Doug, Welcome and thank you for agreeing to blog for us on Patch. We believe that by allowing people to see all points of view, and engage in open, healthy discussion, we become more informed voters come election time.

I look forward to reading your blog, Doug. Government should even the playing field to give an equitable opportunity to all and to ensure that all play by the same rules. There is hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle, indeed. The US Supreme Court's decision last year dramatically changed the playing field, giving the elite few and corporations the right to play by different rules and deny us government by the people, for the people.

I always look forward to your thoughts, Doug. This is a very welcome addition to P'tree Crns Patch.

I look forward to reading your blog, too, Doug! Thanks for posting!

I used to believe the Republican Party also stood for fiscal responsibility. To me, this means paying for the services we want, not borrowing to pay for them. That is where the party left me.

I liked the Republican Party better when it was a more moderate party. For instance, the Republican Party at one time fared very well with Black voters. That has not been the case since Barry Goldwater and my fellow Christians took the party away from the center and moved it to the far right. I have very fond memories of Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, Charles Goodell, Charles Mathias, Oregon's Mark Hatfield and Albert Quie.

Looking forward to your blog Doug! I have been saying for a while that big government is not the problem...it is a symptom of the problem. The analogy I use is its like a patient goes to the dr with a swollen brain. And to cure him, the Dr's drain his brain fluid and lop off sections of the brain. We need to get at the root causes of the growth of government and fix them. In my view these are education, tax policy, and the weakening of the middle class. Fix these problems, and the need for government will be reduced. And then you will actually achieve what the GOP claims to want, independant citizens and smaller government.

Welcome Doug, Looking forward to your point of view. My wife and I just moved into the area from the North East and really do believe that the people on the fringes of both sides seem to get all the press because they yell the loudest. I still hope that the majority of the country is still in the center. Although sometimes I think mayne the center has moved. While I admit to leaning to the left, I hope we all can get back to the point where talking politics is a discussion and not an argument.

Example of a level playing field.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Pure liberal doctine-"fear what we dont understand." "i choose the less judgmental" "active discussion" , "diverse community", "neighbors" More failed and vapid liberalism on parade. What a joke!

Mitch Daniels and Marco Rubio-response to current failed president and his policies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSAmkDUi4PQ
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/28/rubio_gives_gop_weekly_address_obama_has_made_everything_worse.html

Here's a quote from Newt Gingrich the night he became Speaker of the House: "Let's give credit where credit is due. The fact is that it was the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that was primarily responsible for ending racial segregation in the South."

Welcome Doug. I too get tired of others judging because you don't agree with the Republican viewpoint which has become more and more to the right. I say I am a liberal but I am also more a moderate. I have voted both ways depending on the candidate. I am more of an independent, but I am tired of these far right Republicans trying to tell me what I can and cannot believe, what I can and cannot do with my own body. Their religion has no place in government other than to make them a better person. Unfortunately, most of those right wingers want to force their religious beliefs on me. Those are the type of people that scare me! They have no business being in politics.

Government has four legitimate functions: (1) Public safety, on the local level this is police and fire, on a national level this includes the military. (2) Provision of infrastructure, infrastructure means exactly what it says, hard infrastructure, such as roads and streets, that private companies cannot effectively provide because they cannot be made profitable. Contrary to the position of the Chinese there is no such thing as "soft" or "corporate" infrastructure. (3) Provision of public amenities that cannot be profitably provided by private firms, such as passive recreation and pollution control. Passive recreation because, as a general rule, provision of passive recreation, like walking trails etc. cannot be made profitable. Pollution control, because the costs, as a general rule, cannot be effectively internalized without government intervention. (4) Provision of public information. On the national level this means the Postal Service and creating an environment and infrastructure that allows for free, open, public discourse. On the local level this means education.

Government on both sides is no longer for the people. It has become governement for the party. As a result no one thinks any longer. The party line gets posted, the lines get drawn in the sand and nothing gets done. Both parties have their extremists and over the top idea. Unfortunately they seem to get the most press and consequently, color the party. It's not governent that scares me, it's the poiticians.

As a proud progressive/liberal in this red state, I welcome the discussion you're opening. I hope the discourse will be polite and thoughtful (Andrew Jackson's snarky comments excepted) and serve to bring the very disparate sides closer together.

I don't believe our founding fathers would approve of the donations made by multi-millionaires to candidates of either party. People are out of work, families are losing their homes, many folks and kids are hungry and homeless, yet millions are spent on elections each and every year. Politics seems to be controlled by billionaires who are donating funds for snarky advertisements it seems...what a nasty business! It makes me wonder if my little one vote matters at all...

@Doug
...and some arguments for "Big Money" in politics is that these Super PACs enable a weaker candidate like Speaker Gingrich to compete with an established, well-funded candidate like Governor Romney in the current GOP primary contest. Another argument for huge dollars is that to limit it, is to limit free speech -- that was a major argument in which I believe Speaker Gingrich asserted against McCain-Feingold. At any rate, voters and media consumers are treated to negative campaign and PAC ads, thus contributing to today's discourse.

By defining power by money I think you are too limiting. Both parties have money. Obama is on track to raise the most money ever for this presidential election with his largest contributor, last time a looked, being the financial services industry. Power comes from a voting block, which can obviosly be obtained with money but can also be obtained by making future promises. Each party tries to control the ability of the other party to get those voting blocks. The Dems want to control the money that the rich can can donate, the Republicans want to control the power of the Unions to donate. Promisess are made to groups, the Green movement, retired people, for example, in exchange for the hope of those groups voting for one party or the other. Think of all the large groups out there with agendas. Either party would be more than happy to tie up their vote.

Unfortunately money is a necessary evil. By limiting money, you are limiting access, which can impact elections. Significant blocks of voters can be reached by spending very little money.

The world and more directly the voter has a short attention span (unfortunately). The more people read and understand their government the more likely we will have thoughtful real duologue and true progress. Case in point: Taxes. The truth is that Washington politics is so broken and has so many tax exemptions that favor the groups that can afford a lobbyist. The solution- The Fair Tax, a Flat Tax or just simply tax rates that have no special exemptions, period.
Fairness- a word that is used often by President Obama. That is-fairness in outcome. We need fairness in opportunity. Why do people honestly think if they make bad life choices, do not get an education and generally fail to work that they somehow have earned "fairness" and the right to a portion of working people's income to become "fair".
Where government runs amok is too much regulation, creating barriers to business discouraging investment in the US. Ask Bernie Marcus (Home Depot) or Michael Dell (Dell computers) if they believe that could launch their famous companies today in the current regulatory environment. The answer would be a resounding no.
If we take away the politician and lobbyist's power by truly making it all fair for all (by implementing the Fair Tax or similar system) our country could once again a mecca for investment, jobs and growth.

Looking forward to it, Doug. I've been looking for those who 1) don't agree with me politically and 2) are willing to have a good conversation about it. It looks like you and many that have replied will fill both of those wishes. :) I'm certain political conversation among people in the same community is much better than what we see on 2 minute television debates.

Ironically, I get frustrated with the republican party because they are too moderate or even liberal for my taste. I wish they were more conservative. I don't equate conservatism with narrow mindedness and what some are describing sounds more like right wing moralism than what I would call freedom-based conservatism.

Doug, I think this will be fun. I am squarely between Conservative and Libertarian in my views about as far from the left as I can be on any test I take. That being said, I thoroughly enjoy having discussions with folks from the other side. If it's a good discussion, I even learn something, which I'm always willing to do. Hell, I'll even concede the point if I'm wrong. I'm just that kind of conservative.

I'll go look at your FairTax discussion as well. Look forward to seeing your thoughts on it.