How can the GOP be brought back to being a more moderate party?

[TJ in Oregon]

Besides there were actually real environmental issues in the 70s. At one point a whole damn river was on fire. Today you see this focus on Carbon because they are running out of real pollutants to be worried about.

...

Ever heard of the "Burning Cuyahoga"?

[Wonkish1]

To me, "moderates" = people like Chafee, Specter, Castle, Scozzafava; I suppose we're using the term differently.

I wouldn't define any of those people as actual moderates. I think those are "liberal Republicans". I would define Moderate Republican/Moderate Conservative as Brown, Collins, Snowe, Lugar, Hagel, Murkowski, etc.

[Simfan34]

Besides there were actually real environmental issues in the 70s. At one point a whole damn river was on fire. Today you see this focus on Carbon because they are running out of real pollutants to be worried about.

...

Ever heard of the "Burning Cuyahoga"?

I love that dirty water!

[WMS]

Besides there were actually real environmental issues in the 70s. At one point a whole damn river was on fire. Today you see this focus on Carbon because they are running out of real pollutants to be worried about.

...

Do I need to start linking to Snowguy's threads to make Wonkish's point about Carbon, Al?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Besides there were actually real environmental issues in the 70s. At one point a whole damn river was on fire. Today you see this focus on Carbon because they are running out of real pollutants to be worried about.

...

Do I need to start linking to Snowguy's threads to make Wonkish's point about Carbon, Al?

I'm not getting involved in that debate.

It's more the... interesting... claim that there are no serious environmental worries wrt to pollution and so on these days...

(and hello there, etc)

[WMS]

Besides there were actually real environmental issues in the 70s. At one point a whole damn river was on fire. Today you see this focus on Carbon because they are running out of real pollutants to be worried about.

...

Do I need to start linking to Snowguy's threads to make Wonkish's point about Carbon, Al?

I'm not getting involved in that debate.

It's more the... interesting... claim that there are no serious environmental worries wrt to pollution and so on these days...

(and hello there, etc)

Smart man.

Yeah, I think that could have been phrased better...more like 'there has been significant improvements in dealing with pollution, but we still have a long way to go' or the like. Albuquerque has this jet fuel plume spreading from leaking pipes under Kirtland Air Force Base that is beginning to threaten our aquifer, for example...

Hi there! I've been keeping an eye on redistricting in NM - the Dems are being very, very, naughty with some of the ugly gerrymanders they've come up with - but there isn't a lot to report on yet.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Don't. We don't need a Democrat Lite^TM party.

[TJ in Oregon]

Don't. We don't need a Democrat Lite^TM party.

Exactly. I can deal with "moderates" like (Colins only since she's from a liberal state):

Lugar, Romney, Collins, et al

But if we start nominating "moderates" like:

Chafee, Specter, Castle, Scozzafava

I suppose I would no longer vote for Republicans.

[Hanzo]

Don't. We don't need a Democrat Lite^TM party.

I've studied people who said things like that over the years mostly conservatives. Nice use of code words there. So it should just continue going hard-right until they can't even win any of the country? Like that worked so well in 2008....

Democrat Lite basically means "Moderate to Liberal Republicans need not apply or GET LOST!"

RINO means "(Insert group slur)-Lover"

The GOP is going to have to move to the center if it wants to win, some are just in plain denial.

[BigSkyBob]

Don't. We don't need a Democrat Lite^TM party.

I've studied people who said things like that over the years mostly conservatives. Nice use of code words there. So it should just continue going hard-right until they can't even win any of the country? Like that worked so well in 2008....

Democrat Lite basically means "Moderate to Liberal Republicans need not apply or GET LOST!"

RINO means "(Insert group slur)-Lover"

The GOP is going to have to move to the center if it wants to win, some are just in plain denial.

Since self-described "conservatives" are about 40% of the electorate, they only need to gain about a quarter of the self-described "moderates" to win an election.

[Wonkish1]

Don't. We don't need a Democrat Lite^TM party.

I've studied people who said things like that over the years mostly conservatives. Nice use of code words there. So it should just continue going hard-right until they can't even win any of the country? Like that worked so well in 2008....

Democrat Lite basically means "Moderate to Liberal Republicans need not apply or GET LOST!"

RINO means "(Insert group slur)-Lover"

The GOP is going to have to move to the center if it wants to win, some are just in plain denial.

Since self-described "conservatives" are about 40% of the electorate, they only need to gain about a quarter of the self-described "moderates" to win an election.

Also that depends on whether or not you use "slightly conservative" in your polling. If you just use very conservative and conservative before going to moderate than you get 40%. If you add slightly conservative to the other 2 the number jumps to 60%.

[BigSkyBob]

Don't. We don't need a Democrat Lite^TM party.

I've studied people who said things like that over the years mostly conservatives. Nice use of code words there. So it should just continue going hard-right until they can't even win any of the country? Like that worked so well in 2008....

Democrat Lite basically means "Moderate to Liberal Republicans need not apply or GET LOST!"

RINO means "(Insert group slur)-Lover"

The GOP is going to have to move to the center if it wants to win, some are just in plain denial.

Since self-described "conservatives" are about 40% of the electorate, they only need to gain about a quarter of the self-described "moderates" to win an election.

Also that depends on whether or not you use "slightly conservative" in your polling. If you just use very conservative and conservative before going to moderate than you get 40%. If you add slightly conservative to the other 2 the number jumps to 60%.

That makes right-of-center the power position in American politics. The Republican party simply doesn't have to become the Democratic Lite party to win elections.

[Wonkish1]

That makes right-of-center the power position in American politics. The Republican party simply doesn't have to become the Democratic Lite party to win elections.

To a large extent that is true. Polling has showed that the American people are overwhelmingly conservative ideologically, but that many vote Dem based of assumptions and platitudes.

What I mean by that is that while people agree with conservative ideology they also think that "Republicans will try to benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class." They also believe that "Democrats will try to benefit the poor at the expense of the middle class." They also believe that "Republicans don't have their interests at heart."

These platitudes that are very ingrained in the American psyche and they are what play a larger factor in party id then most would think. So that is where the disparity in ideology and party id come from.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Don't. We don't need a Democrat Lite^TM party.

I've studied people who said things like that over the years mostly conservatives. Nice use of code words there. So it should just continue going hard-right until they can't even win any of the country? Like that worked so well in 2008....

Democrat Lite basically means "Moderate to Liberal Republicans need not apply or GET LOST!"

RINO means "(Insert group slur)-Lover"

The GOP is going to have to move to the center if it wants to win, some are just in plain denial.

I didn't say that. I only said we shouldn't move left; we don't need more liberals in the party.

[Sbane]

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/11/michael-lewis-201111


Starts off as talks about Meredith Whitney's prediction of municipal bankruptcies. He than joins the Arnold on a bike ride which is kind a little funny. It then moves to attending a city council meeting in San Jose where this wealthier city is dealing with a very rough mess on its hands. Interviews the mayor. Then heads off to Vallejo to see what life is like in a bankrupt city. Then goes off on this lizard brain tangent(which is a little weird) and then kind of summarizes and concludes.

You can tell throughout the article that Lewis is trying to keep people entertained who otherwise wouldn't sit through a 7 page article. But it also paints a very good and personalized picture of what is going on in a lot of municipalities in California. Not saying I agree with everything in the article nor do I expect you to, but it is still a very worthwhile read regardless of the side of the fence you sit on(which is quite rare these days).

Excellent article. Thanks. Sorry I didn't have time to read it earlier, I have been pretty busy the last few days. I actually just saw Michael Lewis's interview with Jon Stewart as well, where he gave a more global view of how f'ed we are.

I already knew about the problems of these unions but this article opened my eyes a little bit more. There is almost nothing to be done, especially at the local level. These people just run the show. And people just don't pay attention. They can just be like "the big bad politicians are trying to beat up on the poor police and firefighters", or at the state level those lovely teachers and "peace" officers. It's just too ridiculous. The peace officers btw control the Republicans here. Meg Whitman tried to cut some deals for them while going after the Teachers. No one takes it seriously, it's all just a political game of how to hurt the other side more. And just look at the kind of people your Republican electorate elects here. Why wasn't Campbell nominated, huh? He's as fiscally conservative as any of the other candidates but I guess he wasn't socially crazy enough for the Republican electorate. I would voted for him in a heartbeat. I actually did vote for him in the primary, as DTS voters can, but to no avail. The Megasaur was too strong. Maybe things will be better with the top two, but who the hell knows. Absolutely ridiculous!

[/rant]

[Wonkish1]

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/11/michael-lewis-201111


Starts off as talks about Meredith Whitney's prediction of municipal bankruptcies. He than joins the Arnold on a bike ride which is kind a little funny. It then moves to attending a city council meeting in San Jose where this wealthier city is dealing with a very rough mess on its hands. Interviews the mayor. Then heads off to Vallejo to see what life is like in a bankrupt city. Then goes off on this lizard brain tangent(which is a little weird) and then kind of summarizes and concludes.

You can tell throughout the article that Lewis is trying to keep people entertained who otherwise wouldn't sit through a 7 page article. But it also paints a very good and personalized picture of what is going on in a lot of municipalities in California. Not saying I agree with everything in the article nor do I expect you to, but it is still a very worthwhile read regardless of the side of the fence you sit on(which is quite rare these days).

Excellent article. Thanks. Sorry I didn't have time to read it earlier, I have been pretty busy the last few days. I actually just saw Michael Lewis's interview with Jon Stewart as well, where he gave a more global view of how f'ed we are.

I already knew about the problems of these unions but this article opened my eyes a little bit more. There is almost nothing to be done, especially at the local level. These people just run the show. And people just don't pay attention. They can just be like "the big bad politicians are trying to beat up on the poor police and firefighters", or at the state level those lovely teachers and "peace" officers. It's just too ridiculous. The peace officers btw control the Republicans here. Meg Whitman tried to cut some deals for them while going after the Teachers. No one takes it seriously, it's all just a political game of how to hurt the other side more. And just look at the kind of people your Republican electorate elects here. Why wasn't Campbell nominated, huh? He's as fiscally conservative as any of the other candidates but I guess he wasn't socially crazy enough for the Republican electorate. I would voted for him in a heartbeat. I actually did vote for him in the primary, as DTS voters can, but to no avail. The Megasaur was too strong. Maybe things will be better with the top two, but who the hell knows. Absolutely ridiculous!

[/rant]

Well your more than welcome!Glad you enjoyed it.