What do we have to do for the government to become functional again?

[twa]

We need more Goldwaters and less Santorums and Bachmans. As Jeb Bush said today, his father and even Reagan would have a hard time getting nominated in the GOP today. But hey, keep voting for them. At least they're not Democrats and I'm sure they'll get back to being sane once they're in office.

Puleeeze...Romney (I'll meet ya in the middle from either direction Mitt ) is the nominee and handily crushed those two

btw, since you like what Jeb said....What did he say about Obama and co ???

If Goldwater was running you would call him a extremist

[nonniey]

Puleeeze...Romney (I'll meet ya in the middle from either direction Mitt ) is the nominee and handily crushed those two

btw, since you like what Jeb said....What did he say about Obama and co ???

If Goldwater was running you would call him a extremist

Funny thing about the gnashing of teeth and complaining about Republican extremists on this board of the two parties it is the Republicans who nominated the moderate for President in this upcoming election and the last as well.

[twa]

hell even the Palin pick was at least a outsider that worked with both parties.

[Larry]

Yeah, McCain was a moderate maverick outsider who only voted the Party Line 93% of he time.

Whereas Obama is the most liberal president ever, and a socialist and a communist, who will not negotiate or compromise at all, ever.

[nonniey]

Yeah, McCain was a moderate maverick outsider who only voted the Party Line 93% of he time.

Whereas Obama is the most liberal president ever, and a socialist and a communist, who will not negotiate or compromise at all, ever.

Are you seriously taking the position that the Democrats nominated the more moderate candidate for President in 2008? Really? Well at least you are conceding 2012, I'll give you that.

[Burgold]

Are you seriously taking the position that the Democrats nominated the more moderate candidate for President in 2008? Really? Well at least you are conceding 2012, I'll give you that.

I wouldn't say that, but I would say the picture of how liberal Obama was or how socialist or how sleeper terrorist was greatly exagerated.

[nonniey]

I wouldn't say that, but I would say the picture of how liberal Obama was or how socialist or how sleeper terrorist was greatly exagerated.

This happens to all candidates, but there is no denying that the President is from the liberal wing of the Democratic party. I was just pointing out the ridiculous assertion that Republicans are the problem for going all extremist, when they were the ones who nominated moderates.

[JMS]

Are you seriously taking the position that the Democrats nominated the more moderate candidate for President in 2008? Really? Well at least you are conceding 2012, I'll give you that

I am absolutely taking that position. I don't think there is any doubt... John McCain was a conservative, thoughout his entire career. Not a centrist. Bush's extremism made McCain look like a centrist. Only from 2004- 2008 when McCain ran for President

McCain abandoned all of his moderate positions and adopted Bush's agenda across the board. McCain's "anti torture" legislation, not only legalized torture in this country it retroactively granted amnesty for the people who had illegally been torturing folks previously.

How is that moderate? Positions for stem cell research, against bush's tax cuts, in favor of imigration reform were all reversed. In the end there wasn't a sliver of sunshine between McCAin in 2008 and Bush in 2004 even on issues where McCain was Bush's harshest critic.

Now you take Obama who has been called our most liberal president. even socialist, even communist.... Obama is none of those things. Obama is a pragmatic centrist, who leans right. Case in point.. Obamacare.. first proposed by the conservative Heritage foundation, first introduced on the floor of the congress by the Nixon administration at that time defeated by liberals lead by Ted Kennedy. Liberals are up in arms about Obama. Slowest growth in federal spending since Ike. Renewed Bush's tax cuts. Went to war in Libyia. Expanded the war in Afghanistan. Adhered to Bush's timetable for withdrawl in Iraq. Again, This country hasn't had a liberal president since LBJ.

[Rodriggo]

Ban Lobbyists.

Yep. I would add:

End any and all campaign contributions. Political Advertising is made illegal. Shorten the Presidential Election to 3 months. Eliminate the Electoral College.

More political parties, but that's more organic.

[JMS]

This happens to all candidates, but there is no denying that the President is from the liberal wing of the Democratic party..

What? That is a ridiculous statement. Liberal democrats are as upset with Obama as the right wing whackadoodles are. Obama basically has followed Bill Clinton's formula for power. He's pushed to the center, even right of center, and basically told liberals to go stuff themselves...Obama has opennly dared liberals not to support him, and thus ensure another Republican President. Puting back in power the folks who enabled 8 years of Bush.

Liberals voice concerns about Obama

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16292.html

Frustrated liberals upset with Obama

http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/article/20120608/NEWS02/206080306/Frustrated-liberals-upset-Obama

Frustrated liberals want more from Obama

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/08/frustrated-liberals-want-more-from-obama/

'LEFT' IN THE DUST

LIBERALS LIVID AT OBAMA'S RIGHT TURN

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/item_q2qJudpJE5Y7J3oN5LOnqM

Frustrated liberals in Obama's path

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64805_Page2.html

That's one of the biggest differences in the parties... Democrats push to the middle and upset the folks on their fringe.. trusting the majority of the voters can be found in the center. Republicans push to their fringe, trusting the majority of the country are conservatives. The last two most sucessful Republicans.. Reagan, Bush Jr.. actually moved the center of American Politics.

I was just pointing out the ridiculous assertion that Republicans are the problem for going all extremist, when they were the ones who nominated moderates.

Which is also ridiculous. The GOP elects folks who they think have the best chance for being elected. And as long as they disavow all positions which once made them acceptable to moderates/independents, adopt the right wing whackadoodle positions, and cow tow before the "agents of intollerance".... then the GOP will nominate them....

( it's freaking sick to watch... John McCain the most popular politician in the country in 2003, a guy who had independents in his pocket, was forced to grovel in the dirt for his parties nomination.. When he was done, not only didn't the GOP social conservatives support the life long pro life candidate; but what was left of him didn't have any independent support either.

I think it says alot about the GOP that they realize the folks who have always held their positions, like Santorum, are a joke and would have no chance in a general election. So they must get weak leaders like McCain and Romney willing to sell their souls and abandon their beliefs in order to obtain the GOP nomination. Only after they've spent a year running away from the center to get elected, it's very hard for them to get back to the center in order to attract moderates in the general.

Contrast that with the Democratic party. James Webb the Democratic senator from Virginia. Long time Republican. Ronald Reagan's secretary of the navy. He was a conservative senator as a democrat had no problems. contrast that with moderate Republicans in the congress or senate. They're all gone, or in the process of being swept out of office.

[Thiebear]

I am absolutely taking that position. I don't think there is any doubt... John McCain was a conservative, thoughout his entire career. Not a centrist. Bush's extremism made McCain look like a centrist. Only from 2004- 2008 when McCain ran for President

McCain abandoned all of his moderate positions and adopted Bush's agenda across the board. McCain's "anti torture" legislation, not only legalized torture in this country it retroactively granted amnesty for the people who had illegally been torturing folks previously.

How is that moderate? Positions for stem cell research, against bush's tax cuts, in favor of imigration reform were all reversed. In the end there wasn't a sliver of sunshine between McCAin in 2008 and Bush in 2004 even on issues where McCain was Bush's harshest critic.

Now you take Obama who has been called our most liberal president. even socialist, even communist.... Obama is none of those things. Obama is a pragmatic centrist, who leans right. Case in point.. Obamacare.. first proposed by the conservative Heritage foundation, first introduced on the floor of the congress by the Nixon administration at that time defeated by liberals lead by Ted Kennedy. Liberals are up in arms about Obama. Slowest growth in federal spending since Ike. Renewed Bush's tax cuts. Went to war in Libyia. Expanded the war in Afghanistan. Adhered to Bush's timetable for withdrawl in Iraq. Again, This country hasn't had a liberal president since LBJ.

Spin, Spin, Spin seem crazy when you put the context back into some of the quotes..

Should President Obama let that people die in that City in Lybia? Yes/No (doens't make you a war hawk). and he did it kicking and screaming as he should have.

Didn't the President/Democrats say Obamacare is the first step towards the Democrats goal of the Single Payer system? Like the seat belt laws they are the masters of incrementalism. Take what you can now and just keep tweaking it till you get it where you originally wanted but no chance on getting that passed.

Didnt Carter come 12 years after LBJ? Then Clinton took triangulation of the opponents issues as an art form. I think President Obama is doing the same.

This President has Socialist views based on his own books and words, but has done a great job outside of trying to fix the worst economy in 100 years. Seperating the issues no different than i would hope a Roman Catholic would in the 60's.

[Duckus]

The real problem is voter turnout.

When turnout is low - extremist on both sides win. Get more folks to vote and the power of the fringe dramatically decreases. Until folks care about voting no other changes will matter at all.

Some other suggestions in a fantasy world:

1) States like Texas would be broken into smaller states. 2 senators for the entire state of Texas that includes 5 of the biggest 15 cities in America is absolutely insane (Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, Ft. Worth). There are probably 3-4 other states that would also make sense to break up as well.

2) End the primary circus. National primary day - both parties - one day. This isn't the 1800s anymore candidates are not going by train from state to state spreading their message. Their is TV, internet, private jets. We don't need a 6 month primary tour of hell.

3) I also agree with increasing number of Congressional seats in Congress.

4) Corporate money in politics illegal and strict contribution limits for individuals.

5) Small advertising window. No TV campaign advertising until 3 months before the election. No advertising in the final 2 weeks before the election.

6) All political donations must be disclosed and public

[JMS]

Spin, Spin, Spin seem crazy when you put the context back into some of the quotes..

Actually I was listing facts. And I gave 5 quotes, titles of articles spaning obama's 4 years in office how he's frusterating liberals.

Should President Obama let that people die in that City in Lybia? Yes/No (doens't make you a war hawk). and he did it kicking and screaming as he should have.

Well he doesn't seem to be halving a problem watching what is happening in Syria. Nor did bush have a problem watching from afar in Darfor even after his secretary of state called it Genocide. Yes as a matter of fact. Unilaterally committing US forces without congressional approval does make you a war hawk. As does trippling the number of troops in Afghanistan. As does renigging on your pledge to end the war in Iraq immeidately but rather adhering to bush's timetalbe for withdrawl.

I'm not saying Obama was wrong in any of these decisions. I'm saying his decisions were very calculated, pragmatic, and right leaning. I'm also saying the left is up in arms over all of them. Calling Obama liberal is laughable, much less calling him socialist or communist. The fact that right wing whackadoodles can do so and keep a straight face just shows how out of touch they are.

Didn't the President/Democrats say Obamacare is the first step towards the Democrats goal of the Single Payer system?

I know of no democrat who has said that. Liberals are very upset with Obamcare. It is a very very moderate modest previously conservative proposal for reforming the existing system. It is not what liberals wanted which is an across the board overhaul.

Obama dropped even a single payer option from Obamacare before negotiations got started with Republicans in earnist. Republicans have said that, Not Democrats. Romney has said that, even though Romney again favored the Obamacare model for his own state as Governor.

Like the seat belt laws they are the masters of incrementalism. Take what you can now and just keep tweaking it till you get it where you originally wanted but no chance on getting that passed.

So it's not what he has done, It's what those in the future might do.. GOTCHA!!

Didnt Carter come 12 years after LBJ?

Carter, you mean the evangelical baptist from Georgia who tried to balance the budget? The sitting President who endured a revolt among liberal democrats lead by Ted Kennedy and Mo Udall in his re-election effort.

Then Clinton took triangulation of the opponents issues as an art form.

Yep, Clinton pushed to the middle and stole core issues away from Republicans. Clinton championed NAFTA. Clinton anounced at the State of the Union that the era of big government was over. Clinton ( along with Newt) who balanced the budget and gave us our first surplus in a generation.

Definitely not a liberal.

I think President Obama is doing the same.

That's is true.. Obama is following Bill Clinton's political formula. If you aren't upsetting the people on the fringe of your own party, you aren't doing your job. Democrats try to rule from the center, even a little to the right of center; while Republicans like Reagan, and Bush Jr have really pushed to the right, moving the center of American politics with them.

---------- Post added June-12th-2012 at 09:26 AM ----------

The real problem is voter turnout.

When turnout is low - extremist on both sides win. Get more folks to vote and the power of the fringe dramatically decreases. Until folks care about voting no other changes will matter at all..

I don't think that's true. 2004 and 2008 were both record years for turnout. I don't think the 2000 election turnout was very low either.

When Bill Clinton was elected he got less than 20% of the available votes.... Only 40% of americans turned out to the polls, 20% went to Ross Perot, Clinton won with about 40% of the 40% turnout... Those were the days...

Voter turnout is significantly on the rise, and Bush Jr. was the most right wing president in our history... ( modern history anyway.)

[skinsmarydu]

I hate the GOP vs. DEM debate that constantly goes on here.... and everywhere else in America. We are on the only two party democracy in the world (I believe). Where is the group I believe in? It sure isn't the GOP, and it isn't the Dems either. I would love for center-leaning GOPs and Dems to start their own party. Call it the Realist Party. Hell, I would take 3 or 4 more powerful parties. We need more than team A vs. team B. We need more options. So many voters don't care because they hate both parties. Give the people other groups (not just candidates) they can identify with. The more parties there are, the more the politicians have to produce. If the politicians don't produce, voters will leave one party for another.

The big problem, which has been stated many times in this thread already, is campaign finance. Until there are real regulations the two party system will always be the norm.

Very well put. Citizens United should scare the **** out of everyone. All 3 of our branches of government are being held hostage by billionaires, not "we the people". And if we don't do something about it, it'll stay that way.

Term limits are a concern of ours...along with infrastructure, education, healthcare,...but nothing will get done anytime soon, I'm afraid. The OP said everything I've been sayin in this here Tailgate for months. The GOP won't vote for the bills they sponsor if the POTUS is in favor of it. It's crazy.

[JMS]

Very well put. Citizens United should scare the **** out of everyone. All 3 of our branches of government are being held hostage by billionaires, not "we the people". And if we don't do something about it, it'll stay that way.

Term limits are a concern of ours...along with infrastructure, education, healthcare,...but nothing will get done anytime soon, I'm afraid. The OP said everything I've been sayin in this here Tailgate for months. The GOP won't vote for the bills they sponsor if the POTUS is in favor of it. It's crazy.

One hundred people are responsible for more than 80% of all the pesidential campagn donations, to all the candidates Republican or Democrat.

Can 46 rich dudes buy an election?

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Taking advantage of relaxed campaign finance laws, a cadre of deep-pocketed donors are spending gobs of money to bankroll super PACs, a phenomenon that is reshaping the modern election cycle.

It is a select group. The top 100 individual super PAC donors make up just 3.7% of those who have contributed to the new money vehicles, but account for more than 80% of the total money raised, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/26/news/economy/super-pac-donors/index.htm

[thebluefood]

Here's 2 solutions from the Founding Fathers-

1-Abolish the 17th Amendment.

Going back to the vision where Senators were elected by the State Legislatures gets rid of the "Senator for life" problem we have now. 6 years in office is a long time, plenty of time to build a warchest from PACs and lobbyists.

2- Increase the size of Congress. Originally we had 1 Congressman per 30k people. Now it's 1 per every 700,000.

Our elected leaders are too entrenched because it costs too much money to run against them. We used to adjust the number in Congress every decade or two. We havent had an increase in over 50 years.

I can get on board with that. I wonder if expanding the size of the House will open up opportunities for more independent and third party candidates.

[twa]

Yeah, McCain was a moderate maverick outsider who only voted the Party Line 93% of he time.

r.

and vs Obama's

FactCheck: Ranked most liberal in Senate, based on 99 votes. (Feb 2008)

Voted with Democratic Party 96.0% of 251 votes. (Sep 2007)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

[PeterMP]

This happens to all candidates, but there is no denying that the President is from the liberal wing of the Democratic party. I was just pointing out the ridiculous assertion that Republicans are the problem for going all extremist, when they were the ones who nominated moderates.

Obama was/is clearly to the right of Edwards and Kucinich in terms of proposed policy.

In some aspects, he was to the right of Clinton (e.g. his proposed healthcare law didn't include a mandata and therefore was not really universal, while her's did.)

[Larry]

This happens to all candidates, but there is no denying that the President is from the liberal wing of the Democratic party.

Every Republican Party extremist says so.

Just like they've said about every Democrat nominee, since at least Clinton.

But that wasn't the point.

I responded to the claim that the Republicans always nominate moderates, and the Democrats extremists.

Funny, I saw Obama negotiate with the other side. Over Obamacare. Over the debt ceiling. Heck, the biggest complaint about the guy, from both sides, is that he's a doormat who hasn't done anything.

The Republican Party announces, before he even takes office, their intention to filibuster every single thing in the government. Obama offers concessions to them, and they storm out of the room in protest.

And then they go in front of the camera, and announce that this proves that Obama is an extremist who refuses to budge so much as an inch.

And people come into Tailgate, and repeat the claim. Apparently, as if they believe it.

---------- Post added June-12th-2012 at 11:13 AM ----------

One hundred people are responsible for more than 80% of all the pesidential campagn donations, to all the candidates Republican or Democrat.

Your Tax Cut Dollars at work.

---------- Post added June-12th-2012 at 11:28 AM ----------

and vs Obama's

FactCheck: Ranked most liberal in Senate, based on 99 votes. (Feb 2008)

Voted with Democratic Party 96.0% of 251 votes. (Sep 2007)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

I'm well aware that there are lots of places that will cherry pick issues, votes, or whatnot, to come up with a conclusion they want.

But, I have to say, I'm not seeing anything that says that's the case, here. Looks legit. I've never heard of them, before. But they look legit.

[JMS]

and vs Obama's

FactCheck: Ranked most liberal in Senate, based on 99 votes. (Feb 2008)

Voted with Democratic Party 96.0% of 251 votes. (Sep 2007)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

Twa, You do realize Ted Kennedy was in the senate when Obama was there right? You do realize that Vermot had Bernie Sanders as it's senator while Obama was in the Senate and his party was the socialist party..

I could probable cherry pick 99 votes and prove Strom Therman was more liberal than Ted.

[Thiebear]

Don't think it matters how you voted in the Senate as they have whips and leadership pushing you.

It matters what you submitted it would seem more likely.

[Predicto]

Funny thing about the gnashing of teeth and complaining about Republican extremists on this board of the two parties it is the Republicans who nominated the moderate for President in this upcoming election and the last as well.

This is absolutely untrue.

Where people got the idea that Obama is a leftist extremist is understandable. The GOP and the conservative media say it all the time. So even though he didn't campaign as one, and hasn't governed as one, many still believe it.

Where people got the idea that John McCain is not a conservative is beyond me. John McCain spent his entire political life as one of the most conservative members of the Senate. His voting record is ultra clear. Arlen Specter was a moderate Republican. Lincoln Chafee was a moderate Republican. John McCain was a conservative Republican.

The only thing about John McCain that was not "conservative" was the fact that he didn't go out of his way to say "**** you" to the other side of the aisle. That apparently is the main qualification to be a conservative nowadays, so I guess to some people, that makes him a moderate.

---------- Post added June-12th-2012 at 09:32 AM ----------

Don't think it matters how you voted in the Senate as they have whips and leadership pushing you.

It matters what you submitted it would seem more likely.

You are thinking of the House. Senators are much more independent. You have to convince individual senators of things.

---------- Post added June-12th-2012 at 09:35 AM ----------

Obama was/is clearly to the right of Edwards and Kucinich in terms of proposed policy.

In some aspects, he was to the right of Clinton (e.g. his proposed healthcare law didn't include a mandata and therefore was not really universal, while her's did.)

This is where mythology has taken over.

Obama is an ultra-leftist for pushing though a health care reform created by the conservative Cato Institute rather than the single payor system that the American left actually wanted. That's how wacked Obama Derangement Syndrome has gotten.

[JMS]

of the two parties it is the Republicans who nominated the moderate for President in this upcoming election and the last as well.

This is absolutely untrue..

It is a little true. I mean the dirty little secret is Mitt Romney as a candidate for the senate ran to the left of Ted Kennedy. He served as Governor as a moderate probable to the left of where Obama is today.

It's also true that most liberals in the country even though they are disaffected with Obama will likely support him to keep Mitt Romney out of office.

That's where the truth ends. Because in truth, the Democrats are doing the same thing and have done so longer. Jimmy Carter was a conservative evangelical from the south who tried to balance the budget, Carter wasn't chosen for the nomination because liberals wanted him; but because moderates did. Bill Clinton ( era of big government is over ) also a moderate... Really Clinton had no political ideas of his own spent his entire political career putting his finger to the wind and allowing public opinion to dictate his positions. Frusterated the hell out of Republicans as he co-opted some of their most popular positions. Clinton smacked around liberals, telling Jessie Jackson where you going to go? you going to vote republican, I don't think so.. get out of my office. Likewise Obama is far from liberal... He's another pragmatic right leaning centrist upsetting people off on the left..

Most Americans today vote party, not based upon the candidates anymore. Liberals will vote for Obama, not because we like Obama but because it may help keep Eric Cantor and Boehner away from the Oval office.

Just like most Republicans are going to hold their nose and vote for a guy who has been pro choice, pro gay rights and in favor of socialized medicine for most of his career hoping his sucess leads to their parties sucess.

[Predicto]

It is a little true. I mean the dirty little secret is Mitt Romney as a candidate for the senate ran to the left of Ted Kennedy. He served as Governor as a moderate probable to the left of Obama.

.

I was focusing on the manifestly untrue claim that McCain was a moderate Republican. I have no idea what Romney is anymore.

The only reason Romney got the nomination was as a second choice - because pretty much every other person who ran in the GOP primaries was an utter psycho or an extremist clown and they chewed each other to bits. Michele Bachmann? Herman Cain? Newt Gingrich? Rick Freaking Santorum? Each of them was taken seriously as the frontrunner. The Democrats could only have matched that lineup if they had put up Dennis Kuchinich, Al Sharpton, Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore as their top tier candidates.

This does not show that the GOP is moderate, it shows that they couldn't agree on one preferred extremist in time to defeat Romney's money.

[Bang]

I'd rather be a bit optimistic and say that they chose Romney because the others were just too far out there.

Although, Santorum doing so well is enough to give me the willies.

~Bang