archduke

It goes on to say that the American electorate is not polarizing. Rather it is just sorting. Essentially, the self-identification numbers are essentially the same, i.e. moderates have made up between 20-30% of the electorate since 1972. Further, Americans essentially feel the same about most issues as they did 20 or 30 years ago. What is different now is the homogenity of the political parties

.

The electorate may not be polarizing. However, the republican party has certainly become more extreme, in that candidates with the more extreme views of the Tea Party won in many primaries. As well, with strong lobbying within the Party, the last 5 years have seen the GOP cleave to policies on social issues, and other issues that are diverging from main stream acceptance..
With only two realistic choices at the polls come the election - the electorate is faced with a difficult choice if they are what previously might have been called moderate Republican or an independent.

The two party system, the reliance on huge finances to be able to run politically, and therefore the reliance on corporate funding, and the system of primaries all contribute to the circumstance..
But primaries, and the ability of small energized extreme groups to dominate in primaries, is probably the greatest contributor.

Only the Republicans? Really?

Brad, where did ricky say 'only' in that post? What is it with these gotcha questions?

bbauska

Only the Republicans? Really?

Well, as DAnivon says, I didn't say only...however
The Tea Party movement, over the last 6 years has not, in any way, replicated by activity of a similar organized group in the Democratic Party. (Poliitical Action Committes, new caucuses, pledges, candidates with the TP identification as their banner., targeting of moderate party members and active primary campaigns designed to eliminate those perceived to be too moderate.. ...)

However, your comment does demonstrate the American fetish for 2 sides in the debate.
A product of the two party system, it limits debate to a confrontation rather than an examination of ideas and alternatives. In itself, this lends itself to more extremism.
For example; RINO is an expletive that is used to define, dismiss and, for some, smear a member of a Party who expresses more moderate views .... Its a way to ensure that only the more extreme view is accepted and supported within the party. Which leaves those who have trouble with the extreme view .... small recourse.
If they leave the party, it diminishes the party in numbers, and leaves the party destitute of ideas other than those considered correct by the extreme elements .
In a multi party system, that disgruntled member might find his proper place one party over in the political spectrum.

where did he say "only"?
gee, he slammed the Republicans in his entire post, mentioning how bad the Republicans were throughout. He also never mentioned Democrats, yes, I would say he was speaking of Republicans only.

so, to state
"Republicans bad, Republicans evil, I hate Republicans, Republicans are the Devil ...."
then come back with
"gee, I never said Democrats were not just as bad"
no, I'm not buying it in the least.

We have a special election here in Massachusetts for Kerry's open Senate seat. I read about a Republican candidate named Gomez who is pro-life (but thinks that Roe V. Wade is settled) and is favor of gay marriage. He's in favor of a path to citizenship for illegals. He's a Columbian immigrant with an impressive resume although no public service. I realize that Massachusetts is not representative of the country, but I'm sure this candidate is more moderate than his Democratic counterparts.

Interesting guy Ray. Red the last line and tell me how that will appeal to republican tea party types..

Gomez, the son of Colombian immigrants, has made a good impression with some of the party leaders he has met with over the past few weeks.
"I was very impressed with Gabriel Gomez,'' said former governor Paul Cellucci, who ­believes Gomez would provide a strong voice for bipartisan cooperation in Washington. "He really carries himself with grace and dignity. He has stature and is very impressive.''
Cellucci added that Gomez had a compelling life story, pointing to his parents' roots and his rise through the Naval Academy and Harvard Business School.
But his support of Obama in 2008 and his donations to other Democrats, including $1,000 to liberal Alan Khazei for the US Senate in 2009, could hurt him in a GOP primary fight

.

http://www.redmassgroup.com/diary/16489 ... riel-gomez

GMTom wrote:where did he say "only"?
gee, he slammed the Republicans in his entire post, mentioning how bad the Republicans were throughout. He also never mentioned Democrats, yes, I would say he was speaking of Republicans only.

so, to state
"Republicans bad, Republicans evil, I hate Republicans, Republicans are the Devil ...."
then come back with
"gee, I never said Democrats were not just as bad"
no, I'm not buying it in the least.

Well, I don't see ricky's post but I will assume from the other's comments it is more of his usual Republicans are evil extremist crap. If that is the case, it just shows he didn't actually read the article I linked to. If he had, he would have seen this paragraph from the first part.

There's an important footnote to this discussion: While voters haven't become more polarized, Congress has. There are far fewer moderates in the House and Senate, and members have increasingly inclined toward the ideological extremes.

And that is the exact point I, and this article, am trying to make. If you focus solely on the national issue, and or national potlical punditry, it looks loke the parties are polarizing. However, when you work in the trenches, you realize the reality is that regular voters aren't really all that extreme in their positions. Rather they are just ideologically orthodox.

Ray Jay wrote:We have a special election here in Massachusetts for Kerry's open Senate seat. I read about a Republican candidate named Gomez who is pro-life (but thinks that Roe V. Wade is settled) and is favor of gay marriage. He's in favor of a path to citizenship for illegals. He's a Columbian immigrant with an impressive resume although no public service. I realize that Massachusetts is not representative of the country, but I'm sure this candidate is more moderate than his Democratic counterparts.

Interestingly, didn't I make this kind of remark/observation a couple of months ago and get slammed by others has not understanding the Republican party?

rickyp wrote:Interesting guy Ray. Red the last line and tell me how that will appeal to republican tea party types..

we can talk about it or just wait till the primaries on April 30th.

Well, it's possible that the Tea Party has had its day in any case. Their strand of hardcore conservatism obviously isn't going away, but it's not proven to be electorally successful so inevitably the influence will wane. I think the first pillar of their platform to crack will be the strident opposition to immigration reform. The demographic split in the last Presidential election makes it clear that Republicans need to reach out to latinos. They can either try to do that by choosing more latino candidates and toning down the rhetoric or they can continue to lose elections that are there for the taking until the choice is forced upon them. I suspect that the current frenzy for moral issues will recede somewhat as well in coming years. For all that it fires up the conservative base, Roe vs Wade is highly unlikely to be repealed. A couple more of Obama's picks in the Supreme Court would likely bury the issue for a generation at least, if not forever. How much longer can candidates keep banging away at an issue that can never be resolved in their favour ?

The optimistic view is that perhaps all that will ultimately come out of the Tea Party revolution is a renewed focus on fiscal discipline and a realisation of the limits to conservative radicalism. That wouldn't be so bad.

archduke

Well, I don't see ricky's post but I will assume from the other's comments it is more of his usual Republicans are evil extremist crap.

what you say is relevant

There's an important footnote to this discussion: While voters haven't become more polarized, Congress has. There are far fewer moderates in the House and Senate, and members have increasingly inclined toward the ideological extremes

.

what I said in part.

The electorate may not be polarizing. However, the republican party has certainly become more extreme, in that candidates with the more extreme views of the Tea Party won in many primaries

And as Tea Party cndidates won they made congress more extreme ..

But you assume away from your careful reading of Bbbauska and Tom who apparently write things you agree with and therefore read.
Even when they aren't accurate.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

GMTom wrote:where did he say "only"?
gee, he slammed the Republicans in his entire post, mentioning how bad the Republicans were throughout. He also never mentioned Democrats, yes, I would say he was speaking of Republicans only.

so, to state
"Republicans bad, Republicans evil, I hate Republicans, Republicans are the Devil ...."
then come back with
"gee, I never said Democrats were not just as bad"
no, I'm not buying it in the least.

Well, I don't see ricky's post but I will assume from the other's comments it is more of his usual Republicans are evil extremist crap. If that is the case, it just shows he didn't actually read the article I linked to. If he had, he would have seen this paragraph from the first part.

That paragraph is hilarious. You didn't read what Ricky said, so based on an assumption you'll suggest he was remiss in not reading something you replied. And they say Americans can't do irony?

Was the whole post just saying that Republicans are bad, as Tom characterised it? Hmm. Seeing as you didn't see it, I'll post it and you can check for yourself how awful it really was (although it was the first post on the page where you said you hadn't seen it, so I'm not sure why):

rickyp wrote:archduke

It goes on to say that the American electorate is not polarizing. Rather it is just sorting. Essentially, the self-identification numbers are essentially the same, i.e. moderates have made up between 20-30% of the electorate since 1972. Further, Americans essentially feel the same about most issues as they did 20 or 30 years ago. What is different now is the homogenity of the political parties

So, he quoted you at first, acknowledging your point that it is not the voters who are polarising.

rickyp wrote:The electorate may not be polarizing. However, the republican party has certainly become more extreme, in that candidates with the more extreme views of the Tea Party won in many primaries. As well, with strong lobbying within the Party, the last 5 years have seen the GOP cleave to policies on social issues, and other issues that are diverging from main stream acceptance..

So, he actually accepts what you suggested he'd ignored.

And then, yes, he does go on to talk about the Republican Party becoming more extreme in terms of candidates (which I guess would then be reflected in the people elected, right? Gosh, that is also similar to what the bit you quoted said - "There's an important footnote to this discussion: While voters haven't become more polarized, Congress has. There are far fewer moderates in the House and Senate, and members have increasingly inclined toward the ideological extremes")

That paragraph though, is the only one that you could possibly read as being about how bad the Republicans are.

There was more, however...

With only two realistic choices at the polls come the election - the electorate is faced with a difficult choice if they are what previously might have been called moderate Republican or an independent.

The two party system, the reliance on huge finances to be able to run politically, and therefore the reliance on corporate funding, and the system of primaries all contribute to the circumstance..
But primaries, and the ability of small energized extreme groups to dominate in primaries, is probably the greatest contributor.

These read as neutral to me. The first is addressing the dilemma that centrists and moderate Republicans, and it omits moderate Democrats, but essentially it does seem to be saying that for those who are in the middle and haven't moved, the rightward trend (whether perceived or real) in the GOP makes it harder for them to vote Republican. Also, if the Democrats had moved right, perhaps such a dilemma would not exist, so it implies (as far as I can see), that at the very least the Democrats have stayed where they are, and could well have moved left as well.

But mostly he's not demonising the Republicans. The last part is talking about the system itself.

Yes, he doesn't say that the Democrats are just as bad, but I don't know that he has to in order to make Brad's question and Tom's accusations false.

Now, I know that you guys find Ricky difficult to handle, and he sometimes does veer off, but if you are going to argue against him, and especially if you are going to insinuate that he's ignoring what you've presented, you could do a lot worse than to actually 'see' his post before commenting.

Ray Jay wrote:

rickyp wrote:Interesting guy Ray. Red the last line and tell me how that will appeal to republican tea party types..

we can talk about it or just wait till the primaries on April 30th.

Hmm. So a Republican who wants to stand in one of the most liberal states in the US is not as right wing as many of the already elected members in Congress?

Big whoop. I think we can all realise that there are different positions across the states within the parties, and that just as there are Republicans in some places who would be seen as 'liberal' in Red states, there are Democrats who stand in some places who would be to the left of them.

Of course, the overlap is a lot less than it used to be - and some argue it doesn't exist any more (in some ways it's becoming a gap) - but if there is an overlap it says something about both parties (as does any lessening of the overlap or the formation of a gap).

There are plenty of pro-life Democrats out there, and some get elected (three Senators and 4 Reps are endorsed by Democrats for Life of America, the main pro-life org, but there a few are others who are pro-life as well as far as I can tell). That would be a legacy of having a lot of Catholic supporters in part. It may be fewer than before, but it would be wrong for anyone to say there are none, or that they can't win Primaries.

Of course, this MA might not get anywhere in the Primaries. And if he does win the candidacy, it will be interesting to compare his positions to that of his Democrat rival.

haha, that's just great! You read between the lines while I read what was stated.