Welcome to PatsFans.com

Now Is The Best Time Ever For A Moderate Party.

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, Jul 3, 2006.

  1. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,607
    Likes Received:
    369
    Ratings:
    +776 / 5 / -15

    #87 Jersey

    I took extreme measures to not mention Bush and/or Iraq here. I'm thinking that keeping those 2 items out will help this discussion along on a bipartisan plane. Also, I say a MODERATE PARTY...not Candidate. I really don't see the Green Party or the Libertarian party as moderate...but they do look better than the far left and right IMO.

    I feel the time has never been better for a truly moderate President. Not a liberal like Kerry or Hillary moving right and not a righty like Cheney(I said no B#$h so I use him) moving left. Because moving left means they still get the strong money from the extreme donors but they try to appease the center for votes.

    Running as a true moderate would be tough to near impossible because the $$$ needed to run won't really be there. The big money comes from the PACS and their people. Two of the most famous are the abortion people donating to the left and the gun lobby to the right for example.

    But, when I think of this issue it makes alot of sense. If Cheney runs he would appeal to me about 20% or so on issues and Hillary the same from the left...@ 20% of the issues.

    Now take the real lefties and righties here and in America. Would a true moderate appeal @ 20% to them...I don't think so. Just guessing on my part...don't want a link heavy thread...I would rather have a discussion of real opinion...I would think that a moderate would appeal at least 50% to these people if not more. Using an appeal factor of let's say 70% to 100% for a candidate someone would really truly like alot.


    So, am I wrong to say this candidate would not represent the people better?
    • I would think a true moderate would never go to war without true Congressional approval.
    • A real moderate would really use the U.N....even with it's inherent flaws.
    • A real moderate would have a strong defense, but one that truly protects as opposed to being aggresive with manpower, weapons and the media.
    • A real moderate would be forced to listen to the people...because they would not have THAT BASE TO FALL BACK UPON.
    • A real moderate would need to have a balanced budget with a reduced deficit...because only a successfull budget will help re-election...no base to fall back on.
    • A real moderate would enhance the chances of having a larger center in the House and Senate...this is where we would see the most benefit of representation for the people vs big business.
    • A real moderate would expose big business for what it is, causing the voters to take appropriate measures to fight back.
    • A real moderate would make it easier for the media to bring debate back into the news...they are just way to busy fighting for their side all the time.
    • A real moderate would make it harder for minorities on the left and right...this could be a problem for them unless they lessen their demands...which could end up being good...I am not sure?

      I CAN THINK OF MORE...BUT I'M GUESSING OTHERS WILL POST MORE OR TAKE SOME AWAY.

    The 4TH item...THE BASE TO FALL BACK ON...That is what allows our politicians to continually SH - IT on us all the time. Take away the base and you take away the power....the power goes back to the people, where it belongs.

    MY THEORY...IN SIMPLE UNLINKED TERMS OF WHY WE
    NEED A TRULY(donations come from moderates) MODERATE PARTY.


    OPINIONS???
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2006
  2. mikey

    mikey Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    I'm not sure if this is going to work.

    I thought the country is too polarized, our political differences are too entrenched.

    There is such a deep-rooted distrust between both parties that I don't see any middle ground in such areas as abortion or religion.

    Of course, it doesn't help that George Bush turned out to be the ultimate divider and not the uniter as he deceptively protrayed himself to be.

    .
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2006
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,724
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +154 / 7 / -13

    A lot of what you describe is the dem party pre 1964.
  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,724
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +154 / 7 / -13

    Here is an article that speaks to the clash of ideologies you are observing.

    link:

    A very long article but a good read and some insight on the culture war being fought in American politics these days.
  5. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,804
    Likes Received:
    45
    Ratings:
    +89 / 7 / -13

    #37 Jersey

    You are so full of crap it isn't funny!

    Look at what you say about a moderate democrat.

    http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=37497

    You disagree with him so you trash him, nice, now who is party first? I believe that would be you.
  6. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Last edited: Jul 3, 2006
  7. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,311
    Likes Received:
    244
    Ratings:
    +387 / 6 / -9

    Let's imagine that such a party exists. How long before a political party that runs good smear campaigns would paint it as "too far right" or "too far left" for the majority of America?

    For the sake of argument, let's say it is one of the existing parties.

    I do believe one of the major political parties is lambasted for "extremism" when in fact it is, for the most part, holding to a realistic view of the world.

    For the sake of this message and this thread, I won't say which party I believe to already be, for the most part, "centrist."

    Here's my point: Whether I'm talking about the Dems or Republicans, the other side vociferously screams that no! no! no!, it's the other way around! And the individuals within those parties who can imagine voting on the other side of the aisle? They're interchangeable.

    What you're arguing about is a further contraction of the American political spectrum. I have heard this yearning before -- partisan politics are so juvenile, so ugly -- and that's all true.

    But the problem is not that we have too many or too diverse a spectrum of viewpoints. The problem is that we can't conceive of good people holding a position opposite our own (think of the abortion debate.)

    The "Everybody Agrees About Everything" party, were it to gain power, would be a sluggish, smug, self-satisfied party. And, as it deals with novel situations (i.e., the daily news,) that party would inevitably be perceived as taking the "wrong road" unless it was utterly unresponsive to those crises.

    I hate the strife that goes with partisan politics, and I don't understand the point of all the nastiness that goes with them. After all, we're not the Whites and the Reds in the old U.S.S.R. -- we're ideologically far closer, and we're not about to fire on one another for our disagreements. So why do we tell ourselves we're really damaging one another, when in fact we're just being ugly?

    At any rate, I don't think the "middle of the road" party is as appealing as it would seem. You could construct one tomorrow, and 2/3 of the people that "want" one would say it is too far to the right or too far to the left.

    .02

    PFnV
  8. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,804
    Likes Received:
    45
    Ratings:
    +89 / 7 / -13

    #37 Jersey

    Yeah he is not a moderate.:confused:

    Because he is so conservative on other issues:rolleyes: , except national defense. Look who the fool is now.(<--YOU)

    New NEM rule, you have to be Anti-war to be a moderate.
  9. mikey

    mikey Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0


    Do you think there is an inherent contradiction among the trinity of American exceptionalism as espoused by contemporary Tocquevillians? For instance, do you think that is an intrinsic conflict between dynamism and religiosity? Does adherence to religiosity deter social progress and entrepreneurship?

    .
  10. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,295
    Likes Received:
    128
    Ratings:
    +239 / 8 / -26

    As much as I agree with the need for a 3rd party(moderate or progressive), probably will not happen the powers to be are very satisfied with the status quo. I would suspect any new party would be faced with sabotage in all areas, and would face legal battles in every state as well as serious funding issues.
  11. ctpatsfan1

    ctpatsfan1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    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.
  12. Mainefan

    Mainefan Rookie

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,255
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    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.
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,724
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +154 / 7 / -13

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

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,311
    Likes Received:
    244
    Ratings:
    +387 / 6 / -9

    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
  15. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,607
    Likes Received:
    369
    Ratings:
    +776 / 5 / -15

    #87 Jersey

    aHHH THE GOOD OLD DAYS...But I was only 5 then and i was too busy playing with toy trucks.
  16. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,607
    Likes Received:
    369
    Ratings:
    +776 / 5 / -15

    #87 Jersey

    It appears, and Patters has spoken alot about this...that the democrats have become the fiscal conservative party...Clinton is a great example. It seems like the democrats have adopted this as part of their platform to the future which has caught my attention...it's a good cause to promote.

    So...if that's true then the democrats would seem to have the edge in being closer to the center except for the $$$ base that keeps them way left. The $$$ base IMO is the biggest obstacle to truly represntative government in this country.

  17. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,607
    Likes Received:
    369
    Ratings:
    +776 / 5 / -15

    #87 Jersey


    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
  18. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,607
    Likes Received:
    369
    Ratings:
    +776 / 5 / -15

    #87 Jersey

    That was in the pre-Bush days when landscaping was not necessary. :eek: :eek: :rofl:
  19. Mainefan

    Mainefan Rookie

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,255
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    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?
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2006
  20. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,295
    Likes Received:
    128
    Ratings:
    +239 / 8 / -26

    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...

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>