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!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by yoda

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

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

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ptownrob

........

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!

Originally Posted by dklassen

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.

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....

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.

Originally Posted by billethkid

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...

Originally Posted by collie1228

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.

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

Boomer, you don't sound moderate to me.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Originally Posted by ptownrob

...
...

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.

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

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.