I initially wasn’t going to bother responding to David Brooks‘ column today–until I read Pete Abel’s response. Brooks, perhaps thinking being a New York Times columnist gives him the authority,  presumes to understand the thou…

I find that more than a little condescending.

As opposed to what Mr Brooks, the ones who ask no questions and just vote as you tell them to vote? How dare anyone, as Polimom said so well, “continually evaluating and reevaluating my positions on things” Is it really such an inconvenience to have to defend your positions when some of these “herds of cats” actually ask thoughtful questions and expect thoughtful answers?

My only surprise is that liberal leaning voters haven't figured out that the Democrats are basically betraying them also. The Democrats have expanded on illegal wiretapping instead of putting safeguards in, cut deals with the MedMob to increase expenses, including the poor, cut back on individual benefits while increasing corporate benefits, and shown just as much fiscal irresponsibility as the Republicans did.

1. This was not a pro-GOP 1994 vote. This was an anti-lib-Dem, dissatisfied-with-state-of-affairs vote.

2. The “opposition” (including much independent or swing voters) was motivated. The Dem voters, notably the farther-left voters (e.g., “robust public option”), were unmotivated or as confused and bumbling as the Dems have been in past weeks.

3. The typical protests (free of liberal media bias and play-pen-bloggerish slander) reveal a non-liberal public fraction that is like the GOP, which has been dysfunctional and notably incoherent (struggling for coherence, in fact, as a primary remedial goal) for much longer and in much broader a way than the Dems. Aside from fighting the health care takeover, protesters are a mixed bag of people with all kinds of concerns, social and fiscal or financial being an obvious distinction in both goals and “factions.”

However, I also believe there are independents whose beliefs are set and then go looking for a political party that best aligns with those. If I ever met a Democrat that didn't want to spend my money everyday, I might be willing to switch since I prefer the more libertarian social views of the Ds.

When words get turned into labels, buzzwords, they lose their meaning.

Let's revisit the “shocking” definition of independent.
Source: dictionary.com
in?de?pend?ent??/??nd??p?nd?nt/
1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.
2. not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.
3. not influenced by the thought or action of others: independent research.
4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.