You say that as if it were a bad thing. Spending tons on defense? Well, excuse Reagan for actually spending tax dollars as The Constitution outlines. For shame!!!!.

Cut social programs? Again, excuse Mr. Reagan for trying to get rid of programs that, Constitutionally, should never have been set up by the Federal Government in the first place. Boy, it really sucks when you have a President that takes seriously his oath to “PRESERVE, PROTECT, and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States”. Unfortunately, few Presidents in recent memory have even understood what that oath means. Not to mention the majority of the left.

You say that as if it were a bad thing. Spending tons on defense? Well, excuse Reagan for actually spending tax dollars as The Constitution outlines. For shame!!!!.

Cut social programs? Again, excuse Mr. Reagan for trying to get rid of programs that, Constitutionally, should never have been set up by the Federal Government in the first place. Boy, it really sucks when you have a President that takes seriously his oath to “PRESERVE, PROTECT, and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States”. Unfortunately, few Presidents in recent memory have even understood what that oath means. Not to mention the majority of the left.

I should mention that I’m an independent who tends to lean right, but I am interested in what both sides have to say. You are right to imply that the more time that the Democrats spend attacking Palin, with mean-spirited and snobbish attacks in my opinion, the less likely I will be to consider their ideas. But then, as a person of faith, I am also less inclined to consider someone’s ideas when I sense that I’m being pandered to or talked down to because of my beliefs.

That being said, I remain unconvinced that simply throwing more tax dollars at big problems is the way to encourage the innovation and risk-taking needed to solve those problems. I have dealt with a wide range of companies in my life, some of them awful but many of them great, useful, and magnificent. On the other hand, I have had very few barely- acceptable experiences with government, many bad experiences, but never great and magnificent ones.

Typically, my frustrating experiences at the DMV come to mind when I think of government services: long lines, poor service, and unnecessarily bureaucratic policies. The DMV can get away with that because they know that I have no alternatives. I can’t take my business elsewhere.

But, the tech companies that you cover know that they have to be consistently excellent to keep me coming back. Are there still bad tech companies? Of course. But the status quo doesn’t encourage their complacency in the way that it does for too many government services. So why does it make sense to give government even more responsibilities, when it has failed, for the most part, to be exceptional in what it already does?

If the Democrats positioned themselves as the party that embraces entrepreneurs and encourages people to take risks and if they didn’t campaign so heavily on taxing (punishing) the rich for their success, then I would be more inclined to vote for them.

In other words, your fellow Democrats should spend less time talking down to people of faith and mocking likable, unpretentious people like Palin, and you should spend more time convincing people like me that you have good ideas to spark innovation and growth. Maybe then I would listen. Otherwise, I might just cling to my guns and my religion and vote for the other guys.

I should mention that I’m an independent who tends to lean right, but I am interested in what both sides have to say. You are right to imply that the more time that the Democrats spend attacking Palin, with mean-spirited and snobbish attacks in my opinion, the less likely I will be to consider their ideas. But then, as a person of faith, I am also less inclined to consider someone’s ideas when I sense that I’m being pandered to or talked down to because of my beliefs.

That being said, I remain unconvinced that simply throwing more tax dollars at big problems is the way to encourage the innovation and risk-taking needed to solve those problems. I have dealt with a wide range of companies in my life, some of them awful but many of them great, useful, and magnificent. On the other hand, I have had very few barely- acceptable experiences with government, many bad experiences, but never great and magnificent ones.

Typically, my frustrating experiences at the DMV come to mind when I think of government services: long lines, poor service, and unnecessarily bureaucratic policies. The DMV can get away with that because they know that I have no alternatives. I can’t take my business elsewhere.

But, the tech companies that you cover know that they have to be consistently excellent to keep me coming back. Are there still bad tech companies? Of course. But the status quo doesn’t encourage their complacency in the way that it does for too many government services. So why does it make sense to give government even more responsibilities, when it has failed, for the most part, to be exceptional in what it already does?

If the Democrats positioned themselves as the party that embraces entrepreneurs and encourages people to take risks and if they didn’t campaign so heavily on taxing (punishing) the rich for their success, then I would be more inclined to vote for them.

In other words, your fellow Democrats should spend less time talking down to people of faith and mocking likable, unpretentious people like Palin, and you should spend more time convincing people like me that you have good ideas to spark innovation and growth. Maybe then I would listen. Otherwise, I might just cling to my guns and my religion and vote for the other guys.