Why drop "black and white" (more or less government) for only "modified black and white"? Why not color? How about right sized government that is high quality and efficient AND Ayn Randian individualism? Because most people in the "village" do not have new, radical ideas -- they have conventional ideas. And, in the "village" you can be "helped", sometimes, but you are also "corrected" (punished). And, in the "village", diversity is only blacks, and hispanics, and gays, etc -- the OLD, ACCEPTED groups, not the NEW ones being newly discriminated against. And, if it is "new" (ie, not in the known and accepted range)the "village" intervenes. So, "village" individualism is not real individualism but window dressing individualism.

I make it a practice to not post the same comment twice but today it seems appropriate.

Today's new version of conservative doesn't believe in conserving, doesn't believe in the fundamental values that the nation shares in terms of common good and common action.  Today's new conservative is a selfish mean little man or woman who tends to think god provides or god destroys.  Today's conservative believes he or she owes his nation and his fellow citizens nothing in terms of his life, his liberty and his pursuit of happiness.  He fails to recognize that it is government of the people and by the people that has made everything he has possible.  For the President was right when he said> you didn't build it" for you didn't.   For if not for the solider, if not for the govt. worker, if not for the raod builder, for my taxes, you would be living in some hovel scratching out a living, praying the barbarians weren't at your gate.

Today's conservative is an embarrassment to all of us who hold certain true conservative values.  Today's version of conservatism has taken a proud philosophy and turned it into a philosophy of withdrawal and pettiness and religious fervor.

Yes, cost efficiency and program effectiveness should be the goal for everything that we do as a government.  But, let's not forget that there we as a people (government) have many changing priorities and needs that are sometimes contradictory and inconsistent.   That's why we have elections. It's a chance give our opinion and sort through what's important and what we schould be doing and spending money and resources on.  Some priorities and goals may fail badly and need lots of improvements, but at almost any level of government, it usually not feasible to fully test a new program, initiative or policy.  So, its not enough to identify a public problem and a solution.  Government needs the aability to change quickly to respond to an-ever changing environment.

What we need is a two party system

If we could sent Karl Rove and Grover Norquist back to their caves, then we could once again have meaningful debate about the "how" of government. They made it a question of "whether" to have government, and perhaps post-Sandy we can get back to that.

Aside from his disdain for education, Governor Romney was at least part of the "how" discussion. But following years of  subsequent pandering to the nihilist right, a President Romney would be engaged only in the destruction of government (aside from the part that writes checks to private contractors).

Edward Glaeser says "They both have points, but their argument misses our real need: public competence that will vastly improve schools, efficiently target infrastructure needs, and reduce health care costs" These ALL represent bigger government, so Mr. Glaser could have spared this long article and just say, we always need bigger government. And whenever he or anyone else says we need to "improve schools", that always results in the extra taxpayer money NOT going to schools but either to teachers' pension funds or to the state's general revenues. This question is being put to CA voters right now. They are being asked to raise taxes AGAIN to become the highest taxed state in the nation. help pay techers pensions and the @ $ 2 Billion High Speed rail project. for And, finally, since when has bigger federal government ever been "Smarter"? than state governments or the private sector?

See editorial in today's WSJ about this. Also in WSJ 2 days ago. Jerry Brown's Tax cliff http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204840504578085070766179286.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop#mjQuickSave

The issue is the growth of federal government into our lives. This is an issue that Obama has difficulty with grasping.

President Obama in an interview earlier this week with MSNBC, suggested that he would develop a “Secretary of Business:” His ‘new’ government department would act as a “one-stop shop” instead  for “dealing with things like getting loans to SBA or helping companies with exports.”

Obama is suggesting another federal department to compensate for his lack of knowledge!

Governor Romney claims, “We don’t need a Secretary of Business to understand business we need a president who understands business and I do!”  “President Romney” is sounding better every day!

I support Obama because my portfolio has doubled since the implosion of the Bush economy.  My Medicare benefits have improved with the passage of the ACA.  I am financially better off than I was four years ago.  The economy in my area has improved unemployment is down from the 1st quarter of 2009 which was the tail end of Bush's economy.  The economy is improving and denying that fact does not make it so.

As a true "conservative" I support the ACA because the ACA is a "conservative" idea.  Each individual is reponsible for buying their own insurance through the private sector.  Failing to act in a responsible manner incurs penalties.  Saving the auto industry was an act involving "national security" as the industry was an important factor in America's internal strength.  I support Obama because he prevented a total economic collapse at the end of the Bush term.

I support tax increases, although I disagree with the President, it should be across the board with matching reductions in spending and reform of entitlements.  However, I do not support further tax cuts, these are irresponsible.

Now how about folks on the radical right, because you are not conservatives, folks on the radical right or the Obama haters say why they support "fish on the dock" Romney.

Ahh leave it to "system" to be unable to respond to the simple question of why Romney?  Nope all that he has is an obsessive hatred of Obama.  He asks for a debate but only has insults and phony unsubstantiated accusations against the current administration.  Is "system" a philosophical conservative, of course not, for a conservative deals in facts, not invectives.  Regardless of the winner of this election "systems" credibility as an honest discussion partner slips into oblivion.  Why Romney?  Apparently because he irrationaly hates Obama.  Why is that?

"Kitch"  I've said why I voted for Obama which is more than some folks have done in attacking Obama but never expressing why they support Romney.  Certainly there are those on the left who express what I consider utter nonsense just as there on the right.  I give you Joe Walsh a walking example of stupidity.  But these aren't really the issues are they.  The issue is why does one support Obama I answered that question and I answered as the "conservative" I am.  The other day you asked for my definition of those ideologies on Leigh's column and I gave them to you.

Now folks can write all they want about "liberal" hatred, but no one can doubt the invectives and accusations against Obama by the right wing nutcases.  Socialist, not an American, born in Kenya, communist.  Utter nonsense.  Those of us who take politics, who take the road of intellectual pursuits cannot possibly accept the idea that these "children" and that is giving them credit truly reprsent the beliefs of either "true liberals" or "true conservatives."

I asked one of these haters to simply state Why Romney?  I get no answer.  I posted a lament on the decline of conservatism and got a response that said, "No I'm a conservative it isn't true."  I give them the basic fundamental beliefs of conservatives and they can't or won't agree to them. 

No, what most of these postings are, is nonsense, pure and simple.

"kitch" Just heard this one goes along with your Lowery.  Huckabe on voting for Obama.

Mike Huckabee, "“Your vote will affect the future and be recorded in eternity. Will you vote the values that will stand the test of fire?"

"Kitch" Religious types always seem to find God has these shadings of why one goes to hell.  What a bunch of nonsense.  They all may end up in hell for always sticking god in the middle of their nonsense.  Hatred is hatred and threatenting a person with hell for any reason is nothing but hatred.  You can't relate to a zealot or a hater.