The Great Moderate Exodus

[LambHair McNeil]

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no unreasonable Dems??

Really this is just illustrating my point, and her feelings.

...which is a good point.

It's not as if the "Blue Dog" caucus (somewhat more moderate as opposed to liberal) within the House is very highly thought of by Dem party leadership. Nor, despite the 90's successes of Bill Clinton, was the now-defunct Dem Leadership Council (which strove to push the Dem party back towards the middle and not let it drift too far leftward) highly thought of...by virtually anyone in the Dem party orthodoxy.

As this NPR link from 2011 shows, when the writer said that the DLC had many enemies inside the dem party, due to its centrist tack and sometimes loud criticism of liberal ideas/ideals, he assumed there would be no shortage of dems lining up to dance on its grave (the DLC closed in 2011). He then had a moment of doubt, wondering if the feelings would be that intense. He then phoned the founder of the Daily Kos to see if that's how he felt...it was...and in fact the writer says Mr. Moulitsas wanted to know where the grave was so he could dance on it.

It's a huge country. Some areas are indeed deep red and others are very deep blue, but both parties set themselves up for electoral sweeps when they try to pretend that purple doesn't exist.

I doubt this trend will change anytime soon, due to the fact that Congressional redistricting favors incumbency protection above all else (for both parties), partisans of one party think it's always the other party that needs some moderates, and the fact that over the past 35 years both parties have moved to their respective left and right...to find the bigger and bigger bucks. I think it was John Ashcroft who once had a saying that the only thing you find in the middle of the road are dead skunks and worn-out political moderates. If I'm correctly crediting him with it - seems fairly apt.

 

[joyboytoy79]

Wow, would you look at that! An actual debate is happening in a thread that I started!

Here's where I stand on things.

I'm admittedly, and unabashedly über-liberal. Most people on here seem to assume I'm a democrat. Well, the truth is, I'm not. I'm admittedly, and unabashedly independent. And I never ever vote for the ultra liberal candidate. Why? Because I recognize that the causes that are most important to me stand the best chance of gaining support and acceptance when they aren't being championed by an ideologue. When I find a moderate candidate who has a fiscal stance that I find tolerable, and a social stance that I find admirable she/he is going to get my vote.

Moderates are able to do something amazing. They're able to find commonality with their opponents. In fact, they seem to seek commonality. They are then able to work WITH the opposing side to come to agreement on what is best for the common good. That isn't to say we need a congress full of moderates. There are ideas in the extremes on both sides that are worthy of exploration, and they need to be heard. We need a small handful of John Boehners and Nanci Pelosis on either side, but they need to be buffered by a wide berth of moderates in the middle, so that work can still be accomplished.

The problem I see with Olympia Snowe's retirement isn't so much that she's retiring. She deserves to retire. She's been a dutiful and hard working public servant, and she has accomplished so much. The problem I see is the manner in which she's retiring. She's retiring with a defeatist attitude. She's basically saying "moderates can't accomplish anything anymore." If I wasn't the head-strong rationalist that I am, I would be looking at her, as someone that I admire, and I would be likely to agree with her. And then, the next time i voted, I would toss all compromises out the window and vote for the most extreme liberal I could find.

She's leaving with her head down. And that's all wrong. She needs to be saying "look, it's time for me to move on, but look at what can happen when you elect moderates. Look at how much we've been able to accomplish because people like me were in the middle, seeking workable solutions to both side's needs and wants. Look at how good we are for the country." Because, really, that's the truth behind it. That moderates are unable to accomplish anything in today's political climate is a lie. Moderates are the BEST able to accomplish in this climate - there just aren't enough of them. It's the over-population of extremists on both sides that can't get anything accomplished - and this was the PERFECT opportunity to address that.

*steps off of soap box*

 

[Dave NoCal]

The republican party has driven out its moderates (RINOs). That is somewhat less true of the dems. For example, retiring Ben Nelson, a blue dog, got major money from the party in his last election even as he was working against comprehensive health care.

 

[ripsrips]

MY thoughts:
Senator Snowe would have to go through a primary. Maine's Republican Party has gone off the deep end and is now ruled by the Tea Party. I think Ms. Snowe saw the writing on the wall. She would probably win her seat back in a general election but it is doubtful she would survive her party's primary. I wouldn't be surprised if Maine's other Senator, Susan Collins, comes to the same conclusion when her term is up. Senator Collins sponsored the repeal of DADT. The Tea Party was not amused.

The democratic party is now ruled by liberal extremist!

 

[Klingsor]

Give us a break. Both sides have an agenda. Both sides are equally rotten. Most people on this site are going to be pro-Dem, and anti-Repub because of the stands on abortion, and gay rights. Ironic isn't it that a gay Republican organization is the one that sued to get Don't Ask Don't Tell repealed? Yes, it was the Log Cabin Republicans that fought to get the repeal.

And that's a good thing. It would have been even better if they had gotten more than 11% of their fellow Republicans in Congress to vote for the repeal--to go with the more than 95% of Democrats who did.

Equally rotten? Not quite.

 

[B_Nick8]

It's the reason that Snowe is retiring that is so disheartening to me. It's emblematic of everything that's wrong with government in general, particularly since Obama's election and the Republican-induced polarization of Congress. While the Dems see this as an opportunity to pick up another seat, I'm an idealist who believes in a healthy two party system. In a perfect world, I'd rather see a House and Senate comprised of more people like Snowe with moderates of different views on both sides working together to make this country great.

 

[LambHair McNeil]

...

The problem I see with Olympia Snowe's retirement isn't so much that she's retiring. She deserves to retire. She's been a dutiful and hard working public servant, and she has accomplished so much. The problem I see is the manner in which she's retiring. She's retiring with a defeatist attitude. She's basically saying "moderates can't accomplish anything anymore." If I wasn't the head-strong rationalist that I am, I would be looking at her, as someone that I admire, and I would be likely to agree with her. And then, the next time i voted, I would toss all compromises out the window and vote for the most extreme liberal I could find.

I'm not arguing against you, but the notion of a log-jam in the Senate (and Congress in general) didn't start with her retirement announcement, or so I think. I feel it's part of a decades-long process that is becoming more noticeable as we get closer to its political edge (conclusion?). As the process has unfolded, I agree that it has seen republican leaders effectively flush a great many moderates out of the party. However, I think it fair to suggest that Dems aren't doing badly at playing catch-up.

We can all name a few names from each side that somewhat held the label of "moderate" and who are no (or soon won't be) longer around, *mostly* because of the Senate's increasing tendency to bind itself like someone on a 20-day cheese-eating binge. A few notable democrats that could be offered up would be Evan Bayh (IN - tired of the bickering), Ben Nelson (HC fallout), John Breaux (LA - uber popluar and could have won a 4th term but somewhat tired of the bickering). Mr. Breaux also was a co-founder of the Centrist Coalition of Senate Democrats and Republicans, along with now-deceased former R Sen John Chafee - an org which sprung up in the aftermath of the gov't shutdown debacle of the mid 90's. As an aside, who took over for John Chafee, as co-chair, when he passed away in 1999? Olympia Snowe.

As I suggest, it's not been as noticeable until recently, purely for the reason that there are now truly so few moderates left - on either side. Highlighting the Dem side of the matter, this article (despite its source) makes an electoral observation which seems stunning to consider: Whatever you ascribe the reasons behind it to be, by the time this Nov's elections are over, it's likely the "blue dog" centrist-Dem caucus in the House will be down to 13-16 members, from as many as 52 in just 2009.

Again, the process continues to unfold...

 

[Phil Ayesho]

See what I mean???

It's become an "it's always the other side" battle :irked:

Please... don't pretend that this is not the GOPs trend over the past 25 years.


They keep moving further and further to the right extreme in hopes to shift the "center" further to the right.

Reagan, Nixon, Goldwater, and Eisenhower would not even be considered "conservative" by todays litmus test of absurd extremity.

When Conservatives ran both houses and the presidency, not too long ago, Liberals ABSOLUTELY still cooperated and were willing to compromise to get bills passed.

And today... the Rights policy positions CHANGE as fast as Obama can agree to them.

Claiming that "both sides are guilty" is bullshit. Its a Spin tactic created thru focus fucks like Luntz.

( just as claiming that we should "teach the controversy" is an abject lie, because there is NO controversy over intelligent design... its NOT theory when there has been not even one peer reviewed publication on the subject )

So, sorry... but the Conservative base has flown off the rim of the reasonable world, and it is strictly the GOP senate minority leader who has stated outright that the GOP's SOLE legislative focus for the past 3 years has been in defeating Obama.

Obstructionism has not been on both sides... it has become the GOPs stock in trade.

 

[joyboytoy79]

I'm not arguing against you, but the notion of a log-jam in the Senate (and Congress in general) didn't start with her retirement announcement, or so I think. I feel it's part of a decades-long process that is becoming more noticeable as we get closer to its political edge (conclusion?). As the process has unfolded, I agree that it has seen republican leaders effectively flush a great many moderates out of the party. However, I think it fair to suggest that Dems aren't doing badly at playing catch-up.

We can all name a few names from each side that somewhat held the label of "moderate" and who are no (or soon won't be) longer around, *mostly* because of the Senate's increasing tendency to bind itself like someone on a 20-day cheese-eating binge. A few notable democrats that could be offered up would be Evan Bayh (IN - tired of the bickering), Ben Nelson (HC fallout), John Breaux (LA - uber popluar and could have won a 4th term but somewhat tired of the bickering). Mr. Breaux also was a co-founder of the Centrist Coalition of Senate Democrats and Republicans, along with now-deceased former R Sen John Chafee - an org which sprung up in the aftermath of the gov't shutdown debacle of the mid 90's. As an aside, who took over for John Chafee, as co-chair, when he passed away in 1999? Olympia Snowe.

As I suggest, it's not been as noticeable until recently, purely for the reason that there are now truly so few moderates left - on either side. Highlighting the Dem side of the matter, this article (despite its source) makes an electoral observation which seems stunning to consider: Whatever you ascribe the reasons behind it to be, by the time this Nov's elections are over, it's likely the "blue dog" centrist-Dem caucus in the House will be down to 13-16 members, from as many as 52 in just 2009.

Again, the process continues to unfold...

Lambhair - I'm not sure why you posted this as a response to me. I haven't said one word about Republican or Democrat accept to assert that I am not a Democrat. As I said, I vote for who I think will do the most good - and I put on party blinders when I make that decision.

My gripe here isn't with the Republicans. I don't need schooling on the Democratic shift to the left. I really would rather avoid appointing blame to Democrats or Republicans. Hell, for as long as I've been a voter, it's been the Independents who really decide who gets elected.

My concern here is really with the electorate, and my only gripe with Mrs Snowe is the wording she chose with which to announce her retirement. It sets a tone that says "don't vote for Moderates, they can't get anything done with all the big boys on the extremes around." And you're right - she isn't the only one saying it, but she's one of my heroes and so it's harder for me to hear it from her.

(and yes, a self professed liberal has just called a Republican one of his heroes, and no, I don't see any irony in that)

 

[Countryguy63]

It's the reason that Snowe is retiring that is so disheartening to me. It's emblematic of everything that's wrong with government in general, particularly since Obama's election and the Republican-induced polarization of Congress. While the Dems see this as an opportunity to pick up another seat, I'm an idealist who believes in a healthy two party system. In a perfect world, I'd rather see a House and Senate comprised of more people like Snowe with moderates of different views on both sides working together to make this country great.

Wow

I believe this is the 1st time I have ever agreed completely with a post in the Politics Forum :arms:

 

[B_Nick8]

Wow

I believe this is the 1st time I have ever agreed completely with a post in the Politics Forum :arms:

Ah, well, you knew the two of us would come together eventually didn't you? :wink: But I should warn you that in my heart of hearts, I'm a knee-jerk lib. :biggrin1:

 

[Countryguy63]

Ah, well, you knew the two of us would come together eventually didn't you? :wink: But I should warn you that in my heart of hearts, I'm a knee-jerk lib. :biggrin1:

How bout we forget the knee, and just jerk :wink:

 

[cruztbone]

yes, with the departure of Olympia Snowe ,that leaves 2 moderate repugnantcan senators left in the US senate; one from Maine and one from Mass.
they should be on the endangered species list.
this makes voting Democratic even easier in november. thanks GOP. you are doing a great job making Demo fund raising easier !!!!!

 

[Hoss]

yes, with the departure of Olympia Snowe ,that leaves 2 moderate repugnantcan senators left in the US senate; one from Maine and one from Mass.
they should be on the endangered species list.
this makes voting Democratic even easier in november. thanks GOP. you are doing a great job making Demo fund raising easier !!!!!

It could also make voting in a Republican easier as people see the opportunity to shift things further to the right.

I'd love to see the Republicans take a commanding lead in both houses just to see if President Obama really can live up to the hype which his supporters have handed him.



Moderates see no reason to stay, they see the fat cats on the left and on the right and the finger pointing and the lack, total lack, of either side to actually try to reach agreements along with a President who has several times left town when big issues are being discussed and he might be of assistance.....although as has been seen by a number of his 'meetings' with members of the houses, it tends to be 'by invite only' and he stacks the invite list with Democrats.


I am disappointed with how the Republicans didn't even attempt to get a decent candidate in, that they've spent months bickering and sniping at each other. What this means should be clear to all.
Knowing the Presidency will go to Obama, Republicans across the country will swarm the voting booths and pull levers for Republican candidates for Congress and do the same in places where there's a Senate race. Even fence sitters will go to the Republicans and several disillusioned Democrats will cross party lines....not so much because they agree with the Republicans but as a message to the Democrats, including the President who didn't even try to make progress in the last few years.

 

[SilverTrain]

I'd love to see the Republicans take a commanding lead in both houses just to see if President Obama really can live up to the hype which his supporters have handed him.

I'm really tired of this straw man canard. What "hype"? The fact that he was elected by a significant majority of the population? Just like a great many of the elected officials (including presidents) before him?

The second he was elected this "hype" talk started amongst people who opposed and/or resented his election. I've never heard it applied to any politician before or since.

Every politician carries the weight of expectations, some realistic, some not. But adding another layer (via the "hype" canard) is at best, disingenuous. Often, it's just a blatant effort to reduce him.

In any event, it's sheer bollocks.

 

[Klingsor]

. . . including the President who didn't even try to make progress in the last few years.

This is the same president whom conservatives castigate for pushing through his leftist agenda (economic stimulus, auto company bailouts, healthcare reform, financial reform, etc.) to an unprecedented extent, right?

Just checking.

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

That's only because you want to bury your face in it again :tongue:

You know that isn't the head you like me to stick in there. :tongue: