One of my very good friends from my college days always described himself as a log cabin republican. http://online.logcabin.org/

Granted I have no idea how big this group is, but it seems like the republican party is alienating part of its supporters by pushing a more religiously conservative agenda.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/gop-considers-purity-resolution-for-candidates/#more-54737

If you read the mission statement on logcabin.org, it says:
"Log Cabin's mission derives from our firm belief in the principles of limited government, individual liberty, individual responsibility, free markets and a strong national defense." Sounds like some solid republican thinking right there.

The group also said it is against the Defense of Marriage Act, something which is required under the new republican "litmus test," mentioned in the times article I quoted.

Again, I know it is hard to find a Gay republican, but they are out there, and if the party continues to cater to the religious right, they will lose the support of many moderates and others who don't really care about who marries whom.

I wouldn't be surprised if the log cabin group lends it support to libertarians in the future.

One of my very good friends from my college days always described himself as a blue dog democrat. Blue Dog Dems

Granted I have no idea how big this group is, but it seems like the democratic party is alienating part of its supporters by pushing a more secular European-style socialist agenda.

European socialism for America?

If you care to open your eyes to European-style socialism, you'll find that American liberals have a firm belief in the principles of Big Government, the common-good at the expense of individual liberty, government programs eliminate individual responsibility, profits are evil, and weak national defense. Sounds like some solid Marxist thinking right there.

I'm not certain if blue dogs are for or against the Defense of Marriage Act, but it's something which is required to be a good open-minded liberal.

Again, I know it is not hard to find Gay democrats because they are everywhere If the democratic party continues to cater to the ultra-socialist left, they will lose the support of many moderates and others who have strong Biblical belief that a marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman as God designed it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the blue dog dems lend support to the republicans in the future in much the way they backed Reagan in the 80's and a Republican Congress in the early 90's.

Again with the European-Style Socialism and Marxism talk...they have nothing in common anymore, Socialist parties in the EU have separated themselves from the Communist parties and are at odds with each other in many ways. Been that way since the late 50's, when the Godesberg Program outlined the route that the SDP would take going into the future, in which they forswore Marxist ideas. And other social democratic parties have followed suit.

I know your response was largely "tongue-in-cheek" in regards to the OP's, Believer, but still, it "grinds my gears," as Peter Griffin would say.

I don't like a party that i associate with being called Marxist when they've officially forsworn Marxist ideals.

^^^Perhaps but politically BOTH are on the LEFT side of the equation whether they play nice in the sandbox with each other or not.

Cbus, are you really arguing about which of these is seeking the most government control over their people? Because that's what the bottom line is.

There aren't any real conservatives in most of those countries, anymore. They are all variations of the same leftist theme.

^^^+1

No, not really, Writer, just like to point out that European-style socialists does not equal Marxist.

I know that both seek a certain level of control, but it is intellectually dishonest to claim they are the same.

But, i know what you're saying.

Having friends who are card-carrying members of the SDP, i can say, through firsthand experience, that Marxism is most definitely not something that they're fans of, not at all.

And neither am i.

Believer, I see what you did there. Nice! haha

Cbus,
You might not like it or might disagree, but Believer made some good and strong points there. There are alot of people out there, including people in government, who want to adopt a style that is closer to France, UK, Canada, Germany, etc.
Case in point: Who are the people who are predominately pushing for a single payer government insurance program? Are they republicans or democrats? Are they conservative or liberal?

Per topic.
I don't think that the "Defense Of Marriage Act" is a priority for anybody. Or I should say, it shouldn't be a priority. IMO, much much much bigger issues waiting to be dropped on our heads.

No, i understand completely with what Believer said, and agree.

Just am sick and tired of the constant comparisons between the United States and European-style Socialism, and then trying to throw in a "Marxist" rant as well, when those parties have forsworn Marxist ideals, by and large.

Just a small pet peeve, but i don't tire of pointing it out.

I have no problem with Believer and others claiming that many democrats support a European-style socialist system, and would certainly agree.

But the Marxism comparisons don't make sense, considering European Democratic Socialist parties are not in line with Marxist ideals. It is wrong.

This is an interesting page that I've read some time ago. It's all about Marxism/Socialism.

http://www.socialistaction.org/marxisttheory.htm

What is interesting to note is that when you compare the theory of Marxism to actual practices, it really is a bastardization of the theory. Which all practices bastardize all theories. To me, this is really a point-to-point-to-issue strategy of arguments. I don't think that any one can be right, as any one can be wrong. You can be wrong or right based on a direct point or issue.
For instance, do we practice a form of socialism already?
Yes, just look at social security and the like.

I think the all or nothing argument is a little blunt and peevish.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Believer, I see what you did there. Nice! haha

Cbus,
You might not like it or might disagree, but Believer made some good and strong points there. There are alot of people out there, including people in government, who want to adopt a style that is closer to France, UK, Canada, Germany, etc.
Case in point: Who are the people who are predominately pushing for a single payer government insurance program? Are they republicans or democrats? Are they conservative or liberal?

Per topic.
I don't think that the "Defense Of Marriage Act" is a priority for anybody. Or I should say, it shouldn't be a priority. IMO, much much much bigger issues waiting to be dropped on our heads.

Per the topic, you are totally correct. I know several Log Cabin Republicans and that type of issue is very low priority. They are conservatives because they feel big government is the quickest path to destroying a prosperous American life. It's a matter of voting priorities for what is believed to be best for the country -- not any particular individual.

Per topic.
I don't think that the "Defense Of Marriage Act" is a priority for anybody. Or I should say, it shouldn't be a priority. IMO, much much much bigger issues waiting to be dropped on our heads.

Defense of marriage may be a "low" priority but they do have it listed as an issue on their Web site. My point at the beginning of this thread was that under the republican litmus test (which I know doesn't represent the views of all republicans) anyone who did not support that act would not get the party's support.

I understand, as has been mentioned that the democrats have done a lot of polarizing themselves. And I'm sure on a democratic litmus test things like supporting gay marriage and being pro-choice would be qualifications.

Per the topic, you are totally correct. I know several Log Cabin Republicans and that type of issue is very low priority. They are conservatives because they feel big government is the quickest path to destroying a prosperous American life. It's a matter of voting priorities for what is believed to be best for the country -- not any particular individual.

As a former dem, turned independent/sorta libertarian, I find myself torn because I do believe in a smaller government and promoting individual freedoms. Unfortunately, IMO the republican party seems to have gotten away from that. Much like the democratic party has started going more leftist.

When will a true moderate (from any party) emerge!

:@

I actually work with a guy who would qualify as a log cabin republican. He is very gay, but very much supports limited government, individual liberty, individual responsibility, free markets and a strong national defense. He does not refer to himself as a log cabin republican. He claims he is an independant. He has voted both sides of the aisle. In the last presidential election he supported Hillary in the democrat primary. He didn't like Obama at all and I doubt he voted for him.

It's interesting because another one of our collegues is an old hippie from the sixties. He makes Nancy Pelosi seem like Dick Cheney. He gets frustrated by the guy's political views and acts as if he's betraying all gays by having his own opinions and not following the gay political norms.

Again with the "anyone supporting 'left leaning' views is a socialist and fan of the evil European style of government". In case you haven't noticed, the EU is beginning to clean our clock economically and looks to continue to for the foreseeable future.

The EU's engine certainly isn't England or France, and I doubt they'll clean anybody's clock for long given their predilection for increasing the scope of government. In fact, I believe some of the best economies of Europe are trying like hell to stay (or get) out of the EU (the former Soviet bloc countries and Ireland come to mind).

If European countries end up doing better than the US, it will be because we've made the mistake of increasing the percentage of GDP that is government based, kept taxes high, increased our debt to nearly unmanageable levels and devalued our currency in the process.

All very possible given this administration and Congress.

Here's some of the EU countries by GDP world ranking. None of which, to my knowledge, are even thinking about leaving it. So the UK and France are pretty big economic players in the EU. I'd list all the EU member states but I need to finish studying things. (Took a freehuddle break).
This is in millions of USD:

4 Germany 3,668,000
5 France 2,866,000
6 United Kingdom 2,674,000
7 Italy 2.399.000
9 Spain 1,683,000
16 Netherlands 909,500
17 Turkey 798,900 *I put them here because they're trying to get in.
18 Poland 567,400
19 Belgium 530,600
20 Sweden 512,900

So how does this show them cleaning our clock? It doesn't.

What you need to be showing me (to prove your point) is that they are now (and will continue in the future) to have economies that (1) have GDP growth larger than the US (2) are creating more jobs and have lower unemployment than the US (3) Can sustain this growth over a longer period of time.

Websurfinbird wrote: Defense of marriage may be a "low" priority but they do have it listed as an issue on their Web site. My point at the beginning of this thread was that under the republican litmus test (which I know doesn't represent the views of all republicans) anyone who did not support that act would not get the party's support.

I understand, as has been mentioned that the democrats have done a lot of polarizing themselves. And I'm sure on a democratic litmus test things like supporting gay marriage and being pro-choice would be qualifications.

The polarization you speak of is because some seek to make the "gay agenda" a national issue. They seek to impose their agenda nationally by judicial action. They do this because they know they can not accomplish their agenda through the legislative process.

There is no place in the consitution where power is given to any branch of the federal government to define marriage nationally. Under the 10th amendment a power not granted to the federal government is given to the states and the people to decide.

Although the constitution is clear on the matter and there is no need for federal legistation, the defense of marriage act was passed. It basically was an unnecessary act that affirmed that one state could not use the federal government to force its will on another state reguarding the issue of marriage.

Websurfinbird wrote: As a former dem, turned independent/sorta libertarian, I find myself torn because I do believe in a smaller government and promoting individual freedoms. Unfortunately, IMO the republican party seems to have gotten away from that. Much like the democratic party has started going more leftist.

When will a true moderate (from any party) emerge!

I too believe in small limited government. The kind that our constitution espouses. The federal government operates within its defined rules and the smaller state and local government entities have power over those not given to the federal government.

For instance lets take the issue at hand. The state of Massachusetts for example allows same sex marriage. I have no desire to use the power of any branch of the federal government to force them to conform to my beliefs on the matter. If I want to have a say in the matter I will move there and vote in their elections.

The sooner we recongnize the terms under which this union was formed the better off we will be.

^^^^+1 Thank you...

Websurfinbird wrote: When will a true moderate (from any party) emerge!

Well....I've thought about running....

lmao!

Websurfinbird wrote: When will a true moderate (from any party) emerge!

:@

Once I've paid off my student loans?

fan_from_texas wrote:

Websurfinbird wrote: When will a true moderate (from any party) emerge!

:@

Once I've paid off my student loans?

Nice! lol

I'd vote for you FFT.

I am not interested in moderates. I am not interested in moving to any middle. I am interested in a candidate that is clear, firm and passionate about his/her beliefs and isn't willing to waiver on them in order to appeal to a wider range of people.

I don't want a candidate that caters to the religious right or any other group. I don't want the candidate to cater. I don't want the federal government involved in marriage. I don't think gays should be able to have a state sanctioned marriage. I don't think heterosexuals should be able to have a state sanctioned marriage. Marriage is a sacred union between man and woman and the government shouldn't be involved at all in marriage. It has nothing to do with them and I don't need nor want their oversight.

I don't know if I want limited government as much as I want minimal government and only when absolutely necessary. I don't want a strong military. I want to ensure it's the greatest military of the world. National defense and strength through power is the single greatest responsibility of the federal government in my eyes. Everything else is just a social experiment that I really don't want them involved in very much.

I don't want a strong military. I want to ensure it's the greatest military of the world.

Not sure if I'm understanding this?

I want it to be more than strong.