Extremes rule both parties

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>
Extremes rule both parties,
as centrists lose their seats</font size></center>




McClatchy Newspapers
By Steven Thomma
Friday, November 5, 2010


WASHINGTON — The center may be falling out of American politics.


Democrats More Liberal. About two dozen moderate to conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives were defeated this week, leaving a more liberal party in Washington.


Republicans More Conservative. Also, several moderate to liberal Republicans were turned out through the year, ousted by primary challenges from more conservative candidates and leaving a more conservative party behind.


Congress More Polarized. The result is a more polarized Congress. That could complicate efforts to solve some of the country's biggest problems, such as government deficits and debt, especially as outsized voices on talk radio, cable TV and in the blogosphere pressure the parties not to compromise.



All this risks driving politics farther from the American people, many of whom still stand squarely in the middle of the political road.

"Bit by bit, the center in American politics is getting weaker," said William Galston, a top policy adviser in the Clinton White House and a scholar at the Brookings Institution.

In the Democratic Party, this week's elections drove out about half of the conservative Democrats in the House, mostly from the South.

Among the losers: Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi, who voted against the Democratic health care law, opposed "cap and trade" energy legislation and voted for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for president in 2008 against his own party's nominee, Barack Obama.

The remaining Democratic lawmakers, particularly in the House, will be more liberal, and under great pressure from such outside groups as labor unions not to make any compromises that would cut federal spending, particularly for pay or benefits for government employees.

In the Republican Party, dozens of tea party conservatives won seats in the House. They're likely to pressure GOP leaders to make deep cuts in government spending, and to oppose any compromise with President Obama.

Tea party candidates defeated moderate rivals in Senate primaries through the year. Among the moderate GOP victims: Rep. Michael Castle of Delaware, Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, Secretary of State Trey Grayson of Kentucky and Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah.

The ultimate example: Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, whose political fate this year evoked the old line from Texas Democrat Jim Hightower, who sneered, "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."

A moderate to liberal Republican for most of his career, Specter was often right in the middle of Senate deal-making that bridged the two parties.

Conservatives finally forced him out of the party last year, when he switched to become a Democrat rather than face a GOP primary that he thought he'd lose to a more-orthodox conservative Republican.

Then he was driven out of the Democratic Party, losing its primary this year.

In his years in Washington, Obama often has shunned the center.

He never embraced the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, co-founded by Bill Clinton; Obama once declined to appear at a council meeting even though it was in the same building as his campaign headquarters. Obama also refused to join one of the most publicized efforts of the George W. Bush era to forge a centrist compromise, the "Gang of 14" center-minded senators, who worked out a deal to get Senate approval for President Bush's judicial nominees.

Obama said this week that he was willing to compromise, but he declined to fault any of his policies as misguided, and signaled that he'll fight any effort to repeal the health care overhaul or cut spending on such things as education or energy research, which he increased in last year's package to stimulate the economy.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., his party's leader in the Senate, signaled that his side won't give, either.

"The mandate for change is directed at the other guys," he said.

Some influential forces outside of Congress suggest that there's room to deal. Sal Russo, the strategist behind the Sacramento, Calif.-based Tea Party Express, said the group knew that there had to be deals in order to get to the larger goal of curbing the federal government. "Most people recognize that you have to give to get sometimes," he said.

Others aren't as flexible.

"What is all this talk about compromise?" radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh said this week. "Compromise is off the table. They didn't want to compromise with us and we have no business compromising with them. They lost. Losers compromise. We don't. We've got nothing to compromise."

"It means absolute gridlock," said Dennis Goldford, a political scientist at Drake University in Iowa. "Any hint of compromise is seen as treason."

If the two parties dig in to defend their ideological agendas, that might well appeal to their base of voters. But they'll risk further alienating the broad center of the country.

"Both parties in Congress have become farther apart and more homogenous. Yet if you look at public opinion, the electorate looks about the same as it did in the 1970s, with a big center," said Morris Fiorina, a political scientist at Stanford University, a scholar at the conservative Hoover Institution and the author of the book, "Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America."

"This was not an ideological election," Fiorina said. "This was people saying, 'We want to see the government work.' "

Galston agreed that there's a disconnect between the political parties and the people, but he suggested that the center also is shrinking among the people.

He noted that the ranks of Americans who call themselves moderate — one definition of the center — have been shrinking. The total of self-identified liberals has remained the same, while the ranks of conservatives have been growing.

"Elected officials are more polarized than the American people," he said. "But the American people are more polarized than they used to be."


(Halimah Abdullah and David Lightman contributed to this article.)


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/05/103292/extremes-rule-both-parties-as.html
 
20101103_BLUEDOGS.small.prod_affiliate.91.jpg
 
<font size="5"><center>
Can There be Compromise
Or Will They Fight to the Death
& Risk Killing the Country in the Process ?
____________________________________
</font size></center>



<FONT SIZE="4">Republican plan: No compromise with the Democrats</FONT SIZE>

McClatchy Newspapers
By David Lightman and
William Douglas
November 4, 2010

WASHINGTON — Republicans on Thursday began plotting strategy for the
next Congress by vowing to be unified and relentless in their insistence
that this year's health care overhaul be repealed and that most domestic
spending be frozen or cut drastically.

FULL ARTICLE





<font size="4">Here's how GOP will try to kill health care overhaul</font size>


McClatchy Newspapers
By Tony Pugh
November 4, 2010


WASHINGTON — In a symbolic show of opposition, resurgent House
Republicans are eyeing an early up-or-down vote to repeal the Obama
administration's health care overhaul, though a successful overturn of
the controversial measure is well beyond their reach.

Even if a proposal passes the soon-to-be GOP-controlled House of
Representatives, it's unlikely to go any further, considering the
Democrats' control of the Senate and President Barack Obama's
power to veto legislation.


FULL ARTICLE




<font size="4">Rand Paul: GOP must consider military cuts</font size>


Associated Press
November 7, 2010


WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen.-elect Rand Paul says GOP lawmakers
must be open to cutting military spending as Congress tries to reduce
government spending.

The tea party favorite from Kentucky says compromise with Democrats over
where to cut spending must include the military as well as social programs.

Paul says all government spending must be "on the table."

Paul tells ABC's "This Week" that he supports are a constitutional
amendment calling for a balanced budget.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...ZNNtug?docId=ed99cd69b82b4e6ebb0b101420a0cfc4






<font size="4">After Losses, Will Obama Compromise With GOP</font size><font size="4">
He will likely back away from big legislative
initiatives and focus on smaller items instead</font size>


USNews
By Kenneth T. Walsh
November 5, 2010


President Obama has to make a big choice after his party's big losses in
Tuesday's elections. He must decide between compromise and confrontation
with his Republican adversaries. Speaking with several senior White House
strategists, one gets the sense that he will take a middle course. His Plan
B will mean backing away from big legislative initiatives like those he pushed
during his first two years, such as winning congressional passage for a huge
economic stimulus package and an overhaul of the healthcare system, and
instead focusing on less ambitious projects that will still take the
government in an activist direction.

FULL ARTICLE




<font size="4">Obama sees potential for tax cut compromise</font size><font size="3">
Tax cut battle first major post-election challenge</font size>


Reuters
By Steve Holland
November 7, 2010


WASHINGTON, Nov 7 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama says a Republican
proposal to extend tax cuts to wealthier Americans for two years represents
a "basis for conversation" and he sees a potential for compromise heading
into negotiations.

Obama told CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview to air on Sunday night that his
top priority was making sure taxes did not rise on Americans making less
than $250,000 a year when Bush-era tax cuts expire at the end of the year.


Obama has been forced to consider a compromise to extend the tax cuts
for all Americans after congressional elections last week in which Republicans
routed Democrats from control of the U.S. House of Representatives and
narrowed the Democratic majority in the Senate.

The battle over the tax cuts represents the first major challenge facing
Obama and resurgent Republicans, testing both sides' willingness to
compromise.


FULL ARTICLE




<font size="4">Poll: Three in Four Want Political Compromise</font size>


poll_compromise_370x278.gif



CBSNews
October 27, 2010


Perhaps in response to the increasingly bitter partisan attacks that have
defined the 2010 election cycle, most Americans say that no matter what
the outcome of the upcoming Nov. 2 elections, they want to see political
compromise in the future, according to a new CBS News/New York Times
poll.


In a sample of 1,1,89 random respondents polled from October 21-26,
2010, 75 percent of likely voters - and 66 percent of Republicans - said
that, if the GOP wins control of Congress, the party should compromise
some of its positions to get things done. Seventy-one percent of all
voters, and 79 percent of Republicans, said that Obama should
compromise given the possibility of a GOP takeover.


Respondents also expressed deep cynicism about the motives ruling
legislative decision-making: 75 percent of registered voters said they
think that Republicans have opposed Democrats for mainly political
reasons
, while only 17 percent the opposition came from honest
disagreements.

FULL ARTICLE
 
<font size="3">Obama sees potential for tax cut compromise
Tax cut battle first major post-election challenge</font size>[/b]


Reuters
By Steve Holland
November 7, 2010


WASHINGTON, Nov 7 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama says a Republican
proposal to extend tax cuts to wealthier Americans for two years represents
a "basis for conversation" and he sees a potential for compromise heading
into negotiations.

FULL ARTICLE


<font size="3">GOP: No compromise on tax cut for wealthiest taxpayers</font size>


McClatchy Newspapers
By Renee Schoof
Sunday, November 7, 2010


WASHINGTON — Republican leaders in both the House and the Senate said
Sunday there would be no compromise with Democrats on whether to extend
Bush-era tax cuts for the nation's wealthiest taxpayers.

President Barack Obama has said he wants to extend the tax cuts for taxpayers
with a combined annual income of less than $250,000, but that the cuts
shouldbe eliminated for people making more than that. He's suggested there
might be room for compromise in discussions with Republicans on other tax
issues.

But both Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., who's expected to become the majority leader
in the House when the new Congress is sworn in next year, and Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell said on Sunday news programs that they'd insist on an
extension of the tax cuts for wealthy. McConnell said that higher taxes on
upper income earners would harm small businesses.

FULL ARTICLE
 
I think it's a reach to say the hard/extreme Left rule the Democratic party.

There's nothing wrong with compromise and it's the only way Congress will get anything done (with Dems in control of either house) but the Democrats should NOT compromise on the tax cut issue because it's a winner and because they're right. The best thing is for all the cuts to expire but the second best is the cuts for the top earners to expire. Democrats really need to play to win especially when they're on the right side of an issue.
 
This whole thread is wrong. Their are no elected hard left elected in the federal government.

But their are more than a few hard right.
 
This whole thread is wrong. Their are no elected hard left elected in the federal government.

But their are more than a few hard right.

That is the most delusional statement you have EVER made (and that's sayin' sumthin').
 
Last edited:
first, we must define "extreme". for instance, I may find it extreme for the govt to lay claim on income they did not earn. Or, it may be "extreme" to pursue wars of aggression, occupation in foreign lands. Or, naked body scanners.......the list goes on.

If we can ever approach govt spending from a standpoint of; What do we have currently, instead of How much do we need........I think some common sense solutions can be obtained!

Otherwise, you end up with the 'dumb' party compromising with the 'evil' party to pass legislation that is both 'dumb & evil'
 
first, we must define "extreme". for instance, I may find it extreme for the govt to lay claim on income they did not earn. Or, it may be "extreme" to pursue wars of aggression, occupation in foreign lands. Or, naked body scanners.......the list goes on.

If we can ever approach govt spending from a standpoint of; What do we have currently, instead of How much do we need........I think some common sense solutions can be obtained!

Otherwise, you end up with the 'dumb' party compromising with the 'evil' party to pass legislation that is both 'dumb & evil'


Extreme is lowering tax rates for the wealthy to such low levels. Defense is at least 22% of the federal budget. If you let the GW tax cuts lapse for everyone (return to Clinton's tax rates), the budget would be balanced in 5 years.

Compare the tax rates of republican presidents Ford, Nixon and Eisenhower and then contrast them with republican presidents Reagan, HW and GW and you will see which party is electing extremes according to your parameters.
 
Back
Top