I think the problem, or a large chunk of it, is that there are certain people (many!!) who are in the government for way too long. I wish most political posts had maximum terms. 8, 10, even 15 years, fine... But someone as Mayor or Congressman for 30 years is just not good for that jurisdiction.

Voting is just half he problem....the other half is all the propaganda presented by the media. We don't ever get the real picture of who is who and what is what.
So we have to settle for what is handed to s and that is usually pretty bad.
The politicians know the voters are dumber than a pair of socks and just continue to play the game. To see how bad it is just look Massachusetts and who are our long term It's
a disgrace and the State is showing the effects of it. Not to mention the effect all this has on all the towns.
The voters in Mass are to blame for the mess we're in, and because of their stupidity in who they vote in they will suffer in the end.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Ralph, thanks for posting into my blog, and I agree with your observations. However, over 50% of the voters are Unenrolled, which pretty much makes them uninvolved, which is why the same Democrat faces get re-elected over and over. Odds are that you a registered Unenerolled voter. How can I reach more of these voters and help persuade them to take more interest/play a larger role in getting the government that we deserve, not the governance they serve up?

Once again Jim you are making a false assumption that unenrolled voters are uninvolved. Don't you really mean to call out the percentage of people that have not registered to vote? Once could argue that an unenrolled voter may be more active than an enrolled voter, particularly in your example of electing the same people over and over again. That's what enrolled voters do, they vote the party line. Unenrolled voters actually make a choice. Unenrolled voters are also very active in local governments and you keep confusing government and politics. Statemetents about a candidate regardless of the source is a political statement, it's not government.

I would like to see a government separate from politics. The idea that we must constantly elect new management every two or four years infuses politics into governance. You can't find a corporation that would support the CEO or any of the management structure dedicating a 25%of their work time trying to get a better position. Let's go with a single 10 year term. That gives a single administration 10 years to dedicate to improving this country.

I'd like to see more people become involved in government, particularly local government. Join a board or a committee. Run for a local office. Everyone is upset about the school budget increasing year over year but some people have been on that board for 10 years unopposed. Get involved locally and make a change happen.

Our system may not be an idealist's dream but it's a whole lot better than what passes for government in many parts of the world- the Arab world generally, much of Africa, sections of Eastern Europe including Russia, sections of South America. The fact that we can have this ' lively' discussion and not face 'repercussions' is something many people take for granted. My particular peeve is that so many government officials including Executive branch members 'retire' to positions where foreign governments pay them to lobby and influence our government- a real hidden source of power for countries that may not have our best interests in mind.

Kim, Thanks for your note, even if critical. You know from prior responses that I appreciate your comments. This time I am going to disagree with you a bit by saying that even thinking that I am a bully for thinking that so many unenrolled voters are ambivalent ignores that statistical reality that most of them are. How else can you explain the low percentage of voters when over 50% of the registered voters are unenrolled?

I would much rather you comment on what you expect from government and our elected officials. Do you think we deserve bettern than a Vice President suggesting that Republicans are racists just itching to put some people back in chains? Is it OK for the President to infer that Romney was responsible for the death of a woman, or that he had paid no taxes for ten years, or that Republicans want dirty air and dirty water, or that our Government should spend more than a Trillion dollars more than available taxes and other revenues?

And Kim, I am all for engaging more with unenrolled voters, so I hope you forward my blogs to some of your friends and let them have at me. If we are going to get the government - and political officials we deserve - we need to get more people as actively engaged as you.

Are you OK with this?

The news we get is filtered and we get only half the story if that.
The news networks have the agenda of the owner of the organization. So find out who owns the news station and you will see how filtered the news you are getting.
Corporations are a big part of getting the right news too, since they pay for the advertising that makes the media outlets rich. They will pull advertising dollars from stations that make them look bad. So if there was a politician that exposed some corporation for their evil ways you might no see or hear about it.
So when it comes to politics, social issues, religion whatever...you're getting biased information.
Want to understand whats happening in the Middleast.....go to the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs.
http://www.wrmea.org/
This will set you straight on what's going on.
Very few media outlets can get away with telling the truth these days.
The foxes have taken over the hen house in more ways than one.
Jim@ccfiil.com

Jim - I think a 10 year term would bring more people to the process. Maybe 1o years of Obama is what people need to get involved....assuming there's anything left to get involved in.

Great column, thanks for writing. I think sometimes we forget you're a Republican, particularly when you get bashed for not being neutral. :)

Mike, thanks for the kind words. Ten years will not work and I will give you an example that many Republicans may find even a little sacreligious. While Ronald Reagan was the finest President of my lifetime. he was limping to the finish line by the time he was nearly done. We need a constant infusion of good, new ideas that may not be as easily accomplished by such a lengthy term. Bottom line - I think the length of the terms are good, but the people who have the jobs in need of improvement ... we deserve better. In fact, we better have better fast or it won't make a difference.

I think we deserve politicians that are honest about their past. Especially about their party affiliation.
Example.....Elizabeth Warren was a registered Republican from 1991-96 so what happened? She wouldn't respond to the question if she voted for Ronald Regan in 1980, and 84, or detail any of her voting history....hmmmmm!
Source....Boston Globe this Sunday p.a11
That kinda bothers me......why the evasiveness?
Now shes a Dem.....wow!
All her Cult Dem friends might have a heart attack if they knew that one....LOL
She's not an honest person, as she has shown by other things she's done in her past life.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Jim, I certainly agree with you about Warren - her lack of integrity on the affirmative action is a deal breaker, not to mention she believes that Senator should be her entry level elected position. I am thinking that enough Democrats believe this as well which is why Brown will win.

Look at it this way - if a Republican as moderate and non partisan as Scott Brown cannot beat this kind of a Democrat, no Republican is going to win in this State. What would that say?

Jim H...I agree. If Scott Brown can't beat a women who has lied her way into politics then they will get what they deserve. She is an opportunist who looks out for herself. It doesn't seem like she is interested in the regular Joe.
At least Scott Brown is above board, and you know where he stands.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Is this an honest question or just a place to discuss Republican talking points? Jim, I appreciate that you are a committed Republican, and so you are biased about the people you would like to see elected. But if you want to ask this question honestly, then you need some objectivity. In the Presidential race, neither side has presented itself well. Lies, slander, and finger-pointing have been the M.O. for a while now (and, sadly, you are promoting one side's spin in your list of bullet points). As a moderate, I watch Obama and Romney act they way they do (and Biden...it was only a matter of time, I suppose), and I look at our gridlocked Congress with an approval rating of 10%, and I feel disheartened by pretty much all of them. I was as disgusted by Todd Akin's comments as I was by Joe Biden's, and neither should be let off the hook. I credit Scott Brown for calling on Todd Akin to step down; it's good to see there's at least one member of Congress with the integrity to not support his or her party in mindless lock-step.

I agree we need term limits in Congress. We need them badly. We also need politicians who don't give in to the fringe voters and the talking heads. We need leaders who actually want to do the job they were elected to do instead of grandstand and blame the other side.
If we continue to elect the same childish, argumentative people then you're right, we get what we deserve.

Rich, thanks for your note. I have already admitted that I write from a Republcan perspective and invited comments from the other side to make my point - that America is not where we should be.

In reading your comment regarding what we deserve, I can predict with some level of confidence what you are going to do. Perhaps other readers will read your observations and come to a similar conclusion - I hope so.

But here's the thing. We deserve a LEADER. The incumbent has divided America more deeply than ever before - at least in my lifetine icnluding the Nixon years. Class warfare does not cut it. Blaming your predecessor is so below the office it is embarrassing. Saying that small business people do not build their businesses is insulting. Playing to "victim's groups" is just plain pandering. We deserve better and we need it now. Don't you agree (despite by Reupublican-ness)?

Jim,
I think "We the People" deserve to feel a part of our government. Your bullet point about being "sliced and diced" as Americans rings true to me. I have never felt more alienated from my government, as President Obama seeks to divide us as a nation. He continuously scolds the successful members of our society by putting down capitalism and promoting an European-style America, even as Europe is awash in decay.
Obama's vision for America is more dependence on government, not less. As an example, Obama recently released a cartoon ad entitled "The Life of Julia," in which the viewer watches Julia, via a slide show, go from cradle-to-grave aided by government programs. Personally, I don't want Julia's America. I want an America built on the foundation of self-reliance with help from the government only when absolutely necessary.
To answer your question, if we re-elect President Obama, we "will" get the government we deserve...the United States of Europe.

Thanks for your comment, Concerned Citizen, and you know that I certainly agree with you. A comment in an article yesterday indicated that in the Democrat/Obama view of the world, the next generation of women will be "married to the government," suggesting that "Men need not apply." We are already seeing how poorly this works with the segment of our society that has been depending on governmental free stuff over the past 50 years.

And there is so much more. Do we trust our Presidents? Let me not just make this an Obama thing because he is not the only President that is not trusted. Bush certainly had his dissenters, particularly at the end, and Clinton clearly abused his Presidency, and the office, with his shameful acts.

We are so long overdue having a President who is admired by Americans, not just liberals or conservatives, and respected around the World. Sad to say that four more years of Obama will only yield further to a deeper degradation of out Nation.

We need to admit that America is on the wrong track. We the people must resolve that our need for improvement is immediate and acute, and relying on what we have in the White House today will only push us further and faster away from where we need to be.

By the way, aren't we long past the time when the "hyphenated-America" is useful, if it ever was? When do people stop believing they are "special" or "victims" and resume being just good old Americans? We deserve this!

So many false analogies, so little time.
The modern GOP platform of anti-women's rights, anti-immigrant, anti-New Deal, anti-Great Society and anti-government notions, all wrapped in a hysterical "sky-is-falling" panic is a mindset that only the most cynical can embrace.
The GOP offers NO solutions to deficit reduction. In fact, Paul Ryan (who voted to increase annual deficits exponentially) has a budget out that further INCREASES the deficit while cutting taxes for the Mitt Romney's of the world and reducing the benefits of the 99% who depend on them. Cynically, baby boomers and older are ok under the Ryan plan, all the other generations can pound sand.
Despite a complete unwillingness to compromise in a time of national distress and a stated objective of defeating the POTUS from Day One in office, President Obama has helped stabilize the banking industry, overseen three years of positive GDP growth after the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, added 4 million jobs since the recession ended in early 2009, saved the American auto industry, implemented new rules for Wall Street to avoid further catastrophe, enacted major health care reform, killed America's enemy number one since 9/11, signed missile treaties with Russia, assisted in toppling Arab dictators without major US intervention, boosted green energy technology, incresd oil and gas pdctn, increased college grants and student loans and has done more in his first four years of any POTUS since LBJ.

Thanks, Will, so I am deducing that you believe that America hs the government we deserve right now.

Of course, a lot of people, me among them, suspect that you are still drinking the Kool-aid and haven't got to the castor oil yet. While Republicans would not be characterized as pro-New Deal or Great Society fans due to their unsustainable and debt producing costs, Republicans are hardly anti-women's right or anti-immigrant. C'mon, you can do better than that.

And, if you could spare a few moments to listen to Mitt Romney in his town meetings, he discusses his plan for debt/deficit reduction. It begins with drilling/use of all domestic energy sources, assisting small business development, eliminating Obamacare and other outdated programs, reducing the size of the Federal bureaucracy, reducing taxes AND expanding the economy.

And the 4M job creation is an embarrassing farce you are believing. Every week over 360,000 people file unemployment claims; 3.6M have been placed on SS Disability programs, and in a good month the economy will produce <150,000 jobs. The math just doesn't work.

But here's the deal. If Obama's accomplishments are as grand as you portray, why does't he just run on this record of achievement. Surely there must be a majority of people who see it the way you do. And, if leading from behind is the new normal, you have got your guy.

Does a diminished President diminish all Americans? For you, sadly, apparently not. All the best.

@Rich A 1:49 ... Thanks again, Rich ... and it's not that I have a crystal ball, but the final paragraph of your prior note strongly suggests that the current President is not a leader but a blamer, something you believe we do not deserve, and I agree.

But you raise other issues to expand the discussion, so thank you for that. What stands out about Romney is that his experience has been working with a House and Senate that is over 85% on the other side ... and succeeding. Isn't this what we need - someone whose experience has proven that listening is usually a more endearing skill than demagoguing? And, isn't his experience to look dispassionately at the data and the facts before making decisions vs. wondering which victim group will be most offended?

I do not believe that we need a President who will continue to slice, dice, separate, compartmentalize, divide and sub-divide us into hyphenated groups. It's time to be Americans again, and this is going to require a change we deserve. Don't you think?

The leadership we deserve:

Paul Ryan:
** Voted for TARP when Bush proposed it
** Opposed Obama stimulus plan then sought & received $20 million for a Wisconsin green company writing that it would create jobs.
** Refused to have his tax plan scored by the CBO
** has contributed a 1% bump in polls -- underperforming Palin
** Voted or automotive bailout
** Has a 20% tax policy
** Was opposed to abortion in cases of rape before Todd Akin’s comments forced him to change his position.

Linda, thanks for this. I am sensing that you believe that the government we've got is the government we deserve. Is that a fair deduction, or does your note suggest that you just are not impressed by Paul Ryan (good job in explaining why not, by the way)?

Or that you are more impressed by and are a bigger fan of Sarah Palin?

I might note that TARP, the "Stimulus", the auto bailout, green enrgy investments et als. have pretty much failed We the people - no matter which side you are on.

@Ralph, Thank you for agreeing that the President's policies have added 4 million jobs since the recession ended. It took you awhile, but you got there.

@Jim, Are you leading the Kool-Aid brigade?. You say the GOP isn't anti-women or anti-immigrant rights but the facts (Republican bills in Congress and states) say otherwise. When it comes to bills in Congress to give women equal pay for equal work, which party was against it? Which party is against the DREAM Act? Which party is drafting language in their platform right now that makes abortion illegal IN ALL CASES?
And yes, I have listened to Mitt Romney. He speaks in broad platitudes, never defining what his policies actually are. Just like his taxes, we simply have to trust him on all those pesky details.
President Obama is running in his accomplishments mentioned above. The only folks who keep saying he isn't are the same people who call him a messiah and repeatedly say he hasn't ever accomplished one thing in his life.

What I find so incredibly dishearteneing is that instead of helping the country, the Republicans have stood in the way of every proposal in an effort to defeat the President, the country be damned. As the debt debate clearly showed, Republicans are willing to hurt the country in order to gain political power. And by the way, there is no such bill or law that exists called "Obamacare." It is the Affordable Care Act. Getting basic facts correct is key to a good argument.

Will, thank you for your very spirtied response, good job defending the kind of government you feel you deserve.

At the same time I could not help but be reminded of that Ronald Reagan moment when he turned to Jimmy Carter and simply said, "There you go again."

I think that you may be suffering from what ails Obama - always looking for someone else to blame, but not the same mirror I asked you to talk to. Obama had his 100% way his first 2 years, got everything he wanted except Cap and Trade (which was even too much for Pelosi), and never spoke to Republican leaders. When the people had a chance to evaluate his first two years they repudiated Obama in record numbers, including the election of Scott Brown.

Two questions for my readers while you sit in front of your mirrors: 1. Are you better off now that you were 4 years ago? 2. WIll you be even worse off in four years if Obama gets elected?

This election is for the future of America. Obama can, and should be replaced. America cannot.

Jim, why is it so hard to admit the President has gotten things right, in addition to wrong? To say the President had his way 100% of the time for two years ignores significant Senate filibusters. That statement also tries to amplify two years as a substantial time period, ignoring the SIX years of complete Republican control of the government from 2000-2006. Ironically, the same period of easy credit, artifically low interest rates, unregulated Wall Street actvities and the housing bubble. The positive GDP numbers between 2003 and 2007 are dependent on housing and it can be argued that we have actually been in a bear market since the technology crash of March 2000, with only a mirage of prosperity based on construction jobs, inflated housing prices and consumer spending of housing debt during those 60 months.
There YOU go again with another false analogy. Trying to compare a mid-term election to a Presidential election? President Obama received 8 million+ more votes in his election than all of the Republican votes combined in the record turnout mid term of 2010, inflamed by angry "Tea Party" Republicans. Really just a re-branding campaign by Dick Armey and other establishment conservatives who realize W destroyed their brand imo.
Are we better off today than in the fall of 2008 when the markets were crashing, jobs were being lost at half a million a month or more and all the EXPERTS on Wall Street needed a bailout? Yes
Worse off in four if the POTUS is relected? No

Thanks again, Will. You are a very positive acolyte for Obama.

Nevertheless, this President has got zero right. He has bullied America, aided by the House/Senate, and abetted by the media to increase the debt by more than $1Trillion each year, and only increasing in years to come. He lied about the cost of his "Obamacare" (which is the cognate of the so-called "Bush tax cuts"), bribed Senators to vote for his nonsense at taxpayer expense, lied that people can keep their doctors etc. In my memory, Nixon included, I cannot recall a President who is such a seriel misrepresenter of truth.

The 2010 elections are a fact. You can call out the so-called "Tea Party", aren't they just Americans who believe the Country is headed down the wrong track? Isn't this a good thing?

I certainly am not a fan of the housing crash and subsequent bailouts. I don't think anyone is, but yet the Democrats were threatening banks who did not loan money to people they knew would never be able to repay. When government steps in and picks winner/losers trouble is sure to follow, which it has.

I get that you are a committed Democrat. But if Obama had gotten things so right, why the need to spend so much trying to convince people he has? This is why we have elections. The people will speak. In the end we get the government we deserve - the land of the free, or the land of the free stuff. God help us!

Will O,
If we have to split hairs, Obamacare is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), and it will be the ruin of our health care system, which is the best in the world. Through high taxes and extensive regulation and mandatory contractual terms, PPACA will drive private insurance companies out of business, and we will eventually end up with a single-payer system. With PPACA, Americans can expect rationing of health care in the very near future. There already is a shortage of doctors in certain areas of the US, and PPACA will make that worse. The cost is going to be astronomical. President Obama has taken $716 Billion out of Medicare to serve as a fund for PPACA. In the event that a loved one of mine has a serious illness, I do not want PPACA aka Obamacare.
As for green energy and the Obama administration, Solyndra cost Americans over $500 Million when it went bankrupt on President Obama's watch. In addition, Cash for Clunkers destroyed over 700,000 used cars, many of which just needed new brakes, etc. The program severely reduced the number of used cars available for middle-class families, especially young drivers. And the carbon footprint needed to fabricate a new car verses the environmental impact of an older model car is beyond ridiculous.
President Obama is against the Keystone Pipeline, which Mitt Romney and Scott Brown support. It is a great solution for our energy needs, plus it would create many good paying jobs. Just the facts...

It’s not just Todd Aiken.

Rick Santorum suggested doctors who perform abortions on women who become pregnant from an attack should be thrown in jail. Santorum said women should raise the child born of rape and make the “best of a bad situation.” Is that the government you deserve?

Republican state rep Pete DeGeaaf of Kansas suggested women should plan ahead for rape the way he keeps a spare tire.

It’s not just Todd Aiken.

Two hundred Republican members of Congress joined Paul Ryan and Aiken in cosponsoring a bill restricting the exception for federally funded abortions to ‘an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest.”

Forcible rape? FORCIBLE? Does Paul Ryan think there is UN-forcible RAPE?

It’s not just Todd Aiken.

The Human Rights plank of the Republican Party Platform, which will become the Romney / Ryan platform when they are nominated, does not support abortion in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

The outrage about Todd Aiken’s comments is not just about his astounding stupidity; it’s about the Republican party policy that his statement represents.

Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Perry have all said they seek to prohibit all abortions regardless of circumstances. Romney said he would defend a woman’s right to choose before he said he was against a woman’s right to choose.

Republicans condemn Aiken's remarks because they fear they might lose a Senate seat.

It’s not just Todd Aiken.

Will O,
I am against the DREAM Act and agree with The Heritage Foundation's position: "The DREAM Act encourages people to ignore our borders, undermines our law enforcement across the country, and makes fools of law abiding immigrants who play by the rules." www.askheritage.org/whats-the-real-goal-of-the-dream-act/
As for President Obama and Russia, Paul Ryan says, "He (President Obama) is outsourcing our foreign policy decision-making to the UN, so that countries like Russia can exercise their veto power over us." It makes us look weak and vulnerable to our allies and the world. Just a couple more facts...

Hey David, I just saw your note that was embedded within the posts, making this one similarly out of order. Yes, I did ask those questions, and thank you, you answered them.

Not surprisingly I think your reasons are a bit misguided. Yes the stock market is higher. However, casualties in Obama's "good war" (gasp) in Afghanistan are now over 2000 Americans, over 100 of which have occurred in the last two years. America more admired abroad? Doubt it. While I agree that the US image suffered by the end of Bush's term, giving rise to the hope of Obama in 2009. This has pretty well dissipated over time as the World looks at a leaderless America and asks us(for better or worse) to be more - certainly our traditional Allies are scratching their heads.

But - credit where it's due - I asked the questions and you have answered that you believe that under Obama we have the government we deserve. This is why we have elections. All the best.

Mr. Hatherley conveniently ignores that which he can not explain away. He looks the other way on the 200 Republican members of Congress who joined Paul Ryan and Todd Aiken in cosponsoring a bill restricting the exception for federally funded abortions to ‘an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest.” Paul Ryan is not an under-known Republican and he does represent the philosophy of his party.

Mr. Hatherley dismisses four other leaders of his party and ignores their statements simply because they lost in the primaries. They didn't go away, Mr. Hatherley, they're still working to shape your party.

Mr. Hatherley ignores the content of the The Human Rights plank of the Republican Party Platform to simply disagree that it's not just Todd Aiken.

And when people disagree with Mr. Hatherley he says they are shouting while he fails to hold himself accountable for his shouting.

Yes, it's not just Todd Aiken...

Linda, nice try, but I will not be baited into a stupid discourse that will demean myself as much as you discredit yourself.

All of this stems from another string of notes that is completely reflective of what we are seeing in the broader environment. This election is not about Akins or abortion, it is about the economy and jobs and the future of the Country. This is a sideshow meant to somehow create a false sense of ill will toward a candidate, and sidetrack the people away from Obama and nhis record.

I get it. And I believe a lot of people get it. This election is not about Akin. It's not about the equally stupid - but even more insidious Joe Biden. This election is all about Obama, for better or for worse.

So, what do we deserve? We deserve a Leader who does not inspire such division; we deserve someone who can pull us together, reduce the noise, increase the thought, and focus on the main thing.

Thanks for giving me the oppportunity to rationally explaining to my readers the difference beteen your position and mine.

It's like that Cole Porter song: "I say 'Akin', and you say 'Biden'". But I don't think Biden is insidious! And I think Linda is right to point out that Akin is part of a much larger Republican movement which has some serious flaws when it comes to the treatment of women. And Obama has a great record--he reminds me of FDR in so many good ways, though he's not as forceful. And every election is always about everything, not just one thing, and not just one person. Now people can see how I differ from everybody else, too. Sorry Jim, I'm in a very talkative mood today for some reason.

David, good morning and thanks. Chatty is good. But let me provide a little morning gruel and some food for thought.

Biden is insidious because his racist remarks were planned - he read them from the teleprompter. Every person should feel insulted by such insensitivity. Can you imagine the false outrage had a Republican claimed that Dems provided welfare to keep minorities chained to the gov't on a plantation of dependency? Yikes! How dumb.

As to the women's issues thing, more hypocrisy. Look at the Dept of Homeland Security scandal underway now. Or how about the WH record for pay differential between men/women that was revealed a few months ago. Providing free abortions does not make you a champion of all women ... do all women seek free abortions? Are abortions even a good thing? And championing women does not mean giving free birth control - that's just more taxpayer-paid free stuff.

I understand that you like Obama and that many people do. But he has divided America at a time when we need a leader. This is why he must be replaced because his Presidency would only lead to more hyphenation and discord and even more massive debt in a second term. We cannot afford this.

People forget that FDR as "saved" by WWll. Nobody wants that kind of salvation again. Enjoy the day.

No one can bait you into anything; it’s your choice to tap the keyboard.

A woman’s control over the own body is not a ‘stupid discourse’ as your Limbaugh-esque response would have one believe.

As much as you slam your fist on the table and insist on being the one to define what this election is about, you leave out two important words -- ‘for me’. You can shout all you want that is election is about whatever you want but you don’t get to control what this election is about -- for me.

It's not t just Aiken.

It’s the policy of the Republican party to control a woman’s right to choose driven by the extremists of Santorum, Bachman, Perry, and Gingrich.

A potential vice president who thinks that rape should be defined as ‘forcible’ is not someone who can ‘pull us together’.

A political party that refuses to allow for abortion in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother is not going to ‘increase thought’. The Republican party is likely to tear itself part in Tampa not over an economic policy but over the abortion plank in the party platform.

The only time you’ll think we’re ‘together’ is when you and your male friends have control of women’s reproductive rights.

I’ll decide what this election is about for me -- even if that doesn’t meet with your approval.

And Mr. Hatherly, don't take the bait.

David, I must credit you once again because when I see a word like "columny" in a blog post I got excited enough to google it to see what the word means, but there is no definition, so my readers are about to get a Bill O'Reilly lesson from you.

Selective memory is what we are talking about, however. Yes, under FDR (and primarily Eleanor if my recall of history remains keen), the SS system was delivered. However, under FDR the unemployment rate did not drop below 12.5% until the war, and his Secretary of the Treasury, Morganthau, was widely quoted that they could not spend their way out of the depression - just spend money.

Let's not forget the FDR tried to reconfigure the SOTUS to get his way, and even penned a second bill of rights that would even make Obama blush in envy.

So, was FDR "saved" by WWll? Well, we know that History is written by the winners and the very positive perception of FDR was created largely as a result of the war. Frankly, it has only been in the past 3 years that the other side of the story has made it into print.

Thanks again for posting the word of the ... year. Great job.

David, and by the way, I definitely agree with final sentence of you post as to what America deserves. This is actually why I have been so positive about Romney (and why Romney was so rudely treated by his opponents and Rush Limbaugh). Romney's experience in MA made him understand that he needed to work with Democrats to get anything done. This is different from people - both parties - who simply want to slam the doors on the other side and jam what they want down everyone's throats. As we have seen in the last 4 years, this just does not work.

Jim thanks for responding, and I must confess I have no idea at all what you mean by the Bill O'Reilly reference--honestly! So if you have a second, educate me on that. I mean I know who he is, but the lesson part I really don't know.

As for FDR--his bill of rights is beautiful, and his and Eleanor's Four Freedoms are a great achievement of the 20th Century, and an ideal, even if we continue to fall short of them. As for the positive perception of FDR--it clearly existed long before the war, as by then he'd already been elected three times.

I am sincerely glad we agree about what we deserve from government, and it doesn't seem a cause of strife at all if we disagree on who is best able to satisfy that goal.

@david 'What do we deserve from government? People who are willing to work together for the common (as in EVERYBODY'S) good!'
Exactly David- The GOP and Dems have become so polarized in policy and direction, it's hard to imagine anything getting done, hence the low approval rating for congress.
Honestly, cutting through the spin, half truths and distortions from both sides is frustrating and tiresome.
I can tell you this, I am voting my conscience - and the person, not the party line. I've had it with the blame games, generalizations, and particularly the 3rd party ads.

Both sides have to get down to it, and get it done. Enough is enough.

David, the O'Reilly reference is to his end of show "word of the day." So, columny ...

Jim you haven't posted one of my post. Maybe you should run for president. You ask for opinions and you stop people's opinions that you don't particularily like. You do what the Demorats do to me. How can anyone take you seriously?

Joe Rizoli