Calling All Moderates

[GottaRebound]

I think that such a party would have to come from a small group of people with money, in conjunction with a handful of established Congressmen that truly are moderates. That combination would have the ability to establish such a party, while weathering the initial storm of attacks from the two extreme parties. Just a thought.

 

 

If you are intent on never meeting someone halfway on a given issue, then you really aren't interested in compromise. In the case of a "Moderate" party, that might mean that you would be asked to support a candidate that did not exactly represent your point of view (i.e. the war in Iraq, abortion, death penalty, etc.). The truth is, neither of the current two parties exactly represents your views (or anyone else, for that matter). In your case, you have decided to make the issue of abortion a "litmus" test for your support of a candidate. While you certainly have that right, I fear that you are dooming yourself to a string of deep disappointments in terms of your elected representatives.

 

The truth is, when a single issue is used as a litmus test, there are going to be a great number of warts that one must overlook to see that one particular beauty mark.

 

 

Frances

 

Keen insight you have, change your name to Yoda

[HHSDad]

I'd have to say the 4 biggest moderates are Edwards(D), Obama(D), Guiliana® and McCain®. It just so happens that when you look at current head-to-head polls, Guiliana beats all Democrat candidates and Obama beats all Repubican candidates with the exception of Guiliana. I think this just strengthens the view that voters are ready to vote for the middle.

[Hearsay]

I'd have to say the 4 biggest moderates are Edwards(D), Obama(D), Guiliana® and McCain®. It just so happens that when you look at current head-to-head polls, Guiliana beats all Democrat candidates and Obama beats all Repubican candidates with the exception of Guiliana. I think this just strengthens the view that voters are ready to vote for the middle.

 

I'm ready to vote for the middle, even it means compromising leadership on my feelings on some social issues. I am worried about the almighty Dollar. I've said before and will say again that I will vote for Giuliani, but not McCain, who I see as a waffler.

[5wide]

I think one thing that you should keep in mind is that in this day and time, the machines that support candidates do an excellent job of "spinning" previous positions in an attempt to make a given candidate appear to be more moderate than they really are.

 

I think that sooner or later, someone (probably an active politician that is tired of the partisanship games) will establish a third party, that is designed to appeal to moderates from both of the current megaparties.

 

 

Frances

 

If someone could do that, I suspect they would win by a landslide, but what do I know.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I think that such a party would have to come from a small group of people with money, in conjunction with a handful of established Congressmen that truly are moderates. That combination would have the ability to establish such a party, while weathering the initial storm of attacks from the two extreme parties. Just a thought.

 

 

If you are intent on never meeting someone halfway on a given issue, then you really aren't interested in compromise. In the case of a "Moderate" party, that might mean that you would be asked to support a candidate that did not exactly represent your point of view (i.e. the war in Iraq, abortion, death penalty, etc.). The truth is, neither of the current two parties exactly represents your views (or anyone else, for that matter). In your case, you have decided to make the issue of abortion a "litmus" test for your support of a candidate. While you certainly have that right, I fear that you are dooming yourself to a string of deep disappointments in terms of your elected representatives.

 

The truth is, when a single issue is used as a litmus test, there are going to be a great number of warts that one must overlook to see that one particular beauty mark.

 

 

Frances

I think you have enough understanding of me through my posts that I don't make decisions based on political basis or based upon whether it is the popular thing or not. That my faith drives my actions. (A good number of frustrating times I fail to fully follow that but I do strive to it.) And so if I am being true to my faith despite the results, I will not be disappointed in my vote but disappointed in the direction of this country.

 

I do agree that it is hard to be driven by one issue. But I would hope I would have felt the same way with slavery and could have NEVER supported a pro-slavery candidate in the mid-1800's despite how great of a candidate they were.

 

I fear that the mindset you allude to is what is one of the problems with our country. We have minimal to no values but our willing to sell out our values for other things.

 

I do also think that I am not much different as others. I am sure that there are issues that drive your choice as a candidate. It might be 2 or 3 instead of just one but there are MAIN issues (whether it is fiscal spending, health insurance, etc) that carry much more weight in your decision than others.

 

My view, I cannot see how anyone can vote for a candidate who feels this country should allow the killing of babies. Two of the most horrifying stories in the Bible are the Pharoah (to prevent Moses) and King Herod (to prevent Jesus) murdering babies.

[Frances Bavier]

If someone could do that, I suspect they would win by a landslide, but what do I know.

 

I would love to see three or four billionaires decide to collectively underwrite the beginning of such a party, with the idea of providing backing to candidates at the state and federal level. After one or two election cycles, the party would have enough press exposure to allow the candidates to raise the needed funds to campaign.

 

To use a sports related analogy, I would compare this to the startup of the AFL in the 60's. Looking back on it, I think the Hunt brothers would say that worked out pretty well.

 

 

Frances

[ladiesbballcoach]

I'd have to say the 4 biggest moderates are Edwards(D), Obama(D), Guiliana® and McCain®. It just so happens that when you look at current head-to-head polls, Guiliana beats all Democrat candidates and Obama beats all Repubican candidates with the exception of Guiliana. I think this just strengthens the view that voters are ready to vote for the middle.

All the ones that you list as moderates are pro-choice.

[ladiesbballcoach]

If you are intent on never meeting someone halfway on a given issue, then you really aren't interested in compromise.

 

 

Frances

This statement and I apologize if my pulling it out makes it out of context, concerns me.

 

Are you suggesting that moderates always have to compromise. That EVEN if one side is right, 100% right and best for the country, they must choose to not go that route.

 

How do you compromise in going to war? Either you do or your do not. There is no middle ground. Either you allow for the killing of babies or you do not. Either you allow the death penalty or your do not.

 

I am not sure where in some hard, hard issues compromise is good. It could just me being dense in the 2nd week of two very hard weeks here.

[Frances Bavier]

I think you have enough understanding of me through my posts that I don't make decisions based on political basis or based upon whether it is the popular thing or not. That my faith drives my actions. (A good number of frustrating times I fail to fully follow that but I do strive to it.) And so if I am being true to my faith despite the results, I will not be disappointed in my vote but disappointed in the direction of this country.

 

I do agree that it is hard to be driven by one issue. But I would hope I would have felt the same way with slavery and could have NEVER supported a pro-slavery candidate in the mid-1800's despite how great of a candidate they were.

 

I fear that the mindset you allude to is what is one of the problems with our country. We have minimal to no values but our willing to sell out our values for other things.

 

I do also think that I am not much different as others. I am sure that there are issues that drive your choice as a candidate. It might be 2 or 3 instead of just one but there are MAIN issues (whether it is fiscal spending, health insurance, etc) that carry much more weight in your decision than others.

 

My view, I cannot see how anyone can vote for a candidate who feels this country should allow the killing of babies. Two of the most horrifying stories in the Bible are the Pharoah (to prevent Moses) and King Herod (to prevent Jesus) murdering babies.

 

I fully understand the fact that you weight the issue of abortion so heavily when considering candidates to back, LBBC. I have no problem with that, and as you stated, we ALL have some issues that we elevate more than others.

 

My point is that when you draw a line in the sand (on any issue), then you have effectively made the decision to not compromise. That is EXACTLY what has put the current administration in the predicament that they are in.

 

When someone refuses to compromise (or even work toward it), they place themselves in a position where they have to validate why they refuse to budge. When you see this administration demonize everyone that disagrees with them, that is a result of having painted themselves into a corner. Essentially, the phrase "you're either with us or you're against us" is being used during what should be debates on domestic issues - and is no longer limited to the tough talk that Bush invoked when talking about the terrorists in Al-Qaeda immediately after 9/11.

 

Compromise is not a dirty word. It is our only chance at ending this polarization that now engulfs everything we do.

 

In all honesty, I salute the Republican candidates that are willing to stand up to the President. I say this not because I agree with all of their positions, but because I respect the fact that these men and women are willing to try to find the middle ground, rather than parroting a party line. I would feel just as strongly if the legislator were a Democrat that decided to support balancing the budget and reducing the deficit - especially if doing so included a reduction in spending.

 

 

Frances

[GottaRebound]

This statement and I apologize if my pulling it out makes it out of context, concerns me.

 

Are you suggesting that moderates always have to compromise. That EVEN if one side is right, 100% right and best for the country, they must choose to not go that route.

 

How do you compromise in going to war? Either you do or your do not. There is no middle ground. Either you allow for the killing of babies or you do not. Either you allow the death penalty or your do not.

 

I am not sure where in some hard, hard issues compromise is good. It could just me being dense in the 2nd week of two very hard weeks here.

 

I am not speaking for St. Frances, but maybe he was saying that people should listen objectively and with an open mind before making crucial decisions. There are times to stand your ground but even with doing that you should still give an ear to what others are saying. Killing babies is wrong, we know it is, no compromise. But what if it is going to kill the mother if she has the child...it is far and few between but there are cases like that. BTW, I am totally against abortion when used in the form of birth control or for scientific study

[GottaRebound]

I couldnt type fast enough!!!!!

[HHSDad]

All the ones that you list as moderates are pro-choice.

Are you saying that you can't be pro-choice and be a moderate? Woudn't the converse be true? You can't be pro-life and be a moderate?

[Frances Bavier]

This statement and I apologize if my pulling it out makes it out of context, concerns me.

 

Are you suggesting that moderates always have to compromise. That EVEN if one side is right, 100% right and best for the country, they must choose to not go that route.

 

How do you compromise in going to war? Either you do or your do not. There is no middle ground. Either you allow for the killing of babies or you do not. Either you allow the death penalty or your do not.

 

I am not sure where in some hard, hard issues compromise is good. It could just me being dense in the 2nd week of two very hard weeks here.

 

If you are talking about absolutes, then there will definitely be occasions where finding a middle ground will be hard, if not impossible.

 

Using abortion as an example, let's look at the two extremes:

Pro-Life extreme would be that "regardless of the situation", all pregnancies must be carried to term, even if the life or health of the mother is in question. Even if it costs $10 million dollars, we will force every pregnancy to be carried to term.

 

Pro-Choice extreme would be "no matter what the circumstances, until the moment of delivery, the mother can terminate the pregnancy for any (or no) reason at all".

 

The truth is, neither of these situations are currently the law - which means that we have already found some compromise. Now, that compromise may not be to your liking, or my liking, but that is what compromise is. It is trying to find that middle ground, where both sides can take some measure of satisfaction that their interests are being considered, if not completely met.

 

The truth is, this world has very few absolutes. When you give someone an ultimatum, you need to be prepared for a disappointing answer.

 

 

Frances

[GottaRebound]

If you are talking about absolutes, then there will definitely be occasions where finding a middle ground will be hard, if not impossible.

 

Using abortion as an example, let's look at the two extremes:

Pro-Life extreme would be that "regardless of the situation", all pregnancies must be carried to term, even if the life or health of the mother is in question. Even if it costs $10 million dollars, we will force every pregnancy to be carried to term.

 

Pro-Choice extreme would be "no matter what the circumstances, until the moment of delivery, the mother can terminate the pregnancy for any (or no) reason at all".

 

The truth is, neither of these situations are currently the law - which means that we have already found some compromise. Now, that compromise may not be to your liking, or my liking, but that is what compromise is. It is trying to find that middle ground, where both sides can take some measure of satisfaction that their interests are being considered, if not completely met.

 

The truth is, this world has very few absolutes. When you give someone an ultimatum, you need to be prepared for a disappointing answer.

 

 

Frances

 

 

Are you reading my mind? btw, when I address you as St. Frances, you can take it as a Saint or a State..

[ladiesbballcoach]

Are you saying that you can't be pro-choice and be a moderate? Woudn't the converse be true? You can't be pro-life and be a moderate?

Not saying anything just an observation that none of the candidates that you listed as being seen as moderate were pro-life. It seems whomever does the labeling have decided no pro-life candidates could be moderates. Or at least that in this case, none are.

 

Which leads to a question, can you have a stance on abortion and be considering a moderate? Either you are for allowing abortions to continue as is and as a form of birth control or you are not. How can their be a middle ground here? How can their be a moderate position? How can their be a compromise position?

 

I am NOT arguing or trying to be difficult but truly and honestly trying to get my mind around this moderate concept and what it truly means.