Democrats jump into six point lead on Generic Ballot

[Conan71]

Just because Nixon proposed something 40 years ago doesn't mean it's a staple of conservatism today.  Nixon is regarded in many circles as the last great liberal President.  He also established the EPA and Affirmative Action happened under his administration.  His civil rights record would be considered liberal as well.  He also proposed a "negative tax".  Figuring out ways to lower healthcare costs to individuals has been around for decades, it's nothing new.  

It's also hard to label a program like Romneycare as some sort of centrist or conservative program simply because Romney is a Republican.  He's not the standard-bearer for the GOP (at least not the last election cycle).  He was the governor of one of the most liberal states in the nation when that was pushed through.  He had the help of an overwhelming Democrat Congress and Senate.  If you will notice, he also did not garner the GOP nomination in spite of probably having the best overall resume as someone who might have been able to guide the country through the financial disaster.  Blame it on the Mormon thing, blame it on open primaries and the liberal media pimping McCain.  Point is, Romney apparently isn't the leader of the GOP.

Just FYI- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts lists 35 Democrats and 5 Republicans in their Senate.  They list 141 to 19 in the HOR.  

It's kind of hard to say there's an objective way to say that a plan like Romneycare was centrist when you had a supermajority in the HOR and Senate in Mass. approve his plan.

And again, it doesn't matter to someone on the right if more left-leaners like you think something is centrist.  So long as it's to the left of their own spectrum, it's a leftist plan.  Perception of what actions are is what will determine who winds up with an elected position moreso than the actions themselves.

[RecycleMichael]

Just FYI- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts lists 35 Democrats and 5 Republicans in their Senate.  They list 141 to 19 in the HOR. 

My peeps. I will be there next month, if for no other reason than to lower my blood pressure a bit.

[we vs us]

Just because Nixon proposed something 40 years ago doesn't mean it's a staple of conservatism today.  Nixon is regarded in many circles as the last great liberal President.  He also established the EPA and Affirmative Action happened under his administration.  His civil rights record would be considered liberal as well.  He also proposed a "negative tax".  Figuring out ways to lower healthcare costs to individuals has been around for decades, it's nothing new. 

It's also hard to label a program like Romneycare as some sort of centrist or conservative program simply because Romney is a Republican.  He's not the standard-bearer for the GOP (at least not the last election cycle).  He was the governor of one of the most liberal states in the nation when that was pushed through.  He had the help If you will notice, he also did not garner the GOP nomination in spite of probably having the best overall resume as someone who might have been able to guide the country through the financial disaster.  Blame it on the Mormon thing, blame it on open primaries and the liberal media pimping McCain.  Point is, Romney apparently isn't the leader of the GOP.

Just FYI- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts lists 35 Democrats and 5 Republicans in their Senate.  They list 141 to 19 in the HOR. 

It's kind of hard to say there's an objective way to say that a plan like Romneycare was centrist when you had a supermajority in the HOR and Senate in Mass. approve his plan.

And again, it doesn't matter to someone on the right if more left-leaners like you think something is centrist.  So long as it's to the left of their own spectrum, it's a leftist plan.  Perception of what actions are is what will determine who winds up with an elected position moreso than the actions themselves.

I agree, but that's the point.  The right-leaning spectrum has shifted radically in the last 40 years -- and actually much more recently. 

And regardless of Romney's state, or stance, or lean, he's undoubtedly a conservative and has advanced ideas that have gotten bipartisan support in the recent history.  There're actually a lot of examples of these solidly conservative guys who've been left in the dirt by this titanic shift to the right.  McCain is one, Arlen Specter is another. Charlie Crist in Florida is another.

[heironymouspasparagus]

We vs us,
I've been saying all along how old I am.  Kennedy - yeah.  Truman actually probably better, but his ties to organized crime (Kansas City families) were a little more subtle, so didn't impinge quite like the Kennedy clan.  And before Ford, we had a great Republican President through the '50s - Dwight David.  Both were exceptional men and Presidents.

Actually, the sound bite comments about extremists co-opting doesn't really quite apply to Democrats.  It's more like Will Rogers said about being a member of no organized political party - he was a Democrat.  They try to be SOOOO all inclusive that it is very difficult to achieve coherence.  They are loonies mostly because of a lack of focus, or maybe too much focus on too many things.  Too much like herding cats.

The Republicontins on the other hand have been just flat out hijacked by the - yes, here is comes again, because it is the reality - the Rupert Crew.  You can hear it across their entire spectrum - all the players read from the same play book.  The same script.  Very well organized, focused, and as long as people "drink the Kool-Aid", successful enough to elect Bush II twice - well once anyway.

Conservatism isn't a real value in this country anymore - it is a warped distortion shaped by the Aussie and his buddies.  The image that comes to mind is the difference between conservatism of Eisenhour, Ford, etc. (represented by normal Stanley Ipkiss) and today's Aussie conservatism (represented by masked Stanley Ipkiss).  

Actually, the Cheney, Rove, Murdoch conservatism of today is more accurately represented by the masked Dorian Tyrell!!

Reference "The Mask" movie - Jim Carrey, et. al.

Which brings me back around to the John McCain disappointment...I still think he could have been good, but for caving in.

[Red Arrow]

We vs us,
I've been saying all along how old I am.  Kennedy - yeah.  Truman actually probably better, but his ties to organized crime (Kansas City families) were a little more subtle, so didn't impinge quite like the Kennedy clan.  And before Ford, we had a great Republican President through the '50s - Dwight David Eisenhower (corrected for those too young to remember).  Both were exceptional men and Presidents.

[nathanm]

Eisenhower held interesting views for a general. Most people these days (including myself!) don't remember a time before the defense contractors had taken over the Government. His warning was eerily prescient.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUXtyIQjubU

[we vs us]

Actually, the sound bite comments about extremists co-opting doesn't really quite apply to Democrats.  It's more like Will Rogers said about being a member of no organized political party - he was a Democrat.  They try to be SOOOO all inclusive that it is very difficult to achieve coherence.  They are loonies mostly because of a lack of focus, or maybe too much focus on too many things.  Too much like herding cats.

This is a lot more to the point.  As I said, the D's just aren't fanatics right now. They absolutely have their own problems, but extremism just isn't one of them. 

[Hoss]

This is a lot more to the point.  As I said, the D's just aren't fanatics right now. They absolutely have their own problems, but extremism just isn't one of them. 

That is, unless you talk to an extremist on the other side, then what would be a moderate liberal to most everyone to them becomes a communist.

[Conan71]

This is a lot more to the point.  As I said, the D's just aren't fanatics right now. They absolutely have their own problems, but extremism just isn't one of them.  

Careful when you start throwing the words like "radical" and "extremism" around, as it can be applied in many different ways to many political stripes right now.  So are we saying radical as in crazy or vastly different?

Democrats have had their recent nuts to deal with:

Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan and a whole bunch of anti-war fanatics who mocked President Bush as being Hitler and worse.
The New Black Panthers appear to be aligned with the Democrats
To many on the right, Presdent Obama's whole crew is pretty radical.

As far as advancing a much more government-changing agenda and how government fits into people's lives, governs corporations, and spends money without seeming concern for the consequences of huge debt we've had very radical changes in our Federal government in the last 1 1/2 years.

When you speak of radicalism on the right I'm assuming you mean the Tea Party.

At it's core (yes I know it's pretty disjointed and not well organized so it's hard to tell) the Tea Party is about smaller government, less intervention, and preserving basic consitutional rights.  Asshats showing up at rallies with signs mocking the President or even fewer asshats carrying their firearms openly at rallies aren't exactly what I'd call radicals unless you are willing to concede similar behavior at Democrat or liberal rallies is radicalism as well.  In which case, I don't think you are willing to admit that a handful of weirdos defines an entire movement or major political party.  

And I think we saw last night that the Tea Party was pretty irrelevant in statewide and local races.  Kenneth Rice relied on it and got his donkey whipped by Rep. Sullivan.  Brogdon got shellacked.  Hartje- spanked.

I don't think a Republican can afford to tune out those who call themselves Tea Partiers, but I think there's a good number of us centrist Republicans who cast a wary eye at the Tea Party.  Perhaps it's that lack of a cohesive organization or message which almost makes them appear anarchist, and some who seem to be wanting to govern from the pulpit.  I don't know if you really can define that as radicalism.  

Maybe it is radical (as in a vastly different approach) after an 80 year binge of ever-expanding government, deficits, entitlement programs, more regulations in everyone's lives to want a smaller government which has less of a thirst for our hard-earned dollars.

I'm not really sure what's so extreme or radical about people wanting more self-governance.  

Liberty is the cornerstone on which this nation was built.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Democrats have had plenty of extremists over the decades, but they don't really get any more traction than any other segment...herding cats again!

Tea Party (tea baggers?) are a large group of people who feel so much like I do that it is uncanny.  The frustration and anger about the directions we have headed is incredible.  The biggest single problem/issue that I have with their implementation up to this time is that they have thrown in with the RWRE so much.  What they are expressing/talking about is in great part CAUSED by the people who have sponsored their beginnings and nurtured the movement.  It goes to the sellout of the American people by the hijacked Republicontin party and to a slightly less degree, the co-opted Dummycrat party.  There is no major representative group with the American people in mind.

There has been a lot of talk about the recent tax cuts versus tax hikes.  Stick with me here...it is going to get bumpy.  If we had not sold out America in 2001 and 2003 with the ridiculous tax cuts that killed the budget, we would have been in tall clover right now.  We were seeing surpluses in the $200 - 300 billion range that were 'scheduled' to continue for many years.  IF we had just left the Reagan/Bush I/Billy Bob program in place, with the debt that was outstanding at the time, by NOW we would have been very close to $ 0.  

Instead we got what we got.

And if anyone thinks that tax hikes aren't in the cards, they are negligently, if not criminally, ignorant.  There literally is no other way.  We have "tax cutted our way to economic success" to the point we are failing.  Infinite tax cuts won't lead to infinite economic activity.  Bush II and his lackey's/cronies had no understanding of history or how EVERY economic cycle since before WWII has worked.  Again, we got what we got.

[nathanm]

The real irony of the Tea Party's uneasy alliance with Republicans? The Republicans are the ones blocking more tax cuts.

[heironymouspasparagus]

As was said, time after time, the D's are now pushing and passing legislation essentially similar to the R's, but it's ALL about "just say no".

Obama and his Democrat buddies gave these people the biggest tax cut in the history of the world - anywhere, anytime.  And all they do is grumble about it.  Go figure.