Please consider the following:
ideologically extreme: On a ‘liberal-conservative’ measure of Congressional votes, going back to early in the 20th century, there used to be an overlap of about one-third between Republicans and Democrats (meaning that there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats). Beginning in the 1980s, Republicans have gotten steadily more conservative, while Democrats have stayed where they were (ie, Democrats have NOT gotten more liberal). Now the most liberal Republicans (including your favorite, Scott Brown) are more conservative than the most conservative Democrats. And many of the Congressmen elected in 2010 are extremely extreme.

contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime: Throughout American history, both parties understood that they could battle over issues, but when one view was accepted by the bulk of Americans, the discussion ended – except on the margins. For example, Democrats opposed Teddy Roosevelt’s environmentalism, then gave in. Republicans rejected FDR’s Social Security and LBJ’s Medicare – but then accepted that the American people liked these policies. Both parties initially considered contraception immoral, but then recognized that such a view contradicted American wisdom. But today’s version of the Republican Party wants to re-fight these and many other issues – to end Social Security and Medicare, to oppose contraception, to privatize everything (except what goes on in the bedroom), to reduce the role of government far beyond any reasonable ‘small government’ level.
scornful of compromise: In 2009, newly-elected President Obama tried very very hard to involve Republicans in decisions on all issues. (Many of us thought that he was nuts to do so, since he had clearly won the right to ignore the opposition.) He was met by a Republican leadership that interpreted the word ‘compromise’ to mean ‘you accept our views’. After the 2010 election, it got much worse. Republican refusal to compromise has become completely overt: tea party Congressmen would rather wreck the country than even think about compromise.

unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science: If the Republican Party were to eliminate from its ranks people who don’t believe in things like evolution or global warming, you would lose every election. You who are reading this (who, I presume, are more reasonable Republicans) know that ‘facts, evidence, and science’ should inform our actions. But many of your voters do not.
dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition: Ideologically-extreme Republicans claim that Democrats are socialists, are taking away our freedom, are ignoring the Constitution, and other total nonsense. In fact, the Democratic Party is far less liberal now than it was in the 1960s-1980s (when it brought us such terrible things as civil rights and Medicare). Many of the tea party Congressmen refuse even to meet their Democratic peers (for fear that they might be contaminated). Unless we can return to a situation where our representatives on both sides of the aisle can talk to each other and can recognize that the ‘other’ is not a demon but has the best interests of the nation in its votes, our future is bleak. Democrats keep trying; Republicans don’t.

Well said Robert. I chuckle when I see people get on their high horse about "their party". I don't believe in party politics. I vote for the person and for the issues I am most concerned about. People voting straight party tickets is a dangerous game.

Yeah, but Robert, that is exactly what this letter is. His issues force you to choose sides. Have him actually use facts instead of quotes and it may make the article worth something. He actually insults the intelligence of all republicans who think for themselves. I have no use for this democratic rhetoric. I don't need this crap telling me who to vote or not vote for. Should be left in the trash, not posted.

I believe that we should do way with the property tax completely becuase it is a regressive tax.

I oppose the use of drones.

Peronally, I am far more interested in national and international politics, and don't really follow what happens regarding town issues and personalities...In any case, I have presented a detailed argument that posits that the national Republcan Party has become far more extremist while the Democratic Party has not. You have not responded to any of the five parts of that argument. Claiming that there also are (a few) Democratic extemists is not a response,

We will have to agree to disagree on your involvement in local politics - it is well documented on another site as well as individual's inboxes. The fact that we have a political class makes both parties irresponsible and demonstrates the need for term limits. Whether there are good or bad eggs is of no matter, the Founding Fathers never intended for there to be a political working class. The fact that THAT political class does not have to abide by the same rules and regulations as the rest of us makes them all irresponsible. They shouldn't have a different helath care than those they serve, those who serve on oversight committees should have blind trusts so as not to be able to legally engage in insider trading, no pensions, limited staff, etc etc etc

That one letter was based solely upon my frustration reading about a private party being discussed at length for weeks on end ad nauseum. I do know now that there might be other issues - although I haven't been sufficiently interested to learn more. I am far more concerned with the national election.

Don,
So you are frustrated that the people that make the laws, enforce the laws and monitor the adherence of the laws do not have to follow the same laws? Lavender is just one incident of what is wrong with the political situation in Sudbury and yet you defend the actions of our elected.

Come on Don, get real. Should we start posting all the local political opinions that you have written? It is about time you started to be a little more honest with all of us.

I would suggest to you that Warren's most recent tv ad referring to China's infrastructure spending in comaparison the the US's is not only irresponsible but incorrect. 1) the US does not control GDP as China does 2) the US GDP is far more than China's hence the dollars spent on infrastructure are decidedly more. Democrats want to expand unemployment without a work requirement - irresponsible to those who don't see the need to get off public assistance as well as those who work hard and pay taxes to support those on public assistance. Democrats want to redistribure wealth and punish achievers, in return rewarding those who don't achieve creating an entitlement class. Democrats want public assistance to be a way of life not a temporary hand up. I think these are incredibly irresponsible and far more debilitating to our country.

Don,
I am an independent and always have been. I am not a democrat or a republican specifically because of comments like yours that divide people. I agree with many other posters, your credibility here is long gone.

Don,
1. Please provide us with your analysis of how wealth has been redistributed to the rich. I haven't had the time to analize wealth trends, how much wealth there is today compared to the past, who holds wealth now versus in the past, how much the middle quintile of household wealth has increased overtime relative to inflation, and whether the people who are in the various quintiles of household income today are the same people as 10 or 20 years ago. I know that 30+ years ago when I left college, I was in the lowest quintile. Today I have significantly more wealth than in the past. It wasn't because the federal government redistributed it to me, and it was in spite of the Federal government's unending efforts to confiscate more and more of my individual Income.
2. Regarding candidate Warren's infrastructure spending commercial, see my letter to the editor this coming Friday for an analysis of what a shallow concept it is for Warren to suggest US government infrastructure spending should increase to a percentage of GDP more like "our competitors" such as China.
3. I am not a Republican, but am concerned about the gross expansion of Federal powers at the expense of State rights and individual liberties. One party has lead the way (while the other was many times complicit) in the progressive dismantlilng of the Constitution and the seperation of powers vital to ensuring our Federal Government is a Government with limited powers.

Further discussing the article about wealth distribution in the US, all groups polled significantly underestimated the actual wealth distribution inequality. But most interesting, all groups polled indicated that they would prefer a much more equitable distribution than actually exists.

Thank you for the reference Sid. The paper you refer to at reference 22 asks what Americans think an appropriate distribution of wealth should be. I am sure you noticed they were not asked what they were willing to do to earn the wealth, what they were willing to do sacrifice to achieve personal wealth, what their perception of an appropriate distribution of wealth is based on, and wether they are entitled to the wealth (property) earned and owned by someone else. Neither does the paper examine wealth mobility. I found it interesting that thier question about an appropirate distribution of wealth resulted in an unequal distribution of wealth across the population. I also found it interesting that the report failed to comment on how Federal welfare programs have resulted in generational welfare and a quartile of population with no earned wealth and a % of wealth too small to be measured on a graph.
From my personal perspective, I do not feel the need to be in any particular group holding any particular percentage of hte nation's aggregate individual wealth on the basis of entitilement and government enforced confiscation of one person's labor and wealth to be given to another. I'll continue to make decisions about charitable giving on my own, not under the coercive demands of the Federal government. Neither do I envy someone else's wealth. I am not entitled to it, I didn't earn it, and frankly its theirs, not mine. Thank you again for the reference.