Published: Wednesday, Aug. 7 2013 11:44 a.m. MDT
Why doesn't Mr. Davis criticize or bemoan the Democratic Party for
monolithic voting, i.e. Affordable Care Act, or it's radical shift to the
left from the positions of the 1960's? I sense he is frustrated that he
cannot marshal the grass roots effort to elect the people he feels represent his
point of view as delegates in caucus meetings. I do not hold his
youth and inexperience against him for not being able to recall the Democratic
Party and candidates of the 1960's, many of whom would be willing and able
to compromise on issues, not the severe radical progressive party it is today.
Political parties are private organizations. They can select their
delegates how they wish. Mr. Davis is free to organize his own party, platform
and select candidates as he/they choose. I do disagree with his attempting to
change, through a vote of people who are not members of the private
organization, how an organization is run. If enough people register as
Republican organize themselves and elect delegates they can change the
party's position and processes.Mr. Davis is sounding a
different drum beat than the Republican Party wants to march to.
Wanting immigration laws enforced is not extreme. Most of America see it as
moderate. The extreme liberal view of the media is dividing our country. The
media and congress needs to separate themselves from the special interest groups
that have declared war on American labor.
The only structural change needed is to make Congressional Districts look like
actual geometric shapes.
I disagree with Mr. Davis.Being conservative, moderate or liberal,
in and of itself, means nothing without context. When we look at the biggest
problems in America and when we look at how those problems came about, then we
can decide which approach to take.One of our greatest problems is
the economic melt-down. Too many people are unemployed or underemployed. They
can't pay their bills. They look to government for assistance. Government
promises them anything, but funds nothing. The deficit increases. To keep in
power, those in government, who made those misleading promises, "buy"
votes by making even more outrageous promises. Welfare perpetuates the problem.
Compromise will not solve that problem.We have a contract with
government, the Constitution, which spells out which services we expect
government to provide. There can be no compromise on that contract. Government
MUST provide those services and ALL of us must pay for those services.
Everything else is to be left to the States or to the people - without
"We have a contract with government, the Constitution, which spells out
which services we expect government to provide."______________________________The Constitution spells out nothing
of the kind or anything that is policy specific. Its Preamble cites only general
objectives to “form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
I don't know how old Richard Davis is. To remember Scranton, like I do,
makes him pretty old. However, his thesis sounds like high school civics.
Believe it or not, in this countrys history we have gone through much more
political turmoil than we are now. The two parties are pretty well divided, as
is the nation as a whole. That the country is about 50/50 on many major issues
is exactly WHY (Mr.Davis) the Government is. We the people are electing for the
most part exactly the people we want to represent us. Particularly in the House
of Reps, which is the most close to the grassroots of the people. I do agree
with the notion of gerrymandering having affected that to some degree, but
it's with both parties so it is largly a wash. Point is, the American
Government is extemely divided on many issues because the people of America are
extremely divided on those issues. Nothing new or wrong with that. And in
future elections, things will change one way or the other. That's
Looks like Richard Davies just "came out" as a RINO and
Republican-Lite.Because in the puritan political world of Utah --
you are either uber-far-right or uber-far-left...Black or White,In
or Out,All or Nothing,My way or the Highway, i.e.,
extremism...There IS no Moderation in All things here...that said;Welcome to the REAL world Richard ~ Morpheus
The most important civil rights legislation came under Eisenhower and would you
believe Nixon. Social programs are not exclusive to Democrats, but we should
live in our means. I don't go for being moderate on third term abortion.
I agree with Mr. Davis to an extent. The GOP conceeds 25% of Congressional
seats to Democrats because they cannot appeal to liberals or minority groups,
etc. This leads to Detroit, and the political collapse and corruption of one
party rule. If we say that a moderate is a RINO, Republicans will never offer
alternatives. Reform minded candidates need to be supported by one major party
or the other. I am not seeking candidates that compromise, I am seeking
candidates that are original thinkers. Don't be for or against Amnesty or
Obamacare, design and sell something better.. That is the job of moderates.
A constitutional scholar once told me political parties were never envisioned in
the U. S. Constitution "and have never been productive." I'm
beginning to see what he means. Is there really a Democratic and Republican
version of everything in the world? A law requiring everyone to carry health
insurance seemed like a great idea to Republicans when they proposed it, but now
that a Democratic President has embraced the concept its a horrible idea.
Meanwhile honest people are made to suffer because of the inaction of Congress.
Yes, we need a return of the moderates from both parties, but voters have to
Mr Davis is right on the money here. The extremists on both ends of the
political spectrum have hijacked both the Republican and Democratic political
parties. "My way or the highway" really has become the prevailing
political sentiment in America, and it has lead to extraordinary governmental
gridlock. I highly doubt that this is what the Founding Fathers had
in mind. The Constitution itself is a masterful document that was created
through a process of compromise among those who were part of it's creation
and subsequent ratification. Had those men not been willing to compromise, we
would not have a Constitution today.The extremists have somehow
convinced the mainstream that all who have differing political opinions are
"evil", and compromise with "evil" is "evil" itself.
Don't kid yourself either, both political parties do it, and they do it a
lot.Imagine what could be accomplished if we were all willing to
look for and find common ground with those who have differing opinions. Perhaps
if we respected each other a little more this would be easier. Common ground
will always make compromise easier and more will get done. Until that happens
though, the nutjobs will continue to rule.
As much as we need moderation, we're not going to tolerate it.
The Republican commenters here are all up in arms because Richard Davis points
out the obvious. I think a new moderate party might put the other two out of
business (which is exactly where they ought to be). The GOP at present is in
danger of splitting between those who want to govern and those who merely want
to make a point. Obviously, the American populace has gotten tired of those who
keep trying to make the same point over and over. They are the reason
Congress's approval rating is at an all-time low (ranging from 6 to 21
percent in various polls, with an average of 14.8) and it's disapproval
rating averages 75.8 percent.Whether sanity prevails and the
Republicants once again become the Republicans or whether Mike Lee and his
fellow obstructionists prevail is still up in the air. If the latter, then count
on the GOP to diminish, since a Rand Paul or Marco Rubio could never appeal to
more than about 30 percent of the voters in a presidential election. But is it
likely that only more embarrassing defeats will move the GOP to toward the
It would have been useful if Mr. Davis could have identified exactly what was
"extreme" about Governor Romney's positions on health care, foreign
policy, and immigration. As your colleagues in the math department would say,
Professor, "show your work."Also, it would have been useful
to identify some examples of "extremism" on the other side. Otherwise,
you come across as a typical liberal for whom "extreme" is simply a
synonym for "not liberal."I like what Martin Luther King
said in "Letter from Birmingham Jail," several months before Barry
Goldwater said something similar and more widely remembered: Being an extremist
for justice is a *good* thing. I would add that, in a time where the nice
collegial bipartisan backscratching of years past has put us on the glide slope
to national insolvency, a little extremism in the application of basic math
would not be amiss.
Also, since Mr. Davis didn't see fit to go into details, it bears reminding
that Governor Romney's "extreme" position on immigration consisted
of...enforcing the current immigration law.His "extreme"
position on healthcare: Not trying to radically restructure the healthcare
system, and trying to point out the unworkable aspects in Obamacare, which the
Obama administration has delayed because aspects of it are...unworkable.His "extreme" position on foreign policy: Don't stop
shooting at terrorists until we have a good idea they've stopped shooting
at us.Dear sweet merciful heavens! A madman! Extreeeeeeeme!
The problem with moderates is this: Everybody thinks they're moderate,
almost nobody truly is.
moderates? Like John McCain and Lindsey Graham? I don't think so. Actually
what is REALLY needed is more men and women of moral and constitutional courage
like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz. Ronald Reagan preached of the need for more BOLD
COLORS and less pale pastels (moderates). I agree.
To those of us who are Constitutional conservatives, the majority in the
Republican Party appears moderate. And the majority in the Democratic Party
appears treasonous.Mr. Davis has positioned himself well to the left
of moderate Republicans. There are no moderate Democrats! No Democrat
politician believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. The
executive branch refuses to execute all the laws of the land. The judicial
won't hold the executive or the legislative branches to anything near a
strict adherence to the Constitution's requirements. And the legislative
branch won't defend its prerogatives, bowing down to the executive will as
manifested by royal Executive Orders.The oath of office does not
suggest a "moderate" defense of the Constitution.
DesNews: "Your comment is awaiting moderation and will appear once
approved."How can we get a conservative viewpoint published when
all comments must await "moderation." DesNews censors thus be required
to support and enforce Mr. Davis's call for "moderation."
Linus,"To those of us who are Constitutional conservatives, the
majority in the Republican Party appears moderate. And the majority in the
Democratic Party appears treasonous."______________________________The Constitution itself is a conservative document. I’m a
Constitutional conservative which is why my political and social views are
liberal. That’s not doubletalk. It means I see how resistance to common
sense change stupidly invites drastic upheavals that can easily turn
revolutionary and destructive.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments