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.
Agreed but I see the same problems on the far left..
The difference is the liberals don't follow the far left, we tend to like the middle left people more. Though the right seems to think anything in the middle is far left these days, which is sad and makes me wish their party would crumble and be replaced with fiscal conservatives that are more situated closer to the middle for the good of the country.
Obama is arguably a moderate Republican. He implemented Romney-Nixon health care plan. He extended the Bush drone policy far beyond what Bush himself was willing to do. There is no significant difference between Obama and Romney on foreign policy, apart from Romney advocating less nuanced diplomatic language.
The Republican party will always be to the right of the Democrats. The irony is that the Clinton/Obama success controlling the middle, may have pushed the Republicans to the right.
If Romney had won the nomination and election in 2008, we would still have had the stimulus, Romneycare and the same foreign policy.
The only real differences between them are social issues, high-end tax rates and entitlement reform. Major differences, but not what the campaigns are talking about.
I can assure you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'm not going to become something I'm not because some liberal fool wants me to. I am far right and if someone doesn't like it, they can take a hike right on down the road. If the R party moves to the center, they will do so without me.
I don't understand why the GOP doesn't move to the middle more often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade52
The explanation is really quite simple:
The GOP has been taken over by the lunatic religious fringe. Unthinking, compliant individuals who react to any noncomformance with hatred. The GOP's corporate bosses find them very convenient pawns. Just convince them that every election is about gods, guns, and gays.
Back in the days when the GOP was a functional political party, they did move to the center and were adept at negotiation, compromise, and pursuing the national interest.
That era has passed into history.
The GOP is no longer a political entity. They've been taken over by radical religious zealots. These fundamentalists do not recognize their opinions as opinions. They see each of their agenda items as a commandment from their favorite god. So, compromise is simply not possible in their view. And anyone who holds a slightly different viewpoint is seen not as a fellow American trying to achieve something of value for their country, but as a hated enemy standing in the way of their divine purpose.
As we have observed in recent years, this has been extremely damaging to the USA. America works best when both major parties are rational actors. And the eventual result will be the shrinking of the GOP to a minor regional faction if they don't soon divorce themselves from the religious radicals.
I'm a good example. The Republicans had to go quite a way to lose the support of a guy like me. And they passed me by a long time ago. They're still accelerating in the wrong direction.
Obama is arguably a moderate Republican. He implemented Romney-Nixon health care plan. He extended the Bush drone policy far beyond what Bush himself was willing to do. There is no significant difference between Obama and Romney on foreign policy, apart from Romney advocating less nuanced diplomatic language.
The Republican party will always be to the right of the Democrats. The irony is that the Clinton/Obama success controlling the middle, may have pushed the Republicans to the right.
If Romney had won the nomination and election in 2008, we would still have had the stimulus, Romneycare and the same foreign policy.
The only real differences between them are social issues, high-end tax rates and entitlement reform. Major differences, but not what the campaigns are talking about.
The highest marginal tax rate in 1961 was about 80%. Just sayin....
Sure, but they also had a lot more deductions than now. When I was young, I remember that my mom added all of the credit card interest, auto interest, 100% of entertainment expenses instead of 50% like now and god knows what else to deduct. That was phased out in the Reagan administration in exchange for the lower tax brackets that we have now.
Coming from AZ you should know that the moderates of either party can't get nominated anymore. It's not just in AZ either. Look at MO senate, NV in 2010 and Indiana. Moderate Lugar loses to a kook in the primary. If you can't get on the ballot, you can't be elected. HUntsman would have probably been elected. But he would not have been nominated and never will be in the Republican party. To get nominated he would have had to pander to the right wing. Unlike Romney he was too honest to do that.
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?
Good description of me.
Let gays do what they like, let women choose, legalize cannabis, keep religion as far away as possible and keep your hands off my money.
Oh ... and fix health care, get my costs down 25% and all without transferring billions of taxpayer dollars into corporate America.
huntsman would have been torn apart for his chemical company and his big business ties to china by obama and his minions.
The chemical company is his father's. I can actually think of very little anyone could find to tear Huntsman apart over. Some far right-leaning republicans would object to the fact that he served as ambassador under Obama, but I don't think that would bother the majority. At any rate, he has far more going for him than anybody else I can think of. I just hope he ends up running.
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.
I don't understand why the GOP doesn't move to the middle more often.
