Thank you for your unbiased opinion, E.D.

I know you split these things down the middle because you've repeatedly assured us all of this.

So why do I feel you're not entirely impartial...based on your posts?

Rest assured...I know the flaw lies with me and my inability to recognize truly impartial points of view...

But...I'm left with this nagging feeling you're not a true "independent", E.D.

Can you spend a little more time, and detail...outlining your off-stated objections to President Obama and his (for now, anyway), impressive majorities in not one, but BOTH Houses of Congress?

Set aside the GOP for a moment...no, set them aside for the next TEN moments.

I want to hear about the Democrats, E.D....

The views of a true "independent" are always appreciated...particularly here at First Read.

So...again, tell me why, in detail, so many of your fellow independents have turned against President Obama and Congressional Democrats.

No one needs to hear your thoughts more than the regulars here at First Read.

'Cause...they don't get it.

Knock yourself out, E.D.

You're "on".

Why you trolling ed? He was pointing out the fact that repuglican'ts will keep saying NO till they get elected and run off mr president and all our fellow libs and dems. I for one agree, they are going to keep screwing us and making it hard for the gov. to continue to do business as usual as long as it takes to get back into power. meanwhile ALL of us continue to suffer at their hand. How many appointments are they still holding up? 2 years into first term and a HUGE number of appointees are being held at a virtual gun point while we all continue to hurt over lost jobs and slow moving economy.

@Mixed Bag: It's big of you to recognize your shortcomings. Few have the strength of character to do so - and I want to take this opportunity to state how generous it is of you to grant me the privilege to speak my mind on a public forum.

I'm sorry you feel the need to imply, however, that stating the obvious speaks anything about my political allegiances. DADT is a hot-button issue for the Republicans because of the conservative Christian portion of their base, and Sen. Snowe is already in hot water having voted with the Democrats on early legislation presented by the Obama administration. By coming out against DADT this close to the mid-terms, Snowe is attempting to align herself among those who've remained stalwart in the face of the Democratic majority lest she give any more ammunition to Tea Partiers looking to paint all Republicans as being part of the same establishment as the Democrats.

I really like the quotations you apply to the term independent; what's the reason for that, eh? Mayhap something about a free thinker irks you? Mayhap someone who has an opinion outside the narrowed scope of either party worries you, MB, because it derails your ability use tried-and-true arguments to counter their sentiments?

No, no. I'm being too harsh there. That can't possibly be the reason now, could it?

I can't say why other people who may've supported Obama wholly and completely during his campaign and after his inauguration now don't. I'm not those people - all I can speak to are my own opinions. Obama has fallen out of favor with me because his policies do not align with my views. In my mind, HEARTH was a terrible idea. To me, it represented the government flat-out rewarding those who lacked any personal responsibility whatsoever. For all the admonishment of the firms that fostered the sub-prime crisis, those that bought into it deserve what they got, even if it meant being out on the streets. I won't oblige those who can't be bothered to read the fine print.

Tobacco Control was another REALLY lousy piece of legislation - not only did it nearly destroy small-time, alternative competitors to nicotine cigarette companies but it actually bolstered menthol manufacturers (Phillip Morris in particular) despite being branded with the label, "Family Smoking Prevention Act." If I want to kill myself with cloves, that is my goddamned business.

ARRA is a fiasco, period. I don't care to break down my dislike of this piece of legislation for want of devolving into frothing hyperbole.

And what do you want me to say about health care, other than that I'm not looking forward to being forced to pay upwards of $4,000 annually to a private insurance firm and am given no choice as to opt in or out of it?

Do you have anything else you want to ask, or are you through being a crass little canker-sore?

Wow, a great post right up til the "crass little canker-sore".

My, my ED, a little touchy there aren't we? Do you need a hug? Just DADT if you do.

Excellent response, E.D.

I am a little disappointed by the sophomoric name-calling at the end, but that's OK...you're clearly an emotional guy.

That said, you actually sounded like an independent for a change.

I can see how the GOP can get people like Scott Brown and Chris Christie elected in states where realistically, they shouldn't have a prayer.

My lack of faith in the Republican party is that instead of offering a feasible counter-point to the Democrats' policies they've down-shifted to the vagaries of popular sentiment. Rather than elevate their base they capitalize on anger and are only achieving one thing - driving away moderates that might otherwise support them.

Of course, with the Democrats having done what they've done in the past 24 months, they haven't given any reason to galvanize those same moderates to their cause - consequently, only the party faithful (and the seething, teeming Tea Party horde) will be at the polls in November. Those motivated in 2008 by the optimism Obama had at his command have been pushed back into a state of apathy.

Dragon, the same can be said for the position of those favoring DADT...if this truly had merit, there is no reason to rush to judgment before the military has a chance to analyze the effects of the action. The merits would be there if they exist after the report is issued and the impact becomes a known quantity. This is nothing more then pandering for votes by the democrats and we've had enough irresponsible votes by this Congress, many members don't even read the legislation they are voting on.

I'm sorry, you know what? Looking at it from a purely moral perspective, I don't agree. Allowing gays to openly serve in the military should've been allowed long before now. I don't care if the Democrats are using it to pander for votes ahead of the cycle; the policy is stupid, harmful and un-American.

Sorry, E.D.-

I have to take exception to your assertion that the GOP is driving moderates away. Independent voters are not partisan ideologues, and in that context they can be considered to be moderate compared to those aligned with the two major parties.

In the last year, we watched independent, non-aligned voters break 2-1 for Republicans in the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia; independent voters broke 2-1 for Scott Brown in the astonishing Massachusetts special election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.

Virtually every major polling organization in the nation is showing independent voters leaning Republican, in many cases by a substantial margin, for the midterms. This is a complete reversal of the political landscapes of 2006 and 2008 when independents overwhelmingly favored Democrats. Who is being driven where, ahead of the elections now just six weeks away?

The GOP may be driving some moderates away...I don't think the case can be made that they've driven away as many moderate voters as Democrats have in attempting to implement President Obama's ambitious (and unpopular) agenda.

I'd be surprised if you actually believed that, given the data suggesting otherwise.

In any event, the pundits and statisticians will let us all know what the middle of the electorate did in their post-mortem of the midterms.

Two things: I find random polls a poor means of arriving at a conclusion; in my view the result they produce oftens dictates a new reality instead of supporting an existing one.

Second, we seem to have a different definition of ideologue. I don't consider Brown's win 'astonishing' by any stretch of the imagination. It may be astonishing for people who expected a Democrat to take Kennedy's former seat merely because it'd been held by a Democrat for so long, but Brown is hardly a brow-beating Tea Partier - the man didn't even earn a Tea Party backing and his stance on traditionally liberal issues (Roe v. Wade; gay marriage) where Massachusetts is concerned goes against the broader GOP position. A moderate Republican winning a Senate seat in a primarily Democratic state is not outside the realm of possibility.

Insofar as I'm aware, neither Gov. Christie nor McDonnell earned that Tea Party nomination, either - and I think that's why they, like Brown, were able to draw in enough swing voters to win their positions.

You cannot say with all seriousness that the same will be true for Sharron Angle and Joe Miller. Murkowski's decision to mount a write-in isn't just the trappings of a wounded ego; there are base Republicans a-plenty terrified of the Tea Party. I think that where the GOP endorses a Tea Party-backed candidate expressing the kind of sentiments Angle in particular trumpets, moderates will run the opposite direction. I can concede that mainstream Republicans are going to attract mainstream votes: the fringe element, however, won't.

Glad you brought up Sharron Angle, E.D.

I would offer up the notion that, given Sharron Angle's serious flaws as a candidate, if moderates were really fleeing the GOP as you assert, Angle should have absolutely no chance against a sitting Senate Majority Leader with unlimited funding who, inexplicably, can't seem to put her away. What conclusions do you draw from that, E.D.?

If you argue that Harry Reid is surviving exactly because moderates are afraid of Angle, what does that say about Reid, and the fact that he still may lose? Reid is the face of the Obama Administration in the Senate and the representative of its agenda there...one of the most powerful politicians in our government. Yet, he's locked in a struggle for his political life with someone like Sharron Angle?

If you are arguing that moderates will generally shy away from candidates they view as extreme, we are in agreement. If you are suggesting that moderates are moving away from the GOP as a whole because the party is viewed as too extreme...you haven't made that case, and facts on the ground don't support that assertion.

And what if opposing candidates are viewed as extreme...for entirely different reasons? In Nevada, voters clearly believe they're choosing between two extremes. The fact that they're having difficulty doing that is revealing, don't you think?

Regarding Scott Brown...

Don't forget that Brown campaigned as the 41st Senate vote against the flagship of Obama and the Democrats' agenda, health care reform...in a state with an overwhelming Democratic voter registration edge. Maybe voters thought adding a massive new federal entitlement when the existing ones are facing sobering fiscal challenges in an environment of ongoing huge deficits was extreme, eh?

In any event, regarding your assertion that moderates are deserting the GOP because of a handful of controversial candidates...back to square one:

Where's your evidence of that based on facts on the ground?

And where's the evidence that voters regard the GOP as more extreme than the Obama Administration's agenda?

I always thought constitutional rights were not found in the military. Where else can you go to jail for not showing up at work?

Why do dems continue to blame republicans for their shortcomings? They have 60 votes don't they?

Yes sir, you give up your constitutional rights when you join the military. You are now subject to the Universal Code of Military Justice.

Old fat guy you need to catch up. The Democrats have 57 votes and 2 independents who vote with them for a total of 59. I know in your little pea brain 60 votes sounds better but due get the facts before you rant.

Why do libs and dems have to bring insults to a conversation?

It must not be worth doing if you can not get just one Republican to buy into it.

Pat, what branch of the military were you in?

TJM what difference does that make?

Isn't this supposed to be about Olympia Snowe? A bit off topic here Pat.

They should do exactly that on every major bill, but they never will because they all want political cover, both dems and repubs.

You are right, and that's exactly why we have to get rid of the professional politicians, regardless of party.

Absolutely. They all do it and it needs to stop. Too many things get snuck into bills that have nothing to do with the original. That is how we end up with all this pork and 2000 page bills that nobody understands (including the people that write them).

That's absolutely right - Sen Reid IS usingthis for political purposes. This DADT is attached to a military spending bill that the GOP would be loathe to say NO to.

Many on the left side of the aisle has pilloried Sen. Reid for not being tough enough on the GOP. Well, now he is. He is daring them to say NO to a militiary spending bill. The options - the GOP says no and the bill dies, making political points for the Democrats. The GOP says yes and the bill passes, and the GOP is pilloried for saying that DADT is OK.

You gotta love the irony of this position.

the thing I thought Iwould never happen would be the Republican party show that yellow streak down their backs of the tea party but you can see it as wide as their back is .