in the nborder regions.

Perhaps a plan could be for the US Public Health Service to establish 24/7 open-door clinics in proximiity to hospital emergency rooms, so that ERs can be ERs again. USPHS clinics would have patient responsibility, and if additional services are needed, USPHS might provide vouchers redeemable for more expansive medical services. Anything else would appear to drag the quality of future care to the lowest common denominator - not a comforting thought!

[Guest]

The problems with socialized medicine are twofold.

One - the public expectation of what that care shall provide can never be met at any cost. There will always be situations where care is administered too little, too late or not at all, simply because there will be a finite amount of resources trying to satisfy an infinite demand.

Two - no matter what delivery system is set up to provide care, there will always be a segment of the population which will exploit it to the detriment of others. The best current example is hospital emergency room service - go into any emergency room at any hour of the day, and there are people seeking "clinic" type care for everything from runny noses to gout, and the ER has no chooice but to service them. Add to that fact is that in many of the ERs the a significant percentage of patients are illegal aliens - a problem most obvious in the nborder regions.

Perhaps a plan could be for the US Public Health Service to establish 24/7 open-door clinics in proximiity to hospital emergency rooms, so that ERs can be ERs again. USPHS clinics would have patient responsibility, and if additional services are needed, USPHS might provide vouchers redeemable for more expansive medical services. Anything else would appear to drag the quality of future care to the lowest common denominator - not a comforting thought!

At least, you have a constructive suggestion. Better than whining any day. Enough constructive suggestions and we will have a plan.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition