Forums >Off the Beaten Path>Why Is the Republican Field So Extreme?
Sure...there's batshit crazy, and then there's really, really, really batshit outright buying people like those Koch dudes...
I found this exchange amusing...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/08/democratic-senatorial-campaign-committee-koch_n_893116.html
We've had ups and downs in political discourse. I remember when even political opposites like Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil were actually on good speaking terms. Now I wash my hands of politics. It's not just the politicians, it's that the politicians feel they have to pander to a base which despises the other side and doesn't even want to listen. So really it's the people and their ability to be brain washed like sheep by either the union, or talk radio, or whatever.
disclosure: I have a sister who thinks the Kochs are like the devil, only times 2. But I don't see how they cannot be allowed to spend their money in whatever legal way they see fit. The people still have the vote. They don't have to listen to what the oligarchy is selling.
But if you are a billionaire and you really want to push an agenda... why not make your own country?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html
universal coverage
It's going to be great!
"If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus
Feeling the growl again
I just elevate my blood pressure when I express political opinions because I'm apparently further to the left than most everybody else here , so I'll just recommend a book. The Healing of America by T. R. Ried- he gives a run down of the health care systems from France, Germany, Japan, Britain, India and talks about a few others. It's a few years old, but gives a pretty good overview of the choices. One of his main points is that you first have to have the political will to agree on universal coverage- then you have different choices on how to design your system. His book is interesting because he gives an overview of each country's health care system, then personalizes by having doctors from the various countries ecommend treatment for his messed up shoulder.
One of the more fundamental differences here is cultural. We Americans feel we should have access to everything, all the time. For everyone. That is our version of universal coverage. However, that is not what really exists in countries that have it. They make tradeoffs to make it work. Doctors make less money....sometimes you have to wait so long for an MRI on your knee that it's too late to fix it...if you're a cancer patient and your disease is no longer curable, you go to hospice with no further treatment. Their societies accept that this is the way it has to be. We don't.
"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 spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
I think the main question on this thread is why the Republican field is so extreme. Is the healthcare debate central to that question? It is a controversial issue, but does it really account for why the Republicans presidential candidates are extreme (assuming that they are)?
Happy Camper
Most of my Republican friends seem fairly moderate: they want low taxes, a good economy, little foreign intervention, fewer regulations. The current crop of Republicans seems to me totally unrepresentative of their positions. What gives? Do I just misunderstand the views of candidates like Bachman and Perry? Or do I misunderstand my Republican friends?
Exactly who in the current Republican field is against low taxes to encourage a good economic environment while promoting lots of foreign intervention and Government regulations?
Sounds like they just don't have that much in common with BHO.
Determination: The feeling you get right before you try something incredibly stupid.
Exactly who in the current Republican field is against low taxes to encourage a good economic environment while promoting lots of foreign intervention and Government regulations? Sounds like they just don't have that much in common with BHO.
I don't understand the question (for real). Ron Paul is against "promoting lots of foreign intervention."
I haven't had one I could feel good voting for in a long time -
There was a point in my life when I ran. Now, I just run.
We are always running for the thrill of it
Always pushing up the hill, searching for the thrill of it
Why is it sideways?
Okay, good. You are taking the first horn of the problem: I don't understand their positions. You are saying that the current field of candidates does represent standard conservative politics--that is, they aren't so extreme and they actually represent middle of the road ideas representative of traditional conservative ideology. Bachman and Perry represent you.
they aren't so extreme and they actually represent middle of the road ideas representative of traditional conservative ideology. Bachman and Perry represent you.
Well, this is where the answer to your question really depends on where you start from. Palin, Bachmann, OK I can see them being labeled extreme. But Perry? He's no McCain but he doesn't fit with the others either.
His views may not be extreme, but he launched his candidacy through a right-wing style prayer rally. It did not occur to him that this would alienate many future colleagues in Washington, should he be elected? There is positions-on-the-issues "extreme" and there is lack-of-commitment-to-inviting-others-to-the-table extreme. I think he is the second kind of extreme. That is not a leader, that is a polarizer. Presidents should not be polarizers.
Presidents should not be polarizers.
Well, I agree, but that's what we have now...
The whole personal religion thing is a tricky one. A candidate should not have to pretend they are not religious. But it should be clear that they will not try to force their beliefs on others through use of the office.
I'm just not so ready to vilify them. I think it's admirable that Bachman provided foster care to all those children who needed someone.
I think Palin has gotten a bum rap. I think she has a deeper understanding to problems in society bearing the challenges of rasing a handicapped child and living through Bristol's pregnancy and all the negative publicity. She has risen to the challange, not just complained about starting with a bad situation like BHO and then setting forth policies that have made things worse and tarring the opposition as an excuse. It's quite the opposite of what Bill Clinton did and he (BHO) is nowhere near the success either.
I like Perry and the straightforwardness of his views. He works to achieve his beliefs, just as Pelosi and Reids supporters like them for leading the movement for their views. Don't kid yourself. They are all likeable in person. People who are not likeable don't become Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader or Govenor of a diverse, populous state like Texas. I just happen to believe that even bigger spending with more regulation leads to 9% unemployment and so much uncertainty over future healthcare costs and tax rates that business won't expand. As far as radical, what have the Republicans done in just over two years that equal the health care legislation, cap and trade which now will be EPA regulations and the attempt at card check?
Well, I agree, but that's what we have now... The whole personal religion thing is a tricky one. A candidate should not have to pretend they are not religious. But it should be clear that they will not try to force their beliefs on others through use of the office.
I agree with you. But isn't the person you're describing President Obama?
In my memory, he has never made his faith an issue. Others, in fact, made an issue of it.
an amazing likeness
As far as radical, what have the Republicans done in just over two years that equal the health care legislation, cap and trade which now will be EPA regulations and the attempt at card check?
Oh...
How about launching 2 wars which have cost over 3,000 soldiers their lives and tens of thousands their lifetime health and costing over $1.2 trillon and counting based on admitted mistruths; created the largest expansion of medicare in the program's history; creating the largest expansion of the federal govt since WW2 by creating Homeland Security and adding an oversight layer the CIA, which was itself an oversight layer, extraordinary rendition completely trashing the reputation of our country among our friends, creating a defense industry which consumes $1 Trillon of GDP per year, more than the next 50 country's combined.
...and that's off the top of my head.
Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.