Comments about ‘Letter: Gap between parties, supporters keeps widening’

I keep hearing that the democrats refuse to compromise. Can someone point me to a couple of these issues where the dems refuse to move at all?

Now, on the GOP side, we have 279 congressmen who have promised not to compromise on raising any taxes. I am curious why the Norquist pledge does not address increase spending.

So, the 279 signees cannot raise taxes but are free to spend spend spend. (along with the dems)

Any wonder why the deficit grows and grows?

I have to disagree somewhat with this letter. I can't think of another Presidential election where the two parties' nominees have agreed on so many issues, at least at one point in time. It's only the rhetoric that has become so divisive. The policies become more similar all the time. Take health care, for example. I've heard Mitt Romney say the parts of the Affordable Care Act he likes, but I've never heard him say what he doesn't like. Could it be the individual mandate? I don't think so. Because he like that as part of health care reform in Massachusetts, and even suggested once that it became part of national reform. The only thing I can figure he dislikes about so-called "Obamacare" is the name. So take a voter like me who doesn't think the individual mandate is a good policy, regardless of the party that proposes it. Romney/Obama doesn't offer much of a choice. This is true of a whole set of issues, namely: President-declared wars, support of things like the Patriot Act, deficit spending. While their words become complete opposites, their policies are twins.

The Democrats haven't changed a whole lot, shifting a little bit to the right perhaps. It's the Republicans who have really veered to the extreme right, not only losing touch with the people, but becoming strident and uncompromising. Those in the GOP who don't get on board are crushed, even formerly rational Romney. They are scared of the extremism in their party, and have lost any ability to lead and to rationally deal with the issues we face. They are the ones who will destroy the country if they get their way. The reality is that those who harp most about the American dream are the ones who will cause us to lose it.

Sen. McConnell said that the GOP's job was to make sure Obama was a one-term president. Consequently, the policy of the party has been to say "no" to anything Obama attempted to do and to refuse to allow the president any bipartisan victories (e.g., compromises) that would help him win a second term.

This is a very sad characteristic of today's GOP. Gone are the days of Reagan's gentle optimism and willingness to compromise to benefit the American people.

The GOP and Dems have two different views of the nation. Romney and the GOP increasing tout "freedom," which really is code for "you're on your own." Their vision is a government that lets the "free market" solve social problems through more tax cuts and de-regulation and oversight.

The Dems, on the otherhand, see a more proactive government, willing to step in to help citizens with a hand up, be it rescuing the auto industry, using drones to protect soldiers, keeping student loan rates low, or re-focusing tax relief onto the lower and middle classes.

When you're in trouble, who would you want on your side?

Obama has been compromising for the last 2 years on nearly everything. While at the same time the Republicans have been the party of No. All in an attempt to make him a single term president.

I am happy that he will not compromise any longer. We need someone other than Harry Reid to stand up to the party of No.

Just think, we would have a fast growing economy if Republicans had actually cared about the economy instead of Obama's presidential tenure.

No one can come out and say that they are trying to better the economy when they won't even bring up a bill to improve the economy.

No one can come out and say that they are trying to reduce the deficit when they spend $65 million on bills that won't even pass the Senate. That is a waste of money.

Or is it that anything or anyone against the Republican agenda is wrong and anything they do is correct because only they are allowed to spend spend without debt considerations? At least Obama put forth ideas to curb the deficit that would actually work.

I totally disagree with this letter. The American left has had little change over the last 30 years, if you look at the DNC platform for Jimmy Carter, it is probably about the same as the Democratic 2012 platform. If anything the average Democrat is more conservative than in 1976. Where the change has occurred is in the American conservative movement. The right wingers have clearly come off the rails, they have eliminated their moderate wing, and are hurdling towards the far right at warp speed. Look at any issue, and the Republican platform is more "severely conservative" than in elections past. Heck, in this political environment Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan would be way too liberal to run for president, at least as Republicans.

Heard an interesting interview on NPR's Fresh Air. Mickey Edwards, a Republican who served nearly 20 yrs in Congress, and was one of three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation and national chairman of the American Conservative Union.

In his new book, The Parties Versus the People, the former Republican congressman says party leaders have too much control over who runs for office, what bills make it to the floor and how lawmakers vote.

Edwards says " Gingrich actually did a lot to change the nature of Congress in making it more-there'd always been partisanship, but nonstop partisanship, partisan on every issue, bringing issues to the floor that had no chance of passage, but only to embarrass members or to put them at odds either with their party leadership or the folks back home . [It started] the process of requiring individual members to raise what's now $300,000 a year besides their own election campaigns just to knock off the opponent. So Newt began this process of, 'You look at somebody on the other side not as a fellow member of Congress, but as an enemy to be vanquished.' "

"There is an enormous divide. Can we not have one?"..NO. I suggest you drag out your old high school history books. We have never..let me repeat..never had "one". Have you forgotten the federalist and anti federalists, the civil war, labor wars, civil rights uprisings?

I fear the writer suffers from the myth of the "good old days", and all though not stated probably the myth that "we need to take back our country".

As stated above the sad circumstance now is there is one side of the debate that refuses to admit that differences exsist and the way forward is together. I think there will be some interesting studies and books in the future about just how this happened at this time. It's not unique in our history but there was certainly to move beyond it during the last 3 generations.

Mickey Edwards former GOP Congressman explains how party politics hamers the legislative process:

"The problem is that when you come down to casting a vote, you're unable to reach a compromise — to sit down and talk it through and find out where there are areas of common ground so that you can build bridges and you can fund the military and you can do the things that a government has to do," he says. "When you're making those decisions based on your party membership, based on what you have decided is going to help your club win the next election, then you're really doing a disservice to your country and you're really being dishonest to your oath of office."

Parties represent a coalition of like-minded people who band together to get things done. There is nothing sacred about the party, but the party's platform tells us about the people who have banded together.

The Democrats have a problem with God. They don't want Him anywhere near their party. Democrats want abortion on demand.

The Republicans have a problem with taxes. They know that when government takes, that private enterprise can't create new jobs. Republicans respect the unborn to the extent that they don't want anyone, even the mother to arbitrarily destroy the new life within her.

How can you compromise when God is banned and the life of the unborn has little value? If we can't even agree on the sanctity of life and the place of God in our lives, how can we ever expect to agree on things as fleeting as the budget?

How about if we agree that a life cannot be a bargaining chip and that only items enumerated in the Constitution can be recognised as lawful duties of the Federal Government for taxing purposes?

@mike richards
the problem s Mike it is precisely because we can never agree on "God" that it is important to be very careful how we use our individual beliefs about a higher power in the public square. I think it it great that you have found a truth or your truth about God but you do not have a corner on the Truth about "god" and should not use the understanding you have of your truth as a weapon against your political opponents. Use it to inform your decisions instead of as a way to force your ideology onto others.

It is interesting that some posters claim the Republicans have moved to the right and Democrats have not changed; when the exact opposite is true. The Democrats have moved to the hard left, captured by extremist social groups (Occupy Wall Street makes the Tea Party look like Boy Scouts) and activists (extreme feminist and gay activists personify everything they claim to despise and are far worse than those they claim to oppose; i.e being anti-choice in the name of choice. Race baiters such as Sharpton negate MLK's dream); leaving many of us who used to vote fairly bi-partisan with no where else to go.

Stephen, you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink, especially when the horse has vowed to buck you at every turn. The problem with changing riders, is that based on the record we will be going around in circles or take a u turn back down the wrong trail.

@JoeBlow:

"Can someone point me to a couple of these issues where the dems refuse to move at all?"

Try Obamacare... The Dems would not entertain any amendments... why? Because the Dems had a super majority in both houses of Congress. They didn't need to compromise.

@Esquire:

"It's the Republicans who have... become strident and uncompromising."

Oh yeah? See my response to JoeBlow, above.

@Baron Scarpia:

"The GOP and Dems have two different views of the nation."

That's right. the Dems want a socialized country... where everyone is on some kind of government dole and where everyone belongs to the government. The Repubs want freedom... that means freedom to create, construct, and develop. That means government hands off. Sure, there'll be those who fail, but that's the price for freedom... Freedom to succeed and freedom to fail.

@Makid:

"No one can come out and say that they are trying to reduce the deficit when they spend $65 million on bills that won't even pass the Senate. That is a waste of money."

I think you're right. Senator Reid won't consider any bills, not one, developed by Republicans in the House or Senate.

@Tolstoy:

"the problem is Mike, it is precisely because we can never agree on "God" that it is important to be very careful how we use our individual beliefs about a higher power in the public square."

You don't have to believe in God or have a special identification of a type of God to have God in your platform documents. God, or a variation of deity, is found in our founding documents including the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. So, we must conclude that this country was founded on a system under God. To now eliminate God is to change our system to a godless system. Come to think of it, that seems to be what the Democrats are moving toward when they removed God from their platform.

"Use it to inform your decisions instead of as a way to force your ideology onto others.

I guarantee, if a certain mideast religion gets more of a foothold in this country, you will be required to adhere to their god. Be forewarned. There is, today, an article in the news where a Arab Christian in a mideast country was released from jail. His crime? Being Christian.

"In both I have heard supporters chanting 'U.S.A.' This simply confuses me. "

Why the confusion? I think you'll find that it stands for 'United States of America.'

"Try Obamacare... The Dems would not entertain any amendments... why? Because the Dems had a super majority in both houses of Congress. They didn't need to compromise."

I can assure you that the Dems wanted single payer. You know, the public option.
Instead, they basically got RomneyCare.

With the public option that was supported by the Heritage foundation and Orrin Hatch.

Try again.

@David King
Romney has many positions on each issue. The way I interpret Romney is that I will assume he will do whatever the Republican Congress wants and the Republican Congress is symbolized by Paul Ryan (Romney picking him makes me more sure that the House will lead for the most part).

@liberallarry
The average Democrat is more liberal than in 1976. DW-Nominate scores show this, of course those also show that Republicans have gotten much more extreme much faster.

DW-Nominate scores for the average republican and democrat (more negative = more liberal, more positive = more conservative).

Note: I'm eye-balling a graph so I might be off by a hundredth or two.
1981
Democrats: -0.29
Republicans: +0.24

1991
Democrats: -0.33
Republicans: +0.33

2001
Democrats: -0.38
Republicans: +0.52

2011
Democrats: -0.40
Republicans: +0.66

What's even more impressive with that Republican score is how it continued turning right in 2011 vs 2009 (+0.63) when they took the house. Normally, when a party gains a lot of seats it's gaining a lot of seats in moderate districts so it tends to moderate a bit (see: Democrats 2007 and 2009). When a party loses seats it tends to lose moderates first (like Democrats 2011 which went from -0.37 to -0.40 because they lost a lot of blue dogs). So for Republicans to gain moderate districts but get more conservative... and the fact that +0.66 is the highest on the entire chart covering over 130 years... absolutely the Republicans are getting more extreme. Also more parliamentarian (i.e. voting as a party block rather than individuals).

Miss Piggie
Salt Lake City, UT

I guarantee, if a certain mideast religion gets more of a foothold in this country, you will be required to adhere to their god. Be forewarned.

=========

Which is all the MORE reason to eliminate the constant use or reference of GOD to push political ideologies.

No different than the Taliban.

BTW -- It is YOU who are making the loop hole in the laws and society to allow it.
BTW [part 2] -- Islam is the world's fastet growing religion. We should make sure our Cpnstitution remains in-tack but NEVER connecting Religion and State....or else, you might reget what you wish for.