M of H

Seems to me that both sides chose the euphamistic monikers by which they wanted their side to be known. Personally I have no real problem with anti-abortion except that it inaccurately assumes I would be against it in cases of rape, incest, or the life/health of the mother. I do find it interesting that in NO public speech will pro-choice folk use the word abortion--even though that is the difference of choice offered.

Bartholemew,

The reason I as a conservative feel it is imperative to protect free market economy is that I believe it is the economic tool by which any material-based compassion can occur. I know it's kind of a economist-speak fine point but a conservative believes the economic "law" that there is no such thing as money. (I understand that there is, but the point is that it is insignificant to the real economy). The only real wealth besides what may be accumulated in a sound economy, with supply and demand reasonably in place, is PRODUCTIVITY. That is why a good conservative will begrudgingly concede the need for collective bargaining--nobody should be able to acquire wealth from the productivity of another (their wealth) without a fair contract. One person's wealth does not effect the wealth of another except perhaps in a good way. It is not probable to hoard wealth in a free market. If money is reinvested it is used to promote the productivity (wealth) of others. One reason I am not a Republican conservative is because, just as I feel Democrats buy votes with give-aways that hinder the wealth progress of the recipient, Republicans are willing to compromise the free market with "corporate welfare" to assure their power. Truth is, for all the vilification of Republicans who are characterized as hating big government, neither side has it in them philosophically or practically to diminish the size of government. All that is really on the table is the rate at which it will grow. Republican voters believe that free market will be protected enough so that the economy can continue to be productive so that poverty will be a statistically diminished possibility. Democratic voters IMO seem to think that the economy is a static quantity to be divided and see no danger in slowing it down and, at least environmentally speaking this would be a better option. I do think that it is a mistaken notion though that one could distribute what is left of the wealth in a stalled economy to keep the poor from suffering terribly--if the economy were to be stalled in such a fashion the wealthy would not have wealth (productivity) from which to take.--all for now

Frank,

Statistics are dubious partners in the pursuit of truth but they are great promotors of political power. For example, It might be more advatageous in the pursuit of the truth in the matter to discuss--Is this statistic on pulic health spending because there is less need for it or are there other factors which might make one view that statistic in a different light? I seem to remember the same kinds of stats coming out of Arkansas 8 years ago and I'd bet you my Yamaha guitar against your Kazoo that they were as meaningless to you then as the statistics you posted are to a potetially Republican voter today.

respectfully,

John