Comments


  • "3) I am not pro-bussiness because I know how it is like to be laid off."

    Well Heck, you had a job from a business, there business slowed down so you got laid off. If the business was not there in the first place, you wouldn't have had a job to get laid off from.

    So how do you propose you will pay your bills if all business's have to promise you you won't be laid off when your hired?

    Since you did have a job and you received a paycheck, then how in the world can you be "not pro-bussiness"?

    The Heck with all business's? So you don't want another job?

    June 5, 2009 at 7:25 p.m.

  • Wow, I just stepped out to buy some chicken, came back and thought the thread was hijacked by PM Tasin..How did abortion become the issue?

    June 5, 2009 at 5:30 p.m.

  • Fact is the GOP's message does not resonate with voters right now. It's the Independents that matter. Hardliners will not be swayed by the other party's rhetoric. President Obama, for the most part, is appealing to the Center.

    As for Obama's lack of statement at the time of Malkin's rant, I blame the 24-hour news cycle. It's an ugly beast.

    June 5, 2009 at 4:56 p.m.

  • Johnny..."This is like BHO and HRC saying "abortion should be very rare, yet should still be available upon demand for anyone, anytime". This is clearly a contradictory statement, made for feel good reasons to keep all their sheeple in the fence (both sides have sheeple, save your angst)."

    No, it's not contradictory at all. I believe that abortion is a lousy form of birth control for people too lazy to practice birth control. I believe that people who don't want a baby at the time should practice birth control -- the pill for her and/or condoms for him. If they don't want a baby -- or another baby -- EVER then I believe sterilization is the best approach. A vasectomy for him is best because it's the least invasive. But whatever form of birth control you use, sometimes it fails and the lady in question bingos. If the couple does not want the baby then I think abortion absolutely should be an option and it should be available upon request and it should be absolutely safe. I do not believe the government has ANY role in this decision as there is NO state interest until after a baby is born. This is not a "feel good" reason...it's very real and defensable.

    June 5, 2009 at 4:34 p.m.

  • A lot of those 300 million are babies or people who cannot vote...But 64 million is better than 57 million.

    June 5, 2009 at 4:08 p.m.

  • But then again a little pandering to the group (87%) that thought this country was going in the wrong direction might have swung the election for them..Being tone death is not a political virtue.

    Dems 64 million
    GOP 57 million

    June 5, 2009 at 4 p.m.

  • subjective

    June 5, 2009 at 3:51 p.m.

  • Basically, what you are saying is the Republicans did not pander to the middle-class, rather addressed the issues that are often on top of the list of those from the middle-class.

    June 5, 2009 at 3:49 p.m.

  • I use data rather than personal views to come to my conclusions.
    I have used this example several times in the last few months to prove my point.

    I know the Democrats had about 21 debates and the GOP had a few less…To say the party differences are minor, is to discount what the 16+ candidates had to say….Thanks to research firms, and the fact that I watched all of them, I now know that the GOP candidates did not mention middle-class but they concentrated on tax cuts, cutting corporate tax rates, illegal immigration, extending the war in Iraq, emphasizing the conservative brand and Ronald Reagan.

    On the other side John Edwards “two –Americas” was on the agenda, exiting Iraq, a middle-class tax cut, Health Care and alternative energy….Illegal immigration was mentioned in two debates; then it was about issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.

    This is what I meant by the right of center concerned about straight-line voting…In the last four years of being a poster on the on line forum, I have never heard any liberal bring up this subject…Since we cannot verify how a poster votes, I used the Chronicle reference to say it May be all a bunch of baloney because their results showed a lot of straight line voting in both parties.

    I do not enter into conversations about abortion or religion..Just politics.

    June 5, 2009 at 2:48 p.m.

  • Abortion rights is one of the few consistent points carried throughout the Democratic Party. Your statement that the Democrats are not stalwart in pro-abortion, is absolutely ludicrious. That is not to say there are not anti-abortion/limited abortion Democrats, just as there are pro-abortion Republicans; but they are in the definable minority of each, respectively. I guessing what is driving your statement here is that over the last decade, thanks to strides in modern medicine and imaging technology, more people are feeling guilt over abortion. This is like BHO and HRC saying "abortion should be very rare, yet should still be available upon demand for anyone, anytime". This is clearly a contradictory statement, made for feel good reasons to keep all their sheeple in the fence (both sides have sheeple, save your angst). God forbid a politician encourage people to think for themselves, for they might draw a conclusion that is detrimental to their career as a politician. If they really thought abortion should be "very rare", then they should push legislation to restrict availability upon demand. Yet they do not. In fact, they get very upset over ideas such as: the woman should be required to speak with a counseler first, should undergo an ultrasound first, or should even be approached to discuss alternatives to abortion. These ideas are opposed adamently by both BHO and HRC anytime they are brought up. Its clearly rhetoric for rhetoric sake.

    Both parties are pro-business. It just depends on what that business is and as to the level of support such business provides to their respective platforms. The Republicans are more focused on creating an environment that fosters business growth. Democrats are more interested in industry specific businesses and tend to focus lower down the structural chain. We are probably saying the same thing here.

    To say anyone is "_____________ of center" has more of a tendency to vote party line, is oxymoronic. What makes someone left or right of center is the ability to reconcile with a significant portion of the other party's platform. If a person votes straight ticket for the sake of the party line, he is not a centrist. He is solid left or right, this is one of the key items that defines a person as such.

    One thing we Americans forget, or actually are just ignorant of, is that American politics, as compared to politics in most the rest of the world; when looking at party platforms, in America, the differences are relatively minor, share many common goals, and largely the differences are in how we get there. Not so elsewhere. If the differences in the two major American parties can be called "different sides of the road", then you would have to say the differences amongst political parties in most of the rest of the world are on different sides of a 24 lane super highway, and you are likely to get smeared if you try to reach across absent a coalition of 3rd and 4th parties.

    June 5, 2009 at 2:15 p.m.

  • Johnny
    Each party has its own platform and a website to display such. So the party lines are drawn and a candidate cannot stray too far from those principals, and expect to get party funds or support.

    (1)BigJ thinks global warming is a hoax and I cannot name a single democrat that denies global warming.
    (2)The Democratic Party is basically a pro-choice party but is not steadfast on that position; as opposed to the opposition.
    (3)The Republican Party is basically pro-business, a top –down, whereas the Dems are bottom up.

    Today, Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats are content because most of their agenda on the domestic side have been put in place by FDR, Bill Clinton, and LBJ. Today, climate change and Health Care Reform are the top goals for the democrats….The leaderless GOP of today is in turmoil…When the Democratic Party were down in the dumps, I chose to remain in the party to fix the party from within……Party affiliation in local elections does not matter and I don’t consider party labels in (ho-hum) state races, but I know the talking points the GOP or Democratic candidate will use in a national election…I am a veteran of many presidential debates.

    Just my observation, but it seems only the right of center people, are concerned about straight party voting…People on the left are not as concerned...I do remember a Houston Chronicle article (about 4 years ago) saying that about 78% of voters in Harris County used the straight party level.

    June 5, 2009 at 11:01 a.m.

  • What you are most often describing as "conservatives" are ignorant, intolerant, WASPs who are in denial of the fact that their good fortune is equally the result of self-determination and luck... You are not describing conservatism, per se.

    At risk of offending you, I have to tell you that the views expressed in your blogs are that of a moderate conservative. This is not to say that people like you & I, with a general common sense approach to social issues, cannot also have more-liberal (aka less-traditional) viewpoints as well.

    June 5, 2009 at 10:32 a.m.

  • Conservative (or liberal) does not define any particular party in whole. Each have extremist elements that tend to define them as being MORE conservative or liberal than the other. There are plenty of conservative Democrats. Activism can be manifested in movements for either of: a more liberalization of social rules and expectations; or it can be expressed as a strong desire more stringent social order. It all depends on the starting point. However, as activism requires more radicals in order for their respective movement(s) to gain traction, the greater percentage of "single issue specific" groups in the Democrat party gives it the more liberal flavor.

    This is not to say one has to be Democrat or Republican. I, for one am neither, however, the majority of the candidates I have voted for over my lifetime have been Republicans. But a good share have also been Democrats. The disparity is purely due to specific social and economic issues and candidate character, as opposed to any form of party loyalty.

    For example, here is a very limited example of how I approach the voting question, in that how a liberal or conservative extreme will lose that candidate my vote:
    I will never vote for a Democrat who is a staunch supporter of abortion on demand, without cause or medical justification. I find the killing of unborn just too heinous. Not for pure faith (ie: religious) reasons, but as a fetus is a genetically individual of human dna, which is only temporarily reliant upon another for life sustaining shelter and nutrients, it openly violates the very basis of our society: "...all men are created equal, ...with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

    I will never vote for a Republican who lacks compassion for the less privledged of our society and platforms on a "run them out of town on a rail" message. This is as such is in dire opposition to my desire for finding a means to bring these people up into stable, contributing members of our society. For I truly believe it is our diversity that gives us our global advantage and is the very root of the richness of American society.

    The one thing I do not weather well, is a party hack that turns upon his own previous viewpoints on the basis that the new viewpoint is the one being promoted at the time by his party. This is not to say a person cannot change his mind, but such should be the result of deep reflection and determination of personal conviction, not fickle wishy-washyness.

    June 5, 2009 at 10:32 a.m.

  • Johnny
    I have told BigJ that many,many times...Perhaps he will listen to you.

    June 4, 2009 at 2:41 p.m.

  • J, no insult intended, but you use the term conservative quite a bit to describe demons. Like they way some use the term liberal in a very shallow manner to group fringe single platform social groups together. What, in your mind, makes a conservative? Reason I ask, because a lot of what you write is from a conservative viewpoint.

    June 4, 2009 at 2:38 p.m.

  • Sorry BigJ, that is 28% of the total electorate, but they are probably a majority of today's GOP.

    June 4, 2009 at 2:32 p.m.

  • BigJ
    I believe you mixing up your conservatives….The social conservatives make up about 28% of the GOP but they are a loud 28%, using about 500 AM stations, the right-wing blogs, and Fox News to put pressure on the elected officials…The moderate Republican is coming rare ,in the current GOP structure.

    Yesterday, Obama plucked another GOP moderate from the Northeast, to be his Secretary of the Army,John McHugh….The GOP has several outstanding politicians but they are silent right now.

    June 4, 2009 at 2:21 p.m.