Reply
Sat 2 Dec, 2006 12:42 pm
To the center?
There's discussions amongst elected Republicans that maybe they should
move to the center.
How dense are those
leaders? Don't they realize that moving to the center is what lost the election for them? People want a Dem, they'll vote for a Dem, why would they vote for a
fake Dem.
The two major parties have melded so closely together that it's hard to tell the difference anymore. It took the Dems 40 years to get to the corrupt place they were in Congress & it lost them the election in '94, finally. It took the Repubs 12 years to get to that same place.
Agreed. They should shift farther to the right.
This strategy has worked like a charm for the GOP in Washington state. One recent candidate for governor advocated privatization for the U of Washington. We've had Democratic gov's for many years...
The GOP IS the centrist party these days. Many of those Democrats who got elected (mostly by paper thin margins), won by moving away from the Leftish Democratic politics.
They will find that having to actually deal with the problems that Democrats too often whine and cry about is a much harder thing to do. The Left wing of their party will not turn the world into Utopia in the next two years. Indeed, they stand a good chance of making our place in the world riskier and worse. I'm pretty sure we will recover our congressional majority along with the White House in the next election. If t'aint broke, don't fix it.
Dartagnan wrote:Agreed. They should shift farther to the right.
This strategy has worked like a charm for the GOP in Washington state. One recent candidate for governor advocated privatization for the U of Washington. We've had Democratic gov's for many years...
We have a neice that lives in Seattle & she isn't really very political but did say much the same thing you said.
I am conservative & will vote for the most conservative person that's running. I have not voted Dem since LBJ, but am starting to re-think my
no vote for any Dem, especially the
Zell Miller wing
In order to win an election, a candidate has to be acceptable to the majority of the people. Recently, the government has been overwhelmed by a group of people who have come from the far right end of Republican thought.
As such, they have not only been anathema to people from the left, but have turned off many moderate Republicans. As a result, there has been a backlash. I doubt very much that a far right Republican will have much of a chance of being elected in the forseeable future.
If a Republican wants to attain or remain in office, he needs to attract the majority of voters, not merely pander to a splinter group. Therefore, by moving to the center, a candidate may attract moderate Republicans, and some conservative Democrats. Since the far right Republicans probably would never vote for a Democrat anyway, he may get some of those votes, although I suspect that many of the far-righters might not vote out of protest, which would be biting off their noses to spite their faces!
Asherman wrote:The GOP IS the centrist party these days. Many of those Democrats who got elected (mostly by paper thin margins), won by moving away from the Leftish Democratic politics.
They will find that having to actually deal with the problems that Democrats too often whine and cry about is a much harder thing to do. The Left wing of their party will not turn the world into Utopia in the next two years. Indeed, they stand a good chance of making our place in the world riskier and worse. I'm pretty sure we will recover our congressional majority along with the White House in the next election. If t'aint broke, don't fix it.
Pro-gun, pro-life Dems are the ones that got elected, for the most part. One would think that the Repubs would look at that & think. I feel like handing them a note that reads
Here's yer sign
The Dems will now have to put up, solve the same problems that they say the Repubs have created. The Dems will have to stop with all the negativity, doom & gloom & get on with it. You're right though, there will not be a Utopia, but they will, IMO, try to move to complete socialism.
Phoenix32890 wrote:In order to win an election, a candidate has to be acceptable to the majority of the people. Recently, the government has been overwhelmed by a group of people who have come from the far right end of Republican thought.
As such, they have not only been anathema to people from the left, but have turned off many moderate Republicans. As a result, there has been a backlash. I doubt very much that a far right Republican will have much of a chance of being elected in the forseeable future.
If a Republican wants to attain or remain in office, he needs to attract the majority of voters, not merely pander to a splinter group. Therefore, by moving to the center, a candidate may attract moderate Republicans, and some conservative Democrats. Since the far right Republicans probably would never vote for a Democrat anyway, he may get some of those votes, although I suspect that many of the far-righters might not vote out of protest, which would be biting off their noses to spite their faces!
Then how do you account for the conservative Dems that won their elections & the Congress?
The conservative Democrats are acceptable to both the Democrats, and the liberal Republicans.
Phoenix32890 wrote:The conservative Democrats are acceptable to both the Democrats, and the liberal Republicans.
But what about the liberal dems not being elected?
LSM- I think, that at this point in time, the people of the US are becoming sick of polarization. I think that they have had it "up to their ears", for the last few years. I think that the far end of both groups, both right and left, are going to have a tough time at the voting booths.
In order to run this country efficiently, you need to have people who can muster up a consensus, not have people constantly at sword's point.
Madam,
I am curious about what you mean by "complete socialism". What do you mean by this?
I am one of the Americans who wants the Democrats to stand for strong progressive values. I don't like the idea of the Democrats becoming "centrist" as this usually means compromising on core values.
I don't believe on "complete" anything, so I (as one of the people who claim will lead to complete socialism) probably wouldn't support complete socialism.
But I am curious about what specific policies you think people like me will push for that scares you so much.
Please be specific...
ebrown_p wrote:Madam,
I am curious about what you mean by "complete socialism". What do you mean by this?
I am one of the Americans who wants the Democrats to stand for strong progressive values. I don't like the idea of the Democrats becoming "centrist" as this usually means compromising on core values.
I don't believe on "complete" anything, so I (as one of the people who claim will lead to complete socialism) probably wouldn't support complete socialism.
But I am curious about what specific policies you think people like me will push for that scares you so much.
Please be specific...
We already have many socialist programs that IMO, are unconstitutional.
SS, Medicare, the many welfare programs, the list is very long. Now there's talk of a national health care program....Again. The NAU will certainly expand those already bank busting programs.
These programs are not unconstitutional. Quite the contrary. These programs were started using the process of legislation that is set forth in the Consitution.
These programs are law because they were enacted as part of our democratic political process.
If all Americans agreed with you about these programs, they simply wouldn't exist.
You have the right to your opinions. But you should take care when you dismiss the opinions of millions of Americans, and the results of our (Constitutional) democratic process si,mply because they don't fit in with your beliefs.
ebrown_p wrote:These programs are not unconstitutional. Quite the contrary. These programs were started using the process of legislation that is set forth in the Consitution.
These programs are law because they were enacted as part of our democratic political process.
If all Americans agreed with you about these programs, they simply wouldn't exist.
You have the right to your opinions. But you should take care when you dismiss the opinions of millions of Americans, and the results of our (Constitutional) democratic process si,mply because they don't fit in with your beliefs.
Why should I
take care of what others think? All of these nanny programs are nothing less than socialism. The Constitution does not guarantee us happiness nor wealth, it guarantees us the right to work for the pursuit of.
Socialism=A system on public ownership & distribution of wealth.
There are some people that need help, not ALL people need help. Socialist programs go to ALL people, the wealthy as well as the poor. that is
redistribution of wealth. We'll be like communist/socialist countries if we keep on like this, a doctor & a ditch digger make the same wages.
Lone Star, I agree, but unfortunately the country is raising and educating a generation of softies that have little clue how to budget, be personally responsible for themselves, their families, and their futures. Instead of buying medical insurance, go buy a new car or a new house, or go on a cruise. The nanny state is here to stay. The majority will continue to vote for the politicians that promise to do everything for them and take care of them. Clinton won by "feeling our pain." And now that a large portion of the people pay no income tax, why wouldn't they vote for more benefits that they don't have to pay for?
I hate to say it, but freedom without responsibility will not succeed. So we will continue to lose the freedom of choice concerning many things because the government will be taking over that responsibility. If the people that don't know what the Constitution says or care even if they do, can outvote those that do, I would say we are on the downhill side of the great country we once had.
okie wrote:Lone Star, I agree, but unfortunately the country is raising and educating a generation of softies that have little clue how to budget, be personally responsible for themselves, their families, and their futures. Instead of buying medical insurance, go buy a new car or a new house, or go on a cruise. The nanny state is here to stay. The majority will continue to vote for the politicians that promise to do everything for them and take care of them. Clinton won by "feeling our pain." And now that a large portion of the people pay no income tax, why wouldn't they vote for more benefits that they don't have to pay for?
I hate to say it, but freedom without responsibility will not succeed. So we will continue to lose the freedom of choice concerning many things because the government will be taking over that responsibility. If the people that don't know what the Constitution says or care even if they do, can outvote those that do, I would say we are on the downhill side of the great country we once had.
Where'd you come from?
A voice of reason, here? :wink:
The liberals have always worked towards socialism & now many people believe it's their right for you to pay their doctor bills, pay for their child care, even make sure that they have a home in an upscale neighborhood at your expense, (subsadized housing) We can't expect people to work for years to attain a comfortable life. The gov't (with taxpayers $$) must provide care from the cradle to the grave....or so the liberals believe.
You're right though, the cancer has grown out of control now all we can do is feed it.
Just two things Madam,
You are misusing the term "unconstitutional" which generally is taken to mean "prohibited by the constitution".. There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits the programs you dislike so much.
I am not going to argue with you all about socialism, because by the earlier definition on this thread, I guess I am a "centrist" (I hate this term").
Complete capitalism would lead to a cruel, cold and unjust society. I can give you plenty of examples where the rich and powerful (people with control of all the money) had too much power which led to a society where the poor had no rights and no opportunities.
As an economic centrist, I want a free market that is regulated where it is needed. Publically funded education, for example, is necessary for any kind of fair society. Publically funded immunizations are the only way to have public health for anyone (look at our defeat of polio for an example).
If you are defining public spending, or regulation as "socialism", then I will call myself a "centrist". Let's have a balance.
But what I am really saying is that the Consitution did set up a pretty good political process for resolving these issues. These programs exist because they they have the public and societal support they need to exist under our constitutional political system.
& complete socialism would do what?
Madam,
I avoid both extremes.
Complete socialism (I don't know exactly what this would mean, but I assume it would mean zero private enterprise) would be a complete disaster. Complete capatilism would be cruel and unjust.
I think most Americans like the system we have. We have a free market economy. The goverment helps in some areas, and regulates when needed.
The economic argument in the US seems to me to be a disagreement over the details. I don't think there are very many people who want pure capitalism-- with no public services (i.e. education, research and immunization).
There are extremists on both sides (socialists and pure capitalists) but the vast majority of Americans like a balanced system. Obviously we have some disagreements over the details which is why we have a constitutional political system.
But using "socialism" as an attack against anyone who disagrees with you over details of a system that we all basically agree on seems petty.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace