Independent Voters

[Mac1958]

.

Holy crap, I almost fell over backwards when I saw this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/opinion/keller-the-sweet-spot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=opinion

Bill Keller is a lefty New York Times columnist (I know, redundant) who usually tosses out boiler-plate lefty talking points, but he surprised me with this one. He talks about how Obama and Romney have to deal with the center of the electorate, and I have to admit he described my beliefs better than most:


¶Swing voters tend to be fiscal conservatives, meaning they are profoundly worried about deficits and debt.

¶They are mostly economic moderates, meaning they are free-marketers but expect government to help provide the physical and intellectual infrastructure that creates opportunity.

¶They are aspirational — that is, they have nothing against the rich — but they don’t oppose tax increases.

¶They want the country well protected, but not throwing its weight around in the world.

¶They tend to be fairly progressive on social issues; they think, for example, that abortion should be discouraged but not prohibited.


I'm not accustomed to seeing partisans who can reasonably articulate the views of people outside of their ideological sphere, but that's pretty good.

So which candidate nails those issues? Here's a hint: Neither of them.

.

 

[SniperFire]

.

Holy crap, I almost fell over backwards when I saw this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/opinion/keller-the-sweet-spot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=opinion

Bill Keller is a lefty New York Times columnist (I know, redundant) who usually tosses out boiler-plate lefty talking points, but he surprised me with this one. He talks about how Obama and Romney have to deal with the center of the electorate, and I have to admit he described my beliefs better than most:


¶Swing voters tend to be fiscal conservatives, meaning they are profoundly worried about deficits and debt.

¶They are mostly economic moderates, meaning they are free-marketers but expect government to help provide the physical and intellectual infrastructure that creates opportunity.

¶They are aspirational — that is, they have nothing against the rich — but they don’t oppose tax increases.

¶They want the country well protected, but not throwing its weight around in the world.

¶They tend to be fairly progressive on social issues; they think, for example, that abortion should be discouraged but not prohibited.


I'm not accustomed to seeing partisans who can reasonably articulate the views of people outside of their ideological sphere, but that's pretty good.

So which candidate nails those issues? Here's a hint: Neither of them.

.

Real easy for you milquetoast types to say, isn't it?

Saying you are against 'throwing our weight around in the world' is a lot like saying you are for 'world peace.'

Empty rhetoric.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Holy crap, I almost fell over backwards when I saw this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/opinion/keller-the-sweet-spot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=opinion

Bill Keller is a lefty New York Times columnist (I know, redundant) who usually tosses out boiler-plate lefty talking points, but he surprised me with this one. He talks about how Obama and Romney have to deal with the center of the electorate, and I have to admit he described my beliefs better than most:


¶Swing voters tend to be fiscal conservatives, meaning they are profoundly worried about deficits and debt.

¶They are mostly economic moderates, meaning they are free-marketers but expect government to help provide the physical and intellectual infrastructure that creates opportunity.

¶They are aspirational — that is, they have nothing against the rich — but they don’t oppose tax increases.

¶They want the country well protected, but not throwing its weight around in the world.

¶They tend to be fairly progressive on social issues; they think, for example, that abortion should be discouraged but not prohibited.


I'm not accustomed to seeing partisans who can reasonably articulate the views of people outside of their ideological sphere, but that's pretty good.

So which candidate nails those issues? Here's a hint: Neither of them.

.

Real easy for you milquetoast types to say, isn't it?

Saying you are against 'throwing our weight around in the world' is a lot like saying you are for 'world peace.'

Empty rhetoric.

Fortunately, some of us don't live in a simplistic, binary, black & white world. Reality is a bit more complicated than that, and it does require a little intellectual elasticity.

.

 

[SniperFire]

Fortunately, some of us don't live in a simplistic, binary, black & white world. Reality is a bit more complicated than that, and it does require a little intellectual elasticity.

.

You mean you are revisionist historian that change your opinion after the fact.

I'll give you an example. 'Independents' strongly supported the Afgan /Iraq invasion. Today, you weak sticks whine about how America 'throws it's weight around in the world.'

It is awfully easy to sit on the fence and let others make the hard choices.

 

[Mac1958]

Fortunately, some of us don't live in a simplistic, binary, black & white world. Reality is a bit more complicated than that, and it does require a little intellectual elasticity.

.

You mean you are revisionist historian that change your opinion after the fact.

I'll give you an example. 'Independents' strongly supported the Afgan /Iraq invasion. Today, you weak sticks whine about how America 'throws it's weight around in the world.'

It is awfully easy to sit on the fence and let others make the hard choices.

I've been anti-war since Day One. And no one on this board is more so.

But thanks for providing yet another example of simplistic, binary, black & white partisan thinking. You want to keep everything simple, i.e., all independents were pro-war - but you can't do that with people who think for themselves. Independents are not monolithic. Don't you know that? Haven't you figured that one out yet, or hasn't Rush mentioned it?

That's why independents are so disliked by the partisan sheep. We're not simple. Worse yet, there's more of us than there are of you.

.

 

[SniperFire]

Fortunately, some of us don't live in a simplistic, binary, black & white world. Reality is a bit more complicated than that, and it does require a little intellectual elasticity.

.

You mean you are revisionist historian that change your opinion after the fact.

I'll give you an example. 'Independents' strongly supported the Afgan /Iraq invasion. Today, you weak sticks whine about how America 'throws it's weight around in the world.'

It is awfully easy to sit on the fence and let others make the hard choices.

I've been anti-war since Day One.
.

My point stands, and the statistics bear it out.

Do you want to go thru many, many more examples of where 'Independents' were for things before they were against them?

Easy to sit back after the fact in wistful melancholy and point fingers at the very decisions you once supported as being 'partisan.'

Fucking sheep.

 

[Mac1958]

You mean you are revisionist historian that change your opinion after the fact.

I'll give you an example. 'Independents' strongly supported the Afgan /Iraq invasion. Today, you weak sticks whine about how America 'throws it's weight around in the world.'

It is awfully easy to sit on the fence and let others make the hard choices.

I've been anti-war since Day One.
.

My point stands, and the statistics bear it out.

Do you want to go thru many, many more examples of where 'Independents' were for things before they were against them?

Easy to sit back after the fact in wistful melancholy and point fingers at the very decisions you once supported as being 'partisan.'

Fucking sheep.

Perhaps you didn't actually read my last post.

Okie doke. Think what you will. I know that keeps things nice and simple.

.

 

[SniperFire]

I've been anti-war since Day One.
.

My point stands, and the statistics bear it out.

Do you want to go thru many, many more examples of where 'Independents' were for things before they were against them?

Easy to sit back after the fact in wistful melancholy and point fingers at the very decisions you once supported as being 'partisan.'

Fucking sheep.

Perhaps you didn't actually read my last post.

Okie doke. Think what you will. I know that keeps things nice and simple.

.

There is a very good reason you are running for this debate.

Empty, after-the-fact rhetoric is easy for you 'Independents.'

 

[Jackson]

.

Holy crap, I almost fell over backwards when I saw this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/opinion/keller-the-sweet-spot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=opinion

Bill Keller is a lefty New York Times columnist (I know, redundant) who usually tosses out boiler-plate lefty talking points, but he surprised me with this one. He talks about how Obama and Romney have to deal with the center of the electorate, and I have to admit he described my beliefs better than most:


¶Swing voters tend to be fiscal conservatives, meaning they are profoundly worried about deficits and debt.

¶They are mostly economic moderates, meaning they are free-marketers but expect government to help provide the physical and intellectual infrastructure that creates opportunity.

¶They are aspirational — that is, they have nothing against the rich — but they don’t oppose tax increases.

¶They want the country well protected, but not throwing its weight around in the world.

¶They tend to be fairly progressive on social issues; they think, for example, that abortion should be discouraged but not prohibited.


I'm not accustomed to seeing partisans who can reasonably articulate the views of people outside of their ideological sphere, but that's pretty good.

So which candidate nails those issues? Here's a hint: Neither of them.

.

Just on the first bullet point alone, I think Obama will have a difficult task competing for Independent voters. As an Independent myself, I find this is my utmost worry and will rule my voting ballot this year, just as it did most Independents in 2010.

 

[nodoginnafight]

.

Holy crap, I almost fell over backwards when I saw this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/opinion/keller-the-sweet-spot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=opinion

Bill Keller is a lefty New York Times columnist (I know, redundant) who usually tosses out boiler-plate lefty talking points, but he surprised me with this one. He talks about how Obama and Romney have to deal with the center of the electorate, and I have to admit he described my beliefs better than most:


¶Swing voters tend to be fiscal conservatives, meaning they are profoundly worried about deficits and debt.

¶They are mostly economic moderates, meaning they are free-marketers but expect government to help provide the physical and intellectual infrastructure that creates opportunity.

¶They are aspirational — that is, they have nothing against the rich — but they don’t oppose tax increases.

¶They want the country well protected, but not throwing its weight around in the world.

¶They tend to be fairly progressive on social issues; they think, for example, that abortion should be discouraged but not prohibited.


I'm not accustomed to seeing partisans who can reasonably articulate the views of people outside of their ideological sphere, but that's pretty good.

So which candidate nails those issues? Here's a hint: Neither of them.

.

Not news or anywhere close to "shocking to me." Describes me fairly well. Except I believe a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under our legal system.

 

[LibertyForAll]

This actually shows why Ron Paul does better with independents than either Romney or Obama. Thanks for posting it.

 

[RightWingFerret]

but will Obama and the Black Panthers be able to create about 10 Million independants to vote democratic by November?

 

[rightwinger]

.

Holy crap, I almost fell over backwards when I saw this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/opinion/keller-the-sweet-spot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=opinion

Bill Keller is a lefty New York Times columnist (I know, redundant) who usually tosses out boiler-plate lefty talking points, but he surprised me with this one. He talks about how Obama and Romney have to deal with the center of the electorate, and I have to admit he described my beliefs better than most:


¶Swing voters tend to be fiscal conservatives, meaning they are profoundly worried about deficits and debt.

¶They are mostly economic moderates, meaning they are free-marketers but expect government to help provide the physical and intellectual infrastructure that creates opportunity.

¶They are aspirational — that is, they have nothing against the rich — but they don’t oppose tax increases.

¶They want the country well protected, but not throwing its weight around in the world.

¶They tend to be fairly progressive on social issues; they think, for example, that abortion should be discouraged but not prohibited.


I'm not accustomed to seeing partisans who can reasonably articulate the views of people outside of their ideological sphere, but that's pretty good.

So which candidate nails those issues? Here's a hint: Neither of them.

.

Just on the first bullet point alone, I think Obama will have a difficult task competing for Independent voters. As an Independent myself, I find this is my utmost worry and will rule my voting ballot this year, just as it did most Independents in 2010.

Obamas budget plan reduces the debt more than Romneys does. It is hard to reduce debt when you are cutting taxes

 

[LibertyForAll]

.

Holy crap, I almost fell over backwards when I saw this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/opinion/keller-the-sweet-spot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=opinion

Bill Keller is a lefty New York Times columnist (I know, redundant) who usually tosses out boiler-plate lefty talking points, but he surprised me with this one. He talks about how Obama and Romney have to deal with the center of the electorate, and I have to admit he described my beliefs better than most:


¶Swing voters tend to be fiscal conservatives, meaning they are profoundly worried about deficits and debt.

¶They are mostly economic moderates, meaning they are free-marketers but expect government to help provide the physical and intellectual infrastructure that creates opportunity.

¶They are aspirational — that is, they have nothing against the rich — but they don’t oppose tax increases.

¶They want the country well protected, but not throwing its weight around in the world.

¶They tend to be fairly progressive on social issues; they think, for example, that abortion should be discouraged but not prohibited.


I'm not accustomed to seeing partisans who can reasonably articulate the views of people outside of their ideological sphere, but that's pretty good.

So which candidate nails those issues? Here's a hint: Neither of them.

.

Just on the first bullet point alone, I think Obama will have a difficult task competing for Independent voters. As an Independent myself, I find this is my utmost worry and will rule my voting ballot this year, just as it did most Independents in 2010.

Obamas budget plan reduces the debt more than Romneys does. It is hard to reduce debt when you are cutting taxes

It reduces the debt or it just doesn't add to the deficit quite as much? I don't think either of them reduce debt at all.

 

[Mac1958]

My point stands, and the statistics bear it out.

Do you want to go thru many, many more examples of where 'Independents' were for things before they were against them?

Easy to sit back after the fact in wistful melancholy and point fingers at the very decisions you once supported as being 'partisan.'

Fucking sheep.

Perhaps you didn't actually read my last post.

Okie doke. Think what you will. I know that keeps things nice and simple.

.

There is a very good reason you are running for this debate.

Empty, after-the-fact rhetoric is easy for you 'Independents.'

Okay, I'll make you a deal: I'll keep considering each issue individually and on its true merits; I'll maintain my intellectual curiosity, asking questions, challenging both sides; I'll keep debating each issue with passion and honesty, without spin, hyperbole, diversion, denial or distortion.

You keep doing what you're told.

We're both happy!

.

Just on the first bullet point alone, I think Obama will have a difficult task competing for Independent voters. As an Independent myself, I find this is my utmost worry and will rule my voting ballot this year, just as it did most Independents in 2010.

Problem is, Independents who are doing their homework cannot be terribly impressed with the plans we're seeing from either party. The two may end up being a wash. What may end up happening is that Independents will look at other issues like war, abortion, gay rights, whatever.

.

 

[Claudette]

.

Holy crap, I almost fell over backwards when I saw this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/opinion/keller-the-sweet-spot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=opinion

Bill Keller is a lefty New York Times columnist (I know, redundant) who usually tosses out boiler-plate lefty talking points, but he surprised me with this one. He talks about how Obama and Romney have to deal with the center of the electorate, and I have to admit he described my beliefs better than most:


¶Swing voters tend to be fiscal conservatives, meaning they are profoundly worried about deficits and debt.

¶They are mostly economic moderates, meaning they are free-marketers but expect government to help provide the physical and intellectual infrastructure that creates opportunity.

¶They are aspirational — that is, they have nothing against the rich — but they don’t oppose tax increases.

¶They want the country well protected, but not throwing its weight around in the world.

¶They tend to be fairly progressive on social issues; they think, for example, that abortion should be discouraged but not prohibited.


I'm not accustomed to seeing partisans who can reasonably articulate the views of people outside of their ideological sphere, but that's pretty good.

So which candidate nails those issues? Here's a hint: Neither of them.


.

I'm an Indi and thats me to a tee.

I won't be voting for Barry Boy in 2012.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Holy crap, I almost fell over backwards when I saw this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/opinion/keller-the-sweet-spot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=opinion

Bill Keller is a lefty New York Times columnist (I know, redundant) who usually tosses out boiler-plate lefty talking points, but he surprised me with this one. He talks about how Obama and Romney have to deal with the center of the electorate, and I have to admit he described my beliefs better than most:


¶Swing voters tend to be fiscal conservatives, meaning they are profoundly worried about deficits and debt.

¶They are mostly economic moderates, meaning they are free-marketers but expect government to help provide the physical and intellectual infrastructure that creates opportunity.

¶They are aspirational — that is, they have nothing against the rich — but they don’t oppose tax increases.

¶They want the country well protected, but not throwing its weight around in the world.

¶They tend to be fairly progressive on social issues; they think, for example, that abortion should be discouraged but not prohibited.


I'm not accustomed to seeing partisans who can reasonably articulate the views of people outside of their ideological sphere, but that's pretty good.

So which candidate nails those issues? Here's a hint: Neither of them.


.

I'm an Indi and thats me to a tee.

I won't be voting for Barry Boy in 2012.

Forgive my cynicism, but when someone calling themselves an independent calls Obama "Barry Boy", I have to wonder.

Since you're an independent, I'm sure you can passionately argue on behalf of topics from both ends of the political spectrum. What would be three or four issues on which you agree with the Left?

.

 

[auditor0007]

Fortunately, some of us don't live in a simplistic, binary, black & white world. Reality is a bit more complicated than that, and it does require a little intellectual elasticity.

.

You mean you are revisionist historian that change your opinion after the fact.

I'll give you an example. 'Independents' strongly supported the Afgan /Iraq invasion. Today, you weak sticks whine about how America 'throws it's weight around in the world.'

It is awfully easy to sit on the fence and let others make the hard choices.

Hindsight is 20/20. While you are correct that many supported the Afghan/Iraq invasions, we now see the flaws in doing so. The difference in looking at it now is that most who oppose such action oppose it for different reasons than those who opposed it in the beginning. The simple fact is that we have learned that it was nothing more than a waste of money and American lives. There was no victory and we accomplished absolutely nothing other than to burn through an awful lot of money.