Thing you agree with the other party on the most

[MHS2002]

I like to see more money spent on college grants and low interest loans, so that's a Democratic thing I guess. I'm also against the FMA.

[Nym90]

I agreed with Clinton on welfare reform, but we should remember that Clinton only reluctantly signed the welfare reform bill after vetoing it twice, because it was politically popular.  Welfare reform is a Republican idea that Clinton approved for political expediency.

I agree with the Democrats on the need to provide better public transportation options in densely populated areas.  Republicans tend to mock this issue, but it is an important one.

Clinton supported welfare reform in his 1992 campaign and made a pledge to end welfare as we know it one of his campaign promises.

[Nym90]

Affirmative Action. Don't agree with that at all.
Whatever next? Having quotas for fat people?

I don't support race-based AA either, but it's worth mentioning that racial quotas have been illegal in the US for over 25 years now.

[dazzleman]

I agreed with Clinton on welfare reform, but we should remember that Clinton only reluctantly signed the welfare reform bill after vetoing it twice, because it was politically popular.  Welfare reform is a Republican idea that Clinton approved for political expediency.

I agree with the Democrats on the need to provide better public transportation options in densely populated areas.  Republicans tend to mock this issue, but it is an important one.

Clinton supported welfare reform in his 1992 campaign and made a pledge to end welfare as we know it one of his campaign promises.

True, but not the type of reform that was eventually passed.  Clinton did not envision ending the welfare entitlement, as the 1996 welfare reform law did.  His welfare reform proposals made to the Democratic congress in the 1993-94 period were imitations of earlier unsuccessful welfare reforms that really didn't change anything.  The truth is that Clinton talked about welfare reform in 1992 to tap into widespread resentment about the welfare system, but had no intention of really changing it.  It was a way to distance himself from unpopular liberal positions in order to be elected.

He twice vetoed welfare reform passed by the Republican congress in 1995-96 before making the agonizing decision to sign it.  It was probably the best decision he made as president.  This is evidenced by the fact that even most liberals wouldn't go back to the old welfare system.  But he did it for one simple reason, and one simple reason only - Dick Morris said, "Sign and you win; veto and you lose."

[Bob Dole '96]

Animal rights, though not sure its a party issue.

[Nym90]

I agreed with Clinton on welfare reform, but we should remember that Clinton only reluctantly signed the welfare reform bill after vetoing it twice, because it was politically popular.  Welfare reform is a Republican idea that Clinton approved for political expediency.

I agree with the Democrats on the need to provide better public transportation options in densely populated areas.  Republicans tend to mock this issue, but it is an important one.

Clinton supported welfare reform in his 1992 campaign and made a pledge to end welfare as we know it one of his campaign promises.

True, but not the type of reform that was eventually passed.  Clinton did not envision ending the welfare entitlement, as the 1996 welfare reform law did.  His welfare reform proposals made to the Democratic congress in the 1993-94 period were imitations of earlier unsuccessful welfare reforms that really didn't change anything.  The truth is that Clinton talked about welfare reform in 1992 to tap into widespread resentment about the welfare system, but had no intention of really changing it.  It was a way to distance himself from unpopular liberal positions in order to be elected.

He twice vetoed welfare reform passed by the Republican congress in 1995-96 before making the agonizing decision to sign it.  It was probably the best decision he made as president.  This is evidenced by the fact that even most liberals wouldn't go back to the old welfare system.  But he did it for one simple reason, and one simple reason only - Dick Morris said, "Sign and you win; veto and you lose."

I think it's wrong to characterize Clinton as using welfare reform only for political gain. He did allow the Democratic Congress to push him too far to the left on the issue and water it down too much, and then stood his ground when he thought the Republican Congress was going too far to the right and cutting too much. The resulting compromise was about perfect in my opinion. In the end I think he got what he wanted all along.

Obviously neither of us can read Clinton's mind to know his true intentions, but seeing as that he campaigned on welfare reform and then ended up signing it, I personally give him the benefit of the doubt. Others can draw their own conclusions.

It's also wrong to say that Clinton didn't do much in his time in office. On the contrary, he did a lot in his first two years, and much of it was pretty sensible; a combination of spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy only to reduce the deficit; and a crime bill that was a compromise in terms of adopting conservative positions such as increasing the number of police officers and expanding the death penalty with more liberal, but yet still pretty sensible gun control restrictions. The assault weapons ban was mostly symbolic, true, but since it was, it was equally silly for Republicans to despise it as much as they did; it goes both ways there. The Brady Bill, however, was a pretty common sense piece of legislation.

On health care reform, Clinton did a horrible job of explaining his plan and allowed it to be caricatured into something it wasn't.

[dazzleman]

I think it's wrong to characterize Clinton as using welfare reform only for political gain. He did allow the Democratic Congress to push him too far to the left on the issue and water it down too much, and then stood his ground when he thought the Republican Congress was going too far to the right and cutting too much. The resulting compromise was about perfect in my opinion. In the end I think he got what he wanted all along.

Obviously neither of us can read Clinton's mind to know his true intentions, but seeing as that he campaigned on welfare reform and then ended up signing it, I personally give him the benefit of the doubt. Others can draw their own conclusions.

It's also wrong to say that Clinton didn't do much in his time in office. On the contrary, he did a lot in his first two years, and much of it was pretty sensible; a combination of spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy only to reduce the deficit; and a crime bill that was a compromise in terms of adopting conservative positions such as increasing the number of police officers and expanding the death penalty with more liberal, but yet still pretty sensible gun control restrictions. The assault weapons ban was mostly symbolic, true, but since it was, it was equally silly for Republicans to despise it as much as they did; it goes both ways there. The Brady Bill, however, was a pretty common sense piece of legislation.

On health care reform, Clinton did a horrible job of explaining his plan and allowed it to be caricatured into something it wasn't.

Clinton's own welfare reform proposals in 1993-94 were too far to the left, and they had a very low priority.  It was clear that he wasn't serious about the issue.

And the welfare reform bill that he signed was WAY to the right of what he originally wanted.  If it had been what he originally wanted, he would have signed it gladly, not reluctantly.  There's no need to agonize when you get something that you want.

As far as health care goes, he seriously damaged that the day he appointed Evita to head it.  She was so brittle and clearly had the president under her thumb, and froze out anybody who raised any concerns about her plan.  People were afraid to raise objections, and the president was afraid to confront her about anything.  Among other things, her plan would have imposed quotas based on race and gender determining who could be admitted to medical schools.  That alone would be reason enough to oppose her plan, not to mention the fact that she made it a criminal offense for anybody to pay a doctor for services outside of the umbrella that she proposed.  This is the equivalent of saying that parents aren't allowed to send their kids to anything but public school, and that utilizing private schools is illegal.  It is completely un-American.

You implicitly admit he didn't do much as president when you say he did a lot in his first two years.  What about the last six?  The reality is that much of what he really wanted to do wouldn't have been that popular, and doing nothing is how he maintained his popularity, especially when there didn't appear to be that many pressing problems.  But during those years, North Korea was developing nuclear weapons, about which Clinton did worse than nothing, sending arch-appeaser Jimmy Carter over there to make a deal that allowed them to receive benefits from us, while he looked the other way at their blatant violations of the agreement.  The terrorist threat was growing, and the only time Clinton took any action was when he needed to distract attention from his perjury issues.  He passed up, on legalistic grounds, opportunities to capture leading terrorists.  Even our dependence on foreign oil, and old story, grew tremendously during the Clinton years (and I agree nominally with the Democrats more than the Republicans in pointing out the danger of this).

True, the country didn't care about these issues at the time, but it's a leader's responsibility to alert people to realities that they don't necessarily want to face.  This is the great achilles heel of democracy - that voters will turn away from leaders who make them face unpleasant realities, and reward those who sweep the issues under the rug, to return as more acute crises later.  In the case of the Clinton presidency, the latter is what occurred.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Just drop the "I'm a Democrat" schtick. No one is believing you. Hating John McCain does no make you a Democrat.

[A18]

Alabama is a Democratic state. Bush got over 60% there.

Obviously, not every Democrat is a communist who agrees with you.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm interested in what issues make CARLHAYDEN a Democrat, and what Democrats he'd vote for. No, Zell Miller doesn't count.

[A18]

What issues make all those people in Alabama Democrats?

I don't know, but there are a lot of Democrats in the south that aren't exactly thrilled with what the national party has become.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What issues make all those people in Alabama Democrats?

I don't know, but there are a lot of Democrats in the south that aren't exactly thrilled with what the national party has become.

the only reason they call themselves Democrats is they can't get over the Civil War. They don't agree with the national party on any issue.

[A18]

They vote for Democrats on the state level, so they must agree with them on some issues.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

no, because those Democrats don't agree with the national party on any issue. Like I said, it's just a case of people refusing to call themselves Republicans because they're still sore about the Civil War.

[A18]

Hate to break it to you, but anyone who could remember the Civil War is dead.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That doesn't mean people still can't get over it: see StatesRights

[A18]

StatesRights is a Republican.

He isn't really 'sore' about the civil war in its exact context, he just believes in states' rights in general. We all know Lincoln was a racist who suspended civil liberties and threw people in jail he didn't approve of.

[WalterMitty]

1.  i support affirmative action
2.  i have no problem with gay marriage.
3. i support most gun control measures

[A18]

Democrats do have a problem with gay marriage. And if you talk to them, they'll be sure to inform you that they don't want to take away anyone's right to bear arms.

[danwxman]

What issues make all those people in Alabama Democrats?

I don't know, but there are a lot of Democrats in the south that aren't exactly thrilled with what the national party has become.

That's because they have always been conservative.

[CARLHAYDEN]

They vote for Democrats on the state level, so they must agree with them on some issues.

As I have pointed out before, I know (and like) a lot of the elected officials in both parties.

When it comes to city, county, state legislative, other local and some statewide offices, when I talk to most Democrat elected officials they listen (and often take my advice).

Back in the late nineties, my county switched to optical scan ballots (replacing punch cards) as the result of a recommendation I made to the county.

The Democrats held the Secretary of State office until the nineties because that office was held for decades by a sucession of moderately conservative Democrats (Wes Bolin and Rose Mofford) who both suceeded to the Govenorship.

Also, I do not like (generally) what are known as 'county club' Republicans.

[12th Doctor]

College education funding.

I'm from a rich family, so I'll never see a dime.  But I have friends who aren't, and they have the sh*ttiest deal on the planet.  They have to go deep into debt to get a degree, and the only way they can get ahead in life is to go through this atrocious process.

The country would be better off if everyone had a real chance at college.

Once again, John Ford got here before me, and now that I am here, all I can do is "ditto" him.  Well, except for the wealthy family thing.

Other than that, I do not favor the Democrats in any area over the Republicans.  That is not to say I am in total agreement with the Republican platform, the Democrats simply fail to offer any acceptable alternatives.

[12th Doctor]

College education funding.

I'm from a rich family, so I'll never see a dime.  But I have friends who aren't, and they have the sh*ttiest deal on the planet.  They have to go deep into debt to get a degree, and the only way they can get ahead in life is to go through this atrocious process.

The country would be better off if everyone had a real chance at college.

Like in Europe?

Btw, even if your family is rich, you can take out massive loans for graduate school.  By then you're technically 'independent'.

The Europeans do have a few good ideas that we could learn from.

[nini2287]

I disagree with the Dems on abortion, funding for religious organizations, the Patriot Act and affirmative action, all to a certain extent.