Getting back to a moral center ground for both parties has always been what I think will work best with both Dems and the GOP. This is certainly some good news...at least initially.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/washington/07moderates.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1& adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=1176170525-mOV+Gx4PqTZXFAT5n2W51w

I stronlgy agree with this, given the constiutional issues are rectified.

The only republicans hoping for democrat victory are self-loathing, squishy republicans in name only.

I say good riddance to them in our party, for they are actually democrats.

Herb

"The only republicans hoping for democrat victory are self-loathing, squishy republicans in name only.

I say good riddance to them in our party, for they are actually democrats."

Herb, with that attitude, if you got that wish, the GOP would NEVER win a national election of any merit whatsoever again.

Realize that the vast majority of Americans are moderate. We often align ourselves with the Democrats or Republicans, whether it's social views or economic views, but it's very much the minority that blindly aligns itself totally with one party or another.

Wishing that only religious, pro-life, anti-gay anti-environment pro-big business anti-labor pasty white men were the face of the GOP is like wishing that the Democratic flag-bearer was someone like Dennis Kucinich. Do you REALLY want to pigeon-toe yourself into that small of a corner?

A big tent is fine.

Yet there is a big difference between leading the party, and pandering to luke-warm moderates who may or may not vote republican, depending on their particular issue.

Moderates are typically squishy. Fashioning one's core ideology around them is catering to the fickle. Do the right thing. Stand up for your beliefs. Pandering is not leadership.

Herb

That's right! Stay the course, even if it's taking you directly over the cliff! No grey! Only black and white! You're either with us, or against us!

>>>"or against us!"

That's too good an invitation to pass up! I accept.

Herb writes:

A big tent is fine.


Oh PLEASE.....

The only republicans you want are the ones who will shove the bible in the mouths of whoever disagrees with them.

"No grey! Only black and white! You're either with us, or against us!"

Sounds great. Count me in, too!

Herb

Figured you two would like that. Have fun in your small tent.

Awww. Pitching the pup tent. Together. Alone. Sheep. Wasn't this a movie?

I suspect a tent full of elephants would provide a much more worthwhile show than a tent full of donkeys.

I'm flattered to even be considered in the same sentence, let alone the same political party, as the Deanester.

Herb

Herb- Many in the conservative religious sector are moving to the political middle ground without losing their strong beliefs because that is where dialogue takes place. Where one side of the isle listens to the other and they work together to craft legislation that benefits the majority.

These are not politicians riding on the fence in some mushy middle of the road ideal, they want to break down that fence and actually get some good work done. You can still have strong beliefs but it is no longer a monologue, which I believe you want.

This article indicates that the moderates can actually get something done. Is that not what we all want?

"Where one side of the isle listens to the other and they work together to craft legislation that benefits the majority."

Hey!!
Someone should craft a Republic based on this ideal!

Oh wait.... nevermind.

Herb,
What would be your preferred form of government?
I'm guessing Theocratic Dictatorship.

"This article indicates that the moderates can actually get something done. Is that not what we all want?"

Actually, when Mr. Clinton was in office, I was more of a pro-gridlock kind of guy. I'm surprised with Mr. Bush in office that you guys don't feel the same way.

The other issue is that you apparently equate a bunch of bureaucratic redtape and higher taxes as an accomplishment. All of these laws have simply developed into death by a thousand cuts. Each day with more bills passed, I wonder which rights I've lost that were formerly guaranteed by the Constitution.

Many of us want less government, not more. Spend more on the needy, but leave the others alone. Gridlock ho.

Herb

"Actually, when Mr. Clinton was in office, I was more of a pro-gridlock kind of guy."

compare that with what Chris said;

"Where one side of the isle listens to the other and they work together to craft legislation that benefits the majority."

Which way do you think it was designed to work?

Do you think your way is better than that designed by the framers of our constitution?

In your world view, is there any room for compromise?

This maybe a bit off target but I know it will catch Herb's eye because I am talking about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was hanged 62 years ago yesterday, April 9.

The Rev. Jim Wallis wrote these words about Bonhoeffer: "He was both a contemplative and an activist, who showed that you really can’t be one without becoming the other as well. His insistence on the life of personal discipleship to give belief its credibility was matched by his conviction that the life of community was the essential way to demonstrate faith in the world. All those paradoxes were necessary complementarities for Bonhoeffer and formed an integrated faith and life rare in his time, or in any time."

I ask you this Herb. What is your conviction? In a country that could feed the world you want gridlock. Micah: " Do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with your God", yet you want gridlock.

Your "squishy" Republicans are showing more depth of character than your gridlock ideals. And you may be correct about one thing, they may all be gone by the end of Nov 2008, every last squishy one.

Jesus did not ride an elephant on Palm Sunday.

You are both heathens in a pup tent full of latent tickling and tuba farts.

In all seriousness, I'd much rather be the gooey center than the moldy crust.

If you want less government, then our current Administration is not your answer. And that was with a Republican dominated Congress. So they aren't the answer on thier own either.

What rights have you lost?

See: Patriot Act. Most all of them.

So, maybe trying moderation, bi-partisanship, and a centrist approach might work better. You think?

"I ask you this Herb. What is your conviction? In a country that could feed the world you want gridlock."

Indeed you got my attention with the mention of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, God rest his soul.

Regarding your specific question, Chris-I honestly don't think the two are mutually exclusive. They can be, but don't have to be related.

We thought we were helping minorities with the "Great Society" program of the 1960's. Many now contend that it simply encouraged good people to grow dependent on government for a generation or more. You're right, we SHOULD feed more people. But if you look at all the 'pork' in a lot of legislation, it's actually wasted, rather than given to the truly needy. In this instance, gridlock can prevent bills packed with wasteful spending. Poor Oregonians pay taxes too, and don't need to subsidize some pet project for a Robert K. Byrd museum.

I've long said that those on public assistance should get more. It's the scoundrels who are able-bodied that shouldn't be getting any.

Herb

Byrd is in West Virginia you idiot.

I may strongly disagree with Herb on many things but I assure you Saveitfornow, he is not an idiot.

Herb have you ever heard of Christian Aid? Here is a link to this U.K. relief organization that puts social justice as it's top priority putting into practice the teachings of Jesus. This is the kind of thing I think Bonhoeffer would not only encouarge but would have been apart of.

Here's a link to watch a short video.

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ad3304a97e147f522747

Saveitnow, Herb didn't state that "a Robert K Byrd museum" was in Oregon.

What he stated was Poor Oregonians pay taxes too, and don't need to subsidize some pet project for a Robert K. Byrd museum.

What he was stating was that since poor Oregonians pay FEDERAL taxes (like we do in Washington and all other states) that there didn't need to be pet pork projects attached to other bills.

That is why either the President needs line item veto or all bills should be ONLY what they are intended for. No Pork.

Every President in recent memory has pushed for a line item veto.

The abuses of this administration have probably killed any possibility of this for a long, long time.

Didn't Clinton get a line item veto, only to have it struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional? (perhaps only that version of a line item veto didn't pass Constitutional muster, while some other might...)

Right you are!
I didn't remember this.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/