Hello:

I HEAR about independent voters... But, I don't believe there are any... Who could possibly believe a right winger in one instance, and a left winger in another?? It's like having BOTH chocolate and vanilla as your favorite... It AIN'T possible.

Independent's... Are you out there??

excon

I have recently become NA but lets be honest I'm not voting R.

I voted for John Kerry in 2004 and Baldwin in 2008.
So, there you go :)

I'm non-affiliated.

:D
I have recently become NA but lets be honest I'm not voting R.

So there you have it . Independents are Democrats who won't admit it. :D

I became NA cause I am embarrassed by the way the Dems just cave over anything.

I found the Indies for you .

Home | No Labels (http://nolabels.org/home/)

As Slate commentator Christopher Beam observes. They are so busy defining what they don't believe ;that they never tell us what they do.


Even if they did have something to lose, signing onto "No Labels" is risk-free. The group's mission statement is filled with the bland pablum of political campaigns. It's the kind of stuff that's so obvious, no one would ever disagree. "Americans are entitled to a government and a political system that works—driven by shared purpose and common sense." Unlike all those groups that prefer a political system that doesn't work. "Americans want a government that empowers people with the tools for success … provided that it does so in a fiscally prudent way." Me, I'm for spending wads of money on failure. "America must be strong and safe, ready and able to protect itself in a world of multiple dangers and uncertainties." That is going to upset their rival group, Americans Against Strength, Safety, Readiness, and Ability To Protect Ourselves. Their mission is so popular, even Akon could get behind it. (Sample lyric: "See a man with a blue tie/ See a man with a red tie/ So how about we tie ourselves together and get it done.") And if members were worried about how it would play in the polls, don't worry: Its founder, Nancy Jacobson, is married to Hillary Clinton pollster Mark Penn...



The group takes a pass when it comes to issues that actually divide people, like gay marriage and abortion. Anticipating this critique, the group's Web site argues that social issues have been used to "keep Americans from working together." Instead, it says, "We want to help call a cease-fire in the culture wars by focusing on common ground goals rather than absolutist positions on the left or right." Even on an issue as polarizing as abortion, says co-founder and CNN personality John Avlon, most Americans agree that the procedure should be "safe, legal, and rare." But his answer seems to undermine the point of the group. If there's consensus on so many issues, what's the point of creating a group? To defend that consensus?
The new political group No Labels shows why labels exist. - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2277783/pagenum/2)

But I know what the group is . They are mostly Democrats in former identification and a sprinkling of RINO. John Avalon ,one of the founders formerly worked for Rudy. But his book 'Wingnuts' (a funny title from someone who doesn't believe in labels ) cleary places him "left of center" in the so called spectrum. He doesn't want to admit to his 'left of center ' leanings ,so he is a self proclaimed centrist instead and disparages anyone he deems (get ready for another label) 'lunatic fringe'.
http://www.amazon.com/Wingnuts-Lunatic-Fringe-Hijacking-America/dp/0984295119

This group formed only after the Republicans won the elections last year . When the "progressives" won in 2006- 2008 they were no where to be found.

Home | No Labels (http://nolabels.org/home/)

...They are so busy defining what they don't believe ;that they never tell us what they do.
I guess that guy didn't bother clicking on the "Thinking No Labels" nav item on the main nav bar, for instance: Issues | No Labels (http://nolabels.org/thinking-no-labels/issues/)
Or 2011-2012 Goals | No Labels (http://nolabels.org/thinking-no-labels/2011-goals/). It took me all of 6 seconds.

You found something they believe in at those 2 links ?

Im an independent and proud of it. I do lean conservative on many issues but not all. Since life isn't Burger King and I can't have it my way I look to balance it as best as I can.

Im an independent and proud of it. I do lean conservative on many issues but not all. Since life isnt Burger King and I can't have it my way I look to balance it as best as I can.

Wait... what? I can't have everything my way? But... MY way is the BEST way! Even I know that!

Wait....what? I can't have everything my way?? But....MY way is the BEST way!! Even I know that!!

Sure, of course you do. And that's why I would fight for your freedoms. Would you be willing to do the same ?

Sure, of course you do. And thats why I would fight for your freedoms. Would you be willing to do the same ?

I have thought about it before, because my uncle was telling me about officer training at West Point (he's a lt. colonel/professor there). Obviously I ended up studying something else.

However, I would and do stand up for liberties and freedoms. It just depends on the issue at had, I suppose. If my country said it absolutely needed me, I would go.

Im an independent and proud of it. I do lean conservative on many issues but not all. Since life isnt Burger King and I can't have it my way I look to balance it as best as I can.

I believe Ex was talking more political philosophy that political party affiliation. I am not a registered Republican because the Republicans don't always live up to my philosophy. But in my advancing age I can say I'm pretty firm in my beliefs, and can identify what side of the fence I stand on most issues.

Fence ?

Actually there is a chasm of differences between most of the political differences confronting this country .There always has been . I for one find it had to believe that people who thoughtfully examine the issues can be firmly on one side of the divide on some issues ,and on the other side on others .

I believe Ex was talking more political philosophy that political party affiliation. I am not a registered Republican because the Republicans don't always live up to my philosophy. But in my advancing age I can say I'm pretty firm in my beliefs, and can identify what side of the fence I stand on most issues.

Fence ?

Actually there is a chasm of differences between most of the political differences confronting this country .There always has been . I for one find it had to believe that people who thoughtfully examine the issues can be firmly on one side of the divide on some issues ,and on the other side on others .

Sure you can be. With the heavier isues like legalization of drugs, the death penalty, abortion, gun rights, etc etc.

It doesn't mean you don't lean one way or another. Of course you do. But its more of a mix then toting a party line as many have done. I was raised to question authority while at the same time showing respect. That's part of how I became what I am today.

I for one find it had to believe that people who thoughtfully examine the issues can be firmly on one side of the divide on some issues ,and on the other side on others .Hello again, tom:

Me too. That's why I find it incredulous that you don't agree with every position I hold. :rolleyes:

excon

I for one find it had to believe that people who thoughtfully examine the issues can be firmly on one side of the divide on some issues ,and on the other side on others .
Actually that is what rational people do. The ones who live on emotion only blindly accept whatever "their" party does.

Actually there is a chasm of differences between most of the political differences confronting this country .There always has been . I for one find it had to believe that people who thoughtfully examine the issues can be firmly on one side of the divide on some issues ,and on the other side on others .

Hi Tom,

Going on what's been posted here in the past it seems to me there is a huge chasm of difference. On the other hand, this is a limited sample.

Do you think the gap is so wide there is no chance of any middle ground being found on most issues? It seems strange from my point of view that the gap can be so wide. So is the wide gap the rule rather than the exception?

Tut

There has always been temporary compromises in US history. Slavery at the founding is the prominent example. To create the union ,a number of compromises were concocted . Some of them still survive ;others like the 3/5th compromise are a black mark on our history. They also made some compromises that were clearly 'kick the can down the road ' solutions like the provision that slavery would not be addressed in the founding years. (the slave trade would be banned 20 years after the founding ) .

Throughout the early 19th century Congress butted heads over the issue and managed to forge compromises that held the union together ;but not really solve the problem. Perhaps if the idiot Supreme Court had not gone rogue ,and made the disastrous Dredd Scott Decision ,the compromise regime would've continued until a time that slavery would've been legislated or amended out of existence . But more likely with or without SCOTUS ,the system would've broken down because there was constant tension over new state entry and the balance of power between slave and free states.

The divide is more than just politics. It is philosophical. It is Jefferson v Hamilton .It is Rousseau v Locke .It is Fabianism v.limitted governance. It is federalism v democratism .

NK thinks it's about blind allegance to party. It is not . It is firm beliefs in a philosophy. It may sound harsh.. but the question remains... what are the beliefs of those who shift with the wind ?

Going on what's been posted here in the past it seems to me there is a huge chasm of difference. On the other hand, this is a limited sample.
It is firm beliefs in a philosophy. It may sound harsh ..but the question remains... what are the beliefs of those who shift with the wind ?Hello TUT and tom:

Yes, this is a limited sample... However, I believe it mirrors the national discourse quite accurately.

Speaking of that chasm, that was really the basis of my OP. It's SOOOO huge, that I cannot understand those who sit on the fence... In fact, it's so huge, there IS no fence. I'm talking about people like Dennis Miller who is currently a darling of the right... Yet, he WAS a leftist in a previous television existence. That isn't a fellow dabbling in each side from the fence. It's ABANDONING CORE beliefs. Or, it's having NO core beliefs at all, and just flowing with the wind...

One chasm I can identify is the difference between what each side thinks is the PRIMARY function of government... One side thinks it's defending the country.. The other side thinks it's defending the Constitution, en toto with equal vigor... Oh, the first side wouldn't put it in those terms. They're mine.. But, I don't back away from the characterization. It IS the basis for MOST of our discussions here.

Will the divide be breached?? I don't think so. There has been some very reasonable discussion here over the years. I haven't convinced them of much, and they haven't convinced me.

excon

To be honest in my frequent travels around the states I rarely meet people who are so emotionally involved in their politics as I see on this board. Most have their leanings beliefs but don't overtly hate the other side. I guess what one sees online may be a factor of keyboard courage more than anything else.

Really I vote for the person who has the best idea's. When I moved out of Philly and into the 'Burbs I actually voted for one Republican the past two elections Frank Farry State Rep. The D that was in there Chris King was an idiot and then the D that Ran against him the last election had no idea's only smears.

It has been my argument that this is not about blind allegiance to party . It is philosophical.

The recent Planned Parenthood funding vote in the Senate makes the case.
1. Blind loyalty to party.
The following Senators toed the party line even though they are self-professed pro-lifers... Sen. Joe Manchin, Sen. Ben Nelson, and Sen. Bob Casey.

2. These Republicans I would never vote for under any circumstances. Scott Brown , Susan Collins,Mark Kirk ,Lisa Murkowski ,and Olympia Snowe-job.

I would never vote for any of them . Why not ? Because they crossed the aisle ,weighed the issues ,straddled the fence ,and in the end voted to fund an organization that kills babies.

I for one find it had to believe that people who thoughtfully examine the issues can be firmly on one side of the divide on some issues ,and on the other side on others .Hello again, tom:

Maybe it's because we don't agree on the very BASIC duty of our president. I say it's to defend the Constitution.. You say it's to defend the country. Therein LIES a HUGE divide. We've argued that idea endlessly here and I don't think either of us has made any headway.

And the differences are becoming STARKER. If it was not clear before, it is obvious now that the right wing is fully engaged in a project to dismantle the foundations of the New Deal and the Great Society, and to liberate business and the rich from the inconvenience of oversight or taxes.

NOBODY could be in the MIDDLE about ANY of this, could they??

excon

I completely dispute the charaterization of what the 'right wing ' believes.
Pehaps that's the problem. We are living in Babel.

I completely dispute the charaterization of what the 'right wing ' believes.
You should read Smoothy's posts on what he characterizes as the beliefs of the "left"!