Oh me first me first! Though I promised myself I wouldn't get into this again, quite frankly it’s a slow afternoon, so I may as well take a couple of minutes to respond.

I just created a little spreadsheet with all of the items you’ve listed and where I stand on those issues in particular. The way some of them are worded is a little misleading and biased (no shock there); e.g. “Democrats are for higher taxes on the ‘rich”, even if 50% of the people do not pay any”, but I did my best to disregard what I’ll call semantics, and went from there. If nothing else, I’ve learned something very interesting about myself as an unenrolled voter. Mind you, I have always been unenrolled, and have voted for both parties in the past. What I found is that I agree with Democrats on three of the stated issues and Republicans on one. Others were literally half and half, bringing me to a grand total of Democrat five and Republican three. Very interesting exercise.

It seems to me that what this all comes down to is a division between money and social issues. And it’s important to note that the same opportunities do not exist for everyone. I may be off-topic, but I actually tried to invest a small sum of money in stock in a foreign corporation. I was told (more than once), that I cannot invest in that company because I am not a high net worth investor.

Kim, thanks for being the first to comment, and I am glad that you enjoyed the exercise. Of course, I would prefer you take a recount, but food for thought is always good.

If it all comes down to money or social issues (and the social issues differ from person to person), the question then becomes which issues are the top priority. One respondent on the last blog stated very clearly that women's health issues were her top priority. Got it.

However, if jobs, the economy, Medicare, leadership, and ability to build consensus etc. are higher national priorities the decision could be, and hopefully will be different.

As to my "semantics," everyone knows that I write from the right - but not the far right.

Good job and thanks for being first, and I sense you will not be last.

Being now un-enrolled I just want to say that Both parties for me anyway are useless.
I like the Democrats because they seem to care about the poor and down trodden, but I don't like them for the fact they want to help ALL the poor and downtrodden including people that have no business being here. So that takes away money for the American poor.
The Republicans on the other hand are conservatives like me but sad to say are cowards. They don't really want to take on the tough issues, like immigration because they rich ones make money exploiting these poor people.
I don't necessarily blame the illegals as much as the opportunity that is put in front off them by rich people to use them for their own benefit.
What do these two groups want from us....our vote....and they will tell you what you want to hear to get it.
Who cares about what is best for the country just make the best promises and the gullible will believe it.
Whoever gets into office..... it really doesn't matter, because they country is controlled by a small minority, which I have the privilege to expose.
I could say more against the Democrats but won't. It's just too bad they have ruined the nice State of Massachusetts by their way too liberal policies.
I'm so disgusted with politics now I most likely won't vote for president, unless I convince myself that voting for the lesser of the the two evils is a good thing.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Thank you Jim, but you don not tell us why there are still so many Democrats despite all the changes in Party philosophy over the past 50 years.

Jim- . Thanks for doing these blogs and for your unfailing politeness (something some of our left and right leaning bloggers should pay attention to). Kim's analysis is great eye opener-thanks Kim.
Jim a lot of party loyalty is ancestral-never 'misunder-estimate' the power of your parents' party loyalties to influence yours.Also I think you will find older voters registered as Democrats in a significantly larger % than middle aged and younger voters.
And in the case of MA -ethnic loyalties as well- Irish and Italian voters are very large voting blocs in the state and they tend to vote Democrat except of course for Reagan.
JFK ushered the switch in MA from Republican to Democrat in the late forties and early fifties. when he ran for Congress and Senate .But his Democrat party contained diverse branches- defense minded Conservatives, Southern Segregationists, liberals like Eleanor Roosevelt. The Republican party had a large liberal Rockefeller wing .
Now it seems both parties have rapidly moved in opposite directions with less divergence within parties.

I also think that to many 'ancestral' Democrat voters it's about tradition, links to friends and family who are Democrats and a history of union membership in a family and that connection to the labor movement's progressive beliefs. And btw Democrats I 'm not saying this in a critical way. And to your list- I found that as a Republican I liked several of the views that you cast as Democrat.

Jim, first off let me say I enjoy your blogs and I find you to be a reasonable, thoughtful writer. I'm unenrolled myself because I find major flaws with both parties, and don't feel strongly enough about one over the other. To answer your question, though, I have one possible reason there could be so many Democrats. For those of us who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative, the Republican view on same-sex marriage, abortion and other issues of "social justice" is a hard pill to swallow. So are the forced-down-your-throat views on religion, and religion seemingly being used as a guiding light for Republican leaders. When watching the Romney-Ryan rally the day Ryan was announced the nominee, I was energized right up until Romney said that government didn't give us our rights, "our creator," did.

I align myself largely with Republican platforms. I have a really hard time, though, looking at my married gay friends and telling them I'm voting for a guy who doesn't want to recognize that their marriage is just as good (or bad, hahaha!) as anyone else's.

Just one possible reason for what I'm sure is a larger, more complex answer. When it comes to the Republicans and social issues, I have a feeling that young people will be leaving/not joining the party as Catholics are fleeing that religion - precisely because of the reasons I'm talking about.

Jim....I would think you would be able to read between the lines.
Democrats are mostly liberal....liberals don't have to answer to anyone.
Anything goes and so does the country.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Mr. Hatherley,
This Democrat reads your D/R list as just so much nonsense. There are too many words that I would need to type (which is a very tedious way to communicate but, alas, my only option via Kindlefire) and therefore, I would be very willing to meet you in debate. A public debate with an audience. Perhaps we could have attendees make a donation to the Jimmy Fund or local food banks.
Hope to hear from you.
My email: jphillips410@gmail

I am a Democrat, not because of family history or age, but because I believe in the platform. Call me stupid, but I think it's shameful to ignore those in need when others (we) have so much. If you truly think that people are poor or homeless or needy because they are lazy, then you have not really looked at the issue, because this is far from the truth in most instances. Further, funny you mention inalienable rights, since republicans are the ones trying to take those away from me by changing the constitution and making abortion illegal.

Hi Jim, Nice to see you again. I am a 32 yr registered Democrat. Since September 11, 2001, the veil has been lifted from my eyes and I became interested in politics for the first time. I always voted party line. Being hip and cool, taking care of the poor, no nukes and all that old cliche bs.

Well, I lived long enough to figure out that, almost every single social program since the 30's and especially the 60's, is an abysmal failure. Pick anything, Education, Welfare, Starving Children in Africa, Abortion, the Afro-American Community, Illegal Aliens.

We have given trillions of dollars in taxpayer money and it's nothing but a tax burdening mess. The Democrats are directly to blame and the RINO's who went along with it.

Just one thing because it's on my mind. We legalized abortion to make a better world for women and society, to cut costs and alieviate the burden of the unborn child to be brought into poverty or a broken family. What a sick society we are, after 62 million murderous abortions later, is the world a better place?

Continued........

Yes, the Democratic Party left all of us when they embraced more socialism and communism. The Left Fringe, LGBT and Eco-wackos, all minorities haven't helped, by holding the rest of us hostage, until we conform to thier ideology. The Afro-American Community murder rates, prison incarceration numbers and High School drop out rates, compounded with no-father family units are clear proof, that every single Democratic approach hasn't worked, at all. They use a whole community of human beings as social projects and experiments, just like with the illegal aliens now.

Barack Obama may just be, the very thing to turn the Democratic Party back towards the center. He has completely bankrupted the country and divided us racially and socially. Nothing good can come from using people as pawns.

Teresa....You hit the nail right on the head.... good one!
The Democrats started out good but have lost sight of what is best for all of us.
Now they are only concerned with themselves as most people that are Democrat
are that way because they are on the receiving end of things in some way.
Either through their jobs, or entitlements. Pretty self centered if you ask me.
Jim@ccfiile.com

What a shockingly Republican thing to do, for you to tell me, as a Democrat, what my thinking is and should be. In fact, you have even provided me with an incredibly one sided, ignorant list for me to review in case I was not educated enough to figure it out on my own. All you have managed to do is seal the "Democratic" deal for me. You see, Mr. Hatherley, THAT is my issue with the Republican Party. I actually believe “America was founded on the individual’s inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” However, I do not presume that what makes me happy is what makes others happy. I do not pretend to have the right to tell anyone how to think or live. So while I have personally chosen a conservative and traditional lifestyle, it's not for me to force it on anyone else. To read that you are the Chairman of the Westborough Republican Party, and you would write that Democrats don’t believe this makes me feel a bit ill. As someone involved in politics and in a public forum, I would hope you would make a bigger effort.

Wow. The latest two comments have given me more of an idea why there are so many Democrats. Because of the two parties, the Democrats are far less civil, far quicker to attack, far quicker to accept NO ONE's view except their own. The party is simply a reflection of what we have become as a society: rude, thoughtless, self-centered. Perhaps my reading comprehension is poor but I believe Jim was offering a "potential" list of reasons one might identify as a Democrat. Now the last two posters are calling him ignorant and misinformed. Jim, with some people, you're just not going to be able to win.

To further explain my line of thinking re: Democratic "intolerance," for any beliefs but their own, let me draw your attention to who you're more likely to see heckling, protesting, and suppressing others' rights to free speech. Liberals. (I'm not including the crazy, far, far right wing folks who harass people at abortion clinics, etc. I have a whole other category for them.)

I don't want this blog to go into the gutter. But Jim, I became offended on your behalf.

Back to enjoying my weekend.

One time I was videotaping a Democratic event.....they weren't happy so they tried to block my camera. So don't tell me about how open minded and free thinking the Democrats are. These people are dangerous if you ask me.
If the country went into revolt they would be the first one to make sure the rope was tied correctly around your neck.
jim@ccfiile.com

Good to see other Jessica & Happy taking Mr. Hatherly to task for his Republican demagoguery.

He says ‘pro-choice abortion’ as if pro-choice equals abortion. He carves out the ‘expansion’ of the war in Afghanistan while ignoring its inception. He omits Iraq and the MWD fraud.

He can’t edit out his snide remark about John Kennedy. He confuses government with politics.

He claims to know what ALL Democrats ‘believe’ without citing any source. He claims ALL Democrats believe this or believe that. Not so.

He can’t seem to realize that culture and the ‘pursuit of happiness’ have changeable, evolving definitions. He wants to define my pursuit of happiness; his children probably would like the opportunity to define their own.

He seems to find it impossible to accept that some people believe that one important measure of a society is how well it provides for it most vulnerable citizens.

He seems to accept the agenda the Republican social conservatives would impose on this country while rejecting any alternative view of a social agenda.

He twice uses the phrase “hyphenated-America”. He seems to believe that a woman does not have the right to have her child bear her name on an equal basis with the father.

The type of statements Mr. Hatherly makes may bea big part of the reason that people like UglyHat, while admitting support for the Republican party, refuses to register as such. The fact that it’s not just Todd Aiken may be another.

Truly not surprised at the unsupported and unsupportable sweeping statements about those who register as Democrats. Honesty isn't one of your strong suits, now is it? Scared that we are sick of the half truths and obstuctionism for personal gain that is the Republican Party, Jim?

Happy, Jessica, Linda, Paul, thank you all. But as I mentioned in a response to Jessica, you are making my point. All I asked is what makes Democrats, Democrats. Pretty simple.

In Linda's case from a prior blog I understand that social issues are very important to her and that the Democrat positions are stronger for her. Excellent - there is a reason. Good job.

All the rest is the usual shouting when someone actually politely asked to dialogue. OK - got it.

As to JFK, what did I not say that was not admirable about him. He was my first political hero- and I said so.

Vietnam was a Democrat war - pure and simple. Talking about WMD/Iraq is OK with me because I mentioned that the Republicans were seen as more war ready (so this would have been redundant).

Hyphenated America is a bad thing. It compartmentalizes, divides and sub-divides us. It is diminishing us and our Country. We must return to the day when we think, act and believe that we are just Americans ... again.

So, once again I politely ask, why are Democrats, Democrats? If you choose not to respond, OK. But shouting at me isn't helping anyone understand anything or anybody. Thanks again.

I look at the Democrats as a CULT!
They know they are wrong in a lot of issues but they continue to support their wrong views, to save face.
This is behavior that is called cognitive dissonance, many in Cults do the same thing.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Jim, thanks, but I am hoping to hear from Democrats explain why they believe the Democrat Party is better for the USA, and not get defensive from being referenced as a cult.

Jim, your lack of honesty and choice to paint people with the same brush clearly shows how shallow minded you are. Yours was the choice to make sweeping statements, you have been asked to back up your claims but refuse. Simply put, we are all getting sick of your dishonesty and thinly veiled disdain for people who have not had the advantages you take for granted, and wish to deny others.

Jim H, I believe that as you continue to post you will get less responses. I, for one, am seeing the same thing over and over and it is an old song. Equating pro-choice as pro abortion certainly makes me not want to discuss anything with that person, as it is obvious (to me) that there is not going to be a rational discussion.

This sentence: "Democrats believe that in-state tuition, free public educational and medical services, and even tax credits for illegal aliens are fair, while Republicans want protected borders and an orderly legal immigration process" is mind boggling. Who doesn't want to protect borders and have an orderly legal immigration process? This just sounds like Fox news (again, to me) at this point...

This one: "Democrats believe the role of government is to provide free stuff. Republicans want the people to be free from government". Really? C'Mon... That is what you think the Democrats think the role of government is? I don't believe that for one second and thus am perplexed as to why you would write it. As to the Republicans wanting the people to be free from government, we have a whole other blog discussing that gem.

I don't watch Fox news and if you continue down this path your posts will become as boring, silly, and predictable as Fox - to me. Fox is obviously still around, so I can't deny there is certainly an audience for it.

Yes, Jim, as you admit, your understanding of Democrats is anecdotal at best, and deeply flawed. As you specifically directed me to this blog, I had high hopes once again that there would be some real dialogue here, some genuine attempt to understand if not actually to compromise. And once again you have deeply disappointed me. Is THAT the point? Yes I know, it's your blog, and that's your picture. But from your grotesque misconstructions of history (The Viet Nam War? Really? In a nutshell??? And how many Republicans tell us, constantly if "anecdotally", that we mustn't bring up George Bush because that was SO long ago?), to your silly, unsupportable stereotyping (all stereotypes are silly--don't you agree? and all fall apart, so why indulge them?) of Republicans as being somehow more forthcoming and reasonable--there's no dialogue here. If your manner of inviting dialogue is in any way representative of the Republican way--why, that's reason enough right there for me to be a Democrat.

But congratulations on achieving Medicare status!

And my last bit of advice to you (aren't you glad???): I've warned you before, but the notion is far older than either of us: politics really does make strange bedfellows.

Jim I guess I wasn't clear about my voting record. If I vote in one primary I don't vote in the other. No one ever questioned my party affiliation. I never changed my party legally because I think we should all vote as Americans. The two party system is ludicrous at best. With so many diverse people in this country it is ridiculous to believe that there are only 2 or 3 different political belief systems that would encompass the entire population. . If you vote only for your registered party everytime you aren't making a reasonable choice. Everyone complains about the fact that Obama has caused such a divide between Americans. The fact that we are forced into choosing one or the other party is totally divisive. Just look at some of these posts. There is actual hatred because someone is a different party than someone else. It is however obvious that the Democrats are far meaner and uncompromising. I am not however excluding Republicans from this bad behavior.
and yes. I do believe that there are many peoiple that have registered as one party who vote differently or never even vote. People have busy lives and many people do not feel that they have time to concern themselves with politics. A vast majority, especially the younger people don't even think that they have any influence. They think voting doesn't matter because they can't change anything. Imagine what they think about all these 'old' people who are so adamant about forcing their opinions on everyone else.

Simply put, your sweeping statements about democrats make clear that you harbor a lot of views which are not based in reality. Your statements in the blog post above are patently untrue in many cases.

If you choose to cast wide swaths of people aside, making untrue statements about their views, that in my opinion is intentionally dishonest. I challenge to find a single
Democrat who will agree with all of your sweeping nonsense statements.

Really Jim, it really seems that you need to get off the pulpit and try the real world instead of this fantasy you blog about.

Kira, good job is explaining why you are a Democrat - makes it much easier to understand your perspective. It seems to me after reading several definitive responses that social issues are more important to Democrats than fiscal/economic issues. All these social programs cost an enormous sum ... how do we reconcile the desire to provide them on one side, with the ability to pay for them on the other? After all the shouting, isn't that a good part of the disconnect?

Jim, I had decided.. And I answered yor question. Now, please respond instead of whining. You have been asked by several people to substantiate your statements, but refuse to do so.. Just like the other day when you posted statistics but refused to back them up.

The reason there are so many Democrats is that most of the people who act as poorly as you are Republican.

Why is everyone so angry that Jim asked a simple question? I think that this is an interesting topic, which always seems to invite attacks from liberals. Our country was built upon differing views of religion, politics, individual rights and a host of other varying topics.

I think the follow up question to this blog might be why do democrats get so angry when challenged about their political beliefs. Why are republicans of which I am not, attacked with such ferocity when they simple question democratic positions.

Debate is healthy except when we choose to disrespect each other’s positions, and engage in petty personal attacks. Why must we get so nasty, are we that insecure?

It seems that if such a question was asked rationally, it might be a point of discussion.. But since Jim chooses to frame his "questions" in the form of sweeping statements he refuses to substantiate, that is impossible.

When the "question" isn't a question, but a fabricated fantasy of accusations and prejudgement, then discussion isn't possible. I rebutt his "facts", and he refuses to support his views, instead complaining that we don't accept what are flatly dishonest statements. That is not discussion, that is pedagogery.

Jim, you have been asked to support the statements ypu made above,

I appreciate Leila’s comments and I think that it is a reasonable and accurate response to Jim’s question. Leila there would be no reason to call you stupid for your position. As you have noted, you do have certain “inalienable rights” and if you believe in the democratic platform then you should be able to support it. My question is why can’t others support differing platforms without facing personal, condescending and nasty attacks from the democratic platform.

While I agree and disagree with parts of each platform, I do think there needs to be more common ground and less intolerance of each other’s core positions? We cannot even agree on a federal budget in this country, imagine if the founding fathers were here in the current political environment. Imagine trying to write a fair and balanced federal constitution in today’s political arena. I think not…

We have lost the ability to respect opposing views and expect others to either adopt our own philosophy or be cast as the enemy of which we shall never seek compromise with.

Remember, we all have an opinion but “Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance.” Plato (borrowed with permission ☺.)

George--You do no favor to Jim by claiming that his question was simple. It took ten paragraphs and thirteen bullet points to ask it. And each of those paragraphs and bullet points contains at least one, and often several, attacks. (it is hard to understand how anyone can READ Jim's explicitly Republican post, and then accuse the Democrats of ferocity...). A Democrat, like a Republican, is a complex human being, no two alike even within their "species"--and yet all of us so much more alike than some of us like to think. I think this goes back to Jim's best recent blog, about people who are not affiliated with a particular party--and the responses there helped me to see that bi-partisanship--if not simply NO-partisanship--is the way forward. Then every issue matters, and not the sort of unthinking, often harmful, team-sport from which we suffer right now: blind volleyball, anybody?

Watch, I will not be attacked until someone believes I am opposing his or her position. Once I have been categorized as friend or foe the attack will begin if appropriate. Unfortunately, my message will then be lost in the haze of political warfare. I am on neither side and believe that conservatives and liberals are equally to blame for the mess we find in Washington these days. Less saber rattling and a greater appreciation of opposing views must happen if we want to succeed.

Collectively, we are a nation of diversity in population, religious views, and political positions. Prosperity hangs in the balance; we need to focus on the long view of our survival as a nation

And see, they begin.

Democrat, Republican you're all lost in my book.
You refuse to see the underlying issues and to make yourself feel good you attack the other party as being off their rockers.
Bottom line, you're both crazy and refuse to see there really is no difference between the two partys, stupid is stupid no matter which party you belong you belong to.
It just happens to me the Democrats are more stupid.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Dianna, thanks for you response - well done, and most appreciated. SInce you see both sides of the equation, as a fiscally responsible Democrat how can be strike the balance between providing the services that are needed and the ability to pay for them? How will we ever have prosperity at home if we are sending so much of our tax revenue abroad to pay our debt? It seems that both sides have got to get their arms around that - and soon.

If I am to look over Jim's 13 bullets of veiled insults, here is my response.

1. I believe the woman gets to decide if she wants to be a mother, not a senator in Missouri.
2. I believe in fair access to medical care. I believe in RomneyCare (which makes me a democrat now?!) My mother died of untreated cancer because she couldn't get insurance that costs less than her income. She couldn't afford treatment. If she lived in Mass, she may have lived. She worked her entire life, ran a small business, helped many people, and raised 2 children.
3. You are right, I do believe Republicans are more inclined to go to war. I don't like war. You can reference a war before I was born, but Bush Sr sent my high school friends to war. His son came along, and my friends were in a war again. That's 2 Bushs, 2 Republicans, 2 Wars, since I could vote. That is what I have lived. I also believe this messy, bloody, expensive war is the trigger sent this country in a downward spiral.
4. I want gun control. I see no strong enough reason for automatic weapons in the public.
5. I do believe we have a responsibility to keep children fed and warm.
6. I do believe in a fair & equal tax rate. Yes, that's for the poor AND the rich and especially the middle class. Too bad we aren't all at Romney's 13%.

In my life experiences, those life experiences are more in line with the Democratic Party. Does it match perfectly? No, but until that party exists, here I am.

Jim.....I don't get it? The real issue is WE as a country are facing bankruptcy. Technically we are already bankrupt. We spend more than we take in.
That is the issue...whether Democrat or Republican that is the only issue that has to be dealt with logically.
Notice that isn't even a consideration here with any party.
You can sugar coat this all you want that is the issue that is going to sink this country. Does it make a difference what president is in power?
Jim@ccfiile.com

My new heroes for the day! Dianna and Jessica!

There should be more Democrats. Here's why.

Massachusetts state and local taxes are below the national average as a percent of income. We're a high income state, so that still leaves a significant budget to make our lives better.

What do we get for our taxes?

Our public K-12 education is the best in the country, and the results show in our educated populace. Since we don't have major natural resources, this is the competitive advantage of our economy and a chief reason our unemployment rate is 2 points better than the nation as a whole. Democrats made this happen.

Almost every legal resident of Massachusetts has health insurance. Democrats and Mitt Romney made this happen. Democrats have now started on cost containment, to see this through to full success.

We have an entrepreneurial economy that leverages public-private partnerships, our cultivated intellect and our private efforts to create leading knowledge industries - high tech, biotech, healthcare, alternative energy, water resource technology, among others.

We have a low incidence of the worst social problems, notably violent crime.

We are free to pursue how we want to live here. Yet we can be confident that no one can destroy our environment or our neighborhood to extract private profit from the commonweal. It's a good balance.

Forbes Magazine rates our quality of life number one - despite often hard winters.

It's no wonder the governments of red states are scared. Our model works.

Diana and Jessica....You have valid points. The wars are all bogus and costing us a ton of money. The rift between the rich and poor unacceptable. But they get away with it because they pay off the politicians. My view...... We as a country can't keep paying for all the freeloaders coming hre, but as I can see from your social agendas you don't recognize that part of it. I guess to you it doesn't exist. I just watched a video of illegals who don't pay a cent in taxes yet collect thousands of dollars for Child earned income credits. It's costing us billions of dollars how do you feel about that? That is nothing compared to the other freebies they get. Your views a valid but not complete. You can't deal with one issue while letting go on another.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Jim H is just pushing the Republican agenda down everyone's throats. Nothing new here...Just like FOXLIESNEWS half truths. People please do your own research before you read and believe anything the media or any politician have to say. BTW Democrats are not any better. The system is broken and maybe it's to late to fix it. The only way is for the Govt to reset and stop paying it's debt, cut spending and raise taxes (Any which way we are going to suffer in the long run). Right now even by cutting the defense budget the Govt would still have to borrow money. Oh, and don't get me started on Medicare Vouchers either, what a joke. Fix health care!! Why have Medicare and MassHealth or Medicaid in some states?? Waste of money and Doctors over-billing both programs. To me these are the issues that are really affecting our country right now and I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate. All they are doing is trying to buy your votes by flip-flopping all over the place.

why are the democrats? The true question is this: how can an intelligent, aware person vote republican, unless they are a member of the financial elite?

Jim - here is one reason (among many) as to why I pose the question in this way:

"Even as House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget would impose trillions of dollars in spending cuts, at least 62 percent of which would come from low-income programs, it would enact new tax cuts that would provide huge windfalls to households at the top of the income scale. ... people earning more than $1 million a year would receive $265,000 apiece in new tax cuts, on average, on top of the $129,000 they would receive from the Ryan budget’s extension of President Bush’s tax cuts."

That is from the The Center on Budget and Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3728)

As has been said, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Kelley...."We have a low incidence of the worst social problems, notably violent crime"
Are you even alive? Come to Framingham, and see whats going on here and by who. You Democrats have ruined the town by your liberalism! I hope you're proud of that!
Or model works for who? You? You have no clue of what a good model is.
You must be talking about model planes.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Thanks everyone all for your comments, especially to those who are more moderate in tone asking that everyone take a deep breath.

We all probably know that if the solutions to the Nation's problems were so clear, they would have been implemented already. What would be the motivation to hang America out to dry, unless purposefully. But it seems very clear that when this Nation is overspending its revenue by $5T+ in the last four years something big has got to change before all of us go under.

Love me or loathe me I am taking this discussion right to you. If it was clear that Obama had us on the right course he wouldn't need to hold over 200 fund raisers trying to aggregate over $1B trying to convince us that he is doing a good job. And, his popularity would be in excess of 50%, and he would be grossly outpolling an underknown candidate who receives precious few positive words from the othe side.

But he's not ...

... and this tells you that when you consult your mirror (myself included), you know, or should know, that the other side is presenting the better approach on some issues, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. In a word, it is far more complicated than shouting louder than the other side.

As I said, this is why we have elections.

Romney's fundraisers are just as frequent and just as--if not more--expensive. And popularity is a thing, but only one thing, and it changes every minute. What fascinates me is that Romney is the least Republican Republican candidate we have seen in a long time. Though we know more about him than you say, even if what we know needs a lot of explaining. No shouting here, only curiosity and a hope that people recognize--even in this admittedly Republican blog--how much good President Obama has in fact done after the crImes committed by the previous regIme.

Jim, I've run into a few people lately who are really upset about the child earned income credits for undocumented workers. I'm imagining this is being heavily promoted by right-wing media. First off all it frankly boggles my mind that people can be so mean-spirited toward these children, who often live in poverty while their parents work hard doing the most dirty, dangerous, and unappreciated jobs in the country. Calling them "freeloaders" is truly reprehensible...especially when unfair trade agreements go a long way toward driving migration in the first place. Factcheck.org says that this legal tax credit costs us about 4.2 billion a year. Our tax subsidies to oil companies cost at 33.5 billion for the FIRST QUARTER of 2012. What are our priorities? Children and the working poor? Or oil barons who make millions every year? How do I feel about that? I feel sad. Also, it's untrue that the illegals don't pay a cent in taxes. The IRS tries to collect both federal income tax and payroll tax from undocumented immigrants, even though they get no SS, Medicare, or other benefits. They also pay sales tax like everyone else. I think we need to find a fair, humane way to manage illegal immigration, not bashing families and making them scapegoats for our economic woes. I would thoroughly question any news outlet or organization that is trying to make you resent/hate/fear another group of people. That's a dangerous road.

Wow, the way this article is written and the comments that followed is exactly why I don't support either party 100%. Nobody here is listening including Jim H. You ask people why they are Democrats, i can clearly see they answer you and you say they didn't...why? Because you don't agree with their answer? For many of us who are not in either party, its not about consulting the mirror and knowing the other side is presenting a better approach...its that we haven't seen a good approach by ANY side in quite some time. It's about respecting someone who actually breaks party lines to vote for what IS right (as defined by your OWN platform) not because everyone has to stand against the "other side" or face being ostracized. Anyone who can consistently do that is usually not someone who will paint a broad brushstroke over any one party and THAT, my friend, is who will have my vote.

Dianna....I can see you are a one trick pony on this one.
The earned income credit is being collected for children that don't even live in the U.S.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9A3AgemXkA
I guess you don't get it! These people aren't poor people they are "poor looking" to you but are doing quite well thank you. The IRS isn't checking on whos getting what and this is one of the reasons why they are coming here. These "poor" people aren't coming here to get away from oppression they are coming here to rip us off. I do concur with you that we are being ripped off by the rich but that is another story. Remember who those rich people give money to....the politicians! interesting how you recognize one side of fraud but not the other.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Hmmm. I'm not sure I'd group them together so easily, Jim. Scott Brown is fairly consistently independent, at least. Romney? Not so much. He's the most notorious flip-flopper in American politics today. That ain't bi-partisan, that's spooooky.

David, please ... glass house? At least Romney would not shut the door on the leaders of the other Party. Boehner said recently ha hadn't talked to Obama in over 11 months. Really? And we wonder what? I've had enough for the evening. Later.

Scott Brown is a lot less independent than he would have us believe, especially on fiscal issues. He is a creature of Wall Street, Big Oil, and health insurance corporations. He has tacked to the left since Elizabeth Warren entered the race, but don't forget he co-sponsored the Blunt Amendment. That would have allowed your employer to restrict your health care coverage based on his/her religious views. That's radical. To go back to the original question...why are there still Democrats, I am a Democrat because I believe in freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion. I believe universal healthcare, untied to one's employment, would increase personal freedom to change jobs or start a business.

"I asked why Democrats were Democrats considering the party had taken a U-Turn in the past 50 years" - another question based on a false premise, Jim. Your party used to have moderates who could work with others - such as Democrats - for the good of the country. You are being disingenuous to ignore the radical, extreme and uncompromising shift to the far right of your party - a shift which has been underway for the last few decades and has sharply accelerated with the "tea party" faction.

And, yes, perhaps Scott Brown votes independently on certain issues. However, he lines up and votes with the party when he is told to - the Blunt Amendment offered in evidence. In effect, a vote for Brown is a vote that supports the radical, Ayn Rand-worshipping cult that your party has become.

In short, the party that has executed a "U turn" is yours, Jim, hands down.

Dianna, thanks again, and I find your views pretty interesting. If you cannot see that Brown is the wiser choice, then let's get over this charade of compromise and agreement.

Please.

Brown is literally loathed by the far right for being such a pathetically unreliable conservative. When he boasts that he votes only 54% of the time with the Republicans he is telling people that he votes 46% with the Democrats. When you compare that to a person whose affirmative action integrity lapse should instantly disallow her from running (what is the fine line between gaming, lying, falsifying, and defrauding?).

If Brown is "radical" and you are an Obama defender, then the people on the sidelines who read these posts but do not comment, can even more clearly decide what they want America to be. I am counting on the notion that more people see the value in Brown's approach to governance - especially because he has so angered the conservatives.

All said, I appreciate your posts. You are clearly understand why you are a Democrat, and that is what i asked. Good job.

I've said before that I basically like Scott Brown--but I like Elizabeth Warren a lot more. It is undeniable that Brown has crossed party boundaries to support what he says he believes, and that is admirable in theory and practice. My main problem with Brown, however, is his Senatorial support of financial institutions and THEIR simultaneous financial support of him and his campaign. Unsavory and, from a traditional perspective, unconscionable. It is this very subject--the relationship between monumental financial institutions and working Americans--a subject vitally important to all of us whether we like it or not--that brings out the best in Elizabeth Warren. Have you heard her speak on the subject of the financial rights of working Americans? She is brilliant, has amazing, practicable plans for helping to protect and secure American working people from the economy which has come to routinely victimize them, and she is dedicated above all to this work. So that is why I am a Democrat when it comes to the Senatorial election--not because I think that Scott Brown is bad (I don't think he is bad), but because I think Elizabeth Warren is very smart and very good when it comes to protecting working Americans.

The US Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which are two the largest small business advocacy groups in the nation, recently endorsed Scott Brown. These groups realize that Elizabeth Warren's proposed taxes on small businesses will stifle economic growth. In fact, the US Chamber of Commerce stated, "No other candidate in 2012 represents a greater threat to free enterprise than Professor Warren."
Scott Brown believes in our free enterprise system and through the private sector will promote job growth and get the country back on track. As an example, Scott Brown supports the Keystone Pipeline, which will create thousand of excellent paying jobs for Americans and improve relations which our loyal ally, Canada. Elizabeth Warren is AGAINST the Keystone Pipeline. Scott Brown is GOOD for business, Elizabeth Warren is not.

That should read...* thousands

David, I just saw your note that was imbedded above, so this s not in order. No, once again I was not referring to you. Obama has become the king of flip flopping, saying one thing while doing another, promising more, delivering less - even lying to the public. Talk about an opportunist

As to Boehner, the report is that had not held a meeting in 11 months. i might say that he had not met with the Senate Minority leader either, nor had he met with the so-called jobs council headed by Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE - who has become so disillusioned with Obama that he has announce he will be voting for Romney.

i also enjoy the interesting spin on my integrity, as if I wake up every morning with a plan to put my name and picture and reputation to essays intended to intentionally deceive. Were I Eliz Warren such an integrity breach might be considered a plus by so many - form, after putting all the time and effort into putting together a quality work product every week, then actually responding to all these comments, i just find it insulting.

As i said, this is where we are in 2012.

Jim, Brown votes with Republicans 80% of the time, especially on fiscal matters that benefit his wealthy donors at the expense of the rest of us. Examine his voting record. Concerned Citizen, as everyone now knows, both the Chamber of Commerce and the NFIB are front groups that money launder and shill for big mega-corporations. The Keystone pipeline would ship tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf for export to the world market. It would NOT be for domestic use and will not provide many jobs and will not reduce the price of gas. Tar sands oil extraction is deadly for the forest and will destroy our climate...we will pay so much more in damage from extreme weather, toxins, inevitable spills into waterways and reservoirs. There's nothing in the Tar Sands for us, only profits for Trans-Canada. Warren is not proposing tax hikes for small businesses. Free-market fundamentalism (neoliberalism) poses the ultimate threat to civilization. Brown is AGAINST the middle class and the planet. Elizabeth Warren is GOOD for families and small businesses, and supports reasonable limits on predatory capitalism for the public good.

Scott Brown is the second most bipartisan US Senator in the country. He works tirelessly for the people of MA and is not afraid to be an independent voice. Scott was one of the first to condemned Rep. Todd Akin for his outrageous statement concerning rape. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/scott-brown-calls-on-todd-akin-to-resign-from-missouri-race-after-legitimate-rape-comment/
Scott Brown respects women and their rights; it is obvious that he adores his wife and two daughters.
Scott Brown is the balance we need in MA, and he deserves to be re-elected in November.

Dianna responds to me and you delete MY post....Waz-up with that?
Then you Jim H respond to her responding to me??
You did give a great response to her but C'mon lets be fair here I said things that you pretty much agree with me on. Who does the deleting of posts here you Jim H or Sue?
Jim@ccfiile.com

Brown voted against DISCLOSE (transparency in campaign donations), paycheck fairness for women, emergency relief for senior citizens, small business innovation and research, middle class tax cuts, the Buffet rule, and to end oil subsidies. He voted AGAINST several jobs acts, even voting against funding summer jobs for teens. He voted AGAINST stopping student loan interest rates from doubling. He's not going to create jobs, help small businesses, or respect the rights of women. No wonder he wants his voting record off-limits.

Scott Brown's voting record: http://www.progressmass.org/press/new-study-progressmass-analysis-of-scott-browns-voting-record-reveals-highly-partisan-record-overwhe.html

Hi Jim, You seemed sincere in your puzzlement, so I wanted to offer some reasons why I am enrolled in the Democratic party. It is not, as you seemed to encounter in your experiences, for vague reasons unlike your Republican counterparts who can so clearly articulate why they are Republican. I have not read through the 100 or so comments so forgive me if my comments are redundant.
I fundamentally believe that we live as part of a society. We are not independent islands, but depend on others just as others depend on me. We are not all independent hunter/gatherers but depend on a network of roads, stores/businesses, and "rules of the road" to allow meaningful and fair transactions in all aspects of daily life. I respect we are all dependent on each other in some way or another. Tthe Republican party fails to recognize this. They trumpet the spirit of entrepreneurship but fail to recognize that the business owner has, for example, benefited from schooling to get to where they are, and roads/infrastructure to move their product, all of which depends on government. Paying taxes helps support this infrastructure. They are the party that trumpets states rights, but in doing so seems to trample on the rights of the individual when it comes to issues involving women's health, or same sex marriage. I am running out of space for the comment, but in essence Republicans seem both hypocritical and selfish, and fail to see that when the weakest benefit, we all benefit.

Well Dianna, I bow to your amazing logic and clarity! You have helped me to see more clearly why I am a Democrat and to feel more confidently that my Party's candidate in the upcoming Senatorial race is the right person for the job. I say confident and it stands, whatever the outcome. I needed bucking up. Thank you.

Dianna,
At least Scott Brown has the courage to vote; how many times did President Obama just vote "present" during his term as a US Senator? Jim, maybe you can help me out with that number.

Here is how brilliant, amazing, and predictable Elizabeth Warren’s consumer protection plans – to which David alluded to earlier – are: In her role at the new consumer protection agency, earlier this year she imposed a regulation that limited banks in what they could charge vendors for a transaction. This resulted in Bank of America increasing a fee to their credit card customers. Was that what Elizabeth Warren predicted would happen? Was that good for consumers? Amazing!

Wow! This site is turning into 1984 movie.
Post are deleted by who? You don't even acknowledge that its happening.
No trace of the discussion that gets to the meat of everything.
Jim you're disappointing me, you're no better than the Democrats and their censorship games they play. Now you see why I'm not a Republican anymore.
Both your parties are lost IMO.
Jim@ccfiile.com

This is Part 1of the list of 'potential reasons to start your thinking" which Mr. Hatherley used to introduce his sincere question.

* It’s all about pro-choice abortion rights for Democrats. Republicans are typically pro-life.
* Even though Democrats were responsible for Vietnam, and the expansion of Afghanistan, Republicans are seen as the more likely party to be at war.
* Democrats believe that in-state tuition, free public educational and medical services, and even tax credits for illegal aliens are fair, while Republicans want protected borders and an orderly legal immigration process.
* Democrats are for higher taxes on the “rich”, even if 50% of the people do not pay any. Republicans want lower taxes because they are all so very rich.
* Democrats believe government regulations and controls more effectively steer the economy. Republicans believe in free enterprise.
* Democrats are more comfortable with the formation of victim’s groups, and a hyphenated-America. Republicans believe that America was founded on the individual’s inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
* Democrats believe in redistributed earnings – sharing somebody else’s wealth. Republicans believe that the money you earn is your property.
* Democrats believe the role of government is to provide free stuff. Republicans want the people to be free from government.

This is Part 2 of the list of 'potential reasons to start your thinking" which Mr. Hatherley used to introduce his sincere question.

# Democrats believe that society must redefine the role of the family to meet new lifestyles. Republicans believe that the traditional family is essential to the success of the culture and the Country.
# Democrats promote the expanding reach of the Federal government to create social justice and fairness. Republicans believe that the Constitution limits the powers of the Federal government.
# Democrats are strongly supportive of Unions for all the good they have done for working people in America. Republicans realize that America now competes in a world economy in which cost of labor is a critical component.
# Democrats believe that government sponsored discrimination remains an acceptable practice (except in the Olympics). Republicans believe in equality of opportunity, but not a guarantee of result.
# Democrats believe that government is the answer. Republicans believe that government is the problem.

Diana Vosburg,
Here are some facts for you on the Keystone Pipeline LT, which would actually create "tens of thousands" of excellent paying jobs for Americans. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137744/derek-h-burney-and-fen-osler-hampson/how-obama-lost-canada
As for your assertion that the "Chamber of Commerce and the NFIB are front groups that money launder and shill for big-mega-corporations," that is total rubbish. Your arguments are a joke.

Jim, congratulations. You have fully articulated current Republican governing philosophy: Ayn Randism and the myth of the independent individual.
This may come as a surprise to Paul Ryan and other Rand acolytes who see Karl Marx or Mao in every speech President Obama makes, but "Atlas Shrugged" is a work of fiction. People like to sing along to Ringo's "Octopus' Garden In The Shade", but most realize it's not a real place. Unfortunately, many Republicans actually believe in the fictitious "John Galt" as a real choice for America's future and they have convinced themselves it's Mitt Romney. LOL! This utopian view goes something like "the job creators ultimately create society and society has rights given to it by God or Nature." These ideas, attractive as they may be for some, are illogical and one need only look to our own history as a country or have access to Google to easily discover the fallacies inherent in them. Paul Ryan espouses the same illogic about rights being God given. Huh? Is that why the Chinese have the same rights we do? Or the Russians?
Despite passionate attempts to convince otherwise, our government of Laws enshrined in our Constitution establishes the foundation for our society, one governed and ruled by citizens, not just the royal or wealthy elite individual citizen.

Yes, it is our system of government which gives Rights to its citizens and created the opportunity for our dynamic society to exist in the first place.

I think Diana is on the ball with a lot of what she says she is just off on her immigration issues.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Jim - I think you and David Nolta should be awarded medals for courage under fire- again I am disappointed in the venom spewed by some bloggers especially our allegedly liberal ones. The answer to you opening question is obvious- why are there still so many Democrats ? because they know where their bread is buttered...count the thousands of state and municipal employees ; add in the public employee unions and spice it up with the billions spent in state vendor accounts and you've got a lot of public money.... and for Framingham residents you've got the mega vendor SMOC....yes you can't fight city hall

Ed--You made my day!! Thank you. And unlike Jim, the original hurler, I do not mind sharing the honor! Side note: A little education would suggest that there were no pianos in ancient Rome. And the traditional support of Democrats for education (for everybody) is one of the main reasons I tend to vote Democratically.

Now once again, Jim H. What do you like about President Obama? Still waiting.

FindBalance and Jim, do either of you see the irony in your position that says the rights we have as US Citizens that are in our Constitution, establishes our government and creates the foundation for the society we live in, are given to us by God, when they are writen on paper by men? Natural rights? Ask someone at Guantanamo about their natural rights.
The fact that the founding fathers said our rights were endowed by a creator, doesn't actually make it so, as utopian or dreamy as it may sound.

It is our system of laws and government which gives people freedom to assemble, speech, etc. and also gives citizens the capacity to adopt a mix of capitalism and socialism, because both utopian visions on their own self-destruct.

And yes, free-market capitalism is a utopian fantasy.

Jim, glad to hear that your grandchildren listen to the Beatles. Considering you remember JFK, it's surprising you don't.

If one were to read the words of Eisenhower and how he governed, and measure that against current Republican rhetoric or policy prescriptions, it could be easily asked, "Why are there still so many Republicans?"

Ok, David, since we are co-medal winners, here is my list:

- has a nice family
- soft jumper from the left elbow
- high potential as a future wedding singer

Sad. And small. Sad and small. If this is indicative of your Republican character, then once again, you have justified the Democrats, and answered your own "question". If this is your bi-partisanship, well, you know how much that is worth.

@Jim H I have been following your posts for awhile now.

However, you have finally lost one of your audience (me); due to sooooooooo many non-factual comments, from both sides, and your incessant idea that anyone but a Republican is some sort of idiot. Granted you never actually said that, but I read between the lines.

Your blog contains little to no facts from many, you included. It's all sickening. I suggest you and others check www.politifact.com DAILY.

I can't wait for the Presidential debates start, Romney will be torn apart. I'd love to see IBM's Watson co-host and fact check in real time, what the candidates say. Of course, THAT will never happen.

Lastly, referring to an earlier Jim post about “what we deserve from government”: Politicians do NOT have integrity and I should deserve from the person I voted for.

Please ... good try once again. I expected more humor from a co-medalist.

I think, when you're ready to close this blog, you should re-read your original article--which is no "simple and sincere" question, but a lengthy attack--and ask yourself, "Have I been genuine here? Have I been open-minded? Have I invited dialogue? Or have I insulted as many people as possible in ten paragraphs and thirteen bullet points?" I'm with Stephen.

"Granted you never actually said that, but I read between the lines"....seriously? Classic democrat comment.... you never really said it, but I'm going to pretend you did anyway.

PART 1
Jim-Since I can't seem to reply to your response to my above post, I need to cut and paste here....
Your wrote that my post "restores my faith in Democrats, at least temporarily because assaulting those in disagreement is the apparent modus operandi."

Rancor is certainly nothing unique to Democrats, but is the new normal in this highly partisan atmosphere. When a representative called the President a "liar" during a state of the union address, it was a new low in partisan name calling. The offending rep was a Republican. Your ascribing mindless attacks as the domain of Democrats belittles your argument.

You wrote: "I understand your position - similar to Warren and Obama - but more similar to Plato and Locke and Marx and More's Utopia - where everyone has the same." Apparently you do not understand my position at all, nor that of Warren, Obama, Plato, or Locke. What you describe is socialism. Certainly not the ideals of the Democratic platform. The goal is not for everyone to have the same. The goal is for everyone to have more. That doesn't mean those who already have more should start having less. It does mean as a society we can help those who need help have more, while still allowing those who already have get more. Helping others who have less is not incompatible with capitalism.

Part 2
You wrote: " It sounds good, but it has never worked because the incentives ultimately fail. When everyone gets the same, no matter their effort or achievement, the incentive to excel is diminished. Over time the culture is diminished. This is what is wrong with the concept of guaranteed outcomes."
Most people are not satisfied with handouts. Handouts will never provide the quality of life most people dream about. But done properly, a lending hand can provide a bridge to self-sufficiency. What about tax breaks for businesses? The town of Framingham just gave TJX a huge break to keep them staying in town. Is that the type of handout you would oppose? Handouts are never an end in itself, just a means to an end.

Part 3

You wrote:
"The entrepreneurs who are willing to take risk ultimately are the job makers, and job makers fuel the economy and ultimately society et als."

Lots of people take risk, not just entrepreneurs. People risk their lives crossing the border illegally to have an opportunity to work. Over 90% of the produce we have is picked by illegal workers. They are taking a risk, but benefiting our whole society also. The Migrant Farm Workers union had a program where anyone with legal residency could be guaranteed a position working the fields. Not a single person (except Stephen Colbert who only lasted a day) took them up on the offer. We have tried "Trickle Down" economics in the past and it doesn't work. The difference between the richest and poorest is the most at any time in history. Look at the oligarchs in Russia. Or better... look at the Wall Street Hedge Fund managers here. Are you seeing any of that wealth trickle down to you? I sure am not. What money gets is power. With power you can re-write the rules to keep you getting more money. Look at Romney's IRA fund. He wins weather companies do well or do poorly. I don't have access to funds like that. When will it trickle down?

Part 4

You wrote: "But, this is what the upcoming election is about - do your rights come from government, or do they come from Nature and God, as written in the Declaration of Independence."

I didn't know this was a discussion about "rights." There are all sorts of rights. Human rights. Legal rights. Natural rights. I think that is a debate of philosophy, not of political party. Are you referring to inalienable rights as sort forth in the Declaration of Independence? I have to just say you lost me with that last piece as I don't think that has anything to do with political party.

I suspect you meant to where do we look for answers to our societal needs? To the individual? To government? My response would be both. As a thoughtful member of the Democratic party, I know there are limitations to government. It can be a monstrous bureaucracy. But there are also limitations to what individuals can do, and that greed and selfishness can get the best of anyone. Government can help make rules to keep the playing field fair. Government can help build infrastructure like highways and bridges. Government can help educate even the poorest of people. Both Government and the Individual play an essential part in the solution, and both have limitations to what they can accomplish. But to pretend that you personally haven't benefited from governmental action in some way is to deny the obvious.

Lets not forget that it was the Democrats who decided for secession and treason and war, instead of giving up their slaves - and gave us the Civil War. Lets not forget that it was Democrats who literally founded the KKK ( dont believe me?? look it up), Americas first terrorist group. And lets not forget that those days are not that far off. Senator Byrd, Democrat from Virginia, was a member of the KKK. There was a reason why MLK was a registered Republican.

Part 5
I doubt anything I wrote will persuade you to change your party affiliation. But I hope that at least you can understand why not everyone would want to affiliate themselves with the Republican party.

I think some you '"guys" need to come to the Turtle Tavern tomorrow for the Drinking Liberally group that meets there- you meaning David N. and Jim H- at least you guys have a sense of humor !!- btw I eat at the bar just to make sure these " liberal desperadoes" behave themselves

John Sullivan - well put, sir.

Jim H - I think this comment thread has played itself out. What have we learned? Well, for one thing, we know that you post seemingly disingenuous, "honest" questions, which are really hyper-partisan recitations of GOP dogma (complete with fables, lies and myth), which also manage to contain more than a hint of contempt for those to whom you direct your questions.

What did I learn? That the level of local GOP leadership - at least as represented by yourself - is on a par with the national leadership. That is, not to be taken seriously as intellectual participants in any serious political discussion. Thank you for that.

I get tons of "no reply" responses from the Patch to follow this topic but not one of my post has gone up here. So why do I get a response reply when I have no part of this or most of any discussion anymore? If I can't reply then uncheck me from following this topic please.

Joe Rizoli

Kelly, re: Bill Gates. In 1960 the Ambassador to the UN was a huge deal - much bigger than the Secretary of Defense. This was only 16 years after WWll and 7 years after Korea and the UN had just been formed to prospectively resolve disputes by diplomacy and world pressure before war were started. Soo tense were the Cold War sessions (Kruschev banging his shoe in the UN et als), that many of the sessions were even televised.

Now, the UN has been reduced to an expensive hand-out and forum for making the US a punching bag on our own soil.

As to Gates, he is an impressively, sober person, well suited for such a role as Sec'y of Defense, so much so that Obama held him over from Bush - a very positive statement about him. However, it was also Gates who was so alarmed by all the self-aggrandizing leaks about the Navy Seals and the bin Laden killing that he returned to Washington from retirment to tell the Obama officials to "shut the #$$% up".

Frankly, we need so many more of this kind of leader who cares more for their Country and less for themselves. Thnks for bringing this up.

This opinion piece and the bloggers that follow, with few exceptions appear to want to argue there are two groups of Americans Democrats and Republicans and then argue why or why not one party is better than the other. Neither party is better than the other. Neither. If citizens continue to put party before country and vote party line without taking time to understand the complex issues our country faces; and analize the character of its candidates and what decision is best for the common good (if not just for ourselves) -- we have failed as Americans. The question of "why are so many people...." is the wrong question. It is unanswerable in a blog; because we are individuals with diverse opinions and backgrounds. We do not need to agree with one party or each other ---- but we do need to respect fellow Americans because we are in this together.
Our beliefs should not fit in sound bites and bumper stickers and tag lines -- or party lines. We should not judge harshly those who vote for a different candidate than we did. Stop identifying yoursel solely as "Democrat" or "Republican." We are all Americans. Democrats have some great ideas -- and so too Republicans We should demand they govern together versus ensuring the "other party" fails when elected so that more of their party can win more elections next term. We deserve better than this.

I can't understand what the devotion to "white guilt" is in this state. What ever happened to working hard, and enjoying the benefits of that, and not handing over inordinate amounts of money to others.

The Democratic party seems to perpetuate a lack of personal responsibility. What is the incentive to work hard, if your more well-to-do neighbor down the street is expected to bail you out?

People complained about the government bailouts of banks and car companies, but what about the millions of smaller "bailouts" going on in America every day?

I'm not saying that welfare or assistance programs are necessarily bad and inherently corrupt, but just like anything run by the government, its ripe for abuse. When will Democrats see that for what it is, and stop calling instances of abuse "anecdotes"?

Nancy, thank you. In fact, if you go all the way back to the first comment by Kim she actually used my bullets to put together a pro/con type list, from which she would presumably make her decision based on her priorities. Your advice reinforces this.

Let me include David LaBossiere in this response because I could not locate his comment. Yes, this blog is intentionally provocative because it aims to stimulate discussion. While your suggestion that I could have asked the question differently has merit, please not the context in which it was offered - my personal odyssey of over 50 years in which the dominant Democrat philosophies have changed so significantly. If the party has evolved, why are there still so many people who claim that they have been Democrats for life, or believe that Republicans are mainly for the rich, hence they do not associate themselves with the GOP.

Within these notes there are some excellent explanations, Nancy's among them. However, you also see a lot of other kinds of responses.

Somehow there is the need to balance the desire to provide soil programs with the willingness/ability to pay for them. In many ways it is not dislike a discussion at the family dinner table ... e.g., Yes, i know you would like to go to BC, but BC costs $50K and UMass costs under $20K - I don't want you to go into debt, and I cannot afford more." Time to come to grips with this as Nancy has so clearly said.

The last paragraph should read ... social programs, not soil programs.

Kelly, thanks for your comments even if you could be more cordial and less accusatory in tone. I can "hear" you.

Perhaps I was not clear about the UN ambassador. My reference was back to 1960, but Adlai Stevenson became ambassador in 1957 when the UN was the big story. That Eisenhower selected his two time opponent to represent him and the Country speaks volumes of the way things were back then, and why Obama's retention of Gates was a very positive thing. Unless you were alive in the 50's, when everyone was literally scared to death of potential nuclear attacks from the Soviets, you probably cannot imagine the UN ambassador being so important. It had nothing to do with the budget (although the US pays 22% of the UN budget), it had everything to do with the face offs between Stevenson and Gromyko and Kruschev.

Back then, however, everyone viewed themselves first, last and only as Americans, much as Nancy was calling for in her note above.

All the best.

Jim, you find my comments accusatory? Hmm.

What is the difference between a Democrat and a Republican? "When they get into office, they both direct tax money to their friends. The difference is that Democrats have more friends and their friends aren't as greedy.”

They are just as greedy it's just the money is more distributed.
They are like Robin hood. Take from the rich give to the poor.
Back to original question....there are more Democrats because most of them benefit from the Democrat policies and giveaways. Jobs and benefits will get you a lot of their votes. Remind me of the term rice Christians, by feeding them they will believe anything you say.
Jim@ccfiile.com

There are so many Democrats because:
In 2008, my 401K plan had been stagnant for the 8 years since Bush took office. In 2012, the market had risen over 30% and my 401K is healthy again.
In 2008 Bin Laden was on the loose for over 7 years. In about 2 years under Obama he was dead.
In 2008, if you had no health insurance, everyone else paid for the cost of your health care. Beginning in 2013, you need to pay for your own insurance.
I have not paid one dime more in taxes since Obama took office, nor have you.
In 2008, the economy nearly collapsed. Today, banks are back to normal and GM is back in business.
In 2008, and in prior years the debt ceiling was raised 172 times. Bush himself increased the debt ceiling one year over 15%. Suddenly, in 2012, Republicans pretend that raising the debt ceiling is a "crisis."
So my life is better, my children's life will be better. Unless Republicans are in control.
The real question is, how can anyone vote Republican?? Baffles me.

Pete, you made this look so simple. Thank you and well done. I get it - you feel you and your family are better off today than you were four years ago.

The country is better off, and the 69 million who voted for Obama will do it again, in spite of the Republican platform whos only goal is to make him fail.

I have no problems but if I had kids and grand kids they sure would, as they are the ones who are going to be paying for it all later on.
Jim@cccfiile.com

The National Debt, raising the debt ceiling, the Deficit, the high cost of gas, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security have been around for decades. They were not instituted by the Democratic party in 2009. The graduated income tax has been around for decades. It is not new to this country and has worked well for decades. But slick advertisements and a political party that is desperate for increased power, has made it seem as though the U.S. fell apart in 2009 and they will "save" it. Nothing is further from the truth.

Thanks (again) Pete. All the best.

Ryan said tonight, "Do you feel left behind during these past few years? You haven't failed. The government has failed you!". I had a good chuckle at that line, considering its irony. I wonder if it was meant to be ironic?

I thought he was a very good speaker though. Lawyer, safe to say?? I would like to be like that when I grow up :)

Thanks, Kira. Paul Ryan said so many great things last night, and I am sensing from your smile that you liked him, but what do you mean by irony?

I recall the line you mentioned, but I do not remember the context. Was this just before he referenced that graduating students should not have to be returning to their childhood rooms staring up at the fading posters of Obama, wondering when they will be able to begin their lives?

BTW, in a rarity, I do not believe that Ryan is an attorney.

@ Tom Williams ... Tom, thanks for your comment. But, really? Do you really believe this?

I am a registered democrat because:

-- As an academic scientist, I am put off by the republican party's hostility to science and their propensity to gut university R&D programs.
-- Their tone deafness when it comes to matters like climate change and evolution.
-- The republican politicians' intolerance of atheism and non-judeo christian faiths.
-- The GoP's regressive tax policy of reverse Robin Hoodism.
-- The GoP's hostility to immigrants, homosexuals, and people not WASP.

Max, thank you for answering the question so specifically. Your reasons are interesting, and not mentioned in 200 previous comments. My only question for you is whether you think that any of these are the "main thing" that our Country must confront right now? All the best.

Paul Ryan and company keep harping about medicare, social security, welfare and other social programs as being the root cause of the ballooning debt and the ever increasing budget deficits without even taking a breath to acknowledge that the Bush era tax cuts are also a huge factor. Can I post an image here? Let me try. No it seems like I can't, but here is a link:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2011/0926-fiscal-graphic/chart1.jpg

Let's talk about reforming medicare, social security, and other social programs, but let's also talk about at least taking a look at the Bush era tax cuts, shall we?

Last night Paul Ryan said "your leaders have failed you". I hope he included himself in "your leaders". After that it was one half-truth after another. He said obama took out $700 b out of medicare without mentioning that his own plan guts it by a similar amount. He said the president ignored the recommendations of the bipartisan committee without mentioning that he himself, a member of the committee, had not supported it for altogether different reasons. He said he was going to level with us, But he didn't.

Max, thank you so much for expanding your response. And I can see and understand your points given your place in academia. You have a definite interest.

However, I am thinking that you have not been watching the Republican convention. If not you have missed presenter after presenter talking about legal immigration of their parents/grandparents and their quest for the American dream. This is a very strong position for Republicans and I am sure you will hear more about this tonight. However, illegal immigration is illegal - what part of that is unclear to you?

As to the tax issue, I think you need to step back a bit. Everyone who is employed is adding their value to the end product. Your end product is a student who can become a productive citizen and taxpayer. But the widget maker adds their value in the chain until that widget is ready for sale/utilization. And, as to capital gains, this is actually a tax on a tax. Post tax dollars reinvested receive a lower second tax rate to encourage investment in the economy. This is the risk taking component of capitalism and there is no guarantee of profit, and no assurance of a total loss.

The best I can say is that I understand why you are a Democrat - thanks for responding - but our views are different.

As to the "main thing," coming from academia you must realize that if your students had no money to pay for their rising cost of education, your institution would soon disappear. All the best.

Max, thanks again, and once again you are a Democrat and for you Ryan is a tough sell. You do make a good point that he was on the Commission and voted against it because it did not eliminate Obamacare, which he claimed was a deal breaker. You have to give him credit for being consistent on this. As to your other point, it's also a reasonable one. However, Romney's plan does not include that and I anticipate he will cover that tonight. You know this is going to get a lot of scrutiny - and this time the Republicans are very eager to debate. Whichever side you are on, this is good for America.

So, thanks agin for your notes. We are obviously on different tracks, but you answered my question and were very positive while job doing it.

Kira, I just have to ask you (thanks again, by the way), what is the "main thing". The Republicans are clearly presenting their case that it is the economy and job creation - and leadership. You seem to be saying that social issues are more important to the health of the Country.

Considering that the law of the land is based on Roe vs. Wade, why are you so protective of established law of over 40 years? The Republicans have clearly made a very strong case for legal immigration this week, and it seems as though gay rights are expanding, not contracting.

That brings me back to the economy, jobs, the debt and leadership. Did the Republicans not convince you that these are the main things?

As an addendum to your post, I've often wondered the opposite -- why there are so many republicans in red states where the majority of the people who use social services live. I started to dig a bit deeper, and found this wonderful article (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/entitlement-map.html) which is very interesting but still provides no answers to my question.

Can't wait to see Romney's speech tonight, and especially see the "fact-checks" in the morning. Then, next week will do the same with the Democratic Convention, fact-checks included. So far, Ryan is a looser. Next is Romney, Biden and Obama.

I will vote for the guys who lie the least. Should be an interesting exercise.

David, I thought you were done with me. In this case perhaps you should have been silent because Max, in making his case, said he worked in academia and was upset with Republicans because they were reducing/eliminating funding for research projects in academia. Ergo, I get it - Max has an interest in government sponsored research. Of course he would want it continued. Respectfuly, put your own snide sniper comments away and nopt be so quick to ruin a reasonable conversation.

Max Walker, you are a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you kind Sir.

One more reason I lean Democrat: I believe in the power of negotiation and compromise to resolve differences and increase mutual understanding. Bob Dole and Ronald Reagan were admirable examples of that; George H.W. Bush was another, and I voted for him in the first election in which I was allowed to cast a vote. I doubt there would be room at the Republican table for them as it is currently constructed.

So David, I am very happy that you are not done with me. How boring without you and your incisive counter blows? It just wouldn't be right.

I think you completely miss the mark by looking at the tree and not seeing the forest. I am writing a blog from the Republican side. It is intentionally provocative to stir up conversation. My blogs get more play that all others combined, which makes it a success because people want to read/react/ and some respond to what I have presented.

Believe me when I tell you it is far more difficult to put these pieces together than to lay back in the weeds and snipe at me for your amusement. But, in this State the Republican perspective has been missing for so long that I am enjoying the opportunity to reach out and communicate with other Republicans and (especially) the Unenrolled voters.

What does surprise me a bit is how hostile Democrats are to ideas that conflict with their own. That's what one-party government gets you - a form of soft tyranny and dismissive attacks that show intolerance to an alternative point of view. I understand that Republicans can be equally priggish, but isn't it the point that we have to get over the shouting and into the communicating? Just look at your own original notes on prior blogs compared with the most recent pieces - less hostile, even if challenging; less rude, even if disagreeing. Small steps to a better place. i hope you agree.

Holly, you say "I believe in the power of negotiation and compromise to resolve differences and increase mutual understanding". Negotiation and compromise are what Mitt Romney was all about as governor of MA.

Do you believe the Democrats are better at compromise? We certainly didn't see it during the drafting of Obamacare. Not only did they lock out Republicans from providing input to the bill, they locked out most of the Democrats, too (then strong-armed and bribed Congressmen to get it passed)! And Democrats idea of mutual understanding is to demonize anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Max, I agree with you. The ideological difference often comes when it comes to the use/allocation of money for the greater society. Right now we are completely out of balance in what some people demand government provide, in addition to what government has promised to provide, and the ability to pay the total cost of what the government is spending.

We need to put things into a more particular perspective. Our personal wants almost always exceed our ability to pay for them. Ultimately, for all but the irresponsible who spend their way into personal bankruptcy and leave their neighbors with the cost, we must prioritize our wants/needs with our ability to pay; then save for the necessities/niceties that are beyond our instant reach.

What is so hard about that?

Don't we deserve this from government?

But right now, this is a major factor in what separates Democrats from Republicans.

Again, all the best.

Don't know where else to post a commentary on Romney's speech short of starting a separate blog, so I'll put them down here and hope Jim won't mind.

My summary of the speech:
I'll turn water into wine, complete Hercules's twelve labors the first day I am in office, pass a full sized elephant through the eye of a needle, and succeed at alchemy. I am superman. Vote for me in November.

Max, my next blog will deal with the convention, but I have to say that your lens is far bluer than you earlier detailed in your commentary. If I can recall correctly, Obama promised that he would lower the oceans and heal the Earth etc. Are you kidding me? How unserious was he; and how unserious are the people who actually bought into all of that?

Romney promised that he would help you and your family, face problems head on, take accountability for his results, create jobs and energy independence, and lead the Country.

I thought he was very humble and selfless.

Amazing how people can watch the same thing and come to such opposite conclusions.

But this is where we are in 2012.

So sad.

Max - That sounded more like Obama's acceptance speech 4 years ago. :-)

What Romney said is that he has turned many things around before, by rolling up his sleeves, energizing people, and making the tough decisions that are necessary to lead to success. He is a Leader who has the knowledge, experience, and track record to be able to accomplish a turnaround in America, which is infinitely more of a qualification than just a Hope and Change slogan (with no experience) that President Obama used 4 years ago.

Like a lot of shows, we seem to be in re-runs now, with Jim accusing Democrats of surprising hostility and rudeness, and repeating his claims that it's difficult to put these pieces together but easy to snipe at them. I'm still hoping--and I asked repeatedly and civilly in the early stages of this blog--to have JIM answer a few questions. So to repeat, Jim, do you really think, reading your original post over, it is simple and straightforward? Can you see that much of the rudeness comes from your original post? Is it Republican to describe your own sweeping stereotyping as "provocative" (e.g., "Democrats are more comfortable with the formation of victim’s groups, and a hyphenated-America.") but any questioning or contradiction as "rude"? If you re-read the POSTS, you will see that it was not only your "question" that garnered so many and such passionate replies, but the 13 bullet points and 10 paragraphs of offensive (I'm not the only one who felt that), stereotyping misreadings of history and people that they contain. Find Balance is clearly with you, but like you, Jim, he paints with a very broad brush, does not use or recognize external sources (all but two of the many links provided above come from explicitly Democratic posts--easy to count them, they're in blue!), and rarely answers a specific question. So there's no balance here, only the frustrating sense that those asking for it actually want nothing to do with it or with anyone who sees things at all differently.

And to answer your "question" again--THAT is one reason why, after all, I am a Democrat.

David - when have you asked a specific question that I did not answer?

I do write in general terems at times, but so do you and others when it suits their needs.

Yes David, the examples you give (in an earlier post) all have “communal obligations” coming of free will from people and business (what America is based on), not from govt (what Soviet Union was based on). When too much comes of it comes from govt (which eventually happens, because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely) govt becomes oppressive to its people (example – Sovitet Union), and that is a negative.

Sometimes people and business do forget their communal obligations, but it is better to remind them of that, not to have the govt coopt it to administer as it sees fit. And even if a society (not govt, but people and business) slips in its communal obligations, the standard of living is still higher in that society than if govt took over the role of administering “communal obligations”; once govt is in the business of much “communal obligations”, the govt has too much control over its citizens and it is far harder to change if you disagree with how it is administered.

And yes, the freest of markets can get decadent. That is why I believe the role of govt is to protect against extremes (e.g., monopolies) and make sure everyone gets the opportunity to compete based on the merits.

Mr. Nolta wrote: "So there's no balance here, only the frustrating sense that those asking for it actually want nothing to do with it or with anyone who sees things at all differently."

And that, David, is exactly the reason why we should walk away from Mr. Hatherley's blogs -- this, the next one, the one after that and the one after that one, too.

And he'll probably respond with some comments abut me not wanting dialogue, but how does one 'dialogue' with the author of "The Thirteen Bullet Points of Attack"?

It's not just Todd Aiken.

So if Romney gets elected, I assume all good Republicans will be OK with the Democrats in the senate and house voting against everything he brings forward. That way in 2016 the Democrats will blame Romney and retake the White House.

If I spent 3 1/2 years at my current position blaming the last guy for all my problems, I would not likely see my 4th anniversary.

I'm with Chris L, here. That's why I am proud that President Obama has not spent his three and a half years complaining about what went before. He has worked to make things better. I know if I spent three and a half years at my current position improving the economy, capturing the man who destroyed the Twin Towers, getting us out of that shameful war in Iraq, allowing gays in the military to admit to being gay, dealing with the COMPLEX problem of immigration by increasing deportations but also treating immigrant children humanely, etc., I would look forward to a raise! And a movie about me, starring--oh, if I have my way, Daniel Craig? Alec Baldwin? Don't you dare say Judi Dench!

So comical ... but now I am onto my next piece.

Mr. Nolta wrote: "So there's no balance here, only the frustrating sense that those asking for it actually want nothing to do with it or with anyone who sees things at all differently."

Oh really! Since when is seeing things differently an issue with some of you.
Most of you are clones who agree with the rest of the worlds lemmings.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Really? He hasn't spent 3 1/2 years blaming Bush or the Republicans? The economy is better? Are we talking about the same guy? As far as Obama taking credit for Osama....I totally agree and back that 100%, but to be fair you couldn't tell me that if McCain were in office he wouldn't have done the same thing. Again, I think this election all boils down to what is most important to the person casting the vote. If it is the economy and you think Obama is doing a good job on that (which I think you can guess I dont) then by all means, vote for him. If you want hope and change (no pun intended....well maybe just a little :))....then Romney's your man. If it is social issues, yes I think Obama has Romney beat on that. Illegal Immigration - with the way Obama has handled the state of Arizona, I have to give Romney points on that issue. The mud slinging and the name calling is getting out of control. We all want a great America including the 2 presidential candidates. Let's all agree to disagree on certain issues and try to have a rationally conversation. For me, economy is first and foremost.....Romney gets my vote.

Hi David - When you have a chance, please do me the courtesy of acknowledging that you saw the explanation of the name I chose. Thank you, and enjoy the weekend.

Dear FB,

Paul Ryan co-sponsored a bill in the House with Todd Aiken that allowed for an exception to a ban on abortion in cases of 'forcible rape'. Two hundred Republican members of Congress signed onto that bill. To add the modifier 'forcible' to the word 'rape' more than implies that these folks think that rape is sometimes not 'forcible'. Are we still fighting the notion that some women 'ask for it' by their choice of attire or behavior? Is that where we are in 2012?

I believe Aiken was searching for the word 'forcible' when he said 'legitimate'. Some of the policies of the Mormon church use the term 'forcible rape'.

The anti-abortion plank of the Republican party provides no exception for abortion in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. This would have the effect of requiring all rape and incest victims, who become pregnant, to carry the rapist's child to term. Some women might choose to do that; the platform of the Republican party would requie it. The Republican Party's position would require a mother to die.

And yes, Romney has said he supports an exception for abortion in cases of rape and incest and (I believe) to save the life of the mother. So now, as Romney is the head of the Republican Party, why does the abortion plank not reflect his views? And please spare any response that includes 'people don't read the party platform'. The platform represents the Party.

No broad brush needed.

It is not just Todd Aiken.

Yes Deb, we're talking about the same guy. And if you want to speculate on all the wonderful things McCain and his funny female assistant would have done to save this country, you go right ahead! Obama gets my vote--not because I'm a Democrat, but because Obama cares about the working classes, children, the elderly, the disenfranchised, the sick who cannot afford care, those who can't find work, etc. Obama 2012!

And in case people don't think the anti-abortion plank of the Republican Party is an issue, please recall the national furor that resulted when the highly-respected Susan G. Koman for the Cure organization pulled funding for Planned Parenthood.

Contributions to Komen were slashed; contributions to Planned Parenthood soared. Participation in the Komen walks is reportedly down by at least a third. The folks who engineered this decision at Komen were fired and the founder has recently been demoted.
Komen's reputation is probably stained for years to come.

People are concerned about the social agenda of the Republican Party.

We are one Supreme Court Justice away from losing Roe v. Wade.

I do not want Paul Ryan picking any nominees for the Supreme Court -- ever.

David, I am a little disappointed in your response – you continue the word games and misrepresent what I said: “I'm not wedded to the term "balance"--you are. (And thanks for explaining why!)” If you really read and understood my explanation, you would realize that I am not wedded to the term. But that is what you do.

And again, making up things that other people said: “you [FindBalance] did indeed say he [Jim H] didn't [ask for balance]” – please show me where I said that Jim H did not ask for balance.

Apologies for the double-posting...

I'm still a little dizzy, because as expected, I'm still a little woozy from all the spinning going on...

You're right about OBL. When Clinton knew where he was in December 2000, but chose to not have the CIA capture or kill him for the Kenyan Embassy bombings, he perpetuated the long process of OBL going from the Republicans' BFF to killed Most Wanted on the planet. But hey, you're right, Bush started the friendship, so no blame to Clinton for not ending it, right?

We all know NOW that Iraq AND Afghanistan did not have to drag out as long as they did, or even start...but the fact is that they did happen, and rather than immediately withdraw, Obama kept our troops there. I believe that could be construed as implicitly condoning the necessity of their forward deployment, correct? He could have ended both engagements with a phone call to JCS. He never did.

On the same token, the "Bush tax cuts" were extended TWICE on Obama's watch. At what point do they become labeled the Obama tax cuts?

Guantanamo Bay and the "illegal detention" (as Obama called it throughout 2008) of foreign combatants....when did he ever sign the order closing it and ending both the interrogation and prosecution of those held there? Even if he were to use OBL as an excuse, he's been dead for for nearly 16 months now.

I could go on, but Patch says I am nearing the limit of characters. So, enjoy your holiday weekend everyone.

This is just so funny, but if you say these things often enough you can begin to believe they are true.

Do you not think Republicans care about the working classes, children - including unborn children, the elderly, the disenfranchised (whatever that means), and the sick and those who cannot find work? Or do you think that only Democrats can care about these groups?

How insulting to every American, not just Republicans. In fact, I would think that some liberals would be embarrassed by this.

This would be as bad as a Republican saying that all Democrats wanted to run this Country into the ground just because they are Democrats, and that's what all Democrats do.

You mean Democrats aren't running this country into the ground.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Jim, I said I am voting for Obama because, among other things--other qualities--he cares about the poor, the working classes, the elderly, the disenfranchised, the victims of traditional abuse and injustice (women, gays, etc.), those who cannot afford health care. If you choose to read that as an insult against Republicans--against everybody!--well it's your blog, and that's your picture, but you do seem to protest too much. And for insults, Jim, GO BACK AND READ the TEN PARAGRAPHS AND THIRTEEN BULLET POINTS of your SIMPLE QUESTION. You opened the box, but you really don't like what you unleashed. I too wish you were less insulting and more what you say you want to be: open-minded and ready to compromise. So far, not so much.

David, nice try once again. You are just too high maintenance. I think I liked it better when you said you were through with me.

Did you all buy into cutting Federal expending to 20% GDP??? Oh please, 3.18 Trillion, borrowing 549 Billion per year, but wait what about tax cuts?? Blaming the current President for a GM Plant that was announced to be closing in 2008. All spins just like this blog...What a joke these politicians have become. Taking things out of context and editing video for their own agenda "Yes we built it" Hahaha, did you build the roads, bridges...No you didn't, Govt did!!!

TBH, thanks for the note but shh... don't let Linda, David, Pete, Max et als. know that they are helping me. LOL.

You are so right, however. We learn zero if a bunch of Republicans blog back and forth agreeing with each other (not that I don't appreciate a little help from Find Balance). Sure, at times I feel like Leonidas at the pass, but then again I get the feedback from people who are reading but not posting to keep it up.

I am honest and sincere by the way - just look at how I have interjected my own personal history into this piece and previous essays and answers. I do not typically hear the term condescending, especially since there is the need to be a little provocative to maintain interest and elicit commentary. Mainly I get feedback from people who cannot understand how I remain so calm and polite despite some of the commentaries coming my way.

This is the first time I have seen you on my blog. Come back again - there is already a new one posted.

Clearly you DO have a sense of humor, Jim. And you are condescending, too. That's twice you've heard it in one day--makes you think...

David, I hope that one day we get a chance to meet. I know that I would like you despite your nonsense ... actually because of it.

Kelly, your note is quite an amazing thing. Let me be as polite as i can be,

Democrats have zero fiscal responsibility. All the responses to this blog clearly depict Democrats as wanting more and bigger social programs, with no concern for their costs. No discussion regarding the $5+T debt amassed - so far - under Obama. So please, let's be real here.

Now, before you do your usual thing, let me say that most Republicans do not point to Bush as a fiscal winner either. While it is true that Pelosi/Reid took over for his final two years and pushed spending, Bush was widely hammered within his party for what he did.

I am not so sure about Democrats and taxing aside from Democrats wanting to tax the rush. In 1992 Clinton got the Alternative Mininum tax passed to make sure 400 people who had paid nothing paid their share. Today the AMT hits 20,000,000 people (as i recall). How lovely - and 50% of the people pay zero. Fairness in action. So please, no lectures here.

PS - I have moved on to my more recent blog.

Jim, let me be as polite as I can be: You are misrepresenting Democrats. "All responses to this blog clearly depict Democrats as wanting more and bigger social programs, with no concern for their costs." I responded earlier in this thread that I am a fiscally conservative Democrat, which is NOT the same as what Republicans are referring to when they outrageously adopt the language of "fiscal conservative." What they mean is a policy of neoliberal shock doctrine: predatory, unregulated capitalism. I believe in real fiscal policies that balance the budget ETHICALLY through wise investments in education, green energy development, scientific research, small businesses, the middle class, healthcare, and infrastructure. Social programs should be paid for by fair, progressive taxation. Read that again. Social programs should be paid for by fair, progressive taxation. As you know, our global elite millionaires/billionaires have hoarded over 21 trillion dollars in secret tax havens, and that's the tip of the tax evasion iceberg. I believe in ethics over corruption. The debt is a tragic reflection of Republican mismanagement, or rather a scam on the American people to redistribute the wealth of working families to the ultra rich, who have bought so much government influence that they now form our shadow government. How did this happen? Through systematic propaganda and people who stubbornly believe and/or pass on complete fabrications of reality for profit/power/whatever motives.

Kelly and Diane, thanks for these notes, but you are making this too complicated. At some point you have to just say that it is what is is, and we are where we are. Just as I note that Bush was no fiscal champion, neither has been Obama. Together they have failed the taxpayers, added greatly to the debt, and constricted the ability of the Federal Government to live within its means.

Kelly, do you really believe that Romney and Ryan are dishonest? Really?

Dianna, do you really believe that all the taxpayer money paid out via the "stimulus" to the labor unions, alternative energy companies etc. were all above board and completely ethical?

My sense on taxation is that it is far more complicated than we understand, otherwise we would simply have a flat tax. On the one hand half the people do not pay income taxes. Is this really a good thing? On the other hand, S-Corporations are engaged in the global economy and they cannot be taxed beyond their ability to compete and provide jobs.

I have no knowledge of a conspiracy that has allowed a "shadow government" of Republicans to hoard their money. For as much as I read, and as big as an issue this would seem, we would all know about this were it so clear cut.

The bottom line for me continues to be that our Country is broken. It needs a fixer and not a partisan. We saw Clinton last night and saw a Centrist, not an ideologue, and we realize why his Admin succeeded and Obama has failed. Time for a change.

I see, you want people to base their votes only on the things you want them to remember. You want people to choose to go back to the economic policies that allowed financial institutions to cause this meltdown, because, heck, the past is past, and you don't remember it.

No thanks.

Our country is broken because traditional Republicans have been replaced by radical right-wing Teapublicans. They've steered the GOP so far to the right that it won't compromise on anything, while Democrats have become much more centrist. You claim to appreciate Clinton now, but there's no doubt your party hated him while he was President.