Anyone who continues to insist that a “free market” will work either doesn’t follow the news, is a blind ideologue (as are some of the folks here) or just plain stupid, or some combination.

Human nature gets in the way of theory, and trashes it.

And what might have worked 200 years ago when there was some sort of accountability won’t work now.

The real conservative agenda is to make the rich richer at any price to the country. The pap for the masses is stuff like smaller government, balanced budgets, abortion, prayer in schools, that stuff. Said masses seem to sincerely believe those are important to the conservative candidates.

There is no left wing in this country comparable to our right wing, in either numbers, influence, or fanaticism. And nationalizing the health care system makes as much sense to me as nationalizing the police, defense, or the schools. It’s a no-brainer. I don’t like working in a shop where I have to buy my own tools.

As for ideology, I do not agree that morals, ethics, or ideology have anything to do with how a society is governed. Oh sure, moral principles are important, we shouldn’t lie, cheat, steal, or hurt people, and neither should our elected leaders, but government is a form of administration, one should do what works and that most of us can agree with, and when the citizens don’t agree, they should negotiate a compromise. When did god say I have to follow anyone elses principles? Whose principles? Yours? I don’t think so.

Ideological principles are for those who want to organize society in a way they feel will work best for them, and screw everybody else.
The purpose of government isn’t to give businessmen the “freedom and liberty” to do any damn thing they please, anything that they can sneak past free market forces. The purpose of government is to protect us from people who believe that. And I’m tired of those who can’t make it in the free market blamimg all the so-called imaginary socialists for their own entrepreneurial ineptness.

I am not a socialist, I think free enterprise mostly works. But neither am I a free market fundamentalist, I believe collective business needs to be managed, just like every individual business needs to be managed. I do not reject socialism outright, we are, after all, social creatures, not parasites or solitary predators. But I would not want to live in a society where only socialist principles were allowed. And I certainly don’t want to live in a society where I have to choose between socialism and capitalism and where I am told I am not morally or intellectually qualified to define which is which, or where to draw the line between the two.

That is how I define “moderate”. Those who choose to define it differently are merely expressing their own self-serving and parochial opinion, not repeating the self-evident or the obvious.

Don’t know where “morally” comes into it. The Democratic Party doesn’t seem to consider conventional morality an important value in a political leader, unless it’s someone in the opposition.

However, I believe everybody on your entire list of Republicans is ideologically superior to Obama. Remember him? The Democratic candidate?

It’s difficult to go into details. I have to keep in mind that members of my audience here consider nationalizing the health care system to be a “moderate” position, and that there is no such thing as leftism in this country.

There’s really no need to answer that. It was a rhetorical question.

I’ve known that for years. Neither hot nor cold, with principles decided by polls, and convictions that swing sharply around when it looks like their election is in doubt. Duck, here comes the boom.

Rand called them “pragmatists,” and at the time, she used Nixon as her most glaring negative example.

But again, Romney’s not going to be running against George Washington or Abraham Lincoln this fall, and I have hopes for the House and Senate. Some good people in both, but not enough of them.

I used to feel Romney, like Dole, Elder Bush, McCain and his father before him, was the Republican I could live with, a man of moderate conservatism and solid competence who might not be my first choice, but which the country could survive intact, perhaps even prosper under. Consequently, I felt he would be the hardest opponent for a crippled Obama to beat.

But now I am beginning to see he will do anything, say anything, flip-flop anything to win. He is totally unprincipled. And as his deliberately misquoted Obama campaign ad demomstrates, he doesn’t just spin or interpret or slant, he lies. He doesn’t even care if he’s caught lying because he feels one side won’t vote for him anyway, and the other will vote Republican no matter what he does or says as long as it serves their prejudices. This demonstrates an utter contempt for his own base. He is truly the profit-driven candidate.

The other Republicans may be crazy, or crooked, but at least you sense there is some core of conviction. Romney has none. He is a dangerous and hollow man.

The Wacky Right senses this about Romney. But the Establishment, the “solid, responsible, reasonable” Republicans, either don’t see it, or don’t care. And that demonstrates something much worse than the most ideological zealotry and fanaticism: a cynicism of the highest order.

Stand by for heavy rolls.