Who is the one Republican/Conservative alive today that you can stand politically, not for the entertainment value, but if they were running in your District/State you could see yourself campaigning for them?

***********************************

Colin Powell.

I could never vote for a candidate that didn't support gay rights and a woman's right to choose, so that leaves out the vast majority of Repubs.

The equation is: the Republicans believe in society and government
being run top down, and Democrats believe in bottom-up.

Let me clarify - this is where a departed friend would remind the
board that all elected officials are rich and have corporate interests
at heart, and I would agree, but I would also note that it
misunderstands my point, which is that policies and beliefs of one
party tend to favor those in charge, those in power, those who have,
with the logic that these people and organizations run our society
and culture and thus, policy should be made to keep their wheels
rolling. That is not a right or wrong fact, it is an opinion, a belief.
The other side creates and supports laws and policies that support
the worker over the boss, the poor over the rich, the have-nots over
the haves because those who have already have. They need no more
help. It's the poor that need our attention.

Again - that's not a right or wrong, it's an opinion, a belief.

And in my case it's an opinion, a belief that I am steadfast on. I will
never support a law or policy aimed at helping the rich over the poor,
as it's primary goal (I get that insurance might benefit from the
health care bill, except that really, it won't, but even still, the goal of
the bill was providing coverage for all; anyone getting rich is a side-
effect.) And thus, as much as I might like a republican personally or
like their social stands, I could never vote for one because the very
thing that qualifies them as a republican is a belief I do not share.
It's not that they are R or D because of the parties, but rather it's a
classification based on beliefs.

It's like saying you're tired on gender inequality and thus you want to
do away with genders. Ok, but I'm still a man, no matter how many
terms or words you do away with.

Now, on the other side, there are dems I will not support - I would
not vote for Hillary Clinton as president. But I would not have voted
McCain, either. I would have sat it out, or wrote in Obama (or Jerry
Brown or Mario Cuomo or someone) likewise, i'd never vote for Joe
Lieberman. Or any other Dem who is just a Republican who hasn't
officially changed parties yet.

William - I'll make a run for you!

****************

And I'd vote for you. Unfortunately most repubs that are actually in the public arena are all like Sarah Palin it seems.

When you actually issue a litmus test to make sure anyone you support is in lockstep behind your positions, that to me is a huge problem. The RNC did just that and it disgusts me.

To be fair, there a whole lot of Dems I wouldn't vote for either.

What's so shocking, Kevin? The Republicans got as much as they could out of backroom negotiations. Now they will try to squeeze what they can out of being in the front room.

I did note the most recent failing test vote had 42 against bringing it to the floor. Since the Republicans have only 41 seats in the Senate, that meant a Democrat had to cross over and join them. (The guilty party: Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, allegedly looking for concessions for the Oracle of Omaha.)

If you look at the Republican proposal versus the Democrat proposal there isn't a huge amount of difference. (One can be cynical and say since both sides of the aisle have been heavily papered with banker money, we should not be surprised by the similarities.) I don't really see the modest differences in details being a major sticking point, and an amended bill should pass in relatively short order.

The "Game".

40 years ago, it would be reasonable to say that Ds and Rs would bring two different approaches to the table, especially based on the formula listed above, but between the Health Care Bill and now this, we see that there really isn't any difference between the R and D bills; not signifigantly, anyway - so it boils down to this horrid "game" that I can't take my eyes off of - the Rs big plan is to just oppose everything, so that they can say they did. So that when elections come, they have a clean voting record - they have no blood on their hands, and it plays to their narrative that's being pumped out 24/7 on their media - that Obama is a foreign-born terrorist who is destroying America - they can wash their hands of that.

By the way, who's writing their storylines? These are some ham-fisted narratives - it's like when Stan Lee's brother started that half-rate company in the 70s...

Anyway - so, the Rs rolled the dice on blocking the Financial Reform bill - why not? They can't side with Obama on anything! Would you ... SIDE WITH HITLER?? I thought not! (Say.. I can do this.. wonder if I can get my own radio show...)

This, despite them using Financial Reform as one of their talking points for the last year (ie - "We cain't has Helf Care becausing it coststs 2 much muny and we don' have none!") - but fight it they did...

Till they read the poll numbers. It seems that they can fool some of the people some of the time, but too many trips to that well, and it runs dry.

The "Game" isn't over. This is a minor defeat for them. The R's will strike back hard. Be ready.