What would you be willing to be flexible on?

[BamaGrad03 0]

This should be a fun topic. Assuming your party affiliation...what traditional steadfast party positions would you be willing to compromise on, or don't exactly fall in line with?

Are you a republican who is Pro Choice?

A democrat who is in favor of Bush's tax cuts?

And don't just go big sweeping topics. Go specific if you can.

I think this could be an interesting civil discussion.

I'm not exactly in favor of the death penalty. In VERY VERY VERY rare cases I MIGHT be in favor of it, but I don't know of any off hand.

I'm not opposed to the recent ruling to give GITMO detainees their day in court. I think we should play by our rules not theirs.

Just a couple to get started. I'm interested to see yours.

[Auburn85 432]

I could vote for a Republican who is pro choice. There will still be abortion, whether it's banned or not. While the issue is important, it shouldn't be the sole litmis test for a candidate.

I could vote for someone who doesn't believe in a higher power.

I could vote for someone who is for gay marriage or unions

If the cap on Social Security HAS to be raised, raise it on everyone as long as everyone pays the 6ish% rate.

If Universal Healthcare must be implemented, eliminate the Prescription Drug Act as I think UH will undermine the drug act.

The capital gains tax can be broken into another bracket. Meaning, don't let me get caught up in the same capital gains tax bracket increase as Warren Buffet.

[RunInRed 16,454]

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

There was a moment yesterday during his news conference when Barack Obama could have made a huge mistake. But in the end his political instincts proved much keener than those of Michael Dukakis a few years ago.

When asked about the Supreme Court decision on the death penalty for child rapists, Obama came down on the side of the conservative minority. He criticized the high court’s 5-4 decision to outlaw the death penalty for people who rape children.

Obama insisted that the death penalty should be applied quote “in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes”, which he says includes the rape of a small child. He believes states should have the right to consider capital punishment in such cases.

The moment when he was asked about it brought back memories of something similar that tripped up Dukakis during his run for president in 1988, and perhaps doomed his candidacy. Dukakis was asked at a debate if the death penalty would be appropriate if his wife was raped and murdered. He answered no, without any emotion or passion. Dukakis was ridiculed, Republicans used it against him and George Bush went on to win in landslide.

Obama has 2 daughters, who are 7 and 9, and he has long supported the death penalty while criticizing the way it’s used at times. As a state lawmaker in Illinois, he helped to change the death penalty system in an effort to protect against innocent people being put to death.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/...-child-rapists/

[bigsixfive 328]

Conservative minority???? He's playing to an overwhelming MAJORITY of people who disagree with that decision.

[TitanTiger 20,508]

Conservative minority???? He's playing to an overwhelming MAJORITY of people who disagree with that decision.

I think the writer was referring to the conservative minority on that Supreme Court ruling.

[TexasTiger 12,982]

I have no problem supporting pro-life Democrats. In fact, I wouldn't object to Obama naming one as VP.

I oppose the death penalty, but have no problem supporting a Dem who favors it, within reason.

Beyond that, I could easily support a candidate with whom I may disagree on key issues. For me, it is more about an overall approach to governing.

[autiger4life 3]

I would not have a problem supporting a pro-life democrat.

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

There was a moment yesterday during his news conference when Barack Obama could have made a huge mistake. But in the end his political instincts proved much keener than those of Michael Dukakis a few years ago.

When asked about the Supreme Court decision on the death penalty for child rapists, Obama came down on the side of the conservative minority. He criticized the high court’s 5-4 decision to outlaw the death penalty for people who rape children.

Obama insisted that the death penalty should be applied quote “in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes”, which he says includes the rape of a small child. He believes states should have the right to consider capital punishment in such cases.

The moment when he was asked about it brought back memories of something similar that tripped up Dukakis during his run for president in 1988, and perhaps doomed his candidacy. Dukakis was asked at a debate if the death penalty would be appropriate if his wife was raped and murdered. He answered no, without any emotion or passion. Dukakis was ridiculed, Republicans used it against him and George Bush went on to win in landslide.

Obama has 2 daughters, who are 7 and 9, and he has long supported the death penalty while criticizing the way it’s used at times. As a state lawmaker in Illinois, he helped to change the death penalty system in an effort to protect against innocent people being put to death.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/...-child-rapists/

Ruin, I know it is tough, but the question was not what is something that Obama is not a traditional democrat on, it was what is something that you do not agree with that we think you might.

For instance give us something you disagree on with Obama.

[TitanTiger 20,508]

I'm flexible on economic policy. Not so flexible that I'd return to the tax rates of the 70s, but perhaps back to levels similar to Clinton's term on some things.

I agree with BG on the death penalty and GITMO ruling overall.

I think we should raise mile per gallon standards on cars and trucks fairly significantly.

I really don't have anything against hard-working, law-abiding, responsible illegal immigrants and wouldn't send them home. If I were in some of their desperate situations, I'd likely have sneaked her to work too.

I would greatly scale back the powers given in the Patriot Act.

I'll try to think of more but that's a start.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I really don't have anything against hard-working, law-abiding, responsible illegal immigrants and wouldn't send them home. If I were in some of their desperate situations, I'd likely have sneaked her to work too.

I honestly don't have a HUGE problem with illegal immigrants as long as they make an honest effort to assimilate and contribute.

The ones who come over and live JUST as if it were Mexico are the ones that bother me.

[RunInRed 16,454]

I think we should always have and maintain the strongest military on earth.

Two thumbs way up for balanced budgets. Hell, I'd even be willing to give "the rich" continued tax breaks if the math works. Wasteful spending is well, wasteful spending.

I think private sector should always be preferred to the public sector but we all need to recognize that there are certain things that the private sector either can't or won't do.

I've never been too excited about the healthcare plans Hillary pushes. Subsidies for the less fortunate - maybe. But I'd be more interested in overall healthcare reform as it relates to excessive medical charges (I'd favor a cap), how about let's look for efficiencies and ways to cut wasteful spending. I also think the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries could be better regulated when it comes to denying coverage and availability of generic drugs.

I think raising the cap gains tax is beyond stupid but I also think we need to find a way to close the loop-hole where wealthy people can recognize the majority of their income at the cap gains rate instead of ordinary income rate.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I think private sector should always be preferred to the public sector but we all need to recognize that there are certain things that the private sector either can't or won't do.

Then were are you on privatizing social security?

[RunInRed 16,454]

I think private sector should always be preferred to the public sector but we all need to recognize that there are certain things that the private sector either can't or won't do.

Then were are you on privatizing social security?

I'm against it, and here's why:

Theologically and Practically

1) SS is the sole and last safety net that millions of retirees depend on - Social Security is indispensable to our workers and our seniors

2) I believe SS is the cornerstone of the social compact in this country - I find it to be a great reflection of our values - "It is the fundamental belief that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family."

Financially

1) I believe the current SS system can be made solvent without reducing benefits or raising the retirement age by simply by adjusting the top end cap

2) Q: What is the safety net if people privately invest and their investments go bad? A: Taxpayers will get stuck with the tab

Also, don't forget, there is a big reason after Bush's reelection in '04 he could not get his biggest domestic campaign promise passed despite majorities in both houses of congress: the American people did not want it.

[autiger4life 3]

I would be for rolling back taxes on the gas companies. I feel that if we could cut their taxes, maybe even with a stipulation that they pass on some of the savings to the customers, then it would work out for the better for everyone.

I think the borders need to be closed down tight(though I am for amnesty for those willing to pay back taxes and go through it legally)

I am against the Hillary universal healthcare, where the government just pays for everything. I am more working with drug companies(cut back on the 24 year sales reps who make 80,000) and insurance companies to make it affordable. If someone would rather have a beer than insurance then it is their choice but everyone should be able to afford it.

[HuntsvilleTiger 0]

I am not in favor of a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman as a lot of Republicans are. I think that the Constitution is more sacred of a document than to deface it by adding something as small potatoes as that to it.

[japantiger 4,051]

Keep taxes as low as possible...always.."the People" make the best decisions on how to use their money..the rich already pay 95% of the taxes...saying "the rich" should pay more taxes as if they don't already reflects someone who is ignorant of that indisputable fact....can't vote for anyone who thinks the American people should pay more taxes.

"Government governs best that governs least"....keep the government out of anything unless it just can't be done by the private sector...I agree on the social security safetly net..that is a gov't role as it will not be picked up by the private sector...but Gov't providing health care is not...Gov't doesn't really do much of anything well (see the bankrupt social security system), why would you hand over 1/5 of the entire US GDP to gov't...it is not broken...it remains the envy of the world...can't vote for anyone who believes Gov't is "the" answer to all our ills...

We need to be self sufficient on energy...period...drill wherever their is oil, nuclear, create incentives for the private sector to invest in new technology...but for the next 50 years...we need to use the technology that exists to the fullest extent..this is a national security and economic security issue...and yes, tougher efficiency standards can be a part of that. Gov't can create the environment that will lead to a successful energy policy...but gov't can't regulate the means...simple physics and economics will dictate the ultimate winner. If you are naive enough to think Wind or Solar is the solution to our current problem (within a 30 year time window); you are ingnorant in basic economics and how major technology diffuses thru an economy.

Death penalty, yes...in more cases ... especially child rape, any 1st degree murder, treason/terrorism. Gov't role is to provide for the common defense and protect the people...if it fails at this; it fails in its most basic role. Death penalty is not a moral issue...

The Courts - can 't vote for anyone who wants to engineer social policy that they can't get by the electorate thru the courts...the Courts are bankrupting us thru bad policy and bad execution in their role of adjudicating civil and criminal laws.

While I personally find a pro-abortion stance an abhorant and unsupportable moral policy; as a single issue it doesn't define who I will vote for...

Gay Marriage, it is stupid social policy; defning marriage as something it is not (and has not been for the 10,000 years of civilization that spawned it) is just stupid...

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

I have no problem supporting pro-life Democrats. In fact, I wouldn't object to Obama naming one as VP.

I oppose the death penalty, but have no problem supporting a Dem who favors it, within reason.

Beyond that, I could easily support a candidate with whom I may disagree on key issues. For me, it is more about an overall approach to governing.

So you could "deal" with a Democrat who was against slaughtering babies as long as they were also against killing adults who were convicted by a jury of their peers for killing others? How progressive you are becoming!

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

I think private sector should always be preferred to the public sector but we all need to recognize that there are certain things that the private sector either can't or won't do.

Then were are you on privatizing social security?

I'm against it, and here's why:

Theologically and Practically

1) SS is the sole and last safety net that millions of retirees depend on - Social Security is indispensable to our workers and our seniors

2) I believe SS is the cornerstone of the social compact in this country - I find it to be a great reflection of our values - "It is the fundamental belief that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family."

Financially

1) I believe the current SS system can be made solvent without reducing benefits or raising the retirement age by simply by adjusting the top end cap

2) Q: What is the safety net if people privately invest and their investments go bad? A: Taxpayers will get stuck with the tab

Also, don't forget, there is a big reason after Bush's reelection in '04 he could not get his biggest domestic campaign promise passed despite majorities in both houses of congress: the American people did not want it.

SS is garbage, but privatizing it would be worlds better than the 1% annual interest it accrues. I'm tired of dumbocrats forcing us to pay for everyone else but ourselves, while they sit in their mansions and laugh at us all. And addressing your second "point" I would point out to you that taxpayers could invest their SS in a simple savings account and GUARANTEE over 300% increase in interest compared to what SS offers, so your "point" went byebye.

[Shire5k 19]

I'm a Republican...but I could go either way on abortion. I mean, I hate it and I think it's deplorable....but as far as an issue, I don't see it as one because it won't ever get revoked.

[TitanTiger 20,508]

I have no problem supporting pro-life Democrats. In fact, I wouldn't object to Obama naming one as VP.

I oppose the death penalty, but have no problem supporting a Dem who favors it, within reason.

Beyond that, I could easily support a candidate with whom I may disagree on key issues. For me, it is more about an overall approach to governing.

So you could "deal" with a Democrat who was against slaughtering babies as long as they were also against killing adults who were convicted by a jury of their peers for killing others? How progressive you are becoming!

Do we need a remedial reading course around here?

[RunInRed 16,454]

I'm tired of dumbocrats forcing us to pay for everyone else but ourselves, while they sit in their mansions and laugh at us all.

Who are you referring to here? Do you realize what makes up the base of the Democratic party and how income levels usually translate to the different political affiliations? You might want to do some research on this one...

[AUTiger1 0]

I could be flexible on gay marriage. While I oppose it on a moral standpoint, and I think it to be sinful, I don't think we should be forcing a law on grown adults on how they live their life behind the closed doors of their home.