Longtime GOP Senator Arlen Specter to switch parties...

[busyLivin]

I would classify them as being extreme left as well. Here is what I am getting at...GWs tenure turned people off from the Right. The FCC stuff, the bullying of other countries, the stem cell stuff, the Terry Schiavo stuff, I could go on. IMO, people want the federal gov't to get the hell out of their personal affairs and don't want legislation from scripture. Like it or not, that is where we are going. Now, why risk losing more voters by throwing people like Palin in the mix. I would say that I was about 60/40 in favor of Obama when the nominations were made, Palin made it 100/0 after her first interview. The GOP used to be the party of laissez-faire, now they are only laissez-faire provided you follow their religious agenda. I mean, honestly, can't there be a party pushing for smaller gov't that actually has a chance of winning?

I guess, outside of my personal beliefs, if I saw that I was losing a majority of my moderate supporters I would probably go more moderate, and be less inclined to go further to the extreme. Wasn't it Einstein who said that insanity is doing something exactly the same way every time and expecting a different result.

Well said. I disagree with you on the stem cell issue (that & abortion I see as human rights issues, not religious ones), but agree with the rest of your points.

...Though nothing could have gotten me to pull the lever for any Democrat, least of all Barry.

 

[Dale Mabry]

Maybe a good 3rd party will emerge by 2012.

But, let me axe ya this. Let's say in 2012 there is an independent or 3rd party candidate that is small gov't, low taxes, but is more inclined to let the states decide on abortion and stem cells. Would you be willing to vote for this person. I know that is dependent on the GOP candidate, but my question is would you consider it?

 

[Pirate!]

The pendulum always swings back. The GOP needs to be conservative again and support liberty and personal responsibility. If there were more people of integrity willing to fill the spots, and the people were willing to see the issues instead of the smoke and mirrors, the party could be beneficial on the federal level again. At the present time, they hold solicialism at bay and line their own pockets--speaking of the party in general, but there are exceptions.

 

[Pirate!]

Maybe a good 3rd party will emerge by 2012.

But, let me axe ya this. Let's say in 2012 there is an independent or 3rd party candidate that is small gov't, low taxes, but is more inclined to let the states decide on abortion and stem cells. Would you be willing to vote for this person. I know that is dependent on the GOP candidate, but my question is would you consider it?

I realize the question wasn't axed of me, but...Hell yeah, I would vote for that man or woman. Ron Paul doesn't support the federal authority to regulate what might be termed "moral" issues. His stance on marraige is that it's a religious practice that the federal government has no authority to legislate. I would never vote for a president simply because of the party. My biggest problem with Romney was that he was a damn liberal hiding behind "moral" issues like gay marraige. All the while, he was for more foreign intanglements and big Fed spending. I still would have picked him over Obama. Having said that, I'll disclose that I voted for Obama, as the lessor of two weavels. First time to vote for a Demagogue, ahh democrat, for president.

 

[busyLivin]

Maybe a good 3rd party will emerge by 2012.

But, let me axe ya this. Let's say in 2012 there is an independent or 3rd party candidate that is small gov't, low taxes, but is more inclined to let the states decide on abortion and stem cells. Would you be willing to vote for this person. I know that is dependent on the GOP candidate, but my question is would you consider it?

Definitely.

I actually have been thinking about something lately regarding abortion. I will always think it is murder & the worst thing a person can do. However, I believe in democracy & that the government should represent it's people. How can I say the goverment should represent the people, but also go against the will of the people & make illegal something that the majority of them support? (Correct me if I'm wrong in saying around 60% support abortion rights?) I don't think woman have the right to kill a baby, but the majority of people do.

I don't mean to suggest I'm wavering in my dream for abortion to be over & illegal.. I still stunned it's an option. However, I'm beginning to think people's minds have to be changed before the laws should be. In that way, maybe making it a state issue is the better idea.. the people decide.

I dunno.. this thought process is in it's infancy.

 

[Dale Mabry]

I realize the question wasn't axed of me, but...Hell yeah, I would vote for that man or woman. Ron Paul doesn't support the federal authority to regulate what might be termed "moral" issues. His stance on marraige is that it's a religious practice that the federal government has no authority to legislate. I would never vote for a president simply because of the party. My biggest problem with Romney was that he was a damn liberal hiding behind "moral" issues like gay marraige. All the while, he was for more foreign intanglements and big Fed spending. I still would have picked him over Obama. Having said that, I'll disclose that I voted for Obama, as the lessor of two weavels. First time to vote for a Demagogue, ahh democrat, for president.

Exactly my feelings.

 

[brogers]

The GOP of 2000-onward has been anything but moving further right. Spending and federal authority was expanded in many areas, most notably the Medicare part D expansion, No Child Left Behind, Department of Homeland Security, etc...

George Bush was not a conservative. He cut taxes, but he loved to spend.

Now that he is gone, the republicans in the Senate and House seem to be moving back to their roots: voting against massive spending, voting against government interfering in free markets, etc.

This "The party has moved too far right" is absolute falsehood.

 

[min0 lee]

I didn't even know he was a Democrat before he became a Republican...

 

[busyLivin]

I didn't even know he was a Democrat before he became a Republican...

He's whatever will get him into office. The ridiculous thing is that he honestly admits that, and people will still elect him. It's shameful.

 

[min0 lee]

I am really getting sick of Politics, guys who you thought were good people are getting paid under the table......

 

[busyLivin]

I am really getting sick of Politics, guys who you thought were good people are getting paid under the table......

I'm getting sick of people. They keep electing these politicians. They remain uninformed & vote.

 

[busyLivin]

Well said. I disagree with you on the stem cell issue (that & abortion I see as human rights issues, not religious ones), but agree with the rest of your points.

...Though nothing could have gotten me to pull the lever for any Democrat, least of all Barry.

Sorry, also disagree with you on Palin.

 

[busyLivin]

The GOP of 2000-onward has been anything but moving further right. Spending and federal authority was expanded in many areas, most notably the Medicare part D expansion, No Child Left Behind, Department of Homeland Security, etc...

George Bush was not a conservative. He cut taxes, but he loved to spend.

Now that he is gone, the republicans in the Senate and House seem to be moving back to their roots: voting against massive spending, voting against government interfering in free markets, etc.

This "The party has moved too far right" is absolute falsehood.

Very good point.

 

[Dale Mabry]

I don't buy that they are for less spending. That circus that went on as Bush was going out with Repubs voting against the bailouts was just posturing to save their jobs. How can you be for less spending when a good portion of that spending came with a GOP president and Congress? Also, they have moved as far right as possible with limiting personal liberties which is the problem...Those issues typically were not right leaning issues until recently so I guess far right is a misnomer, but it is what has come to signify the republican party.

 

[tallcall]

I'm getting sick of people. They keep electing these politicians. They remain uninformed & vote.

I completely agree! I went Libertarian last election because I hated both parties and still can't stand either very much. I guess I just like the underdog. I am completely for gay marriage and all forms of birth control and limiting scripture in politics, but those are my stances. I also want stem cell research, I want a damn cure to this Tourettes!

 

[Pirate!]

The far right protects liberties, whereas the the far left sacrafices them in the name of equality and security. Currently, there is no far right in the federal gov. People just assume that Bible thumpers are far right, but look at Huckabee.

 

[ALBOB]

This is bad. This is very, VERY BAD! No one party should have that much power. I don't care if they're liberal, conservative or anywhere in between, there HAS to be some sort of restraint in place to prevent any one group from controlling the entire country. Just look at the past eight years, Bush trashed the entire country because nobody was able or willing to tell him no. This is simply a continuation of that. In a different direction, to be sure, but a trashing of the country none the less. Our system was set up to maintain checks and balances, what we're seeing here is the removal of those checks and balances. The old cliche' definitely applies, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

 

[IronAddict]

Damn politicians!

Even worse, damn career politicians!

 

[min0 lee]

I completely agree! I went Libertarian last election because I hated both parties and still can't stand either very much. I guess I just like the underdog. I am completely for gay marriage and all forms of birth control and limiting scripture in politics, but those are my stances. I also want stem cell research, I want a damn cure to this Tourettes!

That would make you a liberal...no?

 

[Dale Mabry]

This is bad. This is very, VERY BAD! No one party should have that much power. I don't care if they're liberal, conservative or anywhere in between, there HAS to be some sort of restraint in place to prevent any one group from controlling the entire country. Just look at the past eight years, Bush trashed the entire country because nobody was able or willing to tell him no. This is simply a continuation of that. In a different direction, to be sure, but a trashing of the country none the less. Our system was set up to maintain checks and balances, what we're seeing here is the removal of those checks and balances. The old cliche' definitely applies, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Concur

 

[brogers]

I don't buy that they are for less spending. That circus that went on as Bush was going out with Repubs voting against the bailouts was just posturing to save their jobs. How can you be for less spending when a good portion of that spending came with a GOP president and Congress? Also, they have moved as far right as possible with limiting personal liberties which is the problem...Those issues typically were not right leaning issues until recently so I guess far right is a misnomer, but it is what has come to signify the republican party.

Define "personal liberty." The type of taxation and government control (health care, environment, etc) the democrat party desires to implement would make the patriot act look very, very minuscule in terms of affecting people's rights and privacy. As for abortion, which I would guess you are alluding to, people on the other side of that issue believe that the right to life takes priority over a non-existent right to kill an unborn child, which was made up out of the right to privacy.

Food for thought, 40%+ of the time you spend working is for the government which compels you under the threat of imprisonment to pay up. 40% of you working hours is a huge chunk of your freedom.

 

[tallcall]

That would make you a liberal...no?

Only in some cases

 

[Dale Mabry]

Define "personal liberty." The type of taxation and government control (health care, environment, etc) the democrat party desires to implement would make the patriot act look very, very minuscule in terms of affecting people's rights and privacy. As for abortion, which I would guess you are alluding to, people on the other side of that issue believe that the right to life takes priority over a non-existent right to kill an unborn child, which was made up out of the right to privacy.

Food for thought, 40%+ of the time you spend working is for the government which compels you under the threat of imprisonment to pay up. 40% of you working hours is a huge chunk of your freedom.

1)I would much rather have the 40% of my money going to the government spent on providing healthcare, cleaning up the environment, etc. over fighting against gay marriage, abortion, etc.

2)I understand that the people on the other side believe the fetus is a person the second the sperm enters the ovum, I don't believe that, but it is their right. However, something like 65% of Americans are pro-choice, majority rules.

3)Oh, I would much rather have 100% of my income. But, the government is essentially one giant labor union with everyone in each other's pockets wasting money too and fro. That isn't going to change any time soon, taxes are going nowhere, and they will continue to spend, so I would much rather the money do some good.

4)I never got the debate on the environment. I understand both sides' argument, I just don't get the, "There is no evidence proving we cause global warming." Worst case scenario if you go green and we don't have an effect is that you are mildly inconvenienced, worst case scenario if we don't go green and we do have an effect is acceleration of the end of the planet. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[busyLivin]

4)I never got the debate on the environment. I understand both sides' argument, I just don't get the, "There is no evidence proving we cause global warming." Worst case scenario if you go green and we don't have an effect is that you are mildly inconvenienced, worst case scenario if we don't go green and we do have an effect is acceleration of the end of the planet. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

My problem is the way we are going about it. Tree huggers have the Democrats by the short hairs. This cap & trade system Obama has planned is going to be a disaster.

 

[min0 lee]

My problem is the way we are going about it. Tree huggers have the Democrats by the short hairs. This cap & trade system Obama has planned is going to be a disaster.

There was a nice piece on chicken farms (Perdue) and how they let tons of chicken manure go into lakes due to the lax regulations....Reagan had the EPA let the private sector take control.....big mistake.