I don't know if I agree with that. For example, there are liberals wanting to push for single payer healt care now. Al Sharpton had a commercial on yesterday saying the time is now. I think he is a kook but he can rally people. Barney Frank hinted that this public plan is a step towards govt controlled health care. I don't want to debate health care here but govt run is liberal where as what we have now is more reform oriented. I think that this could sway moderate democrats towards a middle party. Where does the difference between a moderate Republican and a moderate Democrat lie?
All the GOP would have to do is openly reject their lunatics, and stop trying to force their social beliefs on everyone and they would be on cruise control. Libertarians are republicans with sense.
And if these principles are contrary to fiscal reality, do you evolve them or do you "stay the course"?
He can rally black people. And some of them are wising up. Besides, Sharpton is not a real player in the democratic party. He's a media celebrity. The status quo is fiscally unsustainable with insurance costs rising faster than wages. Insurance companies are allowed to just drop you if they think you will cost them money. You and I both know people with jobs and money who can't get affordable insurance. All the insurance is going to be provided by private companies under the new Health Law . . . companies who are going to make money. This could be a thread of its own. The issues are complex.
I have been a Republican since the early 70s. The GOP is ideology-based. No question about it, but that is its strong suit because it provides it with a foundation. That is what made Reagan so successful. He operated out of a strong set of core principles. However, that idealism was tempered by a strong sense of practicality. I belive if the GOP follows the Reagan example it will be fine. The Tea Party has both benefited the party and hurt it. Like the party as a whole, it operates out of a strong philosophical core and that is good. But it tends to be too purist and that is not good. It has a hard time thinking outside the idealogical box, and views compromise as treasonous. It labels moderates as "Rinos". But compromise is the lubricant of legislation. Without compromise nothing gets done in congress. Its purist leanings leads it to support idealogues as candidates who are often unelectable. This has hurt the party and has probably cost it control of the senate. If the Tea Party cannot break out of that purist mentality and start vetting its candidates better, its influence in the party will be very limited in the future.
Third party, hell, I am hoping we can come up with a viable 2nd party. In case you have noticed, the Republicans, at the national level are no longer viable.
We will see. Taxes and spending have to be addressed right now and if the Republicans are seen as stonewalling and uncompromising then the liberal Democrats may have two years of control to get some agenda through. I was not referring to the status quo. That does not exist anymore. Healthcare is changing right now. My company had a 1.5 hour meeting to explain changes and new options of insurance. It is more complicated than it was but it offers more flexibility. We also can see rates that doctors charge so we can price compare. It's bringing competition to a market place that had no competition in the past. That is all good reform. What Sharpton, Frank, Pelosi want to come, I believe, is not. That is one place that I would expect to see some seperation within the Democratic party.
lol what Sharpton wants is irrelevant, i want a playboy model with DD's to appear in my office, but it aint happening. Pelosi, Frank or anyone else wont get a single payer. Its just not happening.
