Great letter and on the money.And I hope that the GOP finds its way.
We need a strong, 2-party system.But some of the candidates that
the T-party pushes are unelectable and unacceptable in general elections.Maybe more importantly - GOP candidates (Romney is a perfect example)
have to pander to the far right to win the nomination. After all
that pandering, the moderates and independents are scared off.
Well said, and exactly right.
Richard Nixon started the EPA, OSHA, and the NOAA. He proposed a national
healthcare plan somewhat similar to Obama's except that it required
employers to pick up almost all of the costs. He proposed a national guaranteed
minimum income plan that was probably the most socialistic proposal any American
president has ever put forward. He began the first federal affirmative action
program.In short, Richard Nixon was definitely to the left of
President Obama. That gives you an idea of how far right the Republican party
To those who have forgotten the purpose of the Federal Government, any
politician who does not promise a new car in every garage and a steak for every
dinner is "extreme".The Federal Government has few duties.
It was never authorized to "give" us Social Security or Medicare or
Obamacare. It was never authorized to "give" us any item of personal
welfare; yet, the liberals have built their entire program on "freebies"
and unauthorized spending.The Federal Government has a very simple
job. It is there to protect the States from enemies, both foreign and domestic,
and to make it possible for the States to work together in harmony. Most other
duties are left to the States or to the people.When a government
over-reaches, those in power will call anyone who impedes their expansion
"extremists". It's easy to see who the
"extremists" really are - they are those who mock the Constitution by
stating that they have the power to do whatever they want. Our government has
followed the path of many churches whose "priests" have abandoned
doctrine while chasing "donations". Obama will "give" us
anything as he gives the bill to the "rich guy".
This letter is right on the mark. A large element of the Republican party has
has gone as far to the right as the 1960's hippies were to the left! This
is why despite the bad economy the Republicans had such an anemic showing in the
last national election. But don't despair, the GOP will get tired of
losing and will eventually pull back to the political center, and the tea party,
black helicopter, crowd will return to their former marginalized status.
Republicans voters have drank the libertarian tea and now must bear the
responsiblity for the obstructionism that has paralysed our national
govermnent. For Tea Party legislators, political compromise is a aborent.
Representative democracy requires reasoned compromise. But reason is not what
thay care for.
"any politician who does not promise a new car in every garage and a steak
for every dinner is "extreme"."Not even close Mr
Richards.Example - The EPA and the FDA are good organizations that
provide a service? Can we cite examples where they overstep their bounds? Of
course.Reasonable thought - Lets step in a fix what is not working
in those organizations.Extreme thought - Shut them all down.Reasonable thought - Work to make abortion legal, safe and rare.Extreme
thought - Criminalize all abortions and give "personhood" rights to the
unborn.Reasonable thought - reduce entitlements, cut defense and
bring taxes upExtreme thought - deeper entitlement cuts, increase military
spending and cut taxes for the richNow, I am not saying that the
dems are always reasonable, but the extreme right takes the cake.
Hannity and Limbaugh just collect large checks to drive herd people to the
Both sides are guilty. It's the pot calling the kettle black. Self
righteousness is present on both sides. Allegations that "You're more
extreme than I am," are ludicrous.
Mike, when you say, "It's easy to see who the "extremists"
really are - they are those who mock the Constitution by stating that they have
the power to do whatever they want."Were you referring to
President Cheney who pushed for more expansion of Presidential powers than any
other person in any party? Or the Cheney who commented (more than once) that
the Constitution is "just a piece of paper"?There was an
excellent Frontline special on this recently. You can probably find it on the
PBS website.(Ooops. Forgot. The PBS website is regarded by many as
a "liberal" site. I guess it is, when compared with FOX and hate radio.
But whatever PBS is, it's truthful.)
Mike in Cedar City...Republicans voters drank the libertarian tea..boy is that
true. I have a flock of far right relatives and they all prance around now
saying "I'm liberitarian" then go off on their favorite anti..
program. For some it's regulations, for some it's taxes, others
it's gun control, and some just plain old hate Obama. In the end the whole
libertarian thing is simply cover for I'm mad about taxes but don't
give a darn about immigration, or whatever their pet peeve is. The sad thing is
they really are starting to think they are islands unto themselves. In the end
libertarianism is just plain selfishness, or at least it's a marriage made
"Self righteousness is present on both sides. Allegations that
"You're more extreme than I am," are ludicrous."Soooo they're both equally crazy?So where were the demands to
see Romney's birth certificate? Does he have a deep seated hatred for
minorities and retired folks? Do we have any recordings from Romney's
bishop to make sure that he wasn't speaking ill of America or our
government? Lets analyze Romney's school records, shall we?Face
it, the right has gone off the deep end. Rather than focus on fixing their own
party, they have focused on tearing down others.
Excellent letter. And may I offer the fervent hope that no Republicans reading
it pay any attention to anything you wrote.
Speaking of Barry Goldwater, he once famously said: "I would remind you that
extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!" Well, it may not be a
vice, but it surely makes it tougher to be elected as a leader of all the
people, as he found out in his losing bid for the presidency, and as Mitt Romney
recently re-discovered.Of course, extremism is largely in the eye of
the beholder. Hardly anyone thinks of himself or herself as extreme. Why, even
Mike Richards probably thinks he is anything but extreme, as he labels liberals
as the true extremists. Yet most of the posters here think Mr. Richards is the
extreme one.Maybe we should all swallow a humble pill, acknowledge
that people of good will can have differing viewpoints, and stop applying
small-minded pejorative labels to those with whom we disagree. Wow, I
can't believe I just said that! I must be drifting toward rational
There are many Republicans who think Romney lost the election because he was too
moderate. Their takeaway from the election is a) we need to appeal
to more brown voters by passing immigration reform and/or b) our messaging was
lousy. As long as Republicans get their news from right-winged hate
radio nothing will change.Its going to be a long and painful process
to return to sanity.
An "uncompromising obstructionist attitude by Republicans against any and
all outside initiatives" is the only attitude that will keep us from
becoming a completely socialist country. What good is any party that just goes
along to get along? That most assuredly leads to a government run a muck and the
American people left with no freedoms and no power.Obviously Mr.
McDonald is not willing to education himself on the many, many "suitable
alternatives" offered by our House Republicans that are ignored, or worse,
buried by Harry Reid and are never allowed even a discussion in the Senate.So correctly, the meaning of "obstructionist" is in the "eye
of the beholder". This beholder sees only Democratic obstructionists who
will not produce a budget, discuss suitable alternatives (if presented by
Republicans), will not listen to the wishes of the people (Obamacare shoved down
our throats), and basically accomplish nothing because of their inability to
compromise. They all have the "my way or the highway" attitude - from
our want-a-be king down through the ranks of all democrats.P.S. Why
do mostly liberal zealots respond to these extremist letters? Come on
conservatives - where are you? Fight for your freedoms!
And Harry Reid, Pelosi, and Obama have passed exactly how many budgets in the
past 4 years? Like, NONE!. And you blame Republicans for this? Seems like the
House, lead by Republicans has passed budget after budget and passed them on to
the Senate, only to be buried by Reid. I don't think conservative
Republicans are the problem. The Democrats only want conpromise when it
benefits them politically. In other words, "our way or the highway".
Same thing that Andrew, our letter writer, is accusing the Republicans of.
"Seems like the House, lead by Republicans has passed budget after budget
and passed them on to the Senate, only to be buried by Reid"Well, lets take a bit of a deeper look.The house is controlled by
the GOP. And they have the numbers to pass anything they want with ZERO
Democratic votes.That is why the house has been able to pass a
budget. I can also assure you that EVERY GOP member who voted on the budget
KNEW up front that it could not and would not pass the senate.Now,
lets look at the Senate.It is controlled by the Dems, but not with a
fillibuster proof majority. They cannot pass anything without some GOP
votes.This is why the House can pass a budget and the senate can
not.And now you know the rest of the story......
Hey, JoeBlow, did you notice that the entire Senate, both Dems and GOP, voted
AGAINST Obama's proposed budget? So why can't the Senate even TRY to
formulate its own budget? Even a heated discussion would be better than nothing
One Old Man,How many bills passed by Congress did Vice-President Cheney
sign?Joe Blow,Article 1, Section 1, "All legislative
Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which
shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." The EPA and the
FDA are not authorized to do anything without Congress voting on each and every
"law" recommended by those non-Congressional bodies.Excusing
their activities because you believe that they benefit society misses the whole
concept of having a government directed by a Constitution and having a
Constitution that is the Supreme Law of the Land.We're seeing
what happens when a President thumbs his nose at the Constitution. He pretends
that he has the power to direct Congress and he pretends that he has the right
to use a State of the Union speech to harass the Supreme Court. You
may think that obeying the Supreme Law of the Land is "extreme". Many
people who think that the Constitution is "outdated" and that law only
applies to the other guy also regards the "other guy" as being extreme.
Apparently, the extreme, divisive, partisan animosity generated within the
conservative base by certain "conservative spokespeople" through such
venues as Fox News and Right-Wing radio has resulted in a significant segment of
the Republican Party now in conflict with the more moderate elements who say the
extremism is not beneficial to the Party's needs.Now there
comes the need to "moderate" the message and possibly alienate these
extremely conservative elements who have been trained to favor bellicosity,
conflict and anger in creating the ultimate conservative utopia of
anti-government action except where government can be used to futher the
cultural restrictions demanded by the conservative ideology.We'll see whether the message gets changed to only obfuscate the agenda
and thus hide it in an appeal to independents and less-extremist conservative
elements or if the move to ideological purity itself is moderated. However,
without the effort to address the concerns of a changing demographic and create
realistic alternatives to a reality different from that created by and for the
existing extremist conservative base, conservatism on a national level will
continue to decrease regardless of the machinations of conservatively-controlled
Mike,Did you know that both the EPA and the FDA were signed into law
by Republican Presidents?
The GOP. Too extreme, to function.
Extremism is in the eye of the beholder. Obama's extremist policies have
taken this country beyond the edge of bankrupcy, but he doesn't care
because he believes that big government is sthe answer to very problem, no
matter what the results. Hence he won't cut spending, no matter how much
the Republicans offer. Romney lost the election not because he
kowtowed to the Tea Party or because he was too extreme, but because he told the
truth. Immigrants and lifelong welfare recipients have changed the moral fabric
of this country. No longer is "Work hard and you can be a success" the
driving force behind American workers. Almost half the people in this country
want a "Santa Claus" government. They pay no taxes, but still
want/demand the benefits this country offers. We all need to bite
the bullet and learn to live within our means. We also need to return to the
moral virtues that made this country great.
Monsieur le Prof, the vast majority of people who get benefits are OLD or
VETERANS. My grandma worked hard as a nurse for 50 years. Now people like you
call her a "taker" because she's depending on SS and Medicare and
paying no income tax? Ce n'est pas juste, Monsieur.
Nationally the repubs have lost the moderate's votes due to their extremist
views. Angry white rich guys don't get their views aren't whats best
for the country.Locally, the seagull forum ensure that moderates will
never get on the ballot. You have to be extremist to make it out of the caucus.
Whan a conservative commentor, posts their conservative opinions, on
the most conservative newspaper, in the most conservative State, in
the most Conservative coutnry, and STILL can't get the most
"Likes", [and consistantly score the fewest]That
should tell you who is out-bleachers, far-right-wing, uber-world, extremist.
A lot of talk about the extreme right. So what specifically did the author have
in mind? I think of extreme right as a balanced budget, fewer regulations-red
tape, fewer Federal workers (who average over $130,000 a year, lower taxes on
corporations ( ours are the world's highest now), etc. Call me extreme.
Mitt was certainly NOT the problem. Clearly Mitt was the cure for the extremism
in GOP ranks. With the split in the right any candidate was faced with the task
of trying to appeal to the broad spectrum of voters right of center. The
religious right (many who are also t-party folks) was an added challenge. But do
not lose sight of the fact that this administration is the most far left,
deficit-building regime in decades. Blame GWB if you must but BO has done next
to nothing to stop the fiscal bleeding and in fact things just keep getting
worse. Let's target loss of integrity as the worst epidemic in American
history. I can live with a President who governs from left of center(Clinton
did that). But BO is so far left it is downright frightening. He refuses to
bring all entitlements under control. His world view socialism is destined to
bring America to it's knees and that is frighteningly closer as we speak.
Mike Richards -- I know Cheney signed no bills. But let's face it, it was
Cheney and Karl Rove who were actually in charge of the Bush White House.So referring to President Cheney and his little buddy is not a reach at
all. Perhaps a better descriptive might be President Cheney and Vice President
To Mike in Cedar CityWhoa & wow! Libertarianism & the tea
party are not the same thing. Its like saying Ron Paul & Sarah Palin are
aligned. Truth be told, Dr Paul is barely tolerated in the GOP let alone some
extreme subset therein.The tea party started out with Libertarian
leanings until it got hijacked by social conservatives and super-capitalists who
want no oversight/regulation w/ an irrational hatred of the current
administration. I have known people who have attended tea party
rallies. They said its nothing more than people in their 50's whining about
possibly not having benefits when they retire.
re:One old man & MikeRichardsDick Cheney provided several
tie-breaking votes to pass legislation, including the 2003 Bush tax cuts.
The Senate doesn't need a super majority to pass a budget. A simple
majority is all that is needed for budget items. So the could pass a budget if
they want to. Perhaps the reason that Democrats don't pass a budget is
that they would be on record for massive deficit spending.
Wow What in Tucket! Federal workers "who average over $130,000 a year"
sure sounds like a big problem.Unfortunately your numbers are way
off. According to the Office of Personnel Management the average federal salary
is $77,505 worldwide.But don't let a $53,000 dollar error ruin
a good rant.
"while unable themselves to offer suitable alternatives" such as... a balanced budget? Paying down our 16 trillion national
debt before we become Greece? This "extreme" form of thinking I guess is
just too radical to even consider. Heaven forbid this sort of
"extremism" spill over to our collective thinking as individuals and we
dare do such insane things as paying down our credit cards, downsizing into more
affordable homes, paying as we go instead of opening up another Capitol One
Credit card... you know all the "extreme stuff". Holy geez, if you are
going to write an article about how extreme conservatives are then PLEASE try to
offer at the very least a couple of specifics?? Anything? I really wish liberals
would think - just stop believing what their favorite media outlet tells them to
think and instead think for themselves. Thinking involves doing actual research
which is something the "low information" folks have a difficult time
doing.I will say without question extremism can be defined by adding 6 trillion
dollars to the national debt which is ALL Obama. By the way when was the last
budget that Harry Reid put together in the Senate?
Lest we lose our way in our discussion of political extremism, we need to
understand that its usage in American English refers to, "Any political
theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies." Immoderate and
uncompromising are key.