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 agree...I'm sure that you see the Flake and Carmona ad on literally ALL the time. They are ridiculous. It just irritates me that these days you can't see two moderate politicians talk about the issues in a reasonable fashion. To me the 2012 GOP, if they had any sense, would have nominated Jon Huntsman to run against Obama but moderates just can't survive in the fringes of the primaries. The papers characterized Huntsman as a liberal despite one of the most conservative fiscal records in Utah all the while earning the nod of being the most well managed state in the country...I just don't get it.
But even moderate politicians change their politics when getting the party nod. McCain moved more to the right when he was running in 2008...Carmona moved to the left after he was tapped to be the Dem for senate...Flake has moved more to the right since running for senate as well. For once, I would love to see a candidate just stay where they really are.
The Carmona/Flake thing is sad. Neither of those guys are as bad or as extreme or have done/stood for the positions the ads say they have. The out of state money has just poisoned what would have been a good contest.
I got redistricted this year and I have a "choice" between Raul Grijalva and some tea party guy whose name I forget. There is no way in heaven I am voting for either of these crazies and I think many people feel the same as I do, but that is the choice the primaries gave us.
California is experimenting with non partisan primaries and we in AZ may be doing that too. It is an imperfect answer though as CA experience is showing.
As a Republican, I love seeing a center-right GOP candidate (like Jon Huntsman) run. All the liberals spend their time complaining about how they dislike the "far-rigth" and "RWNJ's" but when a lot of them see a moderate GOP candidate running they usually seem to have better things to say about them. Now...I'm not saying the GOP should base what it pools in candidates off of what the other side would want but ultimately isn't the objective to gain the most broad appeal? A moderate GOP candidate, like a Jon Huntsman, stands a much better chance of winning a general election than someone further to the right because they stand a smaller chance of alienating moderate voters that lean to the right on fiscal issues while being more to the left on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, or international intervention.
Think about it. Would a VERY far right GOP voter vote for a moderate Republican or a liberal Democrat like Obama? It's pretty clear that they would vote for the GOP candidate because, while they may not line up 100%, they line up maybe 85% whereas they would likely up with Obama next to none. I think if the GOP ran a moderate candidate that was socially liberal to some degree but fiscally conservative (not to the extremes of a die hard Libertarian) the GOP would win election after election with moderate ease because ultimately the base is going to vote for their party. The moderate voters decide elections and always have. Why not pander to them?
Any thoughts?
the republican party hasnt moved to the extreme right. fiscal responsibility isnt extreme. whats so extreme, opposing gay marriage? gay marriage has lost every single time its been put to a vote of the people. abortion? ok, but most people do believe abortion is wrong. even if they think it should be a choice, it doesnt seem so extreme to oppose it.
I agree...I'm sure that you see the Flake and Carmona ad on literally ALL the time. They are ridiculous. It just irritates me that these days you can't see two moderate politicians talk about the issues in a reasonable fashion. To me the 2012 GOP, if they had any sense, would have nominated Jon Huntsman to run against Obama but moderates just can't survive in the fringes of the primaries. The papers characterized Huntsman as a liberal despite one of the most conservative fiscal records in Utah all the while earning the nod of being the most well managed state in the country...I just don't get it.
I agree with everything you've written here, but in regard to Huntsman, I think you have to give President Obama some of the credit for being politically astute enough to know that by appointing Huntsman ambassador to China, he made the one candidate who could possibly draw votes away from his base totally unacceptable to the right. In the minds of far right voters, serving his country while the opposition party held the presidency made Huntsman a traitor to the GOP. Well done, Mr. President.
As a Republican, I love seeing a center-right GOP candidate (like Jon Huntsman) run. All the liberals spend their time complaining about how they dislike the "far-rigth" and "RWNJ's" but when a lot of them see a moderate GOP candidate running they usually seem to have better things to say about them. Now...I'm not saying the GOP should base what it pools in candidates off of what the other side would want but ultimately isn't the objective to gain the most broad appeal? A moderate GOP candidate, like a Jon Huntsman, stands a much better chance of winning a general election than someone further to the right because they stand a smaller chance of alienating moderate voters that lean to the right on fiscal issues while being more to the left on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, or international intervention.
Think about it. Would a VERY far right GOP voter vote for a moderate Republican or a liberal Democrat like Obama? It's pretty clear that they would vote for the GOP candidate because, while they may not line up 100%, they line up maybe 85% whereas they would likely up with Obama next to none. I think if the GOP ran a moderate candidate that was socially liberal to some degree but fiscally conservative (not to the extremes of a die hard Libertarian) the GOP would win election after election with moderate ease because ultimately the base is going to vote for their party. The moderate voters decide elections and always have. Why not pander to them?
Any thoughts?
The conservatives might vote for a liberal republican over Obama (like they did for McCain) but there would not be a great turnout and Obama would win. Besides, the left is SO far left now that even the center is very liberal. Just look at JFK for example. He supported lower taxes on individuals and business and a strong military. As a Catholic he probably would not have been an advocate for abortions and gay marriage.
Romney is a moderate republican. Most conservatives would have liked a more conservative candidate.
I agree with everything you've written here, but in regard to Huntsman, I think you have to give President Obama some of the credit for being politically astute enough to know that by appointing Huntsman ambassador to China, he made the one candidate who could possibly draw votes away from his base totally unacceptable to the right. In the minds of far right voters, serving his country while the opposition party held the presidency made Huntsman a traitor to the GOP. Well done, Mr. President.
Here's what I don't understand about that. If Huntsman had served his country as a leader in the military (a key role in national security and intelligence) under the Obama administration, no republicans would think anything of it. Because he served his country in the STATE DEPARTMENT, serving as an ambassador (a key role in international trade, national security and intelligence) he's suddenly unacceptable? It's nuts.
gay marriage has lost every single time its been put to a vote of the people.
one thing we may wish to discuss is that considering gay marriage has lost every time it has been put to a vote of the citizens, how do so many people label those with that position as extreme?
i think the left has had great success in labeling certain people and groups as extreme when they really arent extreme at all.
Romney is a moderate republican. Most conservatives would have liked a more conservative candidate.
Sure he is. But he had to kiss so much RW booty on the way to the nomination that it is impossible to know how he will govern at this point. Too many puppet strings.
I don't know if you've been paying attention, but the Democrats have moved increasingly to the right, and you're hard pressed to find more than a handful of true left wing liberals holding national office. I don't think the crazies control the entire GOP--about 30% of the base are still moderates--but the people being elected are nuts--there are virtually no moderates left in the Senate or the House.
When you have the GOP running far right candidates against their fellow more moderate members in primaries across the country, there's a serious problem. Here's an example: Out of all of the republicans running for Senate this time, 15 of them oppose abortion rights for rape and incest victims, and some even oppose it when the life or health of the mother is in danger. Until very recently, many leaders in the GOP supported abortion rights, period (Barbara and Laura Bush, etc.) The far right radical evangelical end of the base has taken over the party, and created a situation where centrists have a hard time backing them.
The truth is that Obama should be losing by a landslide in this election based on the economy alone, but he's not because the GOP has gone off the deep end. As the country becomes increasing ethnically diverse, and as the GOP becomes more and more radical, this election may well be the last hurrah for the GOP. It's sad. Richard Mourdock One Of At Least 15 GOP Senate Candidates Who Oppose Abortion For Rape Victims
The issue to me with gay marriage and the GOP is as follows.
-I have always supported the GOP because I believe they are the party that tends to respect individual rights and negative freedom (freedom from intervention) in a better light.
-Allowing a minority of the population to have their rights dictated by the majority is an infringement upon their liberties.
-Therefore, to me, the more theoretically republican position would be to "get the government" out of the bedroom and in this case...the courthouse by making marriage an equal right regardless of who wants to do it.
-Furthermore, to me dictating the rights of the minority by a referndum on the majority is an expansion of government into their personal autonomy which, to me at least is fundamentally incompatable with what the reducing the size of government itself.
The Carmona/Flake thing is sad. Neither of those guys are as bad or as extreme or have done/stood for the positions the ads say they have. The out of state money has just poisoned what would have been a good contest.
I got redistricted this year and I have a "choice" between Raul Grijalva and some tea party guy whose name I forget. There is no way in heaven I am voting for either of these crazies and I think many people feel the same as I do, but that is the choice the primaries gave us.
California is experimenting with non partisan primaries and we in AZ may be doing that too. It is an imperfect answer though as CA experience is showing.
I agree about Carmona and Flake...it is just annoying to watch now.
I too have been redistricted and I don't care for either of my candidates either. On one hand I have tea party Vernon Parker and on the other I have "prada socialist" Kyrsten Sinema. It's miserable to listen to the vitriol rolling from their campaigns.
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.
