If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Tom Davis (R-ret.): There are still centrist Republicans out there, but I won't name a single one because they'll probably lose their next primary to some Tea Partier   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 120
    More: Sad, Pennsylvania Republicans, Partisanship, National Republican, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, moderate, U.S. House, congressional committees  
•       •       •

1908 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Apr 2012 at 4:43 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-20 05:44:36 PM

qorkfiend: Why do you believe an outside observer would consider the Democrats to be moving left?


i was an outside observer. i was an independent. i voted dem. i voted republican. up until the "revolution" of 1994. the last republican i voted for was chuck hagel for senate in 2002. the democratic party came rightward to me; i did not shift leftward to it.
 
2012-04-20 05:44:57 PM

MonkeyAngst: namatad: thomps: FlashHarry: The Republican Party has certainly become more conservative, in the same way that the Democratic Party has become more liberal.

aaaaand that's where i stopped reading.

yeah that's a fairly indefensible statement.

um, because what?
really? people think that the dems have become more liberal??
bwhahahahahahahahaha

I guess if you include rights to the gays and women ...
and standing by their positions which they have had for decades as liberal ....
and not following the GOP into the darkness of the teahadist world views

Maybe he's taking the long view, and comparing the Democratic Party of today with that of, say, 1860?


Yeah, I'd have to agree that the Democrats have drifted left since 1860.
 
2012-04-20 05:59:54 PM
in the same way that the Democratic Party has become more liberal.

Fail.

namatad
I wouldnt say to the right, but the successful dems have been centrists for a long time now. Which is probably the best thing for the country.

Wrong. A centrist party and a far right wing party is not a good balance, yet the GOP has taken the country there in recent decades. They've moved the Overton Window hard to the right with an entire generation worth's and more of very succcessful propaganda.

The parties are nothing alike. The centrist and moderate right factions control the democratic party. The radical far right wingers control the GOP.
 
2012-04-20 06:01:44 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: FlashHarry: The Republican Party has certainly become more conservative, in the same way that the Democratic Party has become more liberal.

aaaaand that's where i stopped reading.

Why? Both sides have gravitated toward their extremes to satisfy their base. Anyone seen "compromising" won't get re-elected so extremists in both parties are getting their way. Only a complete and total idiot would think Democrats are somehow above this.


Are you serious, bro?

If there was anything even approaching a move to the left from the Democrats, the healthcare reform package that got through wouldn't have been a retread of a Republican idea from 1994. Damn near everybody on the left wanted at least a public option, if not single payer. And we can't forget the whole debt ceiling fiasco, where the Democrats did nothing but compromise and the Republicans wouldn't budge. Or Gitmo; the left wanted that blight closed down for good, and yet it's still open. Democrats don't compromise? The Democrats have spent the last three years doing nothing but compromising.
 
2012-04-20 06:03:26 PM
The only issue the Dems have moved to the left on in recent decades is gay rights.

On pretty much every other social and economic issue, they've drifted to the right. But since they've moved right a lot more slowly than the GOP has, they are perceived to have moved left. It's a frame-of-reference illusion.
 
2012-04-20 06:04:21 PM
namatad
MEH
Link


Self-described political allegiances aren't worth much. What policies did a typical self-described conservative support in 1980? 1995? What do they support today? Same for self-described liberals and moderates...

Ask people about the actual positions taken by the major political parties. That's far more relevant than what words people use to describe themselves.

Bonus: The GOP propaganda machine successfully turned "liberal" into a dirty word to many Americans back in the '80s. It's stuck.
 
2012-04-20 06:05:07 PM

qorkfiend: Why do you believe an outside observer would consider the Democrats to be moving left?


technicolor-misfit: What... aside from support for LGBT rights (which is merely an extension of earlier civil rights movements)... and a right-wing plan for healthcare reform, can you point to in order to make your case that the Democratic Party has moved further left?


I covered this in a previous thread, and I don't think it would be fruitful to re-hash it again here. But between abortion and reproductive rights, GLTG issues, the whole "anti-rich" rhetoric, expansion of entitlement programs, I find it kinda hard to see how anyone could arguue there HASN't been a shift.

I know that many of you see this as a perfectly reasonable and just common sense and many of you seem to think that the degree to which the Republians have swung right has some sort of subtractive affect on the Democrat shift, but I have to say that from my perspective, the Democrats have become more progressive in the last decade or two Compare Bill Clinton to Nancy Pelosi and there is a clear lean toward the left.

I'm not asking or expecting that any of you will agree, and I'm reasonably certain that just by stating WHY I think what I do, some of you will launch into insult laden screeds about how no one in their right mind could think such a thing, and I can;t stop you, but you should know I'm not arguing a point, I'm stating an opinion and answering a question that was asked. You are free and welcome to disagree, but I don;t need to hear about it. Not because you don;t have good reasons, but because I am happy to accept that you see it differently and I am not asking you to explain yourself.

/keep in mind that there was a time when I tended to vote Democrat more often than not.
 
2012-04-20 06:10:50 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I covered this in a previous thread, and I don't think it would be fruitful to re-hash it again here. But between abortion and reproductive rights, GLTG issues, the whole "anti-rich" rhetoric, expansion of entitlement programs, I find it kinda hard to see how anyone could arguue there HASN't been a shift.


The Dems haven't moved in either direction on abortion and reproductive rights; they're about where they were 10 and even 20 years ago. And I haven't seen this "anti-rich rhetoric" or "expansion of entitlement programs" that you talk about, except maybe in the minds of the Faux News crew. GLBT issues is the one and only arena I can say that they have shifted left on, and even there they haven't gone nearly as far left as their base has on that.

BojanglesPaladin: Compare Bill Clinton to Nancy Pelosi and there is a clear lean toward the left.


Compare Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, on the other hand, and there's hardly been any shift at all.

Cherrypicked comparison is cherrypicked.
 
2012-04-20 06:12:23 PM

HeartBurnKid: If there was anything even approaching a move to the left from the Democrats, the healthcare reform package that got through wouldn't have been a retread of a Republican idea from 1994. Damn near everybody on the left wanted at least a public option, if not single payer.


You seem to be confusing effecacy with intent. When people talk about the shift toward the left it is precisely because of the stated intent and agenda of those on the left. While the progressives in the Democratic party may not have a 'brand' like the teabaggers, their influence is still visible. For instance, the DNC quickly ingratiated themsleves with the Occupy movement until it was clear they were never ging to be a counter-weight to the tea-party and were politically embarrasing. But they have certainly co-opted the "the rich are the problem" sensibility in their rhetoric.

As he said, "Both sides have gravitated toward their extremes to satisfy their base. Anyone seen "compromising" won't get re-elected so extremists in both parties are getting their way."
 
2012-04-20 06:14:57 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HeartBurnKid: If there was anything even approaching a move to the left from the Democrats, the healthcare reform package that got through wouldn't have been a retread of a Republican idea from 1994. Damn near everybody on the left wanted at least a public option, if not single payer.

You seem to be confusing effecacy with intent. When people talk about the shift toward the left it is precisely because of the stated intent and agenda of those on the left. While the progressives in the Democratic party may not have a 'brand' like the teabaggers, their influence is still visible. For instance, the DNC quickly ingratiated themsleves with the Occupy movement until it was clear they were never ging to be a counter-weight to the tea-party and were politically embarrasing. But they have certainly co-opted the "the rich are the problem" sensibility in their rhetoric.

As he said, "Both sides have gravitated toward their extremes to satisfy their base. Anyone seen "compromising" won't get re-elected so extremists in both parties are getting their way."


But again, they did compromise. The bill they put together was based on Republican ideas. That was my point. This idea that the Democrats haven't been compromising is bullshiat, and anybody who's been paying attention for the last three years knows it.
 
2012-04-20 06:16:56 PM

HeartBurnKid: And I haven't seen this "anti-rich rhetoric" or "expansion of entitlement programs" that you talk about


Holy crap. Seriously? Have you HEARD Obama's speeches in the last few months? I listen to them unedited and often live on a regular basis. I have a longstanding Fox News boycott that goes back to before the millenium. Anyone who says that there is not an "anti-rich rhetoric" in this campaign is either lying, lying to themsleves, or just hasn't bothered to pay any attention at all.

HeartBurnKid: Compare Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, on the other hand, and there's hardly been any shift at all.


I thought we were talking about the Democrat PARTY?
 
2012-04-20 06:18:27 PM

BojanglesPaladin: But between abortion and reproductive rights...


When were the Democrats anti-choice that you consider this a shift?
 
2012-04-20 06:18:56 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Holy crap. Seriously? Have you HEARD Obama's speeches in the last few months?


Yes, I have. And no, I haven't heard Obama blasting the rich or anything like it. Perhaps you'd like to give an example, if it's so bleeding obvious?

BojanglesPaladin: HeartBurnKid: Compare Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, on the other hand, and there's hardly been any shift at all.

I thought we were talking about the Democrat PARTY?


Then why did you bring up Nancy Pelosi?
 
2012-04-20 06:19:52 PM

HeartBurnKid: This idea that the Democrats haven't been compromising is bullshiat,


I believe we were discussing whether or not the Democrats have shifted left in the last few decades. Again, I know that some of you seem to think that the Republican parties' shift right has some sort of subtractive effect on the Democrat's shift.

But either way, I'm pretty sure we were not discussing any party's willingness to compromise.
 
2012-04-20 06:20:31 PM

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: Why do you believe an outside observer would consider the Democrats to be moving left?

technicolor-misfit: What... aside from support for LGBT rights (which is merely an extension of earlier civil rights movements)... and a right-wing plan for healthcare reform, can you point to in order to make your case that the Democratic Party has moved further left?

I covered this in a previous thread, and I don't think it would be fruitful to re-hash it again here. But between abortion and reproductive rights, GLTG issues, the whole "anti-rich" rhetoric, expansion of entitlement programs, I find it kinda hard to see how anyone could arguue there HASN't been a shift.


The Democratic Party has been pro-choice for as long as I've been alive. If anything, they've become less vocal on reproductive rights.

As I said, I will grant you LGBT issues... but in reality that's simply an expansion of previous civil rights movements. It's no different than the 60's, it's just an attempt to grant rights to a group of people who deserve it. It's not at all out of character or more liberal.

There is no "anti-rich" rhetoric. There is anti-tax avoidance rhetoric. And it's purely a response to the right-wing attempt to shift the tax burden of the wealthy onto the middle and working classes. You can't call that a move to the left unless you can point to some time in the past wherein Democrats were thrilled to slash rich people's taxes and hand the bill to the middle class.

What expansion of entitlement programs? They're all being cut. The only expansion of an entitlement program in recent years was the Republican-led charge for Medicare Part D as a huge giveaway for pharmaceutical companies.
 
2012-04-20 06:21:03 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HeartBurnKid: This idea that the Democrats haven't been compromising is bullshiat,

I believe we were discussing whether or not the Democrats have shifted left in the last few decades. Again, I know that some of you seem to think that the Republican parties' shift right has some sort of subtractive effect on the Democrat's shift.

But either way, I'm pretty sure we were not discussing any party's willingness to compromise.


BojanglesPaladin: As he said, "Both sides have gravitated toward their extremes to satisfy their base. Anyone seen "compromising" won't get re-elected so extremists in both parties are getting their way."

 
2012-04-20 06:21:34 PM

HeartBurnKid: Yes, I have. And no, I haven't heard Obama blasting the rich or anything like it.


OK. Then you need to pay closer attention to his speeches.

HeartBurnKid: Then why did you bring up Nancy Pelosi?



Because she is a current leader of the Democratic party.
 
2012-04-20 06:22:54 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HeartBurnKid: Yes, I have. And no, I haven't heard Obama blasting the rich or anything like it.

OK. Then you need to pay closer attention to his speeches.


Again, care to give an example?

HeartBurnKid: Then why did you bring up Nancy Pelosi?


Because she is a current leader of the Democratic party.


So is Barack Obama.
 
2012-04-20 06:22:58 PM

HeartBurnKid: But again, they did compromise. The bill they put together was based on Republican ideas. That was my point. This idea that the Democrats haven't been compromising is bullshiat, and anybody who's been paying attention for the last three years knows it.


This happens all the time.

1) Democrats propose liberal idea (eg. single-payer health care, carbon tax, etc.); Republicans reject and offer more conservative, market-based counter-proposal (eg. health insurance mandate, cap-and-trade, etc.).

2) Fast-forward 10 years or so: Democrats propose former Republican market-based ideas (eg. health insurance mandate, cap-and-trade, etc.); Republicans reject them for being too liberal (and now offer basically nothing as a counter-proposal).

Both parties have moved to the right. Democrats are now occupying positions held by Republicans in the 80s and 90s. And Republicans are occupying positions that used to be held only by fringe groups like the John Birch Society.
 
2012-04-20 06:24:51 PM
OK.

I think we've covered this as much as it is going to be. You asked I answered. I'm not going to debate it. As I said, I have no interest in re-hashing this all over again. You don't see it and have a very specific and vested interest in your viewpoint. Fair enough.

I'm not asking or expecting that any of you will agree, and I'm reasonably certain that just by stating WHY I think what I do, some of you will launch into insult laden screeds about how no one in their right mind could think such a thing, and I can;t stop you, but you should know I'm not arguing a point, I'm stating an opinion and answering a question that was asked. You are free and welcome to disagree, but I don't need to hear about it. Not because you don't have good reasons, but because I am happy to accept that you see it differently and I am not asking you to explain yourself.

/keep in mind that there was a time when I tended to vote Democrat more often than not.
 
2012-04-20 06:26:22 PM

BojanglesPaladin: OK.

I think we've covered this as much as it is going to be. You asked I answered. I'm not going to debate it. As I said, I have no interest in re-hashing this all over again. You don't see it and have a very specific and vested interest in your viewpoint. Fair enough.

I'm not asking or expecting that any of you will agree, and I'm reasonably certain that just by stating WHY I think what I do, some of you will launch into insult laden screeds about how no one in their right mind could think such a thing, and I can;t stop you, but you should know I'm not arguing a point, I'm stating an opinion and answering a question that was asked. You are free and welcome to disagree, but I don't need to hear about it. Not because you don't have good reasons, but because I am happy to accept that you see it differently and I am not asking you to explain yourself.

/keep in mind that there was a time when I tended to vote Democrat more often than not.


That's sure a lot of words just to say "I was wrong."
 
2012-04-20 06:28:19 PM

technicolor-misfit: Richard Hofstadter


Anything with that name attached is well worth reading. Even if it is now decades old, it's still relevant.
 
2012-04-20 06:28:36 PM

BMulligan: That's sure a lot of words just to say "I was wrong."


You are welcome to read that in whatever way you need to if that gives you a sense of self-worth and value that you clearly crave.

/although you might want to read up and notice I STARTED with that comment.
 
2012-04-20 06:36:15 PM

BojanglesPaladin: OK.

I think we've covered this as much as it is going to be. You asked I answered. I'm not going to debate it. As I said, I have no interest in re-hashing this all over again. You don't see it and have a very specific and vested interest in your viewpoint. Fair enough.

I'm not asking or expecting that any of you will agree, and I'm reasonably certain that just by stating WHY I think what I do, some of you will launch into insult laden screeds about how no one in their right mind could think such a thing, and I can;t stop you, but you should know I'm not arguing a point, I'm stating an opinion and answering a question that was asked. You are free and welcome to disagree, but I don't need to hear about it. Not because you don't have good reasons, but because I am happy to accept that you see it differently and I am not asking you to explain yourself.

/keep in mind that there was a time when I tended to vote Democrat more often than not.


I know you'll find this shocking, but this is what is known as a discussion thread. Here, we discuss issues and opinions. If you did not want to actually discuss your opinions, why did you bother posting them? I'm fairly certain I didn't launch into any "insult-laden screeds" towards you, so why are you bailing out now?

If you're unwilling to actually discuss your opinions, feel free to write them in a text file on your hard drive and leave them there. That way, you don't have to bother with us actually trying to talk with you about them.
 
2012-04-20 06:47:00 PM

HeartBurnKid: I know you'll find this shocking, but this is what is known as a discussion thread. Here, we discuss issues and opinions.


I am aware. And we have discussed to the extent that it is likely to be productive. And I discussed it more than I cared to in another thread. You will forgive me if I exercise my option to let it drop, as I feel that I have already discussed it to death and it's a pointless argument to have with peolpe on the left who just cannot see it. (as per my barge analogy). It's a persepective thing, ours are different.

But hey! feel free to go around and around with someone else about why the Democrats SO TOTALLY have not shifted left. It seems you find the topic a great deal more interesting that I do.
 
2012-04-20 06:51:26 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HeartBurnKid: I know you'll find this shocking, but this is what is known as a discussion thread. Here, we discuss issues and opinions.

I am aware. And we have discussed to the extent that it is likely to be productive. And I discussed it more than I cared to in another thread. You will forgive me if I exercise my option to let it drop, as I feel that I have already discussed it to death and it's a pointless argument to have with peolpe on the left who just cannot see it. (as per my barge analogy). It's a persepective thing, ours are different.

But hey! feel free to go around and around with someone else about why the Democrats SO TOTALLY have not shifted left. It seems you find the topic a great deal more interesting that I do.


If you think it's pointless to discuss these issues, then why in the world are you bothering to post? Do you just enjoy seeing your name on Fark?

Seriously, if your posts are merely for your own self-edification, and not an attempt to actually hold a conversation about the issue at hand, let me know. I'll put you on my ignore list, and then you can be free to post whatever you like and never have to deal with the threat of a calm and rational discussion on the subject with me.
 
2012-04-20 06:54:21 PM

BojanglesPaladin: It's a persepective thing


It's really not a perspective thing. Objective reality is that Democrats are now supporting market-based reforms (such as health insurance individual mandate, carbon cap-and-trade) that were originally Republican ideas, and offered as counter-proposals to more liberal Democratic ideas. And those former Republican ideas are now too far left for today's GOP.
 
2012-04-20 06:56:52 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HeartBurnKid: And I haven't seen this "anti-rich rhetoric" or "expansion of entitlement programs" that you talk about

Holy crap. Seriously? Have you HEARD Obama's speeches in the last few months? I listen to them unedited and often live on a regular basis. I have a longstanding Fox News boycott that goes back to before the millenium. Anyone who says that there is not an "anti-rich rhetoric" in this campaign is either lying, lying to themsleves, or just hasn't bothered to pay any attention at all.


The main reason there's anything resembling anti-rich rhetoric today is because the rich have made out like gangbusters over the last 35 years while the rest of us have been left fighting for table scraps.
 
2012-04-20 07:02:02 PM

Doc Daneeka: BojanglesPaladin: It's a persepective thing

It's really not a perspective thing. Objective reality is that Democrats are now supporting market-based reforms (such as health insurance individual mandate, carbon cap-and-trade) that were originally Republican ideas, and offered as counter-proposals to more liberal Democratic ideas. And those former Republican ideas are now too far left for today's GOP.


Modern Democrats begin by compromising on budget considerations.

GOP: We want to gut Education. It's against our philosophy.
Dems: Okay, we'll drastically cut it and implement your horrible facade reform plans, but we won't let you eliminate the Dept. of Education entirely, and we'll emit a loud "harumph!" every time you blame unions!

I seem to remember a time when Democrats made a stronger case for their core beliefs.
 
2012-04-20 07:03:30 PM

BojanglesPaladin: It seems you find the topic a great deal more interesting that I do.


You're the one who brought it up, Marty McMartyr.

You cited reproductive choice as the first example of how the Democratic Party has shifted to the left. The Democrats have been pro-choice as long as I can remember (decades), so how is this a shift to the left?
 
2012-04-20 07:05:58 PM

HeartBurnKid: If you think it's pointless to discuss these issues, then why in the world are you bothering to post?


Try reading it again. I made a point relevant to the discussion. I responded to requests for clarification. I exhausted the topic (which was easily done). I made it clear from the get-go that this dead horse was beaten on another thread. Some of you seem to want to argue just for the sake of arguing, and I find that uninteresting.

I'm sorry I can't be your playmate today. I'm sure you can find someone else on another thread, OK?

Maybe next time when there is something with more legs we can have a nice, lengthy back and forth, but not today and not on this topic.

Also, I strongly encourage anyone who finds that they don't want to read what I post to use that Ignore option. I won't be offended, and I find that those who do were never going to have a calm and rational discussion anyway.

So there you go. Have a good weekend, and I hope you find someone who wants to discuss the things YOU want to discuss.
 
2012-04-20 07:07:25 PM

Serious Black: The main reason there's anything resembling anti-rich rhetoric today is because the rich have made out like gangbusters over the last 35 years while the rest of us have been left fighting for table scraps.


Only class warriors bring up reality.
 
2012-04-20 07:12:10 PM
I think subby meant (R-rrrrriiiiggghhht.)
 
2012-04-20 07:12:21 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Have a good weekend, and I hope you find someone who wants to discuss the things YOU want to discuss.


Condescend much, Sparky?
 
2012-04-20 07:14:23 PM

HeartBurnKid: If you think it's pointless to discuss these issues, then why in the world are you bothering to post? Do you just enjoy seeing your name on Fark?


He likes reading his own text.
 
2012-04-20 07:14:42 PM
Bojangles' little hissyfit was meant to cover up the fact that he has no clue what he's talking about. The Democratic Party's stance on reproductive choice isn't a shift to the left... the Dems have been pro-choice for decades. Bojangles pulled a nugget out of his ass and ran away crying when he was called on it.
 
2012-04-20 07:19:26 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HeartBurnKid: If you think it's pointless to discuss these issues, then why in the world are you bothering to post?

Try reading it again. I made a point relevant to the discussion. I responded to requests for clarification. I exhausted the topic (which was easily done). I made it clear from the get-go that this dead horse was beaten on another thread. Some of you seem to want to argue just for the sake of arguing, and I find that uninteresting.

I'm sorry I can't be your playmate today. I'm sure you can find someone else on another thread, OK?

Maybe next time when there is something with more legs we can have a nice, lengthy back and forth, but not today and not on this topic.

Also, I strongly encourage anyone who finds that they don't want to read what I post to use that Ignore option. I won't be offended, and I find that those who do were never going to have a calm and rational discussion anyway.

So there you go. Have a good weekend, and I hope you find someone who wants to discuss the things YOU want to discuss.


If you don't find the discussion interesting or stimulating at all, then I have to ask again... why are you here? Why are you posting in this thread?

No, I don't expect an answer. I see expecting an answer out of you on anything is an exercise in futility.
 
2012-04-20 07:24:34 PM

The Why Not Guy: Bojangles' little hissyfit was meant to cover up the fact that he has no clue what he's talking about. The Democratic Party's stance on reproductive choice isn't a shift to the left... the Dems have been pro-choice for decades. Bojangles pulled a nugget out of his ass and ran away crying when he was called on it.


On many social issues, Democrats (and the country) have shifted to the left. Some of the following reasons are generic shifts in public attitutes, not just the Democrats in particular.

I'll start with reason #420.

420. Attitutes towards medical (and non-medical) MJ.
421. Availability of alcohol (IE, lots of formerly dry areas no longer are, and restrictions on who can sell it have been loosened in many areas).
422. Tolenance and availability of porn.
423. Gay rights and general tolerance of homosexuals.
424. Sexual harrassment laws.
425. General tolerance of blacks and other minorities (IE, hey, we have a black guy as President now).
426. Enviromental laws are now much stronger than in the past.

I could go on, but those are all a shift to the left comparing to 2002 or 1992 or 1982 or 1972.
 
2012-04-20 07:29:11 PM

Geotpf: blah blah blah.


Not a reader, are you. He said reproductive issues, and I asked how is that a shift?
 
2012-04-20 07:31:30 PM
There are moderates in both parties (surprise), the trick is figuring it out. It is often the case that one local party org tends to nominate whack jobs, because they have a Koch or someone of such a nature controlling the local party or on the state level. Move one district or one state over and you'll have the opposite in terms of which party is crazy.

For exampe, I did a brief six month stint in OK working. I learned that the local Dems made up for having a D next to their name by being farking crazy in most cases. You actually found a slightly higher percentage of moderates with Rs next to their name. Not that you found many moderates mind you.
 
2012-04-20 07:42:38 PM
i.imgur.com

RIP Franken and Davis
 
2012-04-20 08:02:17 PM
There are still centrist Republicans out there, but I won't name a single one Mitt Romney.
 
2012-04-20 08:15:05 PM

FlashHarry: The Republican Party has certainly become more conservative, in the same way that the Democratic Party has become more liberal.

aaaaand that's where i stopped reading.


John F Kennedy: put Byron White on the Supreme Court and cut taxes
Lyndon B. Johnson

Geotpf: The Why Not Guy: Bojangles' little hissyfit was meant to cover up the fact that he has no clue what he's talking about. The Democratic Party's stance on reproductive choice isn't a shift to the left... the Dems have been pro-choice for decades. Bojangles pulled a nugget out of his ass and ran away crying when he was called on it.

On many social issues, Democrats (and the country) have shifted to the left. Some of the following reasons are generic shifts in public attitutes, not just the Democrats in particular.

I'll start with reason #420.

420. Attitutes towards medical (and non-medical) MJ.
421. Availability of alcohol (IE, lots of formerly dry areas no longer are, and restrictions on who can sell it have been loosened in many areas).
422. Tolenance and availability of porn.
423. Gay rights and general tolerance of homosexuals.
424. Sexual harrassment laws.
425. General tolerance of blacks and other minorities (IE, hey, we have a black guy as President now).
426. Enviromental laws are now much stronger than in the past.

I could go on, but those are all a shift to the left comparing to 2002 or 1992 or 1982 or 1972.


Number 421 is very true here in the red state of Texas. I moved here in 1994 and most of the dry areas (including the one where I live) are now spectacularly wet.
 
2012-04-20 08:22:16 PM
The trend since Reagan is obvious:

voteview.com

Moderate liberals have gotten more liberal, but not the rest of them. All conservatives have gotten much more conservative.

In a sense, they're winning the long game.
 
2012-04-20 08:23:00 PM

mikemoto: FlashHarry: The Republican Party has certainly become more conservative, in the same way that the Democratic Party has become more liberal.

aaaaand that's where i stopped reading.

John F Kennedy: put Byron White on the Supreme Court and cut taxes
Lyndon B. JohnsonGeotpf: The Why Not Guy: Bojangles' little hissyfit was meant to cover up the fact that he has no clue what he's talking about. The Democratic Party's stance on reproductive choice isn't a shift to the left... the Dems have been pro-choice for decades. Bojangles pulled a nugget out of his ass and ran away crying when he was called on it.

On many social issues, Democrats (and the country) have shifted to the left. Some of the following reasons are generic shifts in public attitutes, not just the Democrats in particular.

I'll start with reason #420.

420. Attitutes towards medical (and non-medical) MJ.
421. Availability of alcohol (IE, lots of formerly dry areas no longer are, and restrictions on who can sell it have been loosened in many areas).
422. Tolenance and availability of porn.
423. Gay rights and general tolerance of homosexuals.
424. Sexual harrassment laws.
425. General tolerance of blacks and other minorities (IE, hey, we have a black guy as President now).
426. Enviromental laws are now much stronger than in the past.

I could go on, but those are all a shift to the left comparing to 2002 or 1992 or 1982 or 1972.

Number 421 is very true here in the red state of Texas. I moved here in 1994 and most of the dry areas (including the one where I live) are now spectacularly wet.


Giggity
 
2012-04-20 08:35:54 PM

FlashHarry: The Republican Party has certainly become more conservative, in the same way that the Democratic Party has become more liberal.

aaaaand that's where i stopped reading.


You shouldn't have, because the rest of the article is spot-on about the problems.

Democrats have become more "liberal" in the sense that they're pandering more to extremist positions and less to centrist politicians who could help their position overall. Both sides are courting the edges of their relative movements and ignoring the (vanishing) middle, to the detriment of the American people.

The thing is, most liberals tend to interpret this as LIBERAL=GOOD! CONSERVATIVE=BAD! and stop there.
 
2012-04-20 08:38:12 PM

DeltaPunch: The trend since Reagan is obvious:


What's obvious is that your chart, and the theory behind it, is moronic.

Democrats haven't even remotely become "more liberal", except by comparison to how far to the Right republicans have swung. Saying that liberals have "moved to the left" is like getting in your car and driving away from your house at 100 miles per hour north, and then claiming that your house has "moved south".
 
2012-04-20 08:45:48 PM

Gyrfalcon: FlashHarry: The Republican Party has certainly become more conservative, in the same way that the Democratic Party has become more liberal.

aaaaand that's where i stopped reading.

You shouldn't have, because the rest of the article is spot-on about the problems.

Democrats have become more "liberal" in the sense that they're pandering more to extremist positions and less to centrist politicians who could help their position overall. Both sides are courting the edges of their relative movements and ignoring the (vanishing) middle, to the detriment of the American people.

The thing is, most liberals tend to interpret this as LIBERAL=GOOD! CONSERVATIVE=BAD! and stop there.


Just as an example, given that many of the ideas we of Occupy are presenting used to be mainstream liberal ideas and are now considered CRAAAAAZY, the Democrats won't even acknowledge our existence let alone engage us and Democratic support groups like MoveOn only want to "stand with us" to push us forcibly and explicitly to the right, I'd have to say this is all bullshiat.
 
2012-04-20 08:54:38 PM
pfft. the left in america is deader than gene debs. look up the populist 1892 Omaha platform if you want radicalism. otherwise, it ain't nothing more than meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
 
2012-04-20 09:11:28 PM

Doc Daneeka: HeartBurnKid: But again, they did compromise. The bill they put together was based on Republican ideas. That was my point. This idea that the Democrats haven't been compromising is bullshiat, and anybody who's been paying attention for the last three years knows it.

This happens all the time.

1) Democrats propose liberal idea (eg. single-payer health care, carbon tax, etc.); Republicans reject and offer more conservative, market-based counter-proposal (eg. health insurance mandate, cap-and-trade, etc.).

2) Fast-forward 10 years or so: Democrats propose former Republican market-based ideas (eg. health insurance mandate, cap-and-trade, etc.); Republicans reject them for being too liberal (and now offer basically nothing as a counter-proposal).

Both parties have moved to the right. Democrats are now occupying positions held by Republicans in the 80s and 90s. And Republicans are occupying positions that used to be held only by fringe groups like the John Birch Society.


QFT!

This is the way it is now, and no one with a thinking brain can possibly deny it!

And it SUCKS!

/proudly liberal
//no one currently represents ME
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report