Once again Washington follows Centrists lead

It looks like today President Obama has announced his plan for high speed rail. From what I am have been hearing and reading about it, everyone is wowed. They don't even seem to mind how much it would cost and are not even questioning where the money will come from, although I am sure some of it under Obama will come from the recent stimulus bill.

Hold on a second hasn't centrist groups like the American Centrist Party and others been proposing this already? In the American Centrist Party's case since 2004 when it was founded? http://americancentristparty.net/platform%20principles/Infrastructrue%20Platform%20Plank%20Summary.htmThe answer is yes.

I am not writing this to say Obama stole an idea or anything like that. I think it is important that we give credit and support to anyone in Washington who wants to improve the nation and the American Centrist Party thinks that High Speed Rail can and will do that. The issue here is the where is the money going to come from and how the American Centrist Party's plan is different.

Under Obama's plan $8 billion is going to come from the recent stimuls plan as part of the infrastructure part of the bill. And another 5 billion over five years in the federal budget. So at least the first $8 billion of the the high speed rail is going to be added on to the debt of the nation? Here is the American Centrist Party's plan for paying for the rail improvements and construction: http://americancentristparty.net/platform%20principles/Reinvesting%20in%20America%20platform.htm
Note the section regarding infrastructure improvements: "30 billion per year for infrastructure reform to include: work for new bridges, roads, mass magnetic rail intercontinental rail transit, and national broadband Internet access. It is estimated that American infrastructure needs 1 trillion dollars in upgrades and repairs for the 21st century. Amount from 2010-2030: $600 billion dollars." This will more than pay for the high speed/ magnetic rail system and all by slashing redundant programs and reforming spending in the existing budget. No taxes will be needed to be raised and no money will have to be added on to the national debt.

The American Centrist Party is glad that President Obama has decided to come out with a plan for this but it is clear that the American Centrist Party has a much better way for paying for this plan. Hopefully, our plans for paying for the rail system will not fall on deaf ears.

- The position on infrastructure improvements and the rail system is and official stance of the American Centrist Party-

Props to the Presidents on Piracy

Just wanted to give props and congratulations to Presidents Obama and Sarkozy of France on how they have handled the increasing piracy off of the coast of Somalia. In my opinion both leaders have shown strength in going after the pirates like they should be; hunted and taken out whenever possible. These pirates are nothing but thugs on the sea and should be treated as such. They have shown blatant disregard for the laws of the sea and must be treated as nothing more than violent criminals.

This is just my opinion

Being an American: Active Citizenship Required

Today is Tax Day and I had a great conversation earlier today with Amanda Rush from http://www.customerservant.com/. We talked about what we usually talk about: our lives and America and what is going on in our nation. Both of us like so many Americans out there are angry and frustrated and trying to figure out how we can help our selves, our neighbors and our nation. Today a great event took place all over America, The Tax Day Tea Parties. Whether you agree with all of the motivations behind it or not the fact was it is inspiring to get together and see so many Americans getting together for a common purpose. That purpose was not to complain about paying taxes. I don’t know anyone who thinks that not paying taxes is the answer and that is not what the tea parties were about. They were about voicing anger and frustration about not having a true say in how their tax money is spent and even more frustrated at their lack of power to shape the future of America. The American people are angry at all in power, everyone up in Washington and our state capitals. This frustration has been building for several decades and when people are hit in the pocketbook they start to really pay attention.

So what was the purpose of the tea parties? Ultimately the same purpose that so many Americans out there share. The purpose for each one at the tea parties was to make their voice heard about the frustration that they feel with the course of America. This is why many smaller political parties and organizations are growing so quickly. Politicians spoke at the tea parties and news pundits rushed to be a part of it, why? Because when Americans turn away from being catatonic citizens and become true active citizens and voice their frustration and open up their mouths and minds, the politicians and news media pay's attention.


As with so many movements and protests, what happens afterwards is important. The answer is not which movement to follow whether it is Centrists, Libertarian, Republican or Democrats or anyone else. The answer as Amanda Rush and I talked about active citizenship. The American people must take charge of the political process and government. We must make our voices heard, we must pull our nation up by its bootstraps and wake up and realize that we not the politicians or the political machines control the writing on the wall. We the American people have allowed for our nation’s government to be controlled by two largely unresponsive and growingly ineffective movements; the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Note, that I said the Democrats and Republican Parties and not liberal or conservative because both parties have over time failed all Americans including those who define themselves politically as liberal or conservative or independent or centrist. We have allowed our government and political process to fail us. We have allowed our government to make questionable decisions regarding our nation for far, far too long.


The answer to what happens next and has been happening in a growing wave is active citizenship. Each American must hold their officials accountable. There are numerous tools like those at http://www.opencongress.org/ and many other sites to help monitor Congress and what is going on. Use, email, phone, and letters to contact your officials and let them know that you will not stand for foolish shortsighted government anymore. As the tea parties today have shown, if Americans stand up and become active citizens we can bring back public service to the American government. This is America we deserve the best government possible. No excuses!



This is just my own opinion

Leaving Blog

--Please note that there was a problem with email accounts which is the reason why I was not able to respond back to James Harwood's emails. That has since been changed and worked out and James has been responded too, all is well. James Harwood decided to use other resources to blog. If you have any questions regarding this please contact James Harwood.--

I am leaving this American Centrist Way blog. I leave it in the good hands of Andrew and Jonathan. I've been out of contact with Andrew, who will no longer respond to my emails, so I don't know if he is still interested in this. Jonathan has done an excellent job of redesigning the blog.

Jonathan, if you want StatCounter back, go to their website and follow the steps, only takes a few minutes. The old one had to be removed and account closed because of the design changes. If any help is needed with that then you know where to contact me via email. To add more authors, go to Settings, then Permissions, and follow the steps there. Contact me anytime if you have any questions.

I have removed some of my postings, and left a few. As soon as I post this, I will be removing myself from Permissions in Settings, so I will no longer be an author or an administrator.

Good luck with the blog!

--James C. Harwood

Who's in charge here?

I am not exactly sure why the Republican party decided to choose Micheal Steele as RNC chairman, but I like to think that they got a message from the 2008 election and wanted to move toward the center. Micheal Steele is all that I had hope for, minus cajones.

By now I am sure many of you have heard the words exchanged between Micheal Steele and talking head Rush Limbaugh. To sum it up, the Democratic party has been making accusations lately that the de facto leader of the Republican party is Limbaugh, in response Steele said on Face The Nation that "Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh's whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly."

Limbaugh responded by criticising Steele on his radio show, and criticizing how the Republican Party is supporting the Obama administration.

In a perfect world, Steele would have asserted his dominance over the RNC and the party by rejecting these old fashioned GOP tactics and ushering in an era of honest and respectful opposition. But of course we do not live in a perfect world, and Steele apologized, empowering Limbaugh and the fringe of the party.

This is troubling to me. I know that they are the conservative party and that is their base, but the GOP does not even possess a robust moderate caucus. There is no real equivalent to the Blue Dog Democrats or the DLC. This is not to say there are not some moderates in the party. Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter are two great examples of powerful centrist republicans in the Senate. The GOP is at a crossroads, the far right is fighting their battle, where is the center right?

-This is my opinion-

You can read about this here
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/02/gop.steele.limbaugh/

Moderate Manifesto: Op Ed by David Brooks

March 3, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
A Moderate Manifesto
By DAVID BROOKS


You wouldn’t know it some days, but there are moderates in this country — moderate conservatives, moderate liberals, just plain moderates. We sympathize with a lot of the things that President Obama is trying to do. We like his investments in education and energy innovation. We support health care reform that expands coverage while reducing costs.


But the Obama budget is more than just the sum of its parts. There is, entailed in it, a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities and accept trade-offs. There is evidence of a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor — caught up in the self-flattering belief that history has called upon it to solve all problems at once.


So programs are piled on top of each other and we wind up with a gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. We end up with deficits that, when considered realistically, are $1 trillion a year and stretch as far as the eye can see. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new.


The U.S. has never been a society riven by class resentment. Yet the Obama budget is predicated on a class divide. The president issued a read-my-lips pledge that no new burdens will fall on 95 percent of the American people. All the costs will be borne by the rich and all benefits redistributed downward.


The U.S. has always been a decentralized nation, skeptical of top-down planning. Yet, the current administration concentrates enormous power in Washington, while plan after plan emanates from a small group of understaffed experts.


The U.S. has always had vibrant neighborhood associations. But in its very first budget, the Obama administration raises the cost of charitable giving. It punishes civic activism and expands state intervention.


The U.S. has traditionally had a relatively limited central government. But federal spending as a share of G.D.P. is zooming from its modern norm of 20 percent to an unacknowledged level somewhere far beyond.


Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”


Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, “a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal.” On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.


Those of us in the moderate tradition — the Hamiltonian tradition that believes in limited but energetic government — thus find ourselves facing a void. We moderates are going to have to assert ourselves. We’re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force.


The first task will be to block the excesses of unchecked liberalism. In the past weeks, Democrats have legislated provisions to dilute welfare reform, restrict the inflow of skilled immigrants and gut a voucher program designed for poor students. It will be up to moderates to raise the alarms against these ideological outrages.


But beyond that, moderates will have to sketch out an alternative vision. This is a vision of a nation in which we’re all in it together — in which burdens are shared broadly, rather than simply inflicted upon a small minority. This is a vision of a nation that does not try to build prosperity on a foundation of debt. This is a vision that puts competitiveness and growth first, not redistribution first.


Moderates are going to have to try to tamp down the polarizing warfare that is sure to flow from Obama’s über-partisan budget. They will have to face fiscal realities honestly and not base revenue projections on rosy scenarios of a shallow recession and robust growth next year.


They will have to take the economic crisis seriously and not use it as a cue to focus on every other problem under the sun. They’re going to have to offer an agenda that inspires confidence by its steadiness rather than shaking confidence with its hyperactivity.


If they can do that, maybe they can lure this White House back to its best self — and someday offer respite from the endless war of the extremes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/opinion/03brooks.html
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Crime and Punishment

In the News - FTC Warning about Online/Email Stimulus Scams:

Follow this link to the news story at PC Mag [a really cool website]...
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2342404,00.asp

This does not surprise me. I've noticed some of those recently. I've just found a couple of those off to the left side of the Google Search page results under Sponsored Links. Shouldn't Google and others use a little more common sense and be held accountable for accepting ads that are obviously from scam artists?

Can we please have the death penalty for scam artists? My opinion, we should.

I don't believe in warehousing most criminals at the expense of taxpayers. I believe the work camps are acceptable, where their labor produces products that can be sold to pay for all of their basic minimum needs. I can imagine a TV commercial for that: "Support the American Justice System - Buy shoes made by American Criminals - Step on Crime!"

There is the interesting scenario presented in the movie Escape from New York, and I would favor something like that if it could ever be accomplished at the appropriate location. Or similarly banish them to Coventry, such as in the science fiction story by Robert A. Heinlein.

Maybe bring back public floggings for a new reality TV show? Maybe a punishment game show - spin the wheel to find out the punishment - like in the movie Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. I believe in low-cost, severe but fair, short-term, swift methods of punishment for most criminals. I guess the old Roman method would be too severe - and it would be cruel to lions anyway - makes me wonder how PETA would feel about animals eating humans!

Those of you reading this can see I'm in a warp between humor and being serious today.

I'm wondering how other opinions of crime and punishment fit on the traditional line from far left liberals to far right conservatives, and where most Centrists/Moderates stand on the issue of crime and punishment. Any comments?

James C. Harwood
Norman, Oklahoma
Wednesday 4 March 2009

Concerns about Economy and Relating Issues Impacting Sleep

A few weeks ago, I wondered if concerns about the economy and relating issues are having impact on the sleep of other Americans. I hadn't missed any sleep, but I was starting to have nightmares about losing everything and ending up out on the street homeless. I put the question to Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. As usual, I got no reply. However, I suspect others raised the same question. Now it is a news story.

Here is a link to the original source...
http://hereafterebooks.blogspot.com/
And the article...
http://www.sleepfoundation.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=huIXKjM0IxF&b=4813261&content_id={A1CF5702-D7BE-4BD5-A6B0-A5281BCEB1C9}&notoc=1

I have created a new poll here at American Centrist Way blog for that subject.

Choices: I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

Choices.

Good advice: When you are presented with just two choices, look for a third...

The words from the song "El Condor Pasa" by Simon & Garfunkel, "I'd rather be a hammer than a nail..." [Search at http://www.youtube.com for a video of the song.] In that song you are given the two choices of being a hammer or a nail. There is a third choice. Three things are required. The hammer. The nail. What the nail is being hammered into. So I say: "It is better to be a hammer than a nail, but if you have to be the nail then be grateful you are not what the nail is being hammered into!"

I've posted the following other example before at this blog, but since it is part of this subject, I'll include it in this posting too...

There is the old question: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" I say the question is very seriously flawed because it leaves out a third choice, which could be the correct answer to the question. If a question is flawed, then how can you get a correct answer? You are given two choices. The chicken. The egg. What very important and necessary item is missing, which should be the third option? The egg is the child. The chicken is female, as all of them are, and therefore is the mother. What about the father? What about the male? The rooster! Just maybe the rooster came first. But, of course, the Democrats and Republicans would not want you to know there is a third choice, which could be the correct choice and probably is.

Please copy this and share it with others. Thanks. Spread the word. There is a third choice!

James C. Harwood
Norman, Oklahoma
Saturday 28 February 2009

President Obama's Military Speech 27 Feb 2009

I believe President Obama's speech to the US Military at at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, late Friday morning 27 February 2009, regarding the plan to end the combat mission in Iraq by 31 August 2010, is the best speech he has given so far on any subject.

I have stronger interest in other subjects, so it was not just the subject he talked about that kept me on the edge of my seat and held my attention, but how he presented it. His previous speeches have been way too long on subtopics within topics, resulting in my mind starting to wander, and a couple of times I nearly fell asleep.

It is my opinion that President Obama does a better job addressing world issues than issues here at home in the USA. I still have 100% confidence for the job he can do on the world stage. By comparison, my confidence in what he can do here in the USA, and how soon, has fallen to about 40%. That is to say, I rate him a 10 on world issues, and I now rate him a 4 on issues within the USA. Giving him a 4 is actually high praise. I would have to give most other elected officials here in the USA a score that would be less than zero, a few of them as low as a negative 10.

I sometimes wonder if we should be electing two Presidents. One to manage all matters here in the USA, and the other to manage all matters with our neighboring countries and all other countries overseas. I'd like to get Feedback regarding that idea in Comments following this posting. The home leader, and the world leader. Perhaps, the President becomes the world leader, and the Vice President becomes the home leader, if not having two Presidents. Or, maybe just one President, but two Vice Presidents – one VP for matters in the USA, and one VP for world matters.

I believe Barack Obama will go down in history as a great world leader. Time will tell if he can make a difference for the better here in the USA.

James C. Harwood
Norman, Oklahoma
Friday 27 February 2009

Another Two Party Tango: The Fairness Doctrine

ANOTHER TWO PARTY TANGO: THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE
By: Andrew Evans

You might have heard about the Fairness Doctrine in the past couple of years especially this past month or so. So what is the Fairness Doctrine and what is the entire buzz about it? Let’s look at it the old fashioned way, by breaking it down to see the whole. The Fairness Doctrine is supposedly all about requiring different view points to be heard in broadcasting. It was instituted back in 1949 but the FCC stopped enforcing it back in 1987. The Fairness Doctrine was determined by the FCC Commissioners so basically government bureaucrats decide on what is considered “fair views” on the airwaves. I guess someone has to do it. So who are these commissioners? They are appointed by the President to five year terms and are confirmed by the Senate. Only three of the commissioners can be from the same political party….hmmmm there is the kicker coming I just know it.

Sow why did the Fairness Doctrine originally come about? It came about in 1949 when radio and print was king of the media and television was still in its relative infancy. Back then in America there were far fewer media outlets and broadcasters and to make sure the American public were fairly informed due to the number of media outlets, the Fairness Doctrine was born. Of course you will hear some say that now there is more media consolidation than ever before and only a few people own the vast majority of traditional media outlets and they control the news. That is a disturbing trend but that is better left for another article (even though I am against too much media consolidation).

When most people discuss or think about the doctrine it is usually in regards to broadcasting of political or social viewpoints. So the commissioners have to decide what is “fair” when it comes to viewpoints on broadcasts? But all the commissioners are either Republican or Democrat right? EXACTLY, there is the kicker I was writing about!! This is not about fairness at all the doctrine is all about the twisted two party tango of American politics, the usual suspects, the Democrats and Republicans. The recent talk of the Fairness Doctrine is really aimed at talk radio where conservative viewpoints dominate the airwaves. Staunch liberals of course would like to change that. There was the Air America network which launched liberal talk radio and that did not fare very well on the open market. So the high up liberals got to thinking about the Fairness Doctrine again. Getting the doctrine up and running again would force liberal views back onto the airwaves and other broadcasts.

I know what you are thinking (at least I think you do, I could be wrong) isn’t having all views being heard the correct thing. Isn’t it that truly “fair”? Yes of course it is but this not about fairness this is about Liberals vs. Conservatives, plain and simple. Why is it just about their bickering and jockeying for position in the hearts and minds of Americans? The answer is as varied and strong as the American people. The answer is what about the Centrists/Moderates, Libertarians, Greens, Communists, Anarchists, Constitution, white power, black power…etc, etc. What about their viewpoints, aren’t their views just as viable as that of the Democrats and Republicans? Who will insure that their viewpoints are heard on broadcasts on the radio and television? The Democrats and Republicans on the FCC and in Congress? I truly doubt that. This is reason number one why the Fairness Doctrine would not work in today’s America and there are two more as well.

The second reason why the Fairness Doctrine will not work is because for it to work properly and “fairly” it would take up so much time on broadcasts it would be virtually impossible. You think political punditry is bad now, imagine with the Fairness Doctrine. Whole universities would be set up to jut churn out political pundits from all different political and social viewpoints. The talking heads of politics would drive us all insane. An average news broadcast could take hours and hours. Isn’t it enough we already have 24 hour news stations and I like to listen to what passes for music on the radio. I don’t want to have to listen to the whole FM dial just become nothing but political and social news to accommodate all the new viewpoints, although that would be fair it is still completely impractical. One good thing though is it would probably get rid of all commercials on the radio and on television. But wait that can’t be good aren’t we capitalist? We need to sell and know what stuff to buy! So impractability is the second reason why the Fairness Doctrine would not work.

The third and final reason why the Fairness Doctrine would not work is the American media and communication landscape has changed since 1987 when it was enforcement was ended. You know what has changed; chances are you found this article using one of the tools that changed it. You are probably reading this article online on a blog or website. You might be using you mobile phone to do so or using a satellite in reading it somehow. Our communication and media has changed. Anyone who wants to get their views out to Americans can throw up a website, can blog, can host their own Internet radio show. The tools are there to get you message out there. The growth of cable and satellite television and radio has opened up new media and broadcasting outlets since the days of 1987. America has come a long way since 1949 and 1987; let’s not go back to the tools of the past in the call for fairness when really it is nothing but a power struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Nothing in the media is unbiased, we are all human. You want varied information just like anything good and worthy in life you have look and work for it but the information is out there along with the “truths” of all kinds of different viewpoints.


--Update it looks like the Senate supposedly has passed a permanent ban on the Fairness Doctrine today. President Obama has said he does not support the Fairness Doctrine being reinstituted. The Republicans led this charge spurned on by conservative talk radio. So does the is end the debate of course not because we all know nothing is permanent in politics and governing, except taxes.--

--This is just my thoughts on the matter--

The Opposition's Persona

As a student of government, I love political pageantry. When the President of the United States of America address a joint session of Congress, my favorite part is always the beginning. I love watching the formal parade of the most important men and women in the nation, each group with their own formal introduction and presentation. I get a lump in my throat when I the President of the United States give his speech, filled with applause, cheers, and the occasional boo from the opposition party. The sheer formality of it all fascinates me. Then after the speech, you see the President make his way out, signing autographs and shaking hands with Congressional pages.

President Obama’s speech on Tuesday gave me that same feeling. As far as sound bites go, he didn’t tell us anything we didn’t expect or didn’t already know. But he was still very eloquent, careful, and he looked like a leader. But as we know, after the speech comes the opposition party’s pre-taped “response”, and this time the young Governor Jindal of Louisiana was chosen to fill that role. Governor Jindal is supposed to be the new face of the Republican party, but the new face kind of looks a lot like the old one.

Piyush Jindal (conveniently nicknamed ‘Bobby’) is the son of Indian immigrants and attended Brown University and Oxford. He assumed the Governorship in January 2008.
The speech itself was criticized across the board. If you watched any cable news on Wednesday you know what I’m talking about. I included a link at the bottom of this post so that you can actually see what was said.


What I am focusing on though, is the persona that Governor Jindal is trying to portray in his attempt to rise through the ranks of his party. If you listened to him speak, you noticed that he gave his speech with such a thick southern accent that he was just short of beginning each sentence with “I do declare”. This wouldn’t be a problem for me, except a friend of mine brought to my attention that on other television appearences his accent and presentation has never sounded the way it did on Tuesday night. Don’t believe me? Go ahead and check out the video link at the bottom of this post and compare it to what you heard on Tuesday. Now don’t get me wrong, I find men named Bobby with southern accents just as charming as the next guy, but why is the GOP trying to push this common man persona on us again? What is it about the nature of the party system that keeps Piyush Jindal from being the intellectual young Rhodes scholar and makes him Bobby the good southern christian?

I know that everyone likes the common man, but that is how you end up with Sarah Palin. Why can’t an intellectual become a popular member of the Republican party? Why are the smart, well educated, and capable men and women (with or without southern accents) constantly being branded as “elitist”?

We have one party controlling the government, and all that the only opposition party can offer us going foreword is Bobby from the south. Anyone else feel cheated? Perhaps we need more then two choices.

-These are my own personal views-

Jinall Response Part-1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JIE7dUOWZ8

Jinall Response Part-2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swuZ_McNtsQ&feature=related

Jindall lacking his southern charm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT34N3GRtI0&feature=related

U.S. National Debt Clock

Fairness Doctrin and Equal Time

This is an issue that has flaired up in the news again.

I understand from reading about it at Wiki that the Fairness Doctrin and Equal Time are two different things.

The problem with either system is that it has been one deminsional, being left or right, while the real world is three deminsional.

Fairness and equal time is easier today than any previous time in history because of the Internet. TV and radio stations, print newspapers and magazines, all have their own websites. At those websites it isn't even necessary to provide text space for all points of view for the Fairness Doctrin or even for all candidates for Equal Time. It is only necessary to provide links to their own websites where they are free to present whatever they want, to whatever extent they want, and at their own cost. They should be responsible for submitting their links to the websites of TV and radio stations, newspapers and magazines, rather than the news media being responsible for seeking out and listing all links to all points of view and all candidates although they should be open to all submissions. That is my opinion.

James C. Harwood
Norman, Oklahoma

"If this goes on - "

Review the posting of Andrew Evans about “House Democrat pushing to end Presidential term limits” at

http://americancentristway.blogspot.com/2009/02/house-democrat-pushing-to-end.html

Then review these articles about the White House and the 2010 Census.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11653264

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5goqAmjdeaCK_SV8Q5POVStW0F7BgD96A8OG85


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/11/dems-downplay-obamas-plan-oversee-census/

What do the two subjects have in common? Is there a common goal? What could it be? "If this goes on—" [Title of a Robert A. Heinlein story.] What's next?

Comments welcome!

List of Other Political Parties, missing American Centrist Party

Other Political Parties

D.C.'s Political Report
Disclaimer
http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/Disclaimer.htm
List of Major Parties
http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/Major.htm
List of Minor Parties
http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/PartyLink.htm
List of Inactive Parties *
http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/inactive.htm
*Centrist Party is shown to be inactive as American Centrist Party [dot com instead of dot net].

At Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
Centrists, Centrist Party, and/or the American Centrist Party is not included in the list.
Snubbed, I suspect.
However, there is this totally separate listing at Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrist_Party_(United_States)

At Politics1
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
Again, Centrists and/or American Centrist Party is not included in any list.
It is the only website with an email address for contact publisher@politics1.com and so I have sent an email to request that our American Centrist Party be included in the list.

—James C. Harwood
Norman, Oklahoma
10 February 2009

Quiz Results Update - Seeking Comments

I am posting this at
Centrists of American Politics group
http://groups.google.com/group/centristsofamericanpolitics
American Centrist Way group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/americancentristway
American Centrist Way blog
http://americancentristway.blogspot.com/
HEREafter Issues blog
http://hereafterissues.blogspot.com/

I am seeking people to post messages about this subject on the message boards of the groups and to post comments at the blogs.

Regarding the political quiz at
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
which led me to the American Centrist Party at
http://www.americancentristparty.net/

I first took the quiz just before the election in 2004. I scored slightly right of center.
I next took the quiz just before the election in 2008. I scored slightly left of center.
I recently took the quiz again, and scored dead center.

The quiz results show that I shifted a certain distance to the left between 2004 and 2008, and then half that distance back toward the right to land in the center.

I've said that President Bush pushed me toward the left. Even though that is part of it, upon further reflection I've realized it was the result of a number of personal experiences with those issues that have direct impact on my life.

Up to and right after the election in 2008, I was optimistic about what President Obama would do in two areas—1 issues here in the USA—2 issues on the world stage. I am no longer optimistic about what he can do to make life better for citizens here in the USA. I continue to be optimistic about what he can do with issues on the world stage.

I am wondering if there is anyone else out there who has had a similar experience of shifting from left to right or from right to left, and then partway back again to land in the center. If so, please post about your experience at the message board of either group, or post a comment at the blogs where this is posted. Further, please pass this on in email to other people who might be interested in this subject.

—James C. Harwood
Norman, Oklahoma
Monday 9 February 2009

House Democrat pushing to end Presidential term limits

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-hj5/show. This bill being proposed would repeal the 22nd amendment of the Constitution eliminating term limits for the President of the United States. Really, are people that desperate that we want to abandon democracy as we have it now and go to an imperial presidency? Our governmental system was designed so that no one person or group could take sole power and rule the United States. That makes sense while what is being proposed is insane!!

Now I can understand the thinking that the government is broken and needs to be fixed, because it does. But that should not include eliminating Presidential term limits. Democracy only works when we have MANY LEADERS, MANY OFFICIALS who desire public service and put the public good ahead of any thing else. That is not happening now which is why people are frustrated. That is why we need a new generation or movement of leaders to recommit themselves to striving for the good of America, short term and long. This will take time and it will first and foremost take developing average Americans to want to work in public service as true public servants. We the People must get involved because for decades we have been looking to Washington for leadership when for decades they have provided little to none.

--This is just my personal stance--

Welcome American Centrists!

This is the new blog, American Centrist Way.

This blog may eventually have up to 100 Centrist authors. The minimum goal is to have at least 10 authors posting to this blog. Persons interested in becoming authors should contact the blog administrator hereafter1956@gmail.com James C. Harwood. If approved, you will be sent an invitation, in which you will need to follow the steps including setting up a Google account and gmail if you don't already have one.

Any number of people may participate in Comments following the postings of our blog authors. All participants should include at least their first name if not full name in each posting, with city and state, and email address noted within the text of each posting.

The authors will note if their postings represent their personal/professional views, or if their postings represent the official accepted party positions. Not all Centrists are in agreement with each other on all issues. It is the same for Democrats not in agreement with each other on all issues, some leaning right toward the center. It is the same for Republicans not in agreement with each other on all issues, some leaning left toward the center. The quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html averages out answers to identify those who end up in or near the center as Centrists, mainly middle-of-the-road moderates. Not all who arrive at the middle get there by way of the same answers in that quiz. Participats of the quiz have the choices to Agree or Disagree or select Maybe. Although selecting Maybe will put you in the middle, that is not what makes you an American Centrist. While we are made up of left views and right views, we do have some true middle views of our own. That is why this blog is to be a Shared Author Blog, similar to a Shared Universe Concept like those of fiction authors explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_universe Wiki. Also, I alone am not qualified to post on all issues, just those I have had personal/professional experience with and have had direct impact on my life.

The best and most complete and up-to-date information about American Centrists can be found at the American Centrist Party website http://www.americancentristparty.net/ Chaired by Andrew Evans.

James C. Harwood
American Centrist Way, Blog Administrator
Norman, Oklahoma
hereafter1956@gmail.com