Why Is the Republican Field So Extreme? (Read 1977 times)

Scout7


CPT Curmudgeon

    I would say it is very misleading to characterize the Republican Party as extreme.  More accurately, there is a significantly-sized -- and very vocal and activist -- minority within the party.  Due to both the fact that a split party cannot win (thank you DMN 2-party system), and that this segment is the most vocal/activist, it has an unusual amount of power within the party.

     

    Jeff didn't say the party, he did specify the candidates.  I mentioned the party, but was not trying to specifically call the party extreme at all.


    I've got a fever...

      I am fairly conservative

       

      I would like to see Gov't (Fed-State-Local) about 2/3 the size it is currently.  To have a defined contribution retirement program, have retirement age same as social security.  To have health care contributions and insurance plans similar to the private sector.  No health insurance for early retirement.  A smaller defense budget (Less interest in being involved in every conflict).  I would like to see less spent on subsidys for Ethonol and Oil.  I would like to see 1 gas formulation for all states to stop inflating gas prices.  A little bit less regulation for businesses.  I do not agree with tax cuts and would even be willing to pay a wee bit more to move the deficiet down.

       

      So, whose my candidate?

       

      I'd say the closest would be John Huntsman, or maybe Ron Paul.  Huntsman certainly has been burnishing his center-right (which is what your views sound like) bona fides lately, and talking like the kind of Republican that a center-left fella like myself would actually consider voting for, but he hasn't gained much traction.

      On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office.  But you will wish that you'd spent more time running.  Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.


      Feeling the growl again

        Agree with everything here. I said the field was extreme, not the party.

         

        I think the Tea Party has emboldened some people to throw their hat in the ring, who otherwise would not have bothered.  I think they are in for a rude awakening...that or Obama will have an easy campaign.

        "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

         

        DoppleBock


          I haven't had one I could feel good voting for in a long time -

           

          Nobody at present.

          http://a-big-horse.blogspot.com/ 

          2013 Goals ~ Mar < 3:00, 5M < 29, 10k < 35  

           

          Scout7


          CPT Curmudgeon

            I'd say the closest would be John Huntsman, or maybe Ron Paul.  Huntsman certainly has been burnishing his center-right (which is what your views sound like) bona fides lately, and talking like the kind of Republican that a center-left fella like myself would actually consider voting for, but he hasn't gained much traction.

             

            Ron Paul?  Really?  The man who wants to disband the Fed and pull every single military person from overseas and station them only in the US?


            Feeling the growl again

              Jeff didn't say the party, he did specify the candidates.  I mentioned the party, but was not trying to specifically call the party extreme at all.

               

              Actually he said "current crop of Republicans", which is broader than just the candidates.  Then he mentioned two of the candidates.  So it could be taken either way.  I am sure he did not take time to triple-check his post for clear meaning just as I put very little effort into interpreting it.  I think we're on the same page.

               

              Wink

              "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

               

                Actually he said "current crop of Republicans", which is broader than just the candidates.  Then he mentioned two of the candidates.  So it could be taken either way.  I am sure he did not take time to triple-check his post for clear meaning just as I put very little effort into interpreting it.  I think we're on the same page.

                 

                Wink

                 

                Check the thread title, brother.

                Scout7


                CPT Curmudgeon

                  I haven't had one I could feel good voting for in a long time -

                   

                  Me either.  It's why I don't vote.

                   

                  That, and the fact that the President, no matter how much talk he/she puts forth, is not really able to change things very dramatically.

                   

                  Which is the beauty of the system.  No one person or party has the capability to create significant change, barring a catalyst event.


                  Feeling the growl again

                    Check the thread title, brother.

                     

                    OK, so I was focused on the content.  So it appears we basically agree.

                     

                    Nothing to see here folks, move along... Smile

                    "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                     

                      I am fairly conservative

                       

                      I would like to see Gov't (Fed-State-Local) about 2/3 the size it is currently.  To have a defined contribution retirement program, have retirement age same as social security.  To have health care contributions and insurance plans similar to the private sector.  No health insurance for early retirement.  A smaller defense budget (Less interest in being involved in every conflict).  I would like to see less spent on subsidys for Ethonol and Oil.  I would like to see 1 gas formulation for all states to stop inflating gas prices.  A little bit less regulation for businesses.  I do not agree with tax cuts and would even be willing to pay a wee bit more to move the deficiet down.

                       

                      So, whose my candidate?

                       

                      I'm fairly liberal and I'm not against much of what you said.  Smaller defense budget and you agree to pay more taxes? Sure, but I don't think any republican candidate would agree to either of those. Maybe Ron Paul, but where do you stand on social issues? I think that ends up being the thing I don't get. Smaller government when it comes to spending on social programs, welfare, medical and such, but larger government involvement with how people lead their lives.

                      2014 Goal: Run faster than 3:37:07 in the NYC Marathon

                        Agree with most of DB's points and probably should label myself republican, but then when social conservatism is bought into the discussion, there is not much I agree with the republican positions

                        Scout7


                        CPT Curmudgeon

                          Agree with most of DB's points and probably should label myself republican, but then when social conservatism is bought into the discussion, there is not much I agree with the republican positions

                           

                          Labeling yourself "Republican" means only that you have an affiliation with that party.  It says nothing about your actual political or philosophical leanings.

                           

                          In actual a terms, a "social conservative" would be a person who tends to want to preserve the social structure and institutions, and will be hesitant (but not necessarily opposed to) changing them.  Which is really the problem with how the term is being used by people.  The social conservative movement in this country is about actually changing the existing structure and replacing it with something else.  It's not really a conservative movement at all.

                            I am fairly conservative

                             

                            I would like to see Gov't (Fed-State-Local) about 2/3 the size it is currently.  To have a defined contribution retirement program, have retirement age same as social security.  To have health care contributions and insurance plans similar to the private sector.  No health insurance for early retirement.  A smaller defense budget (Less interest in being involved in every conflict).  I would like to see less spent on subsidys for Ethonol and Oil.  I would like to see 1 gas formulation for all states to stop inflating gas prices.  A little bit less regulation for businesses.  I do not agree with tax cuts and would even be willing to pay a wee bit more to move the deficiet down.

                             

                            So, whose my candidate?

                             

                            Obama's closer to you than anyone (so far) in the Republican field.

                             

                            Points of agreement:

                            1. He agrees on your stance with regard to taxation.

                            2. So far, he talked the talk on reducing foreign intervention but has not walked the walk.

                            3. Better chance of reducing ethanol and oil subsidies with the left, as they cater to urban america (not Nebraska and North Dakota, who profit from these)

                            4. Health care--at least Obama is trying to reform the system. Many interests will keep both sides from working productively on this, methinks, unless we the people get our heads out of our hineys and demand that our politicians not be beholden to large insurance interests. (Scalia's ruling on corporate personhood didn't help the cause, perhaps another reason to avoid a conservative president.)

                            5. You are more likely to get national-level gas control from Obama than from a Republican president, who would defer to the states on this issue.

                            Scout7


                            CPT Curmudgeon


                              4. Health care--at least Obama is trying to reform the system. Many interests will keep both sides from working productively on this, methinks, unless we the people get our heads out of our hineys and demand that our politicians not be beholden to large insurance interests. (Scalia's ruling on corporate personhood didn't help the cause, perhaps another reason to avoid a conservative president.)

                               

                              I disagree that the issue is a matter of being beholden to one interest or another, and that the real crux of the problem is cultural.

                               

                              Our culture believes in emergency care, rather than preventive care, and thus we have the system we do.  Blame our pioneering, go-it-alone forefathers for that one.

                                I'm not a Republican but I thought the following op-ed piece was well said.  (The annoying adds weren't there when I read it in the paper.)  It has to do with a Senate race here in MA, but he touches on the problem with partisan extremism on both sides and how it has rendered our government non-functional:

                                 

                                A Republican voter seeks answers from Brown

                                 

                                "Yet the last three years have been a difficult time to be a Republican. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell candidly stated that it was his goal to make Barack Obama a one-term president. House Speaker John Boehner and the Tea Party freshmen have been even more fervent in this goal. But the patriotic duty of all office-holders is to make the government succeed for the American people, not to wreck it so that they might win the next election. Nothing exemplified these Republicans’ attitude more than their explicit threat to see the United States default rather than allow any rise in taxes. While the Democrats played a similar game to ruin the presidency of George H.W. Bush, they at least had the grace not to be so frank about it."

                                Runners run.