I don't think we'll see a backlash against either particular party in November. I think they will BOTH get it. I find it interesting that, comparatively speaking, so many incumbents are deciding to retire all of a sudden. In politics, it's all about power. Power is the currency and lifeblood of politics and image is a major factor in power. The powerful don't get tossed out of office on the butts by overwhelming majorities. When one can see that coming, retiring is the "nice" way out. No one can say the voters tossed you out, no matter that you would never have had a chance in the election right after your retirement. What I'm picking up on public sentiment these days reminds me of the immediate aftermath of Watergate. Carter never would have had a chance had he run at another time. With the public sentiment of the time and the masterpiece of a campaign strategy Hamilton Jordan put together, we got a timeless political event. Just as the military studies the battle strategies of Hannibal, Alexander and the like, politicans should study Carter's Presidential campaign.

I guess you could label me a conservative if you have to. I don't doubt that I'm getting more "old fashioned" as I get older. It's very hard to change one's mindset as you age. Maybe that's why experiance is such a hard teacher - because it IS so hard for us to change. Yes, I have tended to vote Republican more often than Democrat but agreeing with their "platform" or stands on the issues rarely has anything to do with it. For local offices here in my county, you'll have someone run as a write-in before they'll run as a Democrat. Why, I don't know but the reality is that whoever wins the local Republican primary wins the whole thing. If you want to have a say in who represents you in local offices, you don't have any choice but to vote in the Republican primary. National elections has always been about damage control for me. Do I like that? No. I guess it's due to that insanely practical streak I have. When the same party (and which one doesn't matter) controls Congress and the White House, that's when there is a real danger of real stupidity breaking out. The purpose of government is to provide for those things that we can't provide indiviually. What those things are aren't whatever the politicans want to involved government in, there's a hierarchy (possibly Maslow-ian too) that needs to be followed. If another country invades, I'm not going to be able to protect my family on my own. I believe the phrase is "provide for the common defense". Then there's the matter of protecting myself from the thugs and criminals out there. That's the "life" part. After that, there's my being able to pursue whatever opportunity I want to pursue. Whatever unique label you can pin on me cannot be used as a means to deny me the right to pursue that opportunity. That does not mean that the government has a responsibility to protect me from my own stupidity or the consequences of how I go about my pursuit.

That tends to keep things a bit more straight-forward for me. Protect me from external threats like war, crime and disaster (goverment is not too good on that last one). Now ensure that I have the same right (right does not equal chance) to pursue whatever opportunities I choose in life. However, how I live my life and how I pursue my chosen opportunities will mean that there will be consequences that I will have to accept and will have to accept responsibility for my actions. As we grow and advance as a society, the extent to which government can practically go in protecting my right to pursue opportunity can advance. As a society, we have progressed to where we strive to provide a basic education to one another, a basic infrastructure to enable society to function at a basic level. Life is dynamic and the collective threats we can face change. At the same time, there are limits to what we, and government, can do at any given time. I wouldn't object to being able to have whatever I might happen to want at any given time but there's no way I'll ever be able to afford such a lifestyle. The same is true for government. I didn't have a problem with the idea of providing everyone with healthcare coverage. The hugely dominant method of having healthcare coverage has been via your employer. In the midst of horrible recession, you have lots of folks losing that when they lose their jobs. Not all employers can afford to provide that benefit either. Ensuring that we all have access to healthcare is a noble goal. My problem is how government can afford to do that. With the debt this country has and a chronic inability to live within its means, what I really fear is we are going to end up having to make some VERY hard choices in the near future and on things a lot more basic.

No one's opinions are out of place. I am who I am and the way I am. There's no reason for me to apologize for that. Neither should anyone else. Still, I've made posts that have ticked folks off. Everyone will sonner or later. I wasn't trying to when I made the post either but I've found that posting when I'm not in the best of moods is when I really want to watch myself. I've gotten angry at posts and it gets real tempting to fire off a response then but usually I'm able to make myself either ignore it altogether or walk away from the keyboard until I can. I've also tried play "make nice" and point out the flip side of the coin but I'm learning that's not really worth it either. It's not really my responsibility either. If I think a post is out of line, dealing with that is the admins responsibility. There are some folks out there that seem to like to push other folk's buttons too. Why give them the satisfaction?

There was someone in Congress not too long ago who announced they wouldn't be running for reelection and the extreme partisianship that has become commonplace these days was one of their main reasons. I found that telling, that and how quickly that story died.

I suggest a name change for this team. Drop MOT and call it HPDS. This would be much more descriptive of the actual content of the team thread.

HPDS (Half-baked Political Debate Society).

Congratulations Jonathan, they never have figured out that you are just come along and post something inflamatory for fun and they babble on for days about it while you sit back and laugh.

Quoting Keith: "That does not mean that the government has a responsibility to protect me from my own stupidity or the consequences of how I go about my pursuit."

So what should happen to the people who make stupid decisions, say taking out a loan they can't afford, and now they can't afford health care. What do you propose the government do? Turn them away? Obviously not. The point is, like it or not, the government does insure us against our own stupidity. No one thinks they need the government safety net until they need the government safety net. We need to be realistic. The American people overwhelmingly think that we should provide food, clothing, medical care, and shelter to the needy, to insure against the vicissitudes of fate, or perhaps, a poor decision. We don't want to be part of a state that would be callous towards the poor and unfortunate...