In terms of political ideology, I'll bet the Congressional Black Caucus is more or less as far left as the House Freedom Caucus is far right. @American Brummie The difference is the CBC wants to work within the system to get as many pieces of bread off the loaf as they can, while the HFC does not.
Using Sanders as a stalking horse to push Hilary leftward. Of course,this leaves room for Biden to go up the middle.
Boehner Resignation Leaves Massive Leadership Vacuum In Congress Intact. Ryan getting the post would insure a status quo!
Hillary just came out against free trade deal, Biden is in favor, In Syria Hilarity can move left more than Biden as he has to stay loyal in theory to Obama. I don't think Biden will be middle ground, he just does not have a congressional committee scoring political points against him, at least not yet.
It's not often that I let David Brooks do the talking for me, but here you go: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/opinion/the-republicans-incompetence-caucus.html?_r=0 For these people, this isn't about 'reducing the role of the federal government.' It's about profoundly radical, destructive, thoughtless and unsustainable change.
I have posted occasionally that I regard myself as a Republican whose party abandoned him, and that my political mentor as a small child was my neighbor, Governor Robert E Smylie, Republican governor of Idaho. This paragraph from the above describes Smylie to a T: "By traditional definitions, conservatism stands for intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible. Conservatives of this disposition can be dull, but they know how to nurture and run institutions."
Nope, destroy is the right word. ASF, you should read this article. http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...-and-norman-ornstein-on-republicans-gone-wild To give everyone a taste "MANN There is pressure within the Democratic Party to emulate the Republicans in one respect -- to articulate a more aggressive and uncompromising policy agenda. Bernie Sanders has responded to that sentiment in the Democratic base and done better than anyone expected. But while Democrats in Congress have diverse views on some policies, they remain a governing party and accept compromise as an inevitable part of the democratic process. Nancy Pelosi is a practical politician who could never embrace norms that threaten the normal functioning of government, whatever its size. If the coverage of this presidential election campaign is any indicator, the mainstream media is nowhere near accepting the reality of asymmetric polarization." Thomas Mann is saying two very important and, well, obvious things. 1. This isn't about GOPs become more radical in terms of policy (although they are becoming more conservative.) It's about GOPs becoming more radical about PROCESS. 2. The media is giving them a pass so that this reality is not breaking through to your average voter. I could probably cross-post this in the old "conservative media bias thread."
In that sense you are right. The tactics Republicans are using are a threat to the process. The increasing use of executive orders by president Obama in this sense also can be said to be "a destruction" or "radicalization" of the process. I'm sure you can argue that he is doingt it only in response to the Republican tactics but nevertheless both are destroying the process. This reminds me of Argentina. Congress tends to be dysfunctional because the peronists don't let anybody govern (when there is a non-peronist in power like Alfonsin, De la Rua etc.) and the executive branch often rules often by what they call "decretos de necesidad y urgencia". (Urgency and Necessity Decrees), akin to executive orders in the US. More reason for moderates to try to cooperate as I've been advocating.
ASF, so you understand what's going on here. In Argentina, did you blame the Peronistas and their opponents equally? Or did you think the Peronistas were primarily at fault?
There was as story on NPR over the last week that mentioned those in the Freedom Caucus are interested in destroying government. I don't think they used that exact word - "destroy" - but it is something Freedom Caucus is not willing to compromise on, and it makes governing reasonably nearly impossible.
What moderates? There's a meaningful cohort of moderates left in the Republican caucus? Who knew? The NYT reported a few days ago that, for some in the Republican caucus, Paul Ryan is too liberal to be House Speaker Wrap your mind around that for a moment. In terms of Congressional representation, the Republican Party has succeeded in gutting itself of its moderate wing in recent decades. For example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ws-how-republicans-are-an-endangered-species/ "...in the most recent Congress nearly 90 percent of Republican House members are not politically moderate. By contrast, 90 percent of Democratic members are moderates." It's fascinating - in a nauseating kind of way - that some in the House would include Ryan in that 10%.
Chris Christie is a moderate. Chris Christie hugged Obama. Christ Christie was a possible Vice President Paul Ryan was a possible Vice President Therefore, Paul Ryan is a moderate.
Interesting Image The whole paper is interesting... http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/
Another good article on the issue: why are wingnuts unwilling to compromise? http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/a-h...republicans-cant-find-a-speaker-of-the-house/ The voters who are angry today point to disillusionment with the Republican Party and its leaders who have yet to deliver on most of the core promises that date back to Nixon’s time in office. The government is not smaller, it is dramatically bigger. Social rights continue to flourish. Nothing has been accomplished; all has been traded away. Enough is enough. This turmoil is not new, but it is extremely dangerous. In 1998, the New York Times wrote that the Religious Right had run out of patience as their social agenda had been pushed to the back burner year after year or was bargained away in legislative deals: “In one election after another, they said, conservative foot soldiers had dutifully worked the phone banks, walked the precincts and turned out the masses of voters for Republican candidates who had promised action on issues like abortion, pornography, and homosexuality. And the Republicans, they complained, had consistently failed to deliver.”2 Is there any wonder that those on the Right want action, not words? Pity the leader who inherits this mess. This one has been long brewing.
Maybe I have my biases when it comes to Argentina. I blame the Peronists, they tend to use heavy handed tactics that I feel make a mockery of the process. Of course, those who are Peronist might point out that other parties have also been uncompromising as well.
I can't help but wonder if this is at least partly due to increasingly insular media. How can there possibly be compromise when no one's views are ever challenged?
This is a huge part of it. Before, when you had three news sources, there were facts or you could believe conspiracies. Now, we tote two alternate realities. Selective media exposure allows you to hear exactly what you want to and never hear criticism. Which is why, in my view, the Ignore function on P&CE should be banned.
Perhaps from your vantage point, if you lean more towards the left, there aren't any. From my vantage point, based on what I think is a moderate, I could list many. For starters, some members who do have some influence, like Robert Dold, Charlie Dent, Fred Upton, Joann Emerson, Adam Kinsinger, among others. As far as regular members, who may not have as much influence (they don't chair any committe etc) I'm sure that there are many. I can give you a few from California, where I'm more familiar, that I would consider Moderate. Paul Cook Mimi Walters Ken Calbert David Valadao Jeff Denham I'm sure I can think of others, and that's just in my state. As far as Paul Ryan, I wouldn't classify him as moderate, but I wouldn't call him extremist either. I'd call him an establishment conservative, whom the extremists might characterize as too moderate from their vantage point, but most Republicans or independents wouldn't. He's not my favorite for speaker, but I think he likely would uphold the process if he was in a position of leadership.
The question is what kind of coalition will form to get enough votes to elect the speaker. Will the establishment republicans be willing to shun the Freedom Caucus and ally with the democrats, knowing that alliance will pretty much mean that Pelosi will be setting the agenda and that the Hassert rule will have to be ignored? Or will they succumb to the FC pressure and continue down the path to a shutdown and debt ceiling crisis?
Well there you go, the Republicans are now the American version of the Peronist party In terms of behavior in government, not in terms of economic or political ideas.