NationStates Jolt Archive

I am a fiscally conservative independent democrat, basically I will go for any idea that helps the country. I do tend to vote liberal, but I have no problem voting republican or independent. One republican that I will defend, and I hope runs for president in 08', is John Mc. Cain. Mc. Cain is a good guy. What ever happened to people saying yes I do lean more to one side, but I'll give anything a chance. Every single person who has served as a political leader, whether it be president, vice president, senator, or congressman, has done good and bad things. Every one of them has made good decisions, bad decisions, has done some really smart things, and has done some really dumb things too. So what I'm asking is if there are any moderates in the forum. Also thank God for moderates during the whole filibuster nightmare. If it were not for Mc. Cain and serveral moderates from both sides that could have been a lot worse, and it was already a P.R. nightmare for all sides. Mc. Cain was the only one who was being sensible about the whole thing. When he was on "hardball" Mc. Cain said he would not vote for the filibuster to be killed, he said that it was not wise. He said that one day, he said he hopes its in a hundred years from now, that the democrats will be the majority because it always goes back and forth. From what I gathered he was saying that if the filibuster were elimitated it cause the republicans to shoot themselves in the foot, as the expression goes.

P.S. To give an example my Governor Bob Riley is a repubican and if he runs again I will probably vote for him. Like all politicians he has done a lot of good and bad things, yet I believe the good out stretch the bad. If his Lt. Governor runs I will probably not be voting for him, I'm not a fan of him.

Well what do you all think? (Lets try to keep this a sensible thread please!)

Unfortunately, people want polarization. It just isn't fun being sensible!

Seriously though, I'm with you there. I've voted for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents. I don't care what party you are, tell me what you'll vote for (and "look at my party platform" is a good way to get me to vote for anyone but you).

Of course, being moderate gets you called all sorts of names. I've been called "left-wing liberal nutjob" and "right-wing Bush-supporting poopiehead" all in the same week. =)

Sometimes I'm moderately drunk

In politics, all too often the middle of the road gets run over.

There are two problems that stand in the way of a dominant moderate faction. First, the public often see moderates as wishy-washy who are in the middle so they get the best of both worlds. Second, there really isn't a moderate base that can generate campaign revenues for leading moderates. If this could be reversed, moderate success would follow, but it doesn't seem to be happening.

Sometimes I'm moderately drunk

only in the morning

Of course, being moderate gets you called all sorts of names. I've been called "left-wing liberal nutjob" and "right-wing Bush-supporting poopiehead" all in the same week. =)
It's easier to simplify the political spectrum by labeling. That has to do with ideology and seeing the world through its rose-colored glasses. Moderates in American politics serve a very useful purpose, calling other people on their spin. There are occasions in Wasington where it is best to be moderate, if that trend continues then maybe we will have a more sensible government.
This also has to do with the fact that people see Democrat and Republican. I too have been called a 'liberal', 'conservative', and a string of other things, and I'm an Old Whig.

Lesse...

Im a moderate in America, a liberal in China, and a Facist in Europe.

Pick one :P

We as concerned citizens in government have the power to speak our hearts and minds. We should be taking to the streets and screaming "be reasonable" (lol). We have the power to explain to people that a party is not always correct just because of them being on the left or right. We can enter these threads with a moderate approach in heated "flaming" debates. What ever happened to two people sitting down and talking about politics and saying "I may not agree with all of what you have said, but your point in interesting and I respect it". Its not one side who is guilty of being an extremist, its both at times. Unfortunatly the south can be very partison. I dont know if the rest of the country is like that, but I just wish people could agree to disagree at times. Does anyone else understand what I have to saying?

P.S. I hope I did not offended anyone with my comment about the south, it may be that the election over the house coming up people are getting into "election mode", or it may be that sense I'm in college that it (politics) gets brought up more. Maybe others see the south differently and that's cool as I said its okay to disagree.

It's jerry mandering's fault. Not who but what. Politicians have redrawn voter district borders to favor right or left to the point that now middle of the road issues arent addressed because their district lines are drawn around either vastly democrat or republican voter populations. So only partisan platforms are run. I think they should outlaw jerrymandering and vote by current county borders. Then, mabye there would be a truly representitive government.

It's jerry mandering's fault. Not who but what. Politicians have redrawn voter district borders to favor right or left to the point that now middle of the road issues arent addressed because their district lines are drawn around either vastly democrat or republican voter populations. So only partisan platforms are run. I think they should outlaw jerrymandering and vote by current county borders. Then, mabye there would be a truly representitive government.


hear hear *golf clap*

Yes, much to the delight of both sides.

*big snip* Well what do you all think? (Lets try to keep this a sensible thread please!)

It's like your reading my mind! Get out of my head! Get out of my head!

Seriously though, I completely agree.

I voted for Senator Russ Feingold (D), because I like his principles. I don't always agree, but the guy has balls, and won't back down.

On the other hand, I voted for Rep. Mark Green (R), because while he is a "Bushite" (to hear him talk, you'd think they had cloned Bush), his Democratic opponent had NO previous political expericence.

I will also vote against Senator Herb Kohl (D) as soon as I am given the chance. That man is such an ass.

But yeah...moderatism! :p

I am kind of moderate in Economics. I used to be very left, then I started to do Econ at uni, and I've been moving to the right since.
I don't think I'll move any further though. I accepted mainstream economics, if I was to go any more right, I'd have to accept a few ridiculous assumptions to go on...

unfortunately any vote that is neither republican nor democrat is totally wasted, with one notable exception being jesse ventura winning minnesota governorship, but we all know minnesotans are nutcases anyhow.

the two party duopoly tends to create polarization in politics... otherwise, why would there be two parties in the first place? they need to differentiate themselves from each other by emphasizing different issues. it's a bit like the car business: american manufacturers tend to emphasize horsepower and comfort, whereas japanese producers tend to emphasize fuel economy and reliability. basically they are appealing to different tastes and needs.

the moderates in each party, however, are quite similar in style and thinking: good common sense solutions that are reasonable to most people. senators mccain and clinton are not so different in their political philosophies, despite being from opposing parties. why aren't there more moderates then, if they seem like the only people who actually get work done? one word: compromise. moderates achieve solutions through compromise. each party sees compromise as a sign of weakness and defeat, and nobody wants to acquiesce. parties are self-interested and self-perpetuating entities, and they regard compromise as the worst sin. think of it as a car that's not quite fuel-efficient as a toyota yet not as powerful as a dodge. a reasonable general-purpose vehicle for sure, but extremely unappealing because of its very indistinctiveness.

bottom line: everyone says they like moderates, but secretly they vote much more towards the extremes simply because moderates just aren't sexy! voters would much rather risk losing power to gain bragging rights than they are interested in finding a workable solution. it's just the inherent childish character that's in every hard-core democrat and republican.

i find the situation to be quite unfortunate. party groupthink is just embarrassing to anybody exercising common sense. more people should vote based on the candidate's platform than for the candidate's party.

I am a fiscally conservative independent democrat, basically I will go for any idea that helps the country. I do tend to vote liberal, but I have no problem voting republican or independent. One republican that I will defend, and I hope runs for president in 08', is John Mc. Cain. Mc. Cain is a good guy. What ever happened to people saying yes I do lean more to one side, but I'll give anything a chance. Every single person who has served as a political leader, whether it be president, vice president, senator, or congressman, has done good and bad things. Every one of them has made good decisions, bad decisions, has done some really smart things, and has done some really dumb things too. So what I'm asking is if there are any moderates in the forum. Also thank God for moderates during the whole filibuster nightmare. If it were not for Mc. Cain and serveral moderates from both sides that could have been a lot worse, and it was already a P.R. nightmare for all sides. Mc. Cain was the only one who was being sensible about the whole thing. When he was on "hardball" Mc. Cain said he would not vote for the filibuster to be killed, he said that it was not wise. He said that one day, he said he hopes its in a hundred years from now, that the democrats will be the majority because it always goes back and forth. From what I gathered he was saying that if the filibuster were elimitated it cause the republicans to shoot themselves in the foot, as the expression goes.

P.S. To give an example my Governor Bob Riley is a repubican and if he runs again I will probably vote for him. Like all politicians he has done a lot of good and bad things, yet I believe the good out stretch the bad. If his Lt. Governor runs I will probably not be voting for him, I'm not a fan of him.

Well what do you all think? (Lets try to keep this a sensible thread please!)

There is really no such thing as a moderate. You're either one or the other at least in America. Moderates are fence sitters and or someone from one side pretending to be on the other. In any case, so called moderates are damaging to their own party platform and tend to serve the opposition more than they serve their own party.
Liberals also use the term to describe themselves whenever possible in order to avoid the negative image their self discribing namesake has gained. Many professional politicians really don't care what party they are associated with as long as it is the one in the majority. If they can call themselves a moderate that makes the transition easier as we saw when the Republicans took control of the house and senate. Democrats were tripping over themselves to switch parties.

Lesse...

Im a moderate in America, a liberal in China, and a Facist in Europe.

Pick one :P

I'm a communist in America, an anarchist in China, and a socialdemocrat in Europe. :rolleyes:

edit: maybe that's more accurate.

There are two problems that stand in the way of a dominant moderate faction. First, the public often see moderates as wishy-washy who are in the middle so they get the best of both worlds. Second, there really isn't a moderate base that can generate campaign revenues for leading moderates. If this could be reversed, moderate success would follow, but it doesn't seem to be happening.

Plus they really have the most suck-ass rally chants.

What do we want?!
Sensible progress with precautionary measures to offset potential negative consequences.

When do we want it?!
In due course of time!

Hey Hey! Ho Ho!
Exesive partisanship and hyperbolic political rhetoric have got to go!

Plus they really have the most suck-ass rally chants.

What do we want?!
Sensible progress with precautionary measures to offset potential negative consequences.

When do we want it?!
In due course of time!

Hey Hey! Ho Ho!
Exesive partisanship and hyperbolic political rhetoric have got to go!

Haha! That is too funny!

I do and have for the past 4 elections. Socially-right and fiscally-left. It's the only Party that can assure an impact on greater good for all citizens. GOD bless!

unfortunately any vote that is neither republican nor democrat is totally wasted, with one notable exception being jesse ventura winning minnesota governorship, but we all know minnesotans are nutcases anyhow.

(Well some of what you said I like other bits of it I'll agree to disagree, but not trying to piss you off but we do have 1 independent senator and 1 independent representative. Yet I will admit the independent representative ran under the republican ticket and then after getting put in office hopped to the middle of the party road by going independent.)

the two party duopoly tends to create polarization in politics... otherwise, why would there be two parties in the first place? they need to differentiate themselves from each other by emphasizing different issues. it's a bit like the car business: american manufacturers tend to emphasize horsepower and comfort, whereas japanese producers tend to emphasize fuel economy and reliability. basically they are appealing to different tastes and needs.

(Oh I do agree that the parties are set up NOT to get along good. Yes they do offer different positions on matters that appeal to different people, thats why I am (being primarily liberal) am going to vote republican for governor, because I think in this case Bob Riley knows better how to handle alabama then his opponents {though I dont like his Lt. Governor})

the moderates in each party, however, are quite similar in style and thinking: good common sense solutions that are reasonable to most people. senators mccain and clinton are not so different in their political philosophies, despite being from opposing parties. why aren't there more moderates then, if they seem like the only people who actually get work done? one word: compromise. moderates achieve solutions through compromise. each party sees compromise as a sign of weakness and defeat, and nobody wants to acquiesce. parties are self-interested and self-perpetuating entities, and they regard compromise as the worst sin. think of it as a car that's not quite fuel-efficient as a toyota yet not as powerful as a dodge. a reasonable general-purpose vehicle for sure, but extremely unappealing because of its very indistinctiveness.

(I like both senator Mc. Cain and Clinton, I agree that moderates compromise. I believe our government is best that way. I believe compromise helps balance us {america} out.)

bottom line: everyone says they like moderates, but secretly they vote much more towards the extremes simply because moderates just aren't sexy! voters would much rather risk losing power to gain bragging rights than they are interested in finding a workable solution. it's just the inherent childish character that's in every hard-core democrat and republican.

(I may not believe that everyone secretly votes extremes, and I dont think of myself as sexy lol, but everything else you said after that I am behind you 100%. I ran across a lot of people in alabama who were really happy bush won and did not know where he stood on issues and were wanting to be able to brag. Now I'm not slamming bush there, thats just an example. But liberals do the same thing in certain situations.)

i find the situation to be quite unfortunate. party groupthink is just embarrassing to anybody exercising common sense. more people should vote based on the candidate's platform than for the candidate's party.

(You are correct there. For example Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson I think would fit into most standards for moderates. Roosevelt being called a Liberal Republican and Wilson being called Conservative Democrat. I'm sure there is other examples, I'm just being brief.)