"Give it to me I know how to use it better than you do"

borrow and spend Republicans are sure on to something good.  We've all got hours and hours sitting in our cars every week to contemplate about how great they are.  Just think, if the Democrats actually got to implement their ideas you wouldn't have all that quality car time you do now.  It's so much better with the fiscally irresponsible Republicans in charge.

"We'll tell you what to do in the bedroom, we are the sex police."

*"We can turn a huge surplus into a deficit AND claim to be "fiscal conservatives" and walk on our hands, all at the same time!"

*"Allies? We don't need no stinkin' allies!"

*"We claim to be pro-life while we do nothing to actually reduce the number of abortions."

*"We claim to be pro-family while outsourcing peoples' jobs, slashing investment in their futures, and making them choose between going to the doctor or paying their creditors."

*"We're neither 'compassionate' nor 'conservative,' but we'll keep saying it anyway."

*"Do NOT bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free -- especially if they don't look like us or speak English."

1. My main point in all of this is that both parties are messed up.  

2.  I also lean Republican however so I can't just ideally sit by

3.  I actually enjoy the back and forth most of the time

4.  These issues are much more complicated than bumper sticker rhetoric

To your points I note that you are mixing and matching state and national issues and different views of what being a Republican is to different people.

1.  Wrong you can do whatever you want in the bedroom.  The only point I can even remotely see here is gay marriage which is not a majority viewpoint in Virginia.

2.  Bush has been rightly attacked by true fiscal hawks for some of his spending issues including this one :-p.  The war has made things much more complicated.  Democrats have consistenetly shown that when they are in power they raise taxes and spend more.

3.  This is only one foreign policy view which many Republicans do no subscribe to.  Democrats are Universally against free trade which is a complete rejection of economic allies

4.  A focus on abstinence education and supreme court judge selections

5.  Globaliziation is a net positive (I would say more but I don't think I can convince you)  holding government accountable eliminating wasteful and inefficient programs and letting people make their own decisions and control more of their money create positive future prospects.  Pouring money on an issue does not solve it.  We are the party of innovation and choice.  One of the best examples is the school choice and the No Child Left Behind components that allows parents to pull their children out of failing school programs and into higher perfroming school options which will actually provide their children with a brighter future.  We are not beholden by the teachers unions or the staus quo.

6.  The faith based initative program has been very compassionate.  I don't think anybody knows the true definition of conservative anymore (also holds true for liberal)

7.  We are proud of our rich immigrant heritage.  We welcome all who follow the rules of applying for citizenship.  Our free market and enterpernurial rich environement provides numerous opporunities and unlimited potential for legal immigrants.        

1.  Anti-sodomy laws and slew of other regulatory laws governing carnal relations.  Not to mention Republicans generally oppose allowing sex educations courses to even talk about homosexuality as something other than sexual deviancy and sinful.

2.  Democrats have not consistently shown this.  The first major tax cuts in the progressive income tax were made by JFK, a Democrat.  The Democratic controlled Congress in the 1980s passed Reagan's tax cuts.  I can given more examples at both the national and state levels, but I think the point is made that "consistently" is incorrect.

3.  Democrats are not universally against free trade.  It was, in fact, Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who advocated for and signed into law NAFTA.  Clinton also got fast-track trade approval authority and moved a lot of trade deals through Congress.  The expansion of trade relations is a bipartisan consensus.  There is only disagreement about the specifics of what goes into a trade deals and even Democrats are not universally of the same mind on that.

4.  Abstinence education overlooks the fact that raging-hormone teenagers are likely to have sex despite moral instruction to save it until they are married.  This, I think, demonstrates a lack of innovation and choice that you say is a characteristic of the Republican Party.  We should really talk about all the options, the consequences, and how to protect yourself should you choose to have sex in contradiction to our moral guidance.

5.  NCLB was an initiative that was bipartisan and passed with the help of Ted Kennedy.  NCLB is not the be all and end all of creating the best educational system in the world.  It addresses accountability, which is good, but that is just one piece in a large and complex issue.  Second, Republicans may not be beholden to teachers unions, but they are beholden to other special interest groups.  Republicans are also the champions of the status quo on certain issues.  And if you look at things from an historical perspective, they may not be championing the status quo of today.  But if we consider pre-Great Depression America, they are certainly championing the status quo from that period of American History.

I have nothing to add on your points 6 & 7.

Especially on the defense of some democarts

Like I said earlier the solution is almost always in the middle

I went a bit extreme on some of my lines because Lowell always goes extreme on his end :-p.  Lowell I respect you its just that 90% of the country is to the right of you.

Historically, Democrats have been more moderate in general which is why I agree with almost everything you have listed tx2vadem from the defense of dems side.  I would note that not all Republicans hold some of the views.  I dont consider myself a social issues Republican so I guess I am biased.  Ack does that make me a country club Repulican phew  I  prefer Rocky Mountain Republican or Rugged Individualist (sadly I think I am a vanishing species)

With all that being said, the scary thing for me is to watch Obama and Hillary and how far left both of them have gone.  If you look at their positions (taxes and spending point 2, trade point 3, universally attacking NCLB, and Obama backing off his inital words about merit pay due to pressure from teacher unions point 5)  they actually support much of my criticisim.

I know this last section will infuriate many of you here or you actually support them but Obama and Hillary are definently not your DLC moderate type of Democrats that Bill Clinton was and I think thats a very bad thing.  

Obama is definently a liberal and Hillary started as a centrist but has moved to a liberal in an effort to match Obama.    

then 90% of the country is to the right of Jim Webb, Wes Clark, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and a lot of others I've strongly supported over the past few years.  Also, I strongly doubt that there's much daylight between any of the "front pagers" at RK, so again, if you think I'm so far to the left, then you also think the same about Eric, Rob, Teddy, Teacherken, et al.  That's your right to think that way, but you just happen to be wrong (looking at the polls, the RK crew is with the majority on most every single issue; it's the right wing that's completely out of sync with the American people).

Also since you asked  (just my opinion)

Tim Kaine is a bit to the right of you
Mark Warner is a good bit to the right of you
Jim Webb is a real wildcard and can't be placed in a political box
Don't know enough about Wes Clark

Teddy is where you are
I agree with Eric on many things (I think its more than just tone its also policy)  I would put him at 66%
Don't have enough data on Rob
Teacherken is interesting I usually start off agreeing and then he zigs and zags and then usually ends up going too far left so I would put him between you and Eric say I dunno 80%.

I would put myself at 33%

 

of issues, I'd say.  Teacherken is probably a bit to the left of me, as is Teddy.  Rob and I are largely in agreement.

I think he totally rocks!  Remember, I strongly defended him when he was attacked by a prominent national liberal blogger as to "moderate" or whatever?  But I'd love to hear how I'm out of sync with Mark Warner -- one of my all-time political heroes -- this should be fascinating.

As to Tim Kaine, I mainly disagree with him on two issues:

1. Dominion Power's Wise County plant, to which I (and Eric, and most everyone else on the RK front page) am strongly opposed as it is currently configured.

2. The Metro to Dulles project as it is currently configured, specifically the no-bid contract for Bechtel.  Is opposing no-bid contracts "liberal" or "conservative" or what?  Got me.

on the abusive driver fees and on the regional transportation authorities.  Again, what is that, "liberal" or "conservative" or simply "bad legislation?"

I'd like to see you provide answers to the same polls I've selected to see if you're with the majority (as I am) or the minority (which is fine, but it would be helpful to know).

responsibility, aka a BALANCED BUDGET.  What a concept, I know...big part of the reason why I initially joined the Republican Party back in the 1970s.

Phrasing of these questions is interesting

Enviro Protection (About right) (key word is protection here) I might have gone to too little if it was phrased differently.  I think more should be done with alternative energy for example.  

greenhouse gas yes

industrial country (No 21%) once again the wording I think we need to make sure the policy is done in tandem.  For example we need to get China (actually pollutes more now) and India other big countries on board so.  So yes on the goal but no on the approach of us going first alone.

Bush doing enough (as much as it should) another long answer :-p.  For actual change to happen people are going to have to change their habits/views not rely on government to think and act for them.

abortion (illegal most cases) would suspect VA numbers are very close maybe majority position

guns (status quo)

healthcare (somewhat serious, no, yes with caveats)

civil unions (should)

stem cells (staus quo agree with bush compromise plan)

Some other issues I care about that wern't mentioned

smaller government, lower taxes, pro school choice, repeal affirmative action, immigration reform, pro free trade,      

courtesy of PollingReport.com, let's start with the environment.

Harris Poll (10/07): "Do you think there is too much, too little, or about the right amount of government regulation and involvement in the area of environmental protection?"

Too much: 21%
Too little: 53%
About right: 21%

I'm with the 53% majority that says "too little."

"Do you believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming and an increase in average temperatures?"

Yes: 71%
No: 23%

I'm with the 71% majority that says "yes."

"As the world's leading industrial country, the United States needs to set the lead when it comes to controlling greenhouse gases and pollution."

Yes: 81%
No: 16%

I'm with the 81% majority that says "yes."

Newsweek poll (8/07)
"Do you think the Bush Administration has done as much as it should to try to address climate change and reduce global warming, or hasn't done enough?"

"As much as it should": 21%
"Hasn't done enough": 68%

I'm with the 68% majority that says "hasn't done enough"

On abortion:

ABC News-Washington Post poll (1/08): "Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"

57% say legal in "all cases" or "most cases."
40% say illegal in "all cases" or "most cases."

I'm with the 57% who say legal in all or most cases.

Fox News poll
"Please tell me if you think abortion should be legal or illegal in each of the following situations . . . ."

70% say "legal" if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.

73% say "legal" if the pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk

56% say "legal" if the pregnancy puts the mother's mental health at risk

I agree with all of those.

On guns:

USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 8-10, 2008

"Would you like to see gun laws in this country made more strict, less strict, or remain as they are?"

49% say "more strict," 11% say "less strict," 38% say "remain as are."

I lean towards the 49%, but can live with the 38% who say "remain as are." I definitely don't agree with the 11%.

P.S. CNN has it at 50% want "more strict," 9% want "less strict," and 40% "remain as they are."  

On health care:

NPR/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health survey. Feb. 14-24, 2008.

"An issue that has received attention in the news lately is the number of Americans who do not have health insurance. How serious do you think this problem is: very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious or not at all serious?"

74% say "very serious" and 19% say "somewhat serious."

I'm with the 74% majority on this one.

"Next, I'm going to read you a description of a plan to make sure everyone has health insurance, and then I'm going to ask you if you support or oppose this plan. This proposal would place requirements on individuals, employers, the government, and insurance companies so that everyone shares in the responsibility. Individuals who don't already have insurance would be required to buy it or pay a fine, with financial help from the government for people with lower incomes. Employers would be required to cover their workers, or pay money into a pool that helps people buy insurance. Government health insurance programs would be expanded. Insurance plans would be required to take anyone who applies, even if they have a prior illness. Would you support or oppose this kind of plan?"

59% support this, 33% oppose it.

I'm generally with the 59% on this one, as long as it's not an "unfunded federal mandate" on individuals.  By the way, I believe this is very close to the Clinton plan.

"A different proposal for increasing the number of people covered by health insurance would NOT require all adults to have insurance, but would require that parents get insurance for their children. Most children would still be covered by plans through their parents' employers. Parents who aren't covered through work would have to buy insurance for their children, or pay a fine if they don't. Parents with lower incomes would get help from the government paying the cost of health insurance or their children would be enrolled in public programs. Would you support or oppose this kind of plan?"

65% support this, 31% oppose it.

I'm generally with the 65% on this one, the main thing is to get everyone covered.  This sounds closer to Barack Obama's plan, as far as I can tell.

On same sex marriage:

ABC News/Facebook poll. Dec. 16-19, 2007

"Do you think homosexual couples should or should not be allowed to form legally recognized civil unions, giving them the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage?"

54% say "should," 43% say "should not."

I'm with the 54% who say "should"

On stem cell research:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007

"Do you think the federal government should or should not fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos?"

53% say "should," 41% say "should not."

I'm with the 53% who say "should"

We don't know what kind of president either Hillary or Barak will be.  A lot of the rhetoric now is focused on the base of our party because we are still in the primary process.  And though many of our primaries are open, the majority of registered voters (even if you exclude self-identified Republicans) choose not to participate in this process.  That is true for the Republicans as well.

Candidates regardless of party affiliation must run this gauntlet before they can go into General Election mode.  And once they are elected, they have so much more latitude to do what they want and ignore the base (or throw them some small bones every now and then).  

On their positions, on taxes, all I have seen is that they want to increase the progressivity of the income tax by eliminating some of the tax cuts enacted under Bush II.  I have also heard that they want to do some cuts that will help middle income Americans.  

On spending, there are a lot of programs they are proposing without much specifics on how those programs will be financed.  So, I grant that they want to spend more, but I see no difference in National Republicans in that regard (afterall they passed the largest increase in Medicare/Medicaid since LBJ's original Great Society Proposals).  And Republicans are just as happy to give the DOD increases in their budget well above inflation and well above the increases of any other federal branch.  This is nice, of course, for NoVA which benefits greatly from government's largess in this regard.  But it is not fiscal conservatism.

On trade points, that is just fodder for the base.  They are not going to renegotiate NAFTA and even if they could, the jobs are in China now and not Mexico.  They aren't going to pull us out of the WTO.  And they certainly aren't going to hinder our trading relationship with China.  They may do something to invest in manufacturing communities adversely impact by trade to help those communities transition to other economic activities besides working at Wal-Mart.  But other than that, I don't see them fundamentally changing trading relationships.  Oh, I'll also grant that new free trade deals will probably get put on hold.

On education, like I said, it's a complex issue.  NCLB is just one thing, and it would be sad if Democrats eliminated accountability and transparency which the law was intended to get at.  But I don't think they will do that though.  And NCLB is not perfect in that regard anyway because states can totally game the system.  If they get rid of NCLB, it will be to replace it with something else.  And I feel pretty good that they will include accountability and transparency as a part of that standard.  And I feel even better if Obama is the one making these changes as he has demonstrated transparency in government is something he values and pursues in his initiatives.

On leaning to the left, I guess it is hard for me to see it that way.  I think of it more in terms of problem-solving and solutions offered.  All of the solutions they are offering operate within the framework of a capitalist democracy.  Even their health care plans operate within that framework.  I see it more of better or worse, practical or impractical, taking action or doing nothing.  On the topics you use as examples, it is hard for to me to see that they are leaning really far to the left.  On tax policy, you can raise taxes and be fiscally responsible without being liberal (see also George H.W. Bush).  You can spend more money without being liberal (see also Ronald Reagan, and the Republican Congress 2001-2006).  You can be anti-free-trade without being liberal (see also Pat Buchanan and H. Ross Perot).  And your viewing on education policy can be all over the board without preventing you from being or causing you to be a liberal.

Figured this last comment deserved its post

The activists are winning in politics

The Rs are going further to the right
The Ds are going further to the left

I believe the silent majority is saying hey where are yall going.

The Warners (John and Mark) are the real solution I think

I am looking forward to seeing Mark Warners policy papers

It will be interesting to compare them with Obamas papers.  I think there will be some major differences.

The Rs are going further to the right:  Yes, lots of evidence of that, just compare today's Republican Party to the one when Gerald Ford was president - huge difference.  Also, ask people like Russ Potts what he thinks about this.

The Ds are going further to the left: To the contrary, what frustrates a lot of liberal activists on Daily Kos and elsewhere is that the Democratic Party is too corporatist and doesn't fight hard enough for core populist and progressive principles.  Remember, a lot of Democrats voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, and continue to vote to fund the war. Would a truly "left" party have done that?  No, of course not.

McCain is not the 2000 version and has tacked right
at the same time however Hillary and Obama have tacked way left.  

I want an answer on that do you agree?

Look at it again objectively

You are part of the liberal activists :-)

There are plenty of conservative activists who think the republicans aren't going further to the right.  There are plenty of activists who say the reason Rs keep losing is because the R party is too moderate.

Clinton has tacked left for the primary, Obama hasn't changed much at all as far as I can tell.