4. A strong national defense and the ability to use the power wisely and only when absolutely needed.

Does this mean you opposed the Kosovo intervention? Should we send troops to Sudan?

How do you acheive 8 and 9 without violating 5 and 10?

Large Social programs, low taxes, low/no deficit. Pick 2.

I agree that the majority of Americans truly feel that neither candidate really represents them.  That is why I have said how depressed I am that these are our choices.  I have never understood why anyone would vote strictly one party or another.  I think most people have a pet issue or two that they base their decision on.  I think whoever gets voted in this time will be under record amounts of scrutiny.

Great article and I agree completely about the founding fathers starting another revolution!!!

Madine,

I was totally for Kosovo. My guy Wesley Clark did it right! (damn Wes....maybe in 4 more years)

Sudan? Let the UN handle it...Were kinda busy at the moment.

I didn't say that the public should foot the bill for affordable insurance, but i do think we should do something about schools. Educating the kids is an investment in our future!

And it is possible to pay for social programs without raising taxes. Too bad we killed the surplus with all those $300.00 checks that put us in a smoldering hole. Thanks George!

Do you think our intervention in Kosovo was absolutely needed? The UN isn't going to do anything about Sudan unless we take the lead.

The surplus existed because of tax receipts generated from an unsustainable bubble. Right now, at our current rate of taxation and spending, we have a deficit. In order to get rid of the deficit, we either need to raise taxes or decrease spending. Which do you want to do?

If the public doesn't pay for insurance, how do we make it affordable?

We change the medical malpracitce laws so that good doctors dont get sued as much and their insurance rates go down.

We force the drug companies to lower prices. You really think it costs 4.00 to make a pill? More like 75 cents.

We stop giving non profit tax breaks to heathcare groups that are clearly NOT non profit. Tax the bastards.

That will generate a lot of $$$

Kosovo was definately worth the lives that were saved. 3 million live muslims is a good thing .....right?

I would support a mission in Sudan if we were not stretched as thin as we are because of Bush 2.0's stupid little war in Iraq. it should have been done in 1990. Right now hes just cleaning up daddys mess the way i see it.

Cut frivilous spending, especially the military. Its obvious that we cannot cut funds for the war, but there is a lot of pork that can be cut. And a shitload of pork in other departments as well.

Stop giving the rich tax cuts. institute a flat tax.

And the bubble may have burst, but handing out checks made it 10 times worse than it would have been if we still had that $$$ in the federal coffers. Then after the recovery, (which still hasn't happened) we could talk about tax refunds.

Anything else Madine?

Before I get to my main point : Instituting a flat tax would actually be the biggest tax break to the rich that you could give. We have a graduated tax system where the rich, in fact pay most of the taxes in this country even after that evil Bush gave them some extra perks.

Looking at the original post I would say that the author is, in fact, a good deal to the left of the actual middle. However the point that is made is extremely valid that I think deserves a harder look. To be a member of the "angry middle" i don't believe that you need to actually be in the middle. I am a registered Republican, with a fairly liberal (in the classical sense) view of things such as civil rights, the environment etc...
I think the definition of the angry middle should include all of us who reject the polarity and partisanship that has characterised our politics lately. I think our nation has suffered from an ever louder chorus of extremists and idiots from both ends of the political spectrum that tend to drown out any attempt at reasonable discussion. Both ends of this diatribe are a danger to all of us because they believe that their goals are more important than the consensus that keeps us together. We need to strongly inform our leaders that keeping the ideals and strengths that have made us what we are is much more important than their increasingly more transparent power games.

Uhm...Don't assume that you know what my position is, considering those points were from CNN, not me. I agree with them in principle. In practice is something that would need work.

And the flat tax is the most equitable taxation method for everybody.

Kosovo was definately worth the lives that were saved. 3 million live muslims is a good thing .....right?

What about the lives that were saved by deposing Hussein? Remember, a healthy number of Iraqis were dying under Hussein's regime. Even if that wasn't the reason for going to war, it is a benefit, right?

By the way, does the "middle" actually support the US policing the world?

Looking at the original post I would say that the author is, in fact, a good deal to the left of the actual middle. However the point that is made is extremely valid that I think deserves a harder look. To be a member of the "angry middle" i don't believe that you need to actually be in the middle. I am a registered Republican, with a fairly liberal (in the classical sense) view of things such as civil rights, the environment etc...

That's exactly what I'm seeing. Sure, when compared with the extremes, we're all in the middle, but everybody is askew. Hell, I have some beliefs that are quite liberal, but overall, I think I lean to the right.

Also, I'd like to see some evidence that the majority of people support such views, and to what extent. It sounds as though people are simply saying: "My beliefs are the majority because by believing that, I feel they are stronger than yours."

The interesting thing is, the Libertarian Party could fairly be described as the angry middle, as cwarsh mentioned. The part of our platform that loses its appeal to some of the angry middle is in believing that things like health care and education should be privatized. But since the master plan of the LP explains how to do such things fairly, it's not as extreme as it sounds.

There is no such thing as the middle, or center of the road, or whatever. Everyone is on the extreme of at least one issue, and usually on a great many issues. And looking at the author of this thread, I would also have to say he is actually a good deal left to the middle. Not based on the original post, but based on what he's written since then.

In regards to the Libertarian party, they are definitely not the angry middle. I was a libertarian for a little bit, and then I started to attend some of their meetings. For the area that I live at least, the people were absolute wackos with no sense of global realities. I mean, sure it would be nice if the US actually did bring ALL of her troops back home, but that would only serve to further destabilize the world. Believe it or not, but the US has averted or stopped short many a war from happening. Plus, it would be very nice to have no federal income tax, and I absolutely do believe the income tax hurts a lot more people than it helps, but it's become such an ingrained part of our society that the eradication of it would have a detrimental effect. Although, the LP does make more sense than the R's or D's do on a lot of issues.

What about the lives that were saved by deposing Hussein? Remember, a healthy number of Iraqis were dying under Hussein's regime. Even if that wasn't the reason for going to war, it is a benefit, right?

Well the war was based on LIES! any lives saved is a good thing Buu, But lying to american people is not. Apparantly our administration doesn't feel that way.

By the way, does the "middle" actually support the US policing the world?

I don't. It has always pissed me off that we got that job. I think we should go into things on a case by case basis. Let France help out..If they're not too busy eating cheese and surrendering that is

That's exactly what I'm seeing. Sure, when compared with the extremes, we're all in the middle, but everybody is askew. Hell, I have some beliefs that are quite liberal, but overall, I think I lean to the right.

Welcome to the middle. I'm the opposite in a lot of ways. but i'm sure we have common ground. My arguement in this post was that we may have differences, but there are more of us with similar beliefs than there are extremes on either side, unfortunately, because our president is so far to one side, the far left has went nuts trying to get their message out, which causes the far right to play the game, and so on and so on and so on, leaving those of us in the middle abandoned. It just kills me that the neo cons and the libs have come after me on this, because i won't go either way. I made my declaration and stand by it. No matter what. I'm in the middle!

In regards to the Libertarian party, they are definitely not the angry middle. I was a libertarian for a little bit, and then I started to attend some of their meetings. For the area that I live at least, the people were absolute wackos with no sense of global realities.

Gideon? You care to take this one?

There is no such thing as the middle, or center of the road, or whatever.

Quite simply..Uninformed CRAP!

And looking at the author of this thread, I would also have to say he is actually a good deal left to the middle

Again...Armchair logic. You say there is no middle, then you say im LEFT of the middle in the same post? Nice contradiction! You just got a troll!

The Neo-cons call me a lib, the Libs call me a conservative stooge. You people need to realize that the vast majority of americans have views that differ from their political parties views. Makes me sad....really!

I think I lean to the right.

Goes without saying Buu! But yet you want Hillary Clinton to run for president?? Don't let the repubs hear you say that!

So in essance...Some of you folks think that there are poor repubs that don't want a fair wage, affordable education for their kids, and affordable heath insurance?

Or There are rich dems that want to be taxed up the wazoo and don't support a strong military?

Right!

You just don't get it....And probably never will!

Gideon? You care to take this one?

Actually, I will give him credit. He did say for the area he lives, rather than making a sweeping generalization.

As for the LP's policies, I think it's ridiculous to think they would happen overnight, even if we suddenly had an LP sweep of the elections. Those who have reached the place of power know that steps need to be taken in order not to destabilize the government.

As to the issue of taxation, that's a nonsensical argument. The same argument could have been applied to slavery, or to Jim Crow. The fact is, in our computer age, we have access to far more efficient systems of taxation than the current system. Look at the tax code, for instance, it's ridiculously overcomplicated.

I am sorry to hear about the experience you had with the Libertarian Party in your area, but very glad to hear that you reconize it's not true of all Libertarians. As for being the "angry middle", I think we do apply, as our views can't reasonably be classified as left OR right. The LP actually explains the position better than I can.

I don't. It has always pissed me off that we got that job. I think we should go into things on a case by case basis. Let France help out..If they're not too busy eating cheese and surrendering that is

don't forget hanging by their tails....cheese eating surrender monkeys hang by their tails.

Also, I'd like to see some evidence that the majority of people support such views, and to what extent. It sounds as though people are simply saying: "My beliefs are the majority because by believing that, I feel they are stronger than yours."

Go out on the internet and look for it yourself Buu..... it's there! Also, these are my beliefs. Im not saying that mine are stronger than yours. Actually to me it sounds the other way around!