Jim
I changed my political affiliation from republican to unenrolled for a couple of reasons.
1. I got real tired of local Westboro party extremists particularly from the republican side. I'd love to name a few but I will refrain from that.
2. John McCain and Sarah Palin...give me a break.
I plan to remain unenrolled at least until the republican party particularly on the local and state level get there collective acts together.

Jim, my own view is I don't need to "blindly" associate with a given party, and so remain independent. I'm comfortable saying I voted for Scott Brown, and then promptly supported Martha Coakley in her Attorney General re-election. For me, it's about the best person for the role.

Suggesting voting on the “best person” is too simplistic and naïve is rather insulting to the very notion of democracy. The US currently essentially has a two party system...not two party rule.

Dem, Rep, ...Like it makes a difference! Different suit same problems.
The same small group controls them all. It's taken me a long time to see it but my eyes have been opened.
Jim@ccfiile

Good article, Jim. I was Independent for many years. Switched to Republican a few years ago because I was disappointed in/frustrated with the Democratic party to the point I felt I had to take a stand.

I wonder if there's a 4th category for the Unenrolled: worried. Worried that if you join 1 party you'll alienate friends, get more phone calls asking for money, find there are candidates you don't like & have folks tell you "s/he's YOUR party".

But...now that I'm more involved through the Wbro Rep Town Committee, I know more about the focus of the party I've chosen. It's actually comforting to have discussions with people and not worry about "stepping on toes". And to know I'm not alone in my views. Getting involved has given me the opportunity to actually talk with reps & candidates to understand their views and goals - so now I can better support them...or tell them why I disagree & have a discussion with them about it.

I'm assuming that whether D or R, the Town Committees have the same goals: encourage discourse, focus on today and the future of our state/country, and welcome anyone who wants to learn about our government. I would encourage folks "in the middle" to dip their toes into the water - I'm glad I did.

I think the expansion of the ' unenrolled ' voters is a sign of the weakening of the power of state Democrats. But first a clarification: for decades voters who did not enroll in a party were called 'Independents'- a much more accurate title in my book. But then along came the "Independent" party and the Sec of State renamed unpartied voters as unenrolled . I've been an active Republican since 1966 and the recent growth/recovery of the state Republican Party has a lot to do with unenrolled voters picking and choosing among candidates. I have no problem with voters telling me they are not linked to either party I also think a major attraction for voters is that unenrolled voters can vote in either the Republican or Democrat Party Primaries-sometimes the primary is just as important as the general election.

I don’t think the old 2 party system fits todays environment
Im not a republican and im not a democrat, I used to say I was independent then someone turned that into a party that I don’t 100% agree with.
Needless to say, I want the right to vote for whom I feel is best, not because they are a member of a party. Today that’s a huge issue and I really feel it gets in the way of anyone wanting to vote for the best candidate
You get a ballot, EVERYONE should be on it, not just party X or Party Y.
So needless to say when I vote I get in line, enroll get a ballot, vote and un-enroll. Foolish and wasteful? Yep, Outdated yes.
The right to vote means just that, the right to vote, it doesn’t say the right to vote Republican or demarcate only.

This article seems more than a little bit disingenuous. Under the guise of asking for "help" and "understanding", and in the same breath with which it bewails the negativity of political campaigning, it virtually amounts to a Republican advertisement attacking Elizabeth Warren (and not very wholeheartedly or convincingly poking at Scott Brown for acting a little too much like a Democrat). So we have a soft-spoken but essentially traditional example of party politicking as usual. For being soft spoken, I thank the writer. But for basically trying to sell the same-old same-old, I am disappointed. After everything, it is still a good idea to vote for the individual--even if you like more than one (I happen to like both Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren--whatever the party line is on either of them). And just to provide a bit of balance to this deceptively partisan essay: has the Republican Party, which took us into two wars in the past ten years while simultaneously reducing taxes on the very rich, which ruined the economy, which fixates on non-issues like same-sex marriage as a way of keeping the country divided--is that Republican Party really one that represents the principles and goals of most hard-working, right-minded Americans?

@David - I was trying to figure out how to respond, or even if this "article" warranted a response. As usual, you echoed my sentiments beautifully. I'm an unenrolled voter, and I'm neither noble, naive, disinterested, or lazy. I have many Republican friends who routinely (although I've politely asked them not to) forward me what I can only term as propaganda, laced with half truths and scare tactics (I research most, but not all of their claims, and the sources they came from). There are certain ideals held by the Republican Party that I absolutely cannot align myself with in good conscience. There are certain ideals held by the Democratic Party that I disagree with, though much less so. I consider myself to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and honestly do vote for the person I think will do the best job.

I think this topic parallels the ratings problems the major TV networks have had over the past decade or two. When there were only a few choices the networks were free to force-feed us content. We watched what was on TV because it was on TV. As the number of networks grew and the content varied wildly people discovered that the big three just don’t fit their needs.

We are individuals. There is no way 2 political parties will ever represent the feelings, needs and desires of hundreds of millions of people ever again. The parties are still very powerful as are the three big networks but none will ever have the ratings (enrollment) that they had before.

Perhaps they should do what the big networks did and start creating focused versions of themselves to serve those who share some of their views (TLC, Food Network, etc). Perhaps they already are. The TEA Party is a grassroots organization that believes in small government and lower taxes. The Republican Party claims to share these virtues and supports some TEA Party candidates.

Could the Democrats woo unenrolled voters who share their desire to cut military spending but don’t agree with hard-line democrats on much else? Are there democrats that tend to side with republicans on religious topics?

We may not need 500 channels of political affiliation, but it would be nice to have a dozen or so.

In my case, I've wavered over the years based on where I am in life.

As an 18 year old sailor, fresh out of high school, serving in peacetime, Republican was the way to go. National Defense spending, taking care of the troops, all of that.

As a 30 year old, fresh out of the military on partial disability, I needed somewhat of a boost in life, since we know that the response to veterans returning to the workforce was somewhat of a new concept as little as 5 years ago, so I went Democrat.

Now, at 35, I've dragged myself back up, I'm 3/4 of the way done with my Bachelor's degree, I'm house-shopping with my VA home loan, and I am unmarried, with a salary just under 6 figures.

I have none of the "white guilt" many in MA experience. I risked my life for 12 years, then used the programs available to me to make the best of my own life. Now I am looking for someone to protect my paycheck, and not take more and more of it to help those who refuse to help themselves.

Helping the less fortunate is one thing, and I am sympathetic to the disabled. But if you are out of work because certain jobs are beneath you, then that is a personal choice you should face consequences for, not one that I should have to finance.

Great Article Jim, I too was unenrolled and didn't like the Republican party in the past but registered as an R and have been working to make this party more how I think it should be.
C.Olle

Sorry to say...... you're in a dream world. Both parties have been compromised and it matters not, which one gets in.
They all answer to the same people who run the show, which is Congress who only cares about them getting themselves reelected, and are controlled by AIPAC.
So what it comes down to is, what suit do you want in this time.
Same problems, same merry go round.
Ron Paul had the best ideas (not perfect) but better than the rest.
He didn't make it and that shows how bad off the country is.
We're doomed get used to it. As the Titanic is sinking the people are more concerned about the music being played on the top deck.
Time to make sure your life boat is ready.
Jim@ccfiile.com

.

David, I wish I could have inserted this below your earlier comment. Thanks again - and I get what you are saying - good one. I began the piece by mentioning how "emotional" (indignant?) some Unenrolled voters become when they need to tell me that they are Unenrolled, hence a bit superior than those who affiliate with a Party. It's pretty humorous from my perspective, hence the opportunity to apply a little political satire into the mix. And that is where the title comes from. These people totally believe that what they are doing is very noble, while I believe, due to the Party System in play, that they are more naive than noble, at least until we can get term limits. That notwithstanding, my experience, and voter turnout suggests that most Unenrolled voters just are not interested in politics, as if what government does does not apply to them, and if it does, it's not their fault. Go figure.

@Jim - no matter how eloquently you phrase it (which you have), I will still argue that I am not naive, I am not "those people", and I am not uninterested in politics. Some of us really are firmly entrenched in the middle, and simply do not want to be forced to vote one way or the other (I'm speaking primaries). I agree with UglyHat in that two political parties just doesn't cut it for a good number of us.

Two, Three, Four political parties.....don't matter, money runs the show. If you have the money behind you you can do miracles.
When you have money as the deciding factor in elections things will never get done to benefit the people. It will benefit those who contribute the big money, but to help the little guy NO WAY!
Too many special interest people with lots of money to throw around,and the little people suffer. I'm surprised smart people like you don't get it, but then again there are a lot of "smart" people running our govt. and they don't get it either.
Sad to say, some of you are dreaming. Dreams are good until you have to wake up...... then the real nightmare begins.
Jim@ccfiile.com

@Jim, yes, money runs the show... speaking of which, on Monday Mitt Romney said that his offshore investments were managed by a blind trust and he had no knowledge of their whereabouts. "I don’t manage them," he said in an interview with Radio Iowa's O. Kay Henderson. "I don’t even know where they are."
So, it occurs to me, who doesn't keep track of their money? ...and who would want a president who doesn't keep track of the countries finances?

Jim the real problem with Romney here is that he compleatly changes his stance on things based on who's asking the question and who will benefit or loose because of the answer. If it's him with off shore investments and caymans accounts it's because it's a blind trust and he doesn't control that. If it's someone else that has this issue come up, his response is. That you have some control over where you want your money to go. He's all just BS. Right now he's a moderate Republican that is trying to Pander to the Far Right. If the wind changes so will he.

You see, Jim--that's what seems unnecessary and deceptive. You say--from your very first post--that you're talking about unenrolled voters, but you constantly--since your very first post--insist on attacking Democrats. We all get it--you want to increase the card-carrying membership of the Republican party. That really IS your sole objective here, so why not just say so? You laid that track, and it's natural that people who disagree with you will say so--and that doesn't mean that they're the ones getting off track. If you see my point.

David, I am enjoying your comments. Yes, i am the Chair of the Westborough Republican Town Committee, AND identified as such, so there is no attempt to deceive anyone about who and what I am.

This blog, however, does ask the 51% of Massachusetts voters who are so-called Unenrolled why they straddle the political fence. As you might already know, only 11-12% of the registered voters are Republican, so there are over 4 times as many "Independents" as Republicans and 3 times as many Democrats. With a minority so small we need to president views to people that they may not have taken the time to hear before - especially if they think that being on the sidelines somehow creates a sense of personal immunity from what is going on in America and the World.

One other point regarding the on point/off point issue. I have seen many blogs that are taken off track and never return to the main point. Ultimately the posts resort to name calling or insults and the moment is lost. Frankly, i put too much time and thought into what I produce to allow this to happen if I can help it. I hope you understand that point too. Keep posting.

@Jim - I still don't understand this thought "especially if they think that being on the sidelines somehow creates a sense of personal immunity from what is going on in America and the World." Are you understanding that some people really are smack dab in the middle?

For the record I was a Republican but went the unerolled route.
When I ran for public office I saw a side of the Republicans that wasn't too pleasant.
Like I mentioned before....different suit same antics.
Some might think being unenrolled gives you an advantage to be more open minded about the candidates...I say no big deal.
When there are only two parties you might as well flip a coin.
Jim@ccfiile.com

@Jim Rizoli - just to be clear, I was question the OTHER Jim :)

Oops - I meant "questionING"

Kim, I know.
Jim@ccfiile.com

David, thanks for the note but why do I feel that it is like deja vu all over again, and again - especially this time with such an impressive disconnected diatribe? Very impressive.

As to the 2 party system, you have to look at the State and the Nation. In Massachusetts the two party system is largely broken, and has been for over 60 years. Across the Country the faces of the MA liberals, and the ridiculous politics of Massachusetts are the laughing stock of America. Just travel a bit and hear for yourself. Mass. is a political wasteland and it is embarassing.

Nationally the two party system is not working because the Country has become so polarized. I covered this last week in my blog ("Do You Really Want Extreme Transformation?"). This is why the upcoming election is so significant. And, here's an update with information released just this morning. Since Obama became President it now takes six months to pay for the cost of government ... and climbing. If tis is what you want, do the Massachusetts thing and vote Democrat (again and again).

9-11 was largely responsible for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are largely responsible for the ruin of the American economy.
President Obama, whom Marco Rubio described as "divisive by design," is largely responsible for the growing rift between the rich and working class as he (Obama) constantly bashes the successful members of our society, while encouraging the poor to be mediocre, instead of creating good paying jobs for them. Most poor people want a job, not food stamps.

Oh Jim, if you find my posts aggressive, I am flattered that you read them. I am afraid that this is the first of your blogs that I have read, and it (not you, necessarily, but it--you see, I have no need or desire to characterize YOU from one or two things you have written)--your essay--seems to me an illustration of the term "passive-aggressive"--and there it is your writing that is doing the straddling. You may work hard to disengage from "this kind of dialogue", but you initiated and have taken a very energetic part in it. Though I know that I'm naive in many ways, as far as I'm concerned, you don't need Gallup to justify asking any question you like. But Gallup or not, I think the question, "right track-wrong track," is absurd, unnecessary, and very limiting--above all, it limits the choices--the scope--of those being asked. I like many things about the direction this country is taking (we have serious hope for some form of universal health care, we are slowly removing ourselves from Iraq and Afghanistan, we repealed "don't ask, don't tell", etc.), but there are many things I don't like. I DO like that we can continue to vote for individuals regardless of party--and you haven't convinced me at all that such freedom amounts to nobility, naivete, or indifference. But then, you were only asking for help, right? I hope you got it. I know I learned something, for which I thank you. And by the way, there is ALWAYS an in-between, and it's usually the better place to be.

now back to the question of the blog....

to paraphrase Groucho Marx "I don't want to belong to any "Party" that would accept me as a member"

I'm unenrolled and have been for most if not all of my voting life. one reason is in the primaries I can pick the ballot that has more than one person to vote for.

I'm a true believer in a balance government, meaning I like an even amount of DEMs & GOPs in office. It seems more gets done for the greater good of all.

this does not mean I vote to make it even but I take my time to understand who I can vote for and then I vote for the one I fell will work across party lines.

if that makes me "Noble, Naïve or Not Interested" so be it....but in my mind and my heart I know I took the time to learn about all the people that wants to be elected.

I vote, its my right and its my right to do it my way !

Thank you for getting this back on track, Christopher. Perhaps this just makes you knowledgable. Since you are seeking a balance in government, you probably share many of my frustrations as a Massachusetts voter.

My two cents, but an observation that is not going to be liked here but it proves my point about how the Political process is totally controlled by outside forces not even associated here in the USA. When Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu came to give a talk at Congress he got 29 standing ovations.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/israeli-prime-minister-gets-20-standing-ovations-in-congress-sends-message-to-white-house/

ALL as far as I know Republicans and Democrats, bowed to this person, it was almost Godlike.

Anyone who runs for office if he doesn't kowtow for this cause will NOT be elected. Our political process has been compromised, it is gone. No matter who you vote for. Our country is run by people who HAVE to bend to a political power outside our country. Shame on the republicans and the Democrats.
Ron Paul was the only one who stands up for the ideals and wishes for America. Whether he stood at this ovation boondoggle embarrassment is not known by me.
One thing is for sure America is run by people who don't put America First that includes Republicans and Democrats.
http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/9c1a0593-92fb-4f66-ba96-8c5486bbcd6c

My two cents, please no personal attacks here. Prove me wrong and not the stupid character assassinations that comes with putting up the truth.

Joe Rizoli

i am anti abortion, anti capital punishment, pro gay rights and marriage, fiscal conservative... where exactly do i belong if not independent? i don't want to be identified with either one of these parties... they are both pandering to odd extremes... keep me out of that. to think that people fall into one of two categories is naive. i would be embarrassed to be associated with boehner or pelosi.
by the way patch you should bring back maryjo. i am one reader of many who has been shocked at the way this once great website has deteriorated without her.

A blog, as I understand it, is an opportunity to elicit ideas and discourse on various issues and topics, and not necessarily to proselytize a particular point of view, though I suspect that is common and permissible. Your blogs, Jim, tend to do that.....elicit good thought. Your blogs are thoughtful, articulate and admittedly right leaning....and I trust, well researched and not 'spun'. This recent blog about the 'un-enrolled' whom you have characterized as either naive, noble, or uninterested, has spawned a goodly amount of "interested' discourse, some of which agreeing with your philosophies and wishes for the Republic and the state, and some of which have clearly differing points of view. (to be continued as it seems I have outrun the allowable characters)

Your attempts, as I see them, however, at leading the discussion to where you want it to go....the impropriety of being un-enrolled, (or Independent as I would prefer,) has a tendency to corral the ideas to where you would like to see them, rather than let them be 'cage-free, to use the now vernacular best practice for husbandry. I have not sensed the vitriol, mean-spiritedness of other blogs where the hackers and malcontents spew their nonsense. You elicit for the most part..... ideas and opinions on both sides. That has to be a good thing. If we as a community and citizenry are to be trusted to make good and thoughtful decisions we need education, un-spun facts, and enlightened, altruistic and inward looking thinking, discussion, compromise, negotiation, and reasonableness, oft lacking in today's political parties.......on BOTH sides.
Let the ideas fly Jim, from whence they come and from whatever 'hot spot' you touch with your writing and intellect. You will then differ from the idealogues on both Fox and MSNBC and come to the table with questions and facts and opinions (not sledgehammers) and let folks think and react.......and maybe even join the Westborough Town Republican Committee....(psst..that was a joke). Keep writing Jim and invite us to the table. Best!

Arthur, thank you for your eruditic post. Good job, and very good points. Let me add a few personal reflections regarding why I agreed to blog. Part of the reason is to be persuasive to people that the Republican values and principles of government are the better course for the Nation and the State. You cannot persuade people by being rude to them, or condescending in your presentation, or by offering untruths.

Believe it or not, I am not seeking people who agree with me. What's the point in that, unless they can add to the discussion. However, when readers take exception to my position they actually allow me the chance to politely dialoge with them, and in the process, allow the non participating readers the opportunity to see both sides of the debate. They ar the people I am really reaching - kind of like the part of the iceberg that you cannot see.

To the extent that I receive positive messages like yours, my sense is that I am succeeding, particularly in not going down the road of rude and insulting commentary that is frankly a turn off to me and probably to most - and discourages many people from participating. Thanks again - very well said.

Having read the posts above, I'd like to suggest a different perspective - namely, the view that "politics" is really about Government, and that "political parties" are really groups of individuals who have banded together to Govern in the manner they see fit.

In that context, there are only 3 choices: those who are currently governing ("the party in power") and their supporters; those who want to change things ("the parties out of power), and those who are content to accept the status quo.

That third category isn't Noble, Naive or Not Interested. They're just content with the Government they have, and see no need to change the way things are.

David, your blogs are becoming increasingly less interesting, as if you feel the need to discourage other posted with your nonsense. I am hoping that you have the personal courage to put out your own blog and read how others react to your positions, you seen to have the time and ideology to do that. If not, then you need to confront the fact that you are too content to hide behind a rock and snipe at others who are actually putting some time and thought into their work product, and discourage those with significantly less confidence from weighing in. In short, you were interesting, you made a point, and now you have become redundant. Time to say good night.

The Republicans are so awful. They should be more like the Democrats. Lets see the Democrats have so many things to be proud of, like supporting the slave aristocracy and deciding to secede instead of giving up their slaves. Giving us Ted Kennedy, who got drunk and killed a young woman. Barney Frank, who was as responsible just as much as anyone for the 2008 Financial crisis ( oh and congradulations on marrying your new partner, who is 30 plus years younger than you are ) Finneran, Wilkerson, Dimasi, Turner, all Dems who are either in jail or going. A Democratic controlled Congress that refuses to pass a budget ( which is illegal ) and a president, who whined about the deficit - then went on to increase it by 8 trillion. Oh yeah, and if you like paying taxes, your gonna love the next 20 years - say hello to Obamacare, and remember the sweet words of Wonderful Debbie Wasserman Schultz "its not a tax" !!!

Our nation is heading for a swift ending no matter who is in office. The Constitution is usless because the people like the Barney Franks and other nincompoops who run the country have not been the noble characters of ethics or morality.
When a country is run by people like this the end result is other problems happen being, the moral code is broken and things such as illegal immigration, fraud, illicit drug use, parental disrespect and other problems to numerous to mention infect the country.

The Politicians for the most part have set a bad example, the sports figures, black or white, have set a bad example and we continue to put the Barney Franks in office that should be in jail.

Romneys morality and ethics may be in his favor but him being pro Israel is sheer lunacy. His defending a country of lunatics, who even the UN has problems with by its many sanctions shows me his ethics are limited in scope, and cries hypocrisy. Either you have a set of values or not.

Defending a country that has murdered, maimed, attacked US naval vessels with impunity and not have the fortitude to discipline them outright and condemn their behavior is sheer cowardness.
But, then again, he wants to get elected so he can't. That is why I have no Idea who I will vote for, if at all. If you defend the actions of Israel then you don't get my vote.

Joe Rizoli

Jim--I must have struck a chord, to make you so offensive (though I seem to remember that you had already given us your "last word"). Whether or not I am interesting is hardly your subject of expertise, as it is hardly the subject of your article, this comment stream, or The Patch. Nor are you--let's be honest--in any position to assess my courage, nor to speak to the amount of time I dedicate to my writing, here or elsewhere (surely, before making such an attack, you will have familiarized yourself with my work... I write rather a lot--though maybe you wouldn't call my writing courageous. Nevertheless, "courageous" is not a word that comes to mind when I read your blog, either). As to your idea that I am "too content to hide behind a rock and snipe at others who are actually putting some time and thought into their work" -- well, among other things, THAT's a pretty cowardly snipe--if, as you say, writing a post can be a form of sniping. And I do in fact put a lot of time and thought into everything I write. My last question--and I am sorry if you find it uninteresting (though the Republicans I know are generally far more polite than you, and would never say so)--why do you invite discussion and then hypocritically, and with actual brutality, shut it down? Well, as long as you keep your promise this time, I can forgive you.

I actually want to thank you for helping me make my case to blog readers this morning, David. As noted in my response to Arthur above there is less value ifrom comments of people who agree with, than a reasoned dialogue with those who have doubts or even disputes. Hopefully the discussion will help those on the sidelines following along to arrive at a conclusion, or hopefully join in the conversation.

But, this is my blog. It has my name and picture on it. While I welcome all sorts of discussion, your too frequent intrusions are similar to yelling louder and then louder again as a means of getting attention, as if the person with the loudest voice must be right. After a while most people quickly conclude that the loudest person is simply ... the loudest person.

My hope is that people reading my blogs will appreciate what I present for their consideration and the respect with which I respond to them. So, thanks for creating the distinction - a great help for this particular blog.

Jim – I’m going to have to break this up into two posts – I can’t seem to get my thoughts out in less than 1500 words! Though I am bristling at some of what you say, particularly (and still) the notion of unenrolled voters as disengaged, your blog has caused me to do some further research and give more thought to the question “are we headed in the right direction”. Here too I find the answer for me to be not quite so simple. Laid against the backdrop of the previous administration, and the accompanying near-catastrophic financial collapse, I have to say I think we ARE headed in the right direction. Are things moving too slowly? Indeed. Do I agree with everything this administration is doing? No, I don’t.

Part Two:But I don’t believe the Republican Party could have done better. Perhaps this is a stretch, but when I look back at the historic income tax rates, there is a correlation between the overall prosperity of the country and the tax assessed to the wealthiest among us. Not to say that I think we should spread the wealth equally – I don’t. But do I think that my husband and I should pay a higher tax rate than a young family where the Mom is a sales clerk and the Dad is a factory worker (if such a thing even exists anymore). All of that said, and believing that the Republican Party is generally more fiscally conservative, I historically (okay, always) vote for a Republican governor in Massachusetts. Given the liberal nature of our Commonwealth, I believe we need balance that only a conservative governor can provide – since I have been able to vote, I haven’t seen a Democratic candidate for governor conservative enough to provide balance. There are, however, Republican ideals that I simply cannot align myself with. There are, in my opinion, some basic human rights issues that are deal-breakers for me.

BTW- thanks Jim for your blog and your patient responses to some of the 'aggressive '
bloggers- look forward to your next blog.

@Kim "..... I always enjoy the opportunity to engage in a healthy debate, especially when it gives me the opportunity to take a look at what I think I know, what I think I believe, gather new (at least, new to me) information, and reassess......." Couldn't agree more Kim. Jim both through the blog and in private conversation often brings forth information that is thoughtful, ideas/facts that I had not considered before, makes me think, (most often) listen to my ideas and hopes and leanings Ha! But it is precisely that back and forth sharing of ideas without the accompanying vitriol and chest pumping and denigration of ideas and persons that can lead to more informed decision making. Should only Congress have that capacity . But .....be careful....too much compliment to him and he is likely to plunk a VOTE Brown and Romney placard on your front lawn! Be well.

Hi Kim - From your statement, "Laid against the backdrop of the previous administration, and the accompanying near-catastrophic financial collapse", it sounds like you blame Republicans for the 2007/2008 financial collapse that led to the bad economy. Is it not widely accepted that the cause was that loans were given to people who could not afford to pay them back, and at as much as 105% of the value of homes whose values were inflated? The people who worked tirelessly to force those lending standards on banks were Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who succeeded in 2003 in convincing the R's there was no risk back when the R's were trying to reform this policy.
Not sure how you think the prev admin caused the bad economy, but if you believe Wall St had their role in the financial collapse (which led to the bad economy), I do, too. But to say that this because of the previous administration is incorrect. WS's "products" amplified the credit crisis, but it was because of Dem policies of "guaranteeing" the loans (through Freddie and Fannie, who Barney Frank insisted were completely solvent just 1 month before the financial meltdown) that emboldened WS to take reckless risk in leveraging assets 36x their value.
Continued…

Continuation…
If you think the prev admin is responsible because they were in some way connected to WS, remember that WS gave more to Pres Obama's campaign by far than any other; and of the ties that bind, how about Barney Frank helping his ex to a high post in Fannie, and then having oversight of the organization? Also, it is the House Finance Committee that has oversight of the Financial Industry, and they did nothing. And the Chair of the House FC from 2004 - 2008, the 4 years leading up to the financial crisis that brought the economy to its knees, was none other than Barney Frank.
So I can’t agree with you that it was President Bush’s administration that caused the financial meltdown that led to the poor economy.
This is the more important question - how do you believe the previous administration is responsible for the economic crisis? Did they "let" WS do this because they were in WS's back pocket (remember, too, that WS gave more to Pres Obama's campaign by far than any other)? The answer to that is No. It is actually the House Finance Committee that has oversight of the Financial Industry, and they did nothing. And the Chair of the House FC from 2004 - 2008, the 4 years leading up to the financial crisis that brought the economy to its knees, was none other than Barney Frank.

Ooops - apologies - please ignore the last paragraph in the last post - it's tough to edit long comments sometimes, and I didn't realize I had kind of repeated myself...

@FindBalance - yes, I understand that the financial collapse is much more complex than I noted. That said, it's not entirely accurate to place the blame at the feet of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd either. There were many factors at play, far too many to list in a blog on the Patch. No doubt that anyone contributing here has read opinions and explanations on both sides (I hope) of the aisle. Something like this doesn’t just happen overnight, or in four years. War, lower taxes for the wealthy, relaxed control of the financial markets – an economic perfect storm, don’t you think? My research indicates that it started in the 1980’s, and pretty closely followed the pattern of the Great Depression with respect to speculation in the financial markets. I’m not sure when this 30 or 40-year cycle started, or ends, but we need to reinstitute the controls that helped pull us out of that earlier financial collapse. Among other things.

I'll be honest, I can't tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats. All seem the same to me.

I would LOVE to see some credible and objective evidence that WS "gave more to Pres Obama's campaign by far than any other." And the war in Iraq--do you deny that it was costly? Ruinous, even. And it was the direct and devastating result of a dishonest manipulation of the American people by the Bush government. And Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy--unprecedentedly coinciding with an expensive war? And Bush's huge stimulus packages, so much more palatable than his successor's? http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/08/republicans_stimulus.html
FindBalance, that's a good idea. We should try to find balance. No balance here so far, but we're working on it!

Frankly, I think the current administration is so far to the left that being literally in the middle makes you look like you are far to the right. You say you like Scott Brown, David, but will vote for Elizabeth Warren. Scott Brown is about as moderate as you can get, but you choose the far left liberal instead.

If Bill Clinton had taken out Osama Bin Laden when he had the opportunity, we would not have had 9-11, which was ruinous to our country. Intelligence in Europe after 9-11 also indicated that Iraq had WMD, and George Bush sought to keep us safe by going into Iraq. I will always be grateful to George Bush for what he did to prevent another attack on our country while he was president.
It seems to me that Mr. Nolta has something against successful hard-working Americans, as he wants to paint them all as moguls and corporate giants; maybe Mr. Nolta is just jealous.

No, I choose the person I find smarter and more capable when it comes to protecting the interests of the working classes--the middle class to which I belong. You say she is far to the left, but I don't see that, any more than I see it when people far to the right accuse President Obama of being far to the left, at the same time people on the far left accuse President Obama of not being far enough to the left... And these categories, and these generalizations, don't really interest or worry me much. Labels are incomplete by their nature, so I tend to look underneath them and vote for what I see as the substance.

Good morning David. I have been away for a few days but I see that you continue to believe that this blog is about you, and your incessant need for attention by snidely carping at every other participant. You will doubtless have something equally smart to say to me just for bringing this up. But I continue to advise that this is my blog, and I was interested in better understanding about Unenrolled voters, not voters like you with a "Go Obama" imprimature at the bottom of your posts on other strings. Please, you are what you are and everyone by now has seen it. We get it. You are a Democrat - and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is nothing special about it either. So, please don't continue to discourage people who would otherwise post but fear being attacked when they add a few of their thoughts to the discussion. All the best, and thanks again for creating the opportunity for many people to see the difference between positions. I see this as a real positive.

Well good morning to you, too!

Good Morning Jim,
The days away did you well.......your response here this AM is calm, well-stated and adheres to what you want to accomplish in your blogs.....reasoned discourse on important topics. That said I am 'unenrolled', as you know,and wish to remain that way as it allows me the democratic (small 'd') opportunity to place my vote and confidence for the man or woman who best fits my hope and beliefs ....which do change over time precisely because I have been exposed to and am open to others' ideas, facts, and changing events. Events and circumstances are not black or white for me and I am sometimes plagued, some might say, with being in the gray areas at times.....but being there allows me to weigh the black and the white and do what I think best at the time.

As we continue getting into wars that have no bearing on us here and electing the people who put us in these drain the bank wars, do you honestly think it makes one bit of difference whether your unenrolled or not? The wrong people keep getting voted in and the country is falling apart. The voters on both parties have no clue and this is where we are. Obama, Romney makes no difference Congress runs the show, the president is just a figurehead. You're just pawns on the chessboard when you vote for whoever. Ending is the same.
Since none of you here really care about what the whole problem is and just want to hear yourself talk I'll make my leave.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Jim Rizoli ....wow I almost agree with everything you said! It's definitely time for all our troops to come home. And career politicians make me sick. America needs to step up this November and sweep out all officials that have been in office more than 2 terms. Here's hoping that happens!

Jim R, please don't leave. Let me see if I get what you are saying is the solution - smaller govt with less power and less intrusion into our lives, protecting individual liberty. You have good support for your position - that's what the Founding Fathers envisioned!

I didn't mean leave Patch...LOL This is where the great thinkers hang out.
Jim@ccfiile.com

As a 19 year old single mother, I am currently unenrolled. Not because I am disinterested, naive, or nobel. Simply because I am going to vote for whoever I think is best given my current situation. I work hard, but only make a couple hundred dollars a week. So I am on Mass Health. I am on WIC. I took a year off after I finished High School, but I am going back to school come August. I am not religious, I consider myself liberal in terms of "hot button" issues, but conservative in other areas. Right now, from what I know by having a republican mother and mostly democratic friends, Romney would not do me, personally, much good. Now, that's not to say that I think Obama is great, but it's all relative. I want to be able to say that I am unenrolled or independant because I truely am just that. I am a free thinker, I don't buy in to propoganda on either side, and besides elections, I have my beliefs but I stay away from politics in general. I have too much else to worry about. I don't care about stepping on toes or coming off too strong. I don't mind standing up for what I think is right, or listening (Really, truely listening and considering) to people with differing opinions. But I don't like the extremeness belonging to a party seems to bring. It takes a lot less energy to suddenly get angry than it does to calm down, but thats what I think both parties need- to calm down, to compromise. Then I'll re-evaluate and decide.

Obama cares so much more about the working people of America than Mitt Romney. But to know that, you have to listen to them both, and consider their records when it comes to issues like wages, working conditions, equal opportunity across gender lines, etc. Given what we know of his record as a corporate executive, Romney will not do much good for the vast majority of working Americans. But good luck, Annie.

Jim...I am an enrolled Republican! Ronald Reagan was our GREATEST President!

Here's the deal....... I actually like Obama seems like a nice guy.
But sad to say he's being led astray by his advisers who have their own agenda and it's not for the betterment of America, and he probably sees it by now.
I don't think he's going to elected because he's pissed off some powerful people and organizations....like AIPAC. Big money behind them.
Now for golden spoon Mitt.....Nice fella, he can't relate to any of us as much as he thinks he can.
Brought up with money and never had to go without....sorry MITT you are not one of us.
So we have a decision between one who is a nice guy being cast off because of not going along with the program of the "Elites".
On the other hand Golden Boy Mitt, fits right in, he's a war hawk, loves Israel and that's where the money is right now.
Me, I'll pass on both. It's hard to watch the country go down the worm hole but there is nothing I can do....and nothing these fellas can do either because they nave been bought out by BIG money.
Our concerns are not important as much as the corporations and banks, and special interest running Congress. Remember "special interest" doesn't mean you or me.
Just my thoughts.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Kim, I love the comment about your Mother. This only re-emphasizes that a person's most important source of support is their Mom/family, and not eternal dependence on government. Good mothering passes on from one generation to the next, but so does dependence on government. Anyway, thanks for sharing, you made me smile.

@Jim H. - ah, so very true. I am a very strong believer that family helps family (not enables, but helps). I think that at the time of its inception, "welfare" made sense - as a temporary boost during devastating economic times. What it is today is simply a travesty.