Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't like religious nut jobs either. Once again you open mouth insert foot.
Sorry, I pretty much stopped listening to you after you exposed yourself as a racist in the 1950's thread. Also, when I said you put in their place, I didn't mean that someone like you would have any power over anything including a political process.
The problem is that the extremism is in the Demo side too. They are not quite as noisy about it as the Reps are with all the talk shows and maybe the ideas are not as far left of mainstream thought as the Reps are far right. But the Dem primaries also tend to promote the most radical candidate to the ballot. So the choice is often between extremes. Very few moderates get on the ballot anymore on either side. I agree; it is insane, but if the moderate majority fails to show at the polls this is the way it is going to be.
I edited my post as you were commenting--sorry. I think that when the GOP loses it's moderates, we almost push the D's to become equally extreme, because they have no incentive to elect someone who will work with both sides to solve problems. I'm convinced that a big chunk of the problem in recent years is election funding. When you have special interest groups like unions and corporate groups providing all the funding, you're going to get extreme. When candidates can run with the support of one billionaire, you're going to get crazy. I think the majority of Americans are moderate, but right now, campaigns aren't funded by moderate groups or individuals. We have to fix campaign funding before we can fix the problem.
I also need to add--I'm from Nebraska, where very liberal democrats are a rare breed. We don't have a lot of radical conservatives who win either--we tend to run very republican, but down the middle.
Her reasons for leaving are quite telling. There's no room in our government for a moderate Republican who doesn't march in lock step and blindly follow party ideology, good of the country be damned.
And also a lack of compromising democrats to work with her too to be fair. Though I do personally blame the GOP more at this time for Congressional partisianship, but thats IMO.
I'm a moderate republican, and I've got to say--I think you're absolutely right. This move to the extreme end of the party will be fatal to the GOP unless the establishment gets the guts to put a stop to it soon. If not, we're going to lose big chunks of more moderate voters, if they're not gone already. Other posters are also correct--Snowe's seat will go to a Democrat, simply because the GOP has become too extreme and almost unrecognizable to many GOP voters.
I think the GOP is lost right now. There has to be balance--not rigid ideology--and you have to be willing to form coalitions and compromise. I think this new batch of republicans has zero interest in actually governing, and more in making political points--it makes zero sense. Instead of focusing on the economy--what we pledged to do--we're off in statehouses introducing personhood amendments, raising a stink about contraception, and mandating trans vaginal ultrasounds prior to an abortion. When a moderate R challenges that approach, the radical end goes after their own long standing party members in the primary to vote them out. It's insane. I'm voting in the R primary--I'm supporting local candidates who think like me--but if a radical conservative wins, I'm not going to vote for them in the general. I think I'm far from alone.
EDIT--I forgot to add this. The scary part to me is that if the GOP continues to go off the deep end, and the D's gain a serious majority, there's nothing to stop them from going just as radically liberal as the GOP has become radically conservative. You are exactly right that there has to be moderates on both sides to level out the debate, and to promote a balanced view and reason. Unless the approach of one side is challenged with legitimate and logical debate, there's no incentive for them to work to compromise. Losing moderates in the GOP, and the unwillingness of the far right end of the party to compromise, could ultimately push the D's away from the middle and more to the left, because they have no reason to TRY to compromise anymore, because it doesn't do any good. It's a vicious cycle.
In 2008, I voted about 60% R including McCain and 40% D (from Federal to Local Level). This year, at least on the National/State level with where the GOP has moved itself, I will be hard pressed to do the same and may reverse the above %. I'm very disappointed with the GOP message and where it has gone.
Only the nuts on this board would call Snowe a Liberal. Sad commentary.
Well to be fair she was only willing to go so far to accommodate the tea party. Like Romney said, she wasn't willing to set her hair on fire to win votes.
It's a real shame since it just means the GOP goes further to the right, hard as it is to believe that's even possible at this point.
IEDIT--I forgot to add this. The scary part to me is that if the GOP continues to go off the deep end, and the D's gain a serious majority, there's nothing to stop them from going just as radically liberal as the GOP has become radically conservative.
Actually what's happened is the Democrats have drifted further to the right while the GOP has gone off the cliff. The extremism of Republicans gives them cover to ignore what little actual leftist bloc still exists within the party, because all they have to do is point at their opponents and say "if you sit this election out, these nutcase will win".
Actually what's happened is the Democrats have drifted further to the right while the GOP has gone off the cliff. The extremism of Republicans gives them cover to ignore what little actual leftist bloc still exists within the party, because all they have to do is point at their opponents and say "if you sit this election out, these nutcase will win".
I agree that there aren't a lot of far left D's in power right now (although there are some), and the only people that you really hear calling the current crop of D's far left is the far right end of the GOP--it's all in your perspective based on where you are. I've been called a communist on this board, and I'm about as moderate (with very conservative stands on some issues) as it gets. That said, I still think we're a long way from every elected D being a moderate.
I think the D's in general have drifted more toward the middle now, but the rise of union activism and anti corporate groups etc. in response to radical right wing proposals could easily push the D's further left over time, especially if the far right end of the R party takes total power of the GOP and they wind up completely losing more moderate independents and a big chunk of races. The more the D's win, with no moderate counter balance from R's, the more likely they are to make extreme shifts as well.
I guess what I'm saying is that a lack of moderates on one side impacts both sides, because compromise is what pulls both sides to the middle. If the moderates are gone in the GOP, and there is no compromise, I think the GOP will lose power, and factions of the D's shifting left will gain strength because there is no incentive to even try to work with the GOP.
I'm hoping we clean house this election and the radicals lose now so we can start rebuilding and make corrections. Short term loses may be the best thing that could happen for the long term health and strength of the GOP--let the crazies lose big and and then aggressively run more economic growth oriented r's the next round vs. social conservatives.
I see where you're coming from with the notion that moderateness functions as a tether to keep either party from drifting off to their respective extremes. Except the historical record for the past 30 years has shown that as the GOP has gone farther and farther to the right, the Democratic party has followed them rightward, such that what constitutes the "middle" politically would've been considered right wing not 20 years ago. If the GOP were to die off tomorrow and Democrats gained a multi-generational majority in national politics, which was the case from about 1933-1980, they would govern as a center-right party. The quasi-left minority, having no reason to support Democrats any more, would split off into their own thing. The assumption you're working with is that the left wing of the Democratic party has sufficient pull similar to the far-right base of the GOP, to drive them leftward, let alone keep them from moving to the right, which hasn't been the case at all.
And this isn't even taking into account that moderate Republicans who leave the party also function to pull the Democrats to the right as well.
Last edited by box_of_zip_disks; 02-29-2012 at 11:04 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
