Comments on: Vision

By: Dr. Elaine J. Miller

Dr. Elaine J. Miller — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:26:33 +0000

Dear Mr. Bechener,
I had to check out the web site, because I read you Guest Opioion “Costly, Inconvenienet Socialied Medicine the Wrong Answer.” You make a very strong and obvious point of abuse of a free service. I heard on the radio just yesterday,that Seattle has socialized medical care and the EMT that called said they get calls from women with a simple yeast infections to be driven to the ER for immediate attention. Also senior citizens that don’t want to wait in the DR’s office call for the EMT’s to drive them to the ER. There is no way abuse can be prevented.

I admire your work,web site,opinions and hope to see your writings on the national media soon. Thanks for sharing your expertise.

Sincerely,
Dr. Elaine J. Miller
Morrisville, PA

By: Gail Thibodeau

Gail Thibodeau — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:05:00 +0000

Hi Matt,
Checked out your website after reading your editorial in the Courier today. Great editorial! I wish more people would be concerned and outspoken about Obama’s plans for socialism in our great country!

By: Jim Jess

Jim Jess — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:51:43 +0000

Matt,
I agree that “prudent governance” should be recognized, and, at times, Democrats have offered it. More often than not, however, the position that contributes to the power of the state wins out.
I believe Clinton was liberal to moderate in his views, but tended to take the liberal position. He was very comfortable with European-style social democracy and tried to promote that sort of approach, as with the failed “Hillary-care” proposal. But he was a politician first, and he sensed the wind blowing in a conservative direction, especially after 1994.
That being said, what politicians from both parties should do is restore limited government based on the U.S. Constitution. The only ones that seem to come close to that are more conservative Republicans and some of the Libertarians, who will probably never put together electoral majorities. The Dems are intent on expanding the power of the state, contrary to the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson, the supposed founder of their party. Most Dems seem to be clueless about the founding principles of this country, which is why I am more comfortable supporting Republicans in almost every case.

By: mattbenchener

mattbenchener — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:58:05 +0000

Jim, thanks for the feedback. You make some great points that I definitly agree with–that is why I stressed Clinton to be a fiscal conservative. Whether it was because of his conservative Congress or not, the bottom line results were low spending and a balanced budget. It’s important to recognize prudent governance when we see it, no matter what party it comes from.

By: Jim Jess

Jim Jess — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:50:01 +0000

Matt,

I agreed with some of your opinions about Bush not being conservative, but most conservatives would take issue with calling Clinton a conservative. He gutted the military and thought social engineering in the defense department should be guiding principle rather than national defense. He had no stomach for national security and was more focused on avoiding his own prosecution than prosecuting Bin Laden. The fact that the economy did well under Clinton was the result of two developments: a rising economy due to the high-tech “bubble,” and a Congress that pushed him to be more conservative on a number of issues. The fact that he left the government solvent was as much a result of previous policies (i.e., tax cuts in the past) and an economy driven by high-tech speculation as anything else.

By: Sal Fasano

Sal Fasano — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 03:00:04 +0000

I agree with all of the above. I think there should be a place for logical discussions on politics. As we all know, most political sites– conservative and liberal, end up being extremely emotionally charged– and have zero rational, civil discussion. On some issues, we’ll all strongly disagree, but I hope everyone can bring rational arguments to the table and people can make up their own minds.

I would also welcome a debate on the relative merits of liberalism and conservatism. There are positive aspects of both and it would be an interesting debate.

By: Saylor Smith

Saylor Smith — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:11:29 +0000

Matt,
You and I discussed some of these issues recently. I agree with you that there is a desperate need for clear, logical, non-partisan thinking these days. I know you and I both hope the Obama administration can, indeed, operate on a bipartisan basis, however difficult (impossible?) that may be. I just finished reading Joseph Ellis’ newest American history piece, “American Creation.” In it, he describes how the political party system evolved in this country. I recommend it to you.

I think, as part and parcel of your blog, you might want to begin a discussion/debate regarding the relative merits of liberalism and conservatism, both of which, I would argue, have had positive (and negative) effects on our society. If you are interested, I have an essay in defense of liberalism that I would be happy to submit.

Congratulations on your new blog. I’m sure it will contribute to the dialog we all need to have about the direction this country should go.

Best regards,
Saylor

By: April Manring

April Manring — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:17:15 +0000

Matt,
This truly is a great idea! I’ve read all of your posts, and I appreciate your views on the Republican and Democrat parties. You have gleaned out, and simply explained the problems that republican party has faced and come up with the feasible solutions to win people back to the real values of the party. I hope your message gets heard and it reaches as many people as possible. We need more straightforward thinkers like yourself to clear the air of both parties to bring unity and understanding of one another. This nations ideals have become diluted into too many unnecessary concerns, and we need to hear a clearer message as you said yourself. Thank you for starting this blog.