Agree w/ RachelE, it was one of his best speeches (much better than his convention speech). Thankful I live in Pacific Time Zone though! ;-)

Now, can the USA come together? (asked w/ bated breath)

JC Fisher

TBTG for BIG WINS for marriage equality!!! :-D

Come together how exactly, JC? What compromises are you willing to see the Democrats make? What concessions do you really hope for or expect from the conservatives? The two sides can't work it out in TEC where they're brothers and sisters, how will the nation work it out? Obama won the electoral vote, but the actual vote was razor thin. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Barack Obama 60,367,866 votes,
Mitt Romney 57,572,736 votes
as of now.

I suspect that the makeup of the two camps is very different Ann, the 60+ million who voted for Obama vs the 57+ million who voted for Romney. Placed side by side, I think the Obama group would be incredibly diverse vs the homogeneity of the Romney camp.

So yes Chris, the numbers are close, but the folks who make them up are miles apart.

Bro David

Why so defensive, Chris H? I asked an honest question.

I understand that, to help get the budget under control, there will have to be spending cuts as well as tax increases. Why can't we "split the difference" on these things?

JC Fisher

Ann, are you saying that 3 million votes is a large win in a country of 300 million? A 1% difference is no mandate. So the Democrats aren't going to comprominse because they won by 1% ? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

There is a gulf between the two halves,David. That's my question. If the two sides are going to come together, what is the winning side willing to do to prove good will to the losers? In TEC there is no compromise, conservatives are tolerated as long as they keep their mouths shut, but encouraged to leave. Can't split the country like the church. Hard to expect half the country to sit down and shut up, especially if as David mentions, they actually are all one homogenous group. I don't think they are as unified as some here think.

Everyone is talking about working together, but how does anyone here actually see that happening? Or does everyone here write off all conservatives as bigots, barely human? Sounds a lot like Romney's 47% comment. And that's the point. The liberals/progressives hate, yes HATE, conservatives just as much as the far Right hates them. How do you bring the two sides together? When the winners tell the losers to work together, it usually means,"My way or the highway" but 49% is too big to ignore. What are people here willing to compromise on?
Chris Harwood

Interesting that you interpreted my posting of the numbers that way -- I had no opinion about them. As to hating conservatives - I am a liberal and I don't hate conservatives - we work on the things we agree about - no permanent enemies in getting things done. Romney said "we have to work together" - was he lying? I choose to think this country is better than you say. I am a Christian so I live in hope.

JC, why defensive? 1. Because it's so easy for winners to say that compromise means getting what the winner wants. Or to quote Democratic Rep. Steve Israel of New York, "If you refuse to compromise, we are going to beat you." My way or the highway, baby.2. Because so many posts on this and other liberal blogs act like being a fiscal conservative is equal to belonging to the Ku Klux Klan. Anyone who disagrees is at best a bigot and definitely not a real Christian. You yourself have taken me to task for saying we should crack down on and prosecute people for fraudulent welfare and disability claims. If we can't agree on upholding the law what are we to agree on? 3. I've never seen you agree that we should cut programs. Honestly, your posts always seem," my way or else". Tax the rich and nothing else. What do you suggest for compromises on both sides?
Chris Harwood

Stated with bitterness and a great deal of hatred, but Harwood makes a point:

What programs could be cut?

For one, I'd like to see much support to the tobacco industries cut, subsidies to coal and oil industries, backing for student loan financiers, requirements for job creation in areas that we do subsidize along with direction of federal monies away from congressional and presidential salaries to programs to improve the standard of living, including healthcare, education and job training and establishing renewable energy sources. I want to see us take - not require, but take - back the bailout money we gave Wall Street and was misused. But taxes on those who are wealthy must be increased, as long as the financial crisis exacerbated by a ruinous and unneccessarily-protracted war continues.

I would ask in return:

What is wrong with expecting the extremely wealthy to pay a higher tax percentage? Surely, when one reaches such a profound level of material repletion, one owes a great deal more to the society which generated that wealth, particularly in times of economic crisis. We know - for a fact proven by previous trials that led to the Great Depression and the bottom falling out of the economy after Reagan - that lack of government regulation and trickle down economics do not work. Never have. We know from observation that, if trusted to do the right and profoundly communally-spirited thing, the sort of personality that builds massive wealth will not do it. It is part of the mind and character that builds such personal wealth. They must be forced by law to do so, to support in proportion to their success. That is both fair and reasonable, if they wish to continue to be a part of the society. They are, of course, free to leave and try it on their own, or to flee to another country, where they will be taxed far more heavily. It is clear that the personal wealth they so vigorously defend is just that, and not used to strengthen the economy through job creation. On a purely practical level, if I can live on $217.50 a week, are you honestly telling me you'll be dreadfully inconvenienced by only being able to live on a million a year? Why should I consider an attitude like that worth defending, worth allowing? No. We must grow up.

-Mark Brunson

And, just one more point:

Christ didn't ask worthiness before giving everything. His story shows the rich man in Hell and the poor man in Heaven. You can be a fiscal conservative and make all sorts of valid secular arguments, but you have no case to say you're following Christ, that it's Christian. Capitalism isn't Christian, for that matter, if we look at Acts.

If it's more important to you to be Christian, you must sacrifice your love of capitalism; if it is more important to be financially secure and "deserving," you must sacrifice your self-identity as a committed Christian. You cannot serve two masters, and it's time we stopped lying to ourselves in that way we have done to make our greed and fear more palatable.

- Mark Brunson

I must have missed all the Republican handwringing after the 2000 (s)election, when the EC count was much closer and Bush lost the popular vote. Or after the 2004 election, when Bush won the popular vote by about 3,000,000. After both elections the Democratic Party cooperated with the GOP to an infinitely greater extent than the GOP has done with the Democrats during the last four years. I don't see how expecting Republican legislators to do something besides pursuing their failed - and now irrelevant - goal of making Obama a one term president is so outrageous.

And for a real politicization of the Gospel, head over Stand Firm, where opposition to the administration is right up there with belief in the Trinity as a hallmark of Christian orthodoxy.

I smell a double standard.

Bill Dilworth

Thank you for answering the question, Mark. There are certainly several things, cuts and taxes, we actually agree on.
The focus on green energy could be a problem as oil and mining are the good paying jobs here. Many here think that urbanites are out to destroy us by demanding clean energy, and oil and gas, but no powerlines or pipelines from the West to New York etc-bad for the environment. And they want it cheap, so they just import it instead. Perhaps raise taxes and EPA requirements but also require cities to buy "Made in USA"?

Bill, not all conservatives belong to Stand Firm. However, if conservatives are more homogenous, then their unity is going to make them less likely to bend than the diverse group. Does Integrity or a union bend easily? Is that a double standard?
Chris Harwood

But Chris, Integrity and labor unions are organizations with a very narrow focus of interest. Political parties, one would hope, have broader ranges of interest, even if their demographics are very tight. If the GOP isn't aware of the difference between a single issue interest group and a party, maybe this is a teachable moment.

I honestly had not heard of the problems with energy production you mention. I tried to find out where the fuel for the 70% or so of the power I use which isn't from nuclear plants, but I could only find that most of it comes from gas - but not where it's from. I wonder where to go for that information. The only pipeline to which there has been opposition to that I'm aware of is the one from the Canadian tar sands.

Bill Dilworth

For what it is worth, I've been in the room when Integrity and other pro-LGBt organizations in the church were deciding what they needed to compromise on. That bishops get to decide whether their dioceses will permit same-sex blessings is the result of such a compromise. Collective bargaining is by its nature a compromise. This may not be to the larger point, but these organizations do compromise.

Chris,

The energy problem is - to my mind - the problem. We can't thrust people out of jobs, but we can't keep on with a rapidly-decreasing non-renewable source. This is part of my emphasis on education - re-training to work in renewable energy fields would be necessary. Engineers, technicians and plain ol' muscle is still needed for turbines, solar collectors, etc.

I like your ideas of increasing EPA standards and requiring "made in USA." Raising taxes would depend upon whom they are being raised. I'm with most Republican rank-and-file that middle-and-lower-middle class pay enough, already. Small businesses are not the problem - they are community employers - but big business, multinationals, corporations. I'm not against coroporations, as they provide a better quality of life - who could afford, for instance, a new tv if only local businesses existed? - and understand that corporations depend on investors, but we must be realistic; corporate profits depend on a larger society, depend on the workers, and, frankly, the CEO's and top brass are the problem. I don't think that investors are making unreasonable returns, but billions to the Koch Brothers, personally(to use a current icon of greed)?

I also am a big fan of the idea of requiring banking "Made in the USA." Offshore accounts, Swiss banks - why isn't that illegal? If you're sending your money overseas, you need to go with it. Simplistic, perhaps, but I've seen no argument outside personal greed to support it.

Finally, as a side note, I was amused at the reversal here in Georgia, in which the same urban/rural distrust exists, but rural areas tend to see Republican big business in Atlanta as sucking up all resources. It is only the culture war that gives Republicans any real rural support, honestly.

Bill, the focus on Sandy's port and dock damage causing the gas shortages was what brought the imports to mind. Before Sandy gas was cheaper there than here and since America imports huge amounts, it makes sense that would be on the coasts.

Wind farms take a fraction of the workers of traditional energy and we have lots of idle turbines because the environmentalists blocked the lines for them. When modern tech allows 10 people to do what needed hundreds, what exactly do you train the hundreds for? Right now the answer is just to put them all on welfare or unemployment.

If it's only the "culture war" that makes people vote Repub. what do Dems vote for? Not their culture? Were the rural voters in GA voting FOR Democratic policies or just AGAINST CEO paychecks and low taxes. The Dem. senator here won by pointing out every time he voted against Obama. The other Dem. candidate towing the party line lost badly. So people voting Dem. here weren't all really FOR the party, but isn't it all "culture" on both sides?

Chris Harwood

I'm not interested in a lot of "nyah-nyah-nyah, you did it first, blah blah" Chris. You asked, I told you.

I don't know what they'll retrain for. Maybe there are just too damn many people. Maybe the country's doomed. Maybe people who claim that people ought to take responsibility for their future ought to do it themselves.

I really don't care anymore. Until America - left and right - grows the hell up and starts caring as much about one another as about their own point scoring and bank accounts, there is no hope. That much I am sure of, like it or not.

- Mark Brunson