ctpatsfan1

It could happen if you had enough defections like McCain, Lieberman etc from the gang of 14 to start it.

IMHO, a third party is exactly what this country needs to bring together a fiscally conservative yet socially liberal agenda. I believe that the 60% of voters who are not part of any base on the left or right would be brought together under this one party. The leaders would just need to explain/market it as the alternative to the status quo.


As for Lieberman being a moderate.....he most certainly is hence why he is being challenged by Lamont here in CT because he doesn't cowtow to the Democratic base enough here in CT. What does it tell you in this staunchly blue state that if he runs as an Independent should he lose the primary, that he will win the election over either candidate Lamont or whomever the Repubs are putting up. Trust me as a Republican who has voted for him 3 times and will do so a 4th he is as moderate as moderates get.

Mainefan

NEM, you are mistaken--I'm happy to say--about moderate Republicans. There are several, right here in New England: both Maine senators, for instance, and Chafee of Rhode Island certainly fit that description.

As for a moderate party, I don't think either the Republicans or the Democrats could be such a party. In fact, they have forced each other farther right and left than they would be without opposition.

What I propose is something different: A group of moderate Senators of both parties--15 or 20 of them--who simply say no legislation will be passed without them, and whichever side uses unfair methods or rhetoric won't get their vote.

This actually happened when the filibuster argument came up a couple of years ago. 14 senators of both parties agreed that the filibuster would not be used except in exceptional cases and that the privilege to filibuster would be defended.

The moderate block, as I call it, would have a great deal of power. Nothing could happen without its cooperation. Its vote would be like a Good Housekeeping Seal of approval. It would attract the support of millions of Americans who are sick of the polarization, as well as a great deal of the media.

It would take courage and discipline to create such a block, but it could be done. And neither party would dare to attack it, because its basis would be idealism, not special interests. In fact, I think both parties would try to court the moderate block and adopt moderate positions themselves in an effort to prove their virtue.

patsfan13

It would depend on what you view as progress. In my view there is no inherent contradiction.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

PatsFanInVa

The "bedrock" for either party's faithful seems to be more like 30%+ (think about the Bush faithful currently, whenever polls are taken.) That would leave you 40% for the prospective moderate party.

Until, of course, it comes up with an agenda.

PFnV

IcyPatriot

IcyPatriot

IcyPatriot

This is why I keep referring to the BASE...the base is the % of voters you can count on if you vote the right way thereby assuring yourself of your share of the party $$$.

But to be fair NEM...it is on both sides.

A great example of this is playing out in Rhode Island right now. I encourage all to follow the Chafee race for the Senate. Some of this discussion isplaying out right now in this race. Right now...he is being slammed by Laffey who promotes a more traditional Republican agenda...many view Chafee as a traitor to the party.

Should Chafee beat Laffey then it looks like a powerful Sheldon Whitehouse will take him on in the general election. Whitehouse is the kind of democrat I like...strong and like to roll up his sleeves to work for the people. I believe Chafee is this kind of politician also. I like Chafee and applaud him for not following the party line...but it may doom him

IcyPatriot

Mainefan

Personally, I was voting in 1964, and I was voting for LBJ. Who would you rather I'd voted for, Goldwater?

But the premise--that the Democratic party has changed--is partially right. Since 1964, both parties have changed. Until then, they were both mixtures of moderates, conservatives and liberals. But when the 1964 voting rights was enacted, the Democratic conservatives, who were mostly from the south, essentially pulled out of the party--not just the politicians, but also the voters. They felt betrayed by their party.

The Republicans, of course, moved in, adding a big conservative group to their mix. The South was no longer solidly Democrat. If anything, it became solid Republican. And the Republicans, naturally, catered to them when it came to civil rights and military matters.

The opposite happened in New England, once the bedrock of the Republican party. New Englanders found themselves more comfortable with the new Democrat party than with the new Republican party. So New England became a Democratic stronghold. What Republicans remained were--are--the moderate stump of the party.

We are now witnessing what, I suppose, is the final stage of this process, in which the Republican party becomes the Conservative party, and the Democratic party becomes the Liberal party. Neither of these things were true in 1964.

This change might seem, well, convenient. But its main effect is to short-circuit moderation. In the past, neither party could offer legislation without satisfying both wings of its party. So the legislation that survived was fairly moderate, no matter which party was in power.

The compromises were made within the parties for the most part, not between them. Republican compromises were slightly to the right of center, Democratic compromises slightly to the left, but it would have inaccurate to characterize either of them as Conservative or Liberal. And thus the nation followed a fairly consistent course.

Now, instead of in-party battles, we have full-out war, public war, between, as they see themselves, the two mutually exclusive possessors of the total truth and all that's right. They are mirror images of each other, and almost incapable of allowing themselves to find common ground. Each is drooling over the opportunity to totally reverse the programs of the other.

There were some in 1964 who realized this was possible, but Civil Rights was a more important, if not a more immediate issue and the moderate/liberal wings of the Democratic party were willing to take the risk, under LBJ's leadership.

So, here we are.

Now, as for Senator Lieberman, he is clearly not a Democrat by temperament, at least not a Democrat by 2004 standards. He is, in all but name, a Republican moderate, which is, as we know, a small group, at least in the Senate. (By the way, he has a mirror image, Sen. Jim Jeffords, who was once a Republican

Although Lieberman decided to run in the Democratic Primary, he seems unwilling to play by its rules. He intends to run for re-election whether or not he wins his party's primary. To my mind, this is the same as resigning from the party. He can't remain and not play by the rules.

If you look at the ADA ratings, you'll find that maybe 10 senators from each party cannot easily be classified Liberal or Democrat. These 10 Senators--Lieberman is one of them, so are Snow and Collins and perhaps McCain and Nelson--are not in tune with their parties. In fact, they are vigorously disliked by substantial parts of their parties.

To my mind, this provides a perfect opportunity for a moderate block, a group of perhaps 20 senators who resign their party affiliations and form an alliance of their own. I believe this group would be instantly popular and very powerful. But it would take courage on the part of all of the Senators involved, political courage.

The result would be a third party that automatically attracted people dissatisfied with the extremism, so to speak, of their own party, people highly uncomfortable with the polarization, people who are genuinely moderate.

It's not inconceivable that that the result would be a three-way political power split in Washington, with both the Republicans and the Democrats driven toward the center, to attract the votes they'd need to accomplish anything at all.

I know this sounds like fantasy, but it's worth remembering that the Constitution did not establish the two party system or the Republicans and Democrats. We've had quite a few other parties--the Federalists, the Whigs, the Farm-Labor Party, the Progressive Party, etc.

Times change and politics changes. Even the principles of the main parties have changed over time (Who, in 1964, would ever have thought the Democrats would become the party of fiscal responsibility? And who, in 1940, would ever have dreamed that the Republicans would become the internationalists and the Democrats would lean toward isolationism?)

What we need, people, is a movement. And a leader. Any ideas?

DarrylS

I would be very surprised to see that happen, he takes great pride in what his dad accomplished and he sees himself as continuing his legacy... otoh Chafee is more democrat than some of these so called democrats...

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.