You are equating all liberals and all conservatives with the extremes.
Most people are moderates. They don't ascribe to either end of the spectrum. Just because the ends get most of the press doesn't mean that is the way most people think.
I am pro-choice because I would rather a woman abort a baby she doesn't want than beat it to death at 3 or neglect it. Don't harp at me about adoption. I lived before abortion was legal and toddlers were considered unadoptable because they weren't babies. I've seen kids that would be snatched up now that would never have real parents.
You think there's a foster home crisis now, make abortion illegal and watch the problem quadruple. Ask all these protesters how many children they have adopted and how many more they are willing to take on. Are they foster parents or run an orphanage?
On the other hand I don't believe in aborting babies that would survive if born. I believe in abortion on demand in the first trimester. I believe in a parent's right to decide in the second trimester if the child is going to be born with a life-ending illness but not because you don't approve of the sex. I believe in early third-trimester abortions if the mother could die. I don't believe in late third-trimester abortions at all unless the baby is dead - these are called births.
I believe in a handup not a handout. I believe that people on the dole should work even if it is just picking up the trash on government property. WPA got things done and taught skills. They may say they have to take care of their kids but a lot of mothers work outside the home. One of them can train to be a day-care provider. If nothing else it gives them a work ethic that they don't have around them.
I also don't believe in the projects. I believe that people on welfare need to see people going to work everyday and taking care of their families. I believe they have to be taught to take care of their homes and none this nonsense that caused the outrage in California that it was racist to suggest that blacks didn't know to take care of their homes. Ten years later it was condemned as uninhabitable.
I also hate that blacks can get away with things that whites would be condemned for. A black student union is OK but a white student union would be racist. The million man march is OK but the Promist Keepers are racists.
I believe that people with disabilities should be helped but I also believe that too many problems are now considered disabilities.
If you?ve been watching and reading about the aftermath of the great ?port sale of the century? as played out this past week you have observed what I?m dubbing ?The Congressional Line Dance.? The only things dumber than the dance were the dancers who couldn?t figure out which way they were supposed to go next. First, they stepped toward national security. Then they retreated toward sticking it to the president. Next they moved toward expelling all foreigners from any American strategic business, and finally they expressed the sentiment that only congress had the wisdom to protect the critical interests of the country.
All the time they danced they sang lyrics written by some elitist for the consumption of the masses: Bush is selling our ports to the terrorists, tra-la. He?s in cahoots with the money changers, tra-la. The lyricist was always careful to say ?ports? even though he knew the word should be ?terminal.? It was always ?sell? and never ?lease.? It was always ?control? the port and never did they say ?operate? the terminal, and invariably, it was ?take responsibility for security? rather than ?guard the gate.?
Antics by the boot-stompers on both sides of the aisle have been an embarrassment. They have played deceitful politics to the hilt. The underlying game has been an effort on the part of far too many congressmen to expand their political importance. They want to investigate everything the administration does so they can second guess the president and criticize his decisions. In the process, many have resorted to fabrications and misstatements that served only to confuse an already uneducated public that is easily aroused.
While I?m in an apologetic mood, let me touch on a subject that some readers are sensitive about. I frequently refer to groups as if there are no exceptions to their composition. That is, I may write ?Liberal thinkers suggest?? ?Democrats oppose?? ?Conservatives are advocating?? ?Liberal theories are failing??
I?ve had a number of liberal friends take issue with my seemingly all-inclusive statement, because it doesn?t reflect their personal view and they would prefer that I write, ?some liberals? so that they could find themselves among the ?not some liberals? group. I think I can understand not wanting to be counted as thinking in a particular way when I actually don?t agree with the stated concept. But that opens up a larger question: Are ?some? liberals liberal in name only? Is it possible they are closet conservatives occasionally peeping through the crack?
Read **** Tunison (Only dedicated politicians can do the dance) at http://justconsider.blogspot.com/