You heard it here first

I posted something along these lines earlier, but its nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks this. The New York Sun echoes the sentiments I stated just the other day. Talk about ahead of the pack.

If someone votes in lockstep with party leadership, they are described as
"courageous," where the far more difficult decision to take a principled stand
of independence and vote conscience instead of straight party line is routinely
described as cowardly.

Although you have to sign up to read the whole article I believe it is well worth it.

Confirmation hearings

I'm fed up with these people. Not that I believe John Bolton is the best person for the job, but how long can this thing drag on? I believe every nominee should get an up or down vote...that includes in the committees. The Republicans try to make excuses for Clinton's nominees who never made it out of committee as if that isn't obstructionist.

I believe the best thing for the nomination process is to look at the nominee and see if they based their decisions on the law or tried to support their decision with something else. In general, unless there are extenuating circumstances, all nominee approvals should be based on past performance and ABA rating. They should be discussed and reviewed in depth in the committee and then voted on and passed to the full Senate. After careful review they should ALL be voted on.

Same with appointments like Bolton's. In his case he seems like the wrong man for the job. But the President appointed him and the committee passed him. Now in a perfect world he would be voted down. You don't appoint the proverbial bull to run the china shop. But politics is involved and the President still has enough political capital to get him approved. The Democrats should stop trying to stall the vote and just get it over with. You pick the battles you can win and pass on those you can't.

What is a Centrist

I guess the best thing to do first is to define a centrist and what distinguishes us, in my opinion, from liberals and conservatives. A centrist as defined on dictionary.com is

cen·trist n.
One who takes a position in the political center; a moderate.

adj.
Marked by or adhering to a moderate political view: "The deep
pool of centrist opinion in the country, that essential guarantee against
violent political upheavals, is being dangerously shaken" (New York Times).

My definition would include "someone who bases their opinion on an issue after considering the facts, rather than basing the facts on their opinion."

This, to me, is the biggest complaint I have concerning liberals and conservatives. They seem to create think tanks or spin any research report to support their views. When various reports come out concerning unemployment numbers or such whichever side is in power touts the positives without considering the negatives and vice-versa for the other side.

Hoot and Hollar

Its funny how conservatives call anyone who votes their way as principled. Nothing they do is done for political reasons, its always because they know what is right and good and best for the country. Yet have a Republican vote against the conservative viewpoint and they are labeled weak and spineless. They're said to have given in to media pressure in an attempt to be liked. It apparantly never occurs to conservatives that someone may believe something differently then they do and still be principled. I've listened to conservative talk hosts who have lambasted the seven Republicans who joined the Compromise over federal judges. They caved in and sacrificed their principles. Many conservatives are ready to throw them over to the Democrats and kick them out of the Republican party. I don't know any of the seven Republicans personally but isn't it just possible that they believed what they were doing was best for the country and the Senate? Could it be that they actually believed that what they were doing was above politics and the best thing for the country?

This is why I continually find myself disliking both parties. Anyone who votes their conscience instead of the party line is considered a traitor. People from their own party form Special Interest Groups with the sole purpose to remove these people and replace them with automatons who will vote the party line. Is this what we vote these people into office for? Do we want people who vote according to what the few party leaders say how to vote or do we want people who will decide for themselves what they believe to be right. If we as the citizens do not agree with them we can voice our discontent at the ballot box

In the Beginning

I am starting this BLOG because of the direction this society is going. Listen to the news, read a newspaper, listen to talk radio, surf the web. Everywhere you look the national conversation is being steered by extreme voices on the left and right. The most emblematic example of how this conversation is going is to watch the debate shows like Crossfire or Hannity & Colmes. These shows are rarely informative. They’re more like gladiatorial combat than thought provoking and informative news. I don’t know about you but I can only stand them for about five minutes before changing the channel.
So where do I stand in this National Conversation? I stand in the middle. I’m somewhat liberal on social issues and somewhat conservative on economic ones. I believe we should have a strong military that is only used after all other avenues have been exhausted or we are directly threatened or attacked.