The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

IndyAl — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:12:51 -0000

OK up until the comment about Colin Powell, I was following this. But why would any party want a member who votes for the opposition&#39s Presidential candidate against a moderate ex-military friend? Powell is not a republican and RINOs need to be ignored more than expunged. Republican party needs a charismatic leader like Reagan with core values that can also appeal to independents - not a Rino Democrat like Powell. The likes of Schwarzenegger, and Powell, - need to follow Benedict Arlen Specter - and become Democrats. Republicans need to listen to conservatives that have the ability to appeal to Independents - not by being more like Democrats - but by sticking to core values. This is going to be very clear after 4 years of a Marxist rule calling themselves democrats. In 2012 there will be no need for an Independent party. Unlike 1992 when you couldn&#39t tell a bush from a clinton, there should be a clear choice in 2012 - Obama has seen to that!

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

IndyAl — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:12:51 -0000

OK up until the comment about Colin Powell, I was following this. But why would any party want a member who votes for the opposition's Presidential candidate against a moderate ex-military friend? Powell is not a republican and RINOs need to be ignored more than expunged. Republican party needs a charismatic leader like Reagan with core values who can also appeal to independents - not a Rino Democrat like Powell. The likes of Schwarzenegger, and Powell, - need to follow Benedict Arlen Specter - and become Democrats. Republicans need to listen to conservatives who have the ability to appeal to Independents - not by being more like Democrats - but by sticking to core values. This is going to be very clear after 4 years of a Marxist rule calling themselves democrats. In 2012 there will be no need for an Independent party. Unlike 1992 when you couldn't tell a bush from a clinton, there should be a clear choice in 2012 - Obama has seen to that!

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

rbwinn — Sat, 23 May 2009 15:03:42 -0000

As soon as independent voters gain ballot access, political parties are done in this country. For instance, here in Arizona I have to get 22,000 signatures to run for the same office a major party candidate has to get 4,000 signature to run for or a Libertarian has to get less than 100 signatures to qualify for. Since 1800, when a political party took over the government of the United States, party politicians have been passing laws at state level to prevent independent voters from becoming candidates for office. What independent voters need to do is to go register as candidates for office. This stranglehold cannot be broken if there are no independent candidates.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

rbwinn — Sat, 23 May 2009 10:03:42 -0000

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

nicrivera — Fri, 22 May 2009 23:42:03 -0000

If we, as a society, deem that abortion is a proper medical procedure then access to that procedure should not be based on a woman&#39s ability to pay but upon her best interests. It is madness to suggest that abortion is wrong for those who must rely upon government programs for their health care but is just fine for the rich is ridiculous.

I completely disagree. Having the right to do something, doesn&#39t mean you are entitled to have other people pay for you to do something. If Joe Sixpack wants to have elective plastic surgery done to give himself a better looking nose, I completely support his right to do so. But I don&#39t support forcing taxpayers to pay for his elective nosejob. Forcing people to pay for medical procedures (particularly ones that are elective) is not a pro-choice position.

Whether people have the financial means to have a medical procedure done is a completely different question than whether someone has the right to have a medical procedure done. One might believe on humanitarian grounds that the government has an obligation to ensure that ability to pay for a medical procedure should not be an obstacle to having that medical procedure done, but this can only be done when the government forces a person or persons (i.e. taxpayers, hospitals) to pay for these procedures on behalf of people who cannot afford to pay for these procedures themselves. And forcing people to do things, even with the best of intentions, is never a pro-choice position.

Furthermore, let&#39s just admit right now that in the majority of cases, abortion is an elective procedure (yes there are cases in which abortion is a necessary procedure needed to save the life of the mother, these cases make up a minority of all abortions). In what kind of free society are people entitled to have other people pay for elective medical procedures, much less medically elective procedures that a large segment of the American population feels is moral repugnant?

If you want abortion to remain legal (as I do), then you have to be willing to respect the rights of all parties involved--both women who do not want the government to force them to go through a pregnancy against their will as well as Americans who do not want the government forcing them to pay for abortions.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

tidbits — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:08:37 -0000

My thesis is simple, Degrance. Government should get out of the morality business...on both sides. It should neither outlaw nor encourage any side of a moral issue.

If one does not except the basic thesis and believes in government intervention in moral issues then you can legitimately argue for funding abortion, of if one is on the other side, for outlawing abortion.

Both private insurance and government healthcare programs routinely limit coverage. Should only the wealthy have access to cosmetic surgery? It is excluded from most insurance and from proposed and existing government health care programs.

A better example might be euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. Should government fund it? Should it be outlawed? My belief is that it is a personal moral decision and government should not be involved.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

nicrivera — Fri, 22 May 2009 18:42:03 -0000

If we, as a society, deem that abortion is a proper medical procedure then access to that procedure should not be based on a woman's ability to pay but upon her best interests. It is madness to suggest that abortion is wrong for those who must rely upon government programs for their health care but is just fine for the rich is ridiculous.

I completely disagree. Having the right to do something, doesn't mean you are entitled to have other people pay for you to do something. If Joe Sixpack wants to have elective plastic surgery done to give himself a better looking nose, I completely support his right to do so. But I don't support forcing taxpayers to pay for his elective nosejob. Forcing people to pay for medical procedures (particularly ones that are elective) is not a pro-choice position.

Whether people have the financial means to have a medical procedure done is a completely different question than whether someone has the right to have a medical procedure done. One might believe on humanitarian grounds that the government has an obligation to ensure that ability to pay for a medical procedure should not be an obstacle to having that medical procedure done, but this can only be done when the government forces a person or persons (i.e. taxpayers, hospitals) to pay for these procedures on behalf of people who cannot afford to pay for these procedures themselves. And forcing people to do things, even with the best of intentions, is never a pro-choice position.

Furthermore, let's just admit right now that in the majority of cases, abortion is an elective procedure (yes there are cases in which abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother, but these cases make up a minority of all abortions). In what kind of free society are people entitled to have other people pay for elective medical procedures, much less medically elective procedures that a large segment of the American population feels is moral repugnant?

If you want abortion to remain legal (as I do), then you have to be willing to respect the rights of all parties involved--both women who do not want the government to force them to go through a pregnancy against their will as well as Americans who do not want the government forcing them to pay for abortions.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

Degrance — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:06:31 -0000

nicrivera & tidbits

"Funding abortion would constitute government intervention in a personal moral issue in that it encourages one choice over another."

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The government doesn&#39t and couldn&#39t "fund abortion." If there is funding involved it is for health care, of which abortion is a small part. Excluding abortion from government funded health care, in effect, only hinders the poor from getting proper medical care. If we, as a society, deem that abortion is a proper medical procedure then access to that procedure should not be based on a woman&#39s ability to pay but upon her best interests. It is madness to suggest that abortion is wrong for those who must rely upon government programs for their health care but is just fine for the rich is ridiculous.

The logical conclusion from your viewpoint would be that the rich abort on a whim because they have unlimited access to abortion. Is that your thesis?

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

tidbits — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:08:37 -0000

My thesis is simple, Degrance. Government should get out of the morality business...on both sides. It should neither outlaw nor encourage any side of a moral issue.

If one does not except the basic thesis and believes in government intervention in moral issues then you can legitimately argue for funding abortion, of if one is on the other side, for outlawing abortion.

Both private insurance and government healthcare programs routinely limit coverage. Should only the wealthy have access to cosmetic surgery? It is excluded from most insurance and from proposed and existing government health care programs.

A better example might be euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. Should government fund it? Should it be outlawed? My belief is that it is a personal moral decision and government should not be involved.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

Degrance — Fri, 22 May 2009 12:06:31 -0000

nicrivera & tidbits

"Funding abortion would constitute government intervention in a personal moral issue in that it encourages one choice over another."

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The government doesn't and couldn't "fund abortion." If there is funding involved it is for health care, of which abortion is a small part. Excluding abortion from government funded health care, in effect, only hinders the poor from getting proper medical care. If we, as a society, deem that abortion is a proper medical procedure then access to that procedure should not be based on a woman's ability to pay but upon her best interests. It is madness to suggest that abortion is wrong for those who must rely upon government programs for their health care but is just fine for the rich is ridiculous.

The logical conclusion from your viewpoint would be that the rich abort on a whim because they have unlimited access to abortion. Is that your thesis?

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

superdestroyer — Fri, 22 May 2009 01:46:22 -0000

This is an artifact of how the questions were asked. The U.S. is tending to the hard left. The problem is that what is not centrist is actually very liberal. It is also hip for many progressives to claim that they are independent when they actually always vote for Democrats.

The real question is how many people can be pursued by a campaign or a candidate and that number is shrinking and very rapdily.

The Democratic Party will soon be at a stage where it will automatically get more than 50% of the vote. That is why the left is pushing so hard for national popular vote and other reforms that will ensure that the Democratic party is the only relevant party.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

nicrivera — Thu, 21 May 2009 23:03:27 -0000

Funding abortion would constitute government intervention in a personal moral issue in that it encourages one choice over another. That strikes me as just as inappropriate as using legislation to outlaw abortion.

This pretty much somes up my feelings on abortion.

I&#39m about as pro-choice as one can get on abortion, but I feel that the only <blold>truly</bold> pro-choice position is that one that argues that abortion should be completely outside the sphere of government--that is--the government should neither be outlaw nor fund abortion.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

tidbits — Thu, 21 May 2009 22:34:37 -0000

Co - Nice discussion. Thank you.

On the Tax Code example, my solution would probably be a modified flat tax...at least I&#39m willing to entertain the idea. If that were the case, marginal tax rates would become irrelevant. I have no objection to anyone making a living, or making a fortune. To be honest, I think marginal tax rates are a sham, at least based on my experience. Owning a business myself, I actually have three businesses in place; one to operate the public business, another to own the building that rents back to the first, and a third to own the fixtures and equipment that rents back to the second that rents back to the first. This structure is necessitated to take advantage of various tax loopholes designed to engineer certain social results. As a result of all this, I pay taxes (legitimately) at about one third of what would be my "marginal" rate.

On social issues, both Ayn Rand and Timothy Leary have interesting perspectives, though I subscribe to neither. Constitutional civil libertarian would be a better description of my position. When I discuss leaving moral issues for private debate and personal consideration, that applies to both sides. Funding abortion would constitute government intervention in a personal moral issue in that it encourages one choice over another. That strikes me as just as inappropriate as using legislation to outlaw abortion.

On your final point, local v. national government, we are probably not in full agreement. While difficult to glean from your statement, I suspect that you are more anti-government than I. Where we might find some common ground is here: that if we could eliminate unnecessary social/moral intervention by government at all levels, government would necessarily be considerably smaller and would have the opportunity to be far more efficient and effective.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

casualobserver — Thu, 21 May 2009 21:18:37 -0000

tidbits, I don&#39t disagree with your first paragraph thought, and I wish there were more of your composition.

I could be had with your second paragraph too, but the devil is always in the unspoken details. If you want to criticize Republicans for industry specific corporate tax breaks, I&#39ll go along, but I hope you&#39re not saying cutting marginal tax rates is social engineering and undesirable.

I&#39m right there with you on paragraph 3, but realize I get there by being more the son of Ayn Rand as opposed to Timothy Leary. As a libertarian, I love freedom of choice and recognize it means tolerating other people&#39s own choices, but not necessarily celebrating them and certainly not having to pay taxes to support them...e.g. subsidized abortion rights, government funded stem cell. To the extent there has to be government, the more local it is, the better. Not sure if that&#39s you or not, so it would be interesting to hear if you get to "principled independent" via the same logic or not.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

superdestroyer — Thu, 21 May 2009 20:46:22 -0000

The real question is how many people can be pursued by a campaign or a candidate and that number is shrinking and very rapdily.

The Democratic Party will soon be at a stage where it will automatically get more than 50% of the vote. That is why the left is pushing so hard for national popular vote and other reforms that will ensure that the Democratic party is the only relevant party.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

tidbits — Thu, 21 May 2009 20:30:15 -0000

CO - It is probably true that most Independents arrive at that position out of distaste for the current major parties, but not all. There actually are principled reasons for centrist positions or, if you prefer, a core belief system inconsistent with both Republicans and Democrats.

If you will entertain an example. Both Republicans and Democrats use, depending on who is in power, the IRS Code as a social engineering platform. It is perfectly defensible, I believe, to take the principled position that the Tax Code should be a revenue generating program, and that it should not be used for social engineering.

In a broader sense, one could take the principled view that the purpose of government should be to devise pragmatic solutions to common problems, leaving moral issues for private debate and individual consideration, rather than legislative battles royal. Since neither party advocates this principle of government, it is viable to select Independent status based on core principles of government and not merely on disaffection with major parties or their mode of operation.

This is a bit defensive on my part, but I have begun to react negatively to those who suggest or infer that "centrists" and "independents" lack core principles.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

casualobserver — Thu, 21 May 2009 20:04:02 -0000

tidbits, it was more out of sarcasm than nobility. Because I am first a pragmatist, the problem with the notion is that both bloggers and the people in the poll above largely get to "independent" out of dislike, not philosophy. They also think they are centrics because they selectively disagree with both parties.....sort of misapplied averaging theory.

GreenDreams, for example, is an anti-capitalist and dirt-worshipper. He will claim he is unaligned with the Democratic Party, but really only because they have not done enough to promote anti-capitalism and dirt-worship nor gone to Crawford Texas to assasinate George Bush in front of Laura and the daughters. I agree it is arguably a form of independence, but its not centrism.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

Degrance — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:54:43 -0000

"What does it mean? It could be a sign that if Obama flops and the GOP doesn’t give independent voters an affirmative reason to support them (just blasting Obama won’t be enough) there could be an opening for an independent candidate in 2012, even if such a candidate has the system stacked against him/her."

I can&#39t make out, due to the poor formatting, whether this is a quote or a statement by the author but this statement is pure drivel. I can see no relevance between party affiliation being down and interest in a third party candidate. I think what this is indicative of is fatigue with the silly bickering that goes on in place of national politics these days. People long for the days when there were reasonable people on either side of the debate and they worked things out (yes it did use to be like that, at least as compared to today)

Having said that Bernie Sanders has my vote if he wants to challenge the two party system. I&#39m proud to say he is my senator and the only nationally prominent independent that I know of.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

tidbits — Thu, 21 May 2009 18:17:59 -0000

CO makes a good observation and suggestion. It appears that that there are three of us here who would participate.

Does anyone know of a filtering system that would keep the wingers from infiltrating and dominating the conversation?

Credit to TMV for encouraging more intelligent exchanges than many other sites.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

GreenDreams — Thu, 21 May 2009 18:14:41 -0000

CO, why not you? Start a blog for those who hate both liberals and conservatives. Oh. No, that wouldn&#39t be you, would it?

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

nicrivera — Thu, 21 May 2009 18:03:27 -0000

Funding abortion would constitute government intervention in a personal moral issue in that it encourages one choice over another. That strikes me as just as inappropriate as using legislation to outlaw abortion.

This pretty much sums up my feelings on abortion.

I'm about as pro-choice as one can be on abortion, but I feel that the only truly pro-choice position is the one that argues that abortion should be completely outside the sphere of government--that is--the government should neither outlaw nor fund abortion.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

casualobserver — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:57:39 -0000

You know, with all this growth in centrism and independence, what the blogosphere could really use is a place for all those people to share thoughts. Sad that no one has done that yet.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

tidbits — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:34:37 -0000

Co - Nice discussion. Thank you.

On the Tax Code example, my solution would probably be a modified flat tax...at least I'm willing to entertain the idea. If that were the case, marginal tax rates would become irrelevant. I have no objection to anyone making a living, or making a fortune. To be honest, I think marginal tax rates are a sham, at least based on my experience. Owning a business myself, I actually have three businesses in place; one to operate the public business, another to own the building that rents back to the first, and a third to own the fixtures and equipment that rents back to the second that rents back to the first. This structure is necessitated to take advantage of various tax loopholes designed to engineer certain social results. As a result of all this, I pay taxes (legitimately) at about one third of what would be my "marginal" rate.

On social issues, both Ayn Rand and Timothy Leary have interesting perspectives, though I subscribe to neither. Constitutional civil libertarian would be a better description of my position. When I discuss leaving moral issues for private debate and personal consideration, that applies to both sides. Funding abortion would constitute government intervention in a personal moral issue in that it encourages one choice over another. That strikes me as just as inappropriate as using legislation to outlaw abortion.

On your final point, local v. national government, we are probably not in full agreement. While difficult to glean from your statement, I suspect that you are more anti-government than I. Where we might find some common ground is here: that if we could eliminate unnecessary social/moral intervention by government at all levels, government would necessarily be considerably smaller and would have the opportunity to be far more efficient and effective.

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

shannonlee — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:51:00 -0000

A viable independent candidates...my kingdom for a viable independent candidate!

Re: Pew Poll: Independent Voter Identification And Centrism Are Surging

casualobserver — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:18:37 -0000

tidbits, I don't disagree with your first paragraph thought, and I wish there were more of your composition.

I could be had with your second paragraph too, but the devil is always in the unspoken details. If you want to criticize Republicans for industry specific corporate tax breaks, I'll go along, but I hope you're not saying cutting marginal tax rates is social engineering and undesirable.

I'm right there with you on paragraph 3, but realize I get there by being more the son of Ayn Rand as opposed to Timothy Leary. As a libertarian, I love freedom of choice and recognize it means tolerating other people's own choices, but not necessarily celebrating them and certainly not having to pay taxes to support them...e.g. subsidized abortion rights, government funded stem cell. To the extent there has to be government, the more local it is, the better. Not sure if that's you or not, so it would be interesting to hear if you get to "principled independent" via the same logic or not.