Pool of moderates in Congress is shri...

Pool of moderates in Congress is shrinking

There are 16 comments on the www.mercurynews.com story from Oct 9, 2012, titled Pool of moderates in Congress is shrinking. In it, www.mercurynews.com reports that:

While the occupant of the White House and the composition of the next Congress are still to be decided, one thing is clear: There will be many fewer moderate politicians here next year.

A potent combination of congressional redistricting, retirements of fed-up lawmakers and campaign spending by special interests is pushing out moderate members of both parties, leaving a shrinking corps of consensus builders.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.mercurynews.com.

Robert

Douglasville, GA

#1 Oct 9, 2012
When those tea party people get active in the democratic primaries maybe the two sides will be closer together.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2 Oct 9, 2012
Eventually a 3rd party of moderates will arise.

They will likely be fiscally conservative but support safety nets like social security & medicare, socially liberal, and anti-war but pro-defense.

They will peal off the few remaining fiscally conservative Dems, and the few remaining socially liberal GOPs.

We'll be left with the hard-core liberals, the ultra-conservative religious nutjobs, and the bulk will be 3rd party moderates.
Gravediggers

United States

#3 Oct 9, 2012
DIVISIVE PRESIDENT OBAMA = DIVISIVE NATION

Obama has not healed and unified this nation. He has DIVIDED more!

FAILURE TO UNITE = OBAMA

Proven ABILITY to UNIFY = MITT ROMNEY = Governor of Massachusetts which had 87 democrat legislature.

Mitt Romney WORKS with BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE FOR THE BETTERMENT OF EVERYONE!

Can't say that about Obama. He has NOT unified this country! It's more divided, thanks to him.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#4 Oct 9, 2012
Historically, the last major third party happened just before the Civil War, The Republican Party. Otherwise they were mostly one-offs to get people like T. Roosevelt elected to the presidency.(Bull Moose party) What's really needed is a new party to take enough of a share of Congress to force them all back to the center.

If there is a third party, the last thing I'll expect of them is moderation. Most likely, they'll be radically Libertarian or Socialist, but neither liberal nor conservative. Too many parties, and they all go radical purely for the media appeal.

What we really need is a public, to include new candidates, who pay enough attention to the big picture and who are ready to stop supporting an American doctrine of being an international bully.
CHECK SIX

North Port, FL

#5 Oct 9, 2012
One would wish the Black Caucus,Far Left ,Racist Extremists would SHRINK INTO NOTHINGNESS...Like a BLACK PLAGUE they infect the Congress....Nothing Moderate about them!...
Sheik Yerbouti

Pennington, NJ

#6 Oct 9, 2012
The country needs statesmen that will look beyond their tenure in congress and will do what's right for future generations. Today most politicians are in a constant state of campaigning and fundraising for their next term and have little time to do what's right for the country.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Oct 9, 2012
Sheik Yerbouti wrote:
The country needs statesmen that will look beyond their tenure in congress and will do what's right for future generations. Today most politicians are in a constant state of campaigning and fundraising for their next term and have little time to do what's right for the country.
That's why we need term limits and straight party national voting.

-One 4 year term for the House & Senate & President, all elected at once.
-Primaries will choose the individual candidates to represent your state.
-General election will be a national vote for ALL federal offices.
-You can only vote for the party you want to control Congress & the White House- i.e. all Dems, all GOP, all Libertarian, etc, etc.

That way the House, Senate, & Presidency would be 100% controlled by the party which wins the national election. They have 4 years to pass whatever they want. If the people don't like it, then in the next election some other party will likely get to rule for 4 years and can pass whatever they think will work.

Gotta try something besides the current gridlock.
xnutmegger

Phoenix, AZ

#8 Oct 9, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Eventually a 3rd party of moderates will arise.
They will likely be fiscally conservative but support safety nets like social security & medicare, socially liberal, and anti-war but pro-defense.
They will peal off the few remaining fiscally conservative Dems, and the few remaining socially liberal GOPs.
We'll be left with the hard-core liberals, the ultra-conservative religious nutjobs, and the bulk will be 3rd party moderates.
I actually agree with you but get called a NAZI , RACIST , NUTJOB for having those stances.

To me Romney fits 70% of what you claim a moderate should be and Obama 20% at best.

The problem with MODERATES is they get overly fiscally generous during the election season bending in the wind to the loudest shouters.

Right now the shouters are screaming " Big Bird " which is just an emotional outrage for an excellent network that should be able to compete on it's own.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#9 Oct 9, 2012
Mr. Bill and Gubmint approved news is back. I wonder if he will keep deleting anti-Obama posts.

“Yeah, but...”

Since: Sep 11

MILKY WAY

#10 Oct 9, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why we need term limits and straight party national voting.
-One 4 year term for the House & Senate & President, all elected at once.
-Primaries will choose the individual candidates to represent your state.
-General election will be a national vote for ALL federal offices.
-You can only vote for the party you want to control Congress & the White House- i.e. all Dems, all GOP, all Libertarian, etc, etc.
That way the House, Senate, & Presidency would be 100% controlled by the party which wins the national election. They have 4 years to pass whatever they want. If the people don't like it, then in the next election some other party will likely get to rule for 4 years and can pass whatever they think will work.
Gotta try something besides the current gridlock.
This is what's wrong with the system as it is mis-used today.
We should NOT be electing parties, we should be electing representatives. Each of the two major political parties (and I'm not sure about the others) are gangs, thugs really, interested in nothing more than the wealth and well-being of their members. They are exactly like the Mafia, and you may append any adjective you wish to that term (Mafia).

Each party will pit one demographic group against the other all the while snickering up their sleeves that they've once again bamboozled us into thinking that one is somehow worse than the other. We are not middle class, wealthy, poor, elderly, black, white, yellow, red, blue, conservative, liberal or moderate. We are Americans. We forget this during election season as the parties try to focus our attention to attacking each other rather than themselves.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#11 Oct 9, 2012
SirPrize wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what's wrong with the system as it is mis-used today.
We should NOT be electing parties, we should be electing representatives. Each of the two major political parties (and I'm not sure about the others) are gangs, thugs really, interested in nothing more than the wealth and well-being of their members. They are exactly like the Mafia, and you may append any adjective you wish to that term (Mafia).
Each party will pit one demographic group against the other all the while snickering up their sleeves that they've once again bamboozled us into thinking that one is somehow worse than the other. We are not middle class, wealthy, poor, elderly, black, white, yellow, red, blue, conservative, liberal or moderate. We are Americans. We forget this during election season as the parties try to focus our attention to attacking each other rather than themselves.
Without parties you'd have 535 individuals in Congress who will fight for their little piece of the pie and nothing else. There will never be agreement on ANY issue. That would be TRUE gridlock.

Political parties organize those 535 individual representatives into groups of common agreement with common goals. They agree to vote for each other's pet priority in order to get a majority for their own.

I'd rather one group control everything for 4 years, pass whatever they want, and see if it works. If it doesn't, then we change it all in the next 4 years and see if THAT works. If it doesn't, then we change it all in the next 4 years and see if THAT works.

Lather, rinse, repeat, until we find what DOES work.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#12 Oct 9, 2012
SirPrize wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what's wrong with the system as it is mis-used today.
We should NOT be electing parties, we should be electing representatives. Each of the two major political parties (and I'm not sure about the others) are gangs, thugs really, interested in nothing more than the wealth and well-being of their members. They are exactly like the Mafia, and you may append any adjective you wish to that term (Mafia).
Each party will pit one demographic group against the other all the while snickering up their sleeves that they've once again bamboozled us into thinking that one is somehow worse than the other. We are not middle class, wealthy, poor, elderly, black, white, yellow, red, blue, conservative, liberal or moderate. We are Americans. We forget this during election season as the parties try to focus our attention to attacking each other rather than themselves.
That's the whole point to having a third party. You've got a Mexican Standoff among the cynical career politicians. Anyone who's there to do a job gets a clear opening to pitch that job to the people.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#13 Oct 9, 2012
Mr. Bill's brain is shrinking. Obama is a murderer if you ask me.
Bob Bum

Hanoi, Vietnam

#14 Oct 9, 2012
Eighthman wrote:
Mr. Bill's brain is shrinking. Obama is a murderer if you ask me.
y mad of mr. Bill Obey!! wanna dreaming of Bill check out his 3rd cousin!!!!!!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Obey

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#15 Oct 10, 2012
Bob Bum wrote:
<quoted text>
y mad of mr. Bill Obey!! wanna dreaming of Bill check out his 3rd cousin!!!!!!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Obey
Hillary and Susan Rice should go to jail. Obama should step down. Mr. Bill should give it up. He is making a fool of himself.

“Yeah, but...”

Since: Sep 11

MILKY WAY

#16 Oct 10, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Without parties you'd have 535 individuals in Congress who will fight for their little piece of the pie and nothing else. There will never be agreement on ANY issue. That would be TRUE gridlock.
Political parties organize those 535 individual representatives into groups of common agreement with common goals. They agree to vote for each other's pet priority in order to get a majority for their own.
I'd rather one group control everything for 4 years, pass whatever they want, and see if it works. If it doesn't, then we change it all in the next 4 years and see if THAT works. If it doesn't, then we change it all in the next 4 years and see if THAT works.
Lather, rinse, repeat, until we find what DOES work.
If the 535 sare party politicians, you are corret. that's waht we have now to aa too large extent.
However, we need statesmen representing us who have principles that guide them and know when and how to compromise; i.e., accept a little movement forward rather than demand complete adherence to those principles immediately.
Paul Ryan, for example, seems to be such a person. He's been criticized for suggesting that he would be willing to compromise his principles. In my opinion, though, this is precisely the kind of thinking we need in our representatives and it is all too lacking among our elected represenatives.

I find it surprising that you'd rather have one group cntrol everything for any length of time. That is the path to dictatorship and slavery. You trust the party (any party) too much. What would prevent the party in power from removing our freedoms during those first four years? What would prevent the party from outlawing any other party or our right to vote?

If you want to live under that form of Government? There are plenty to choose from. I hope I never see the day when the USA degenerates to that level.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ohio Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Feral Cat Problem Growing In NE Ohio | Ohio New... (Aug '11) 33 min Seriouslady 59
News Kasich plans to announce 2016 presidential bid ... 2 hr pissed off 7
News Juan Williams: The pollution of politics 3 hr Le Jimbo 13
Michelle's secret dry Tue Ina 2
News Kasich plans to announce 2016 presidential bid ... Mon Carl 1
black woman Jun 29 james 1
News Columbus falls to 5th in Ohio for auto thefts a... Jun 28 Linda 3
More from around the web