@ Hutterite 11:19 a.m."As much as we need moderation, we're not
going to tolerate it."Amen! Dismissed.
To "Tyler D" Obama sounded like a centrist, unless you started to think
about what he said. Once you put some thought into it, he can be shown to be a
hard core leftist liberal.Obama makes really good speeches, but his
content is frightening. In his books, the only way you could think of him as a
centrist is if you are a hard core communist. In his autobiography he is proud
of his communist/socialist mentors and how he hung out with marxists. Those are
not exactly "centrist" things to do.You realize that Bush
was a Progressive, and he was getting flack from conservatives on his policies.
Obama has taken every bad policy from Bush, made them bigger, more expensive,
and a larger power grab.You should start to sniff around Obama and
his divisive rhetoric.
@RedShirt – “During the campaign Obama was already starting to
polarize the nation”As an answer to my question this
doesn’t pass the smell test. In any presidential campaign, we
can always find things said or done that will rile the other side… if we
couldn’t, how would we distinguish the candidates? But compared to some of
the amazingly inflammatory stuff heard in past campaigns (we can look to
speeches at Bob Jones University alone for things that would make most
people’s heads spin) Obama by comparison and overall was highly
inclusive.Starting from his speech at the 2004 DNC, to his books,
and through his campaign, he sounded like a big tent centrist pragmatist.And in February 2009 much of what Obama was doing was just a
continuation of what Bush did, including a Stimulus bill that contained the
largest single tax cut in history.So that doesn’t smell right
either… Sorry, but I think we still have some work to do
connecting the dots as to why this man is so vehemently hated by the Right. What
you’ve said so far just isn’t adding up.
To "Tyler D" the right didn't freak out the day that he was
elected, they had big concerns before he was elected.During the
campaign Obama was already starting to polarize the nation. From his comments
to Joe the Plumber, to his declaration that the cost of producing electricity
from coal was going to skyrocket. Obama found that his main supporters liked
the divisive nature of his policies, and that the press was going to agree with
him no matter what.The Tea Party stuff didn't happen
immediately, but once Obama had pushed $1.2 Trillion of failed stimulus money
through congress.The big question for you and your ilk is this:
What will it take for you to admit that Obama is highly divisive? Some liberals
have expressed concern that there could be civil unrest in the US due to
Obama's policies and the stance that Conservatives have taken. I
don't remember anything like that during the previous 4 administrations.
Redshirt: " if you look at the studies about the polarization of the US, it
wasn't that big of a factor until Obama was elected." Well it so
happens that there was another event which occurred just before Obama assumed
office in 2009 - namely the collapse of Walt Street capitalism. This has
resulted in the massive polarization we have seen. People of your type
can't deal with the idea that your beloved capitalism could collapse, so
you lurch about pouncing on anyone who would questions this presumably
inviolable institution. For once, will you please face it. We will not have a
degree of peace until we examine in detail what happened. You and most of the
public just can't seem to do it.
@1coveySalt Lake City, UTWE need all to be moderate; we need
to use good sense. If an idea is good, let's use it; maybe modify it as
needed. But, to ignore or castigate an idea just because it originates from
"the other party" is destructive to this country.9:15 a.m. Aug. 8,
2013=============You mean like how ACA [Obamacare] was
originally a Republican idea, but since they did nothing about it - the
@RedShirt – “the polarization of the US, it wasn't that big of
a factor until Obama was elected.”Curious how you put this
– “until Obama was elected.” Not after he passed the Stimulus
bill or the ACA, but when he was elected.We know each other’s
political views fairly well so I’m not trying to start a pointless
(because no one’s mind will be changed) war of words here, but I am
genuinely curious about this.Why was it literally the day Obama took
office that the Right freaked out to a degree not seen since FDR? I mean I could
understand if it was a few months or a year or so after he was in office, but
that wasn’t the case. I remember Glenn Beck and the Tea Party stuff
happening pretty much on day one.So why do you think that was the
case? It seems a big stretch to say it was his voting record in a
relatively short Senate career (given some of the records our past presidents
have had).There seems to be something deeper going on with this
particular president that belies explanation.
To "marxist" if you look at the studies about the polarization of the
US, it wasn't that big of a factor until Obama was elected. Didn't
Obama get a Nobel Peace Prize for the peace that would follow his
innaguration?Have any of Obama's comments dealing with race
actually helped race relations? From the Cambrige police incident to Zimmerman,
Obama has caused more chaos than he has resolved.Ask yourself, what
is the left doing to bring the US closer together?Since you despise
Glenn Beck, lets see what he is doing to bring us together. He has organized
massive service projects to get people out there helping eachother. He has held
rallies with the specific message of loving our neighbors and helping them. He
is encouraging people to act with Faith, Hope, and Charity.Now tell
us, who has the message that can bring us together, Obama who pits "us"
against "them" or Beck who says to help your neighbor?
Moderates are important as a means of holding the current union together. I
think the nation needs to remain intact, because big problems require big
solutions, i.e. big government solutions. These will not be available if the
union breaks apart. I believe we may well be closer to a crackup of the United
States than we have been since the Civil War. We hate and despise each other
like no time in my memory. This could easily get out of hand. What would a
fragmented U.S. (sic) look like. One country would consist of the coasts, and
the old industrial midwest. The other would consist of the south and the
mountain west. As an aside it would be fun to see LDS get along with the
evangelist south. Let's hope things don't come to this, but if the
likes of Glenn Beck it could well happen.
@Twin Lights – “They are geometric shapes. But they are the ones for
which you need a few hours to calculate their area.”Simple
Constitutional amendment – “the shape of a congressional district
must be recognized by five year olds and shall not require calculus to calculate
their area.”Nice comment to Linus… for all their
mythmaking and reverence for the Founders, much of what the Founders said and
the lessons implicit in their actions are often lost on the Tea Party crowd
– as two examples, the FF railed often against factionalism and spoke
repeatedly against the dangers of perpetual corporations free from strict
mandates.And regarding your previous comment about
Monk/Antonio… yup, he’s great!
We need fewer moderates. When given a choice between Progressive and
Progressive Lite, why bother choosing because they both lead to the same
destination. They both will lead to Socialism. What we really need are more
Conservatives. The difference between the political parties should be made
clear, and adding more moderates to the Republican party would only further
destroy the party. If you look at their recent upset victories the Republicans
had coservative canidates that were able to clearly express their viewpoint.To "Open Minded Mormon" now you have started the lies.Tell us again which party it is that says we must act immediately on climate
change (carbon taxes), health insurance reform (ACA), immigration (comprehensive
immigration reform), education (Common Core), so forth? I don't think it
is the Republicans saying that those things must be fixed immediatly because the
sky is falling.FYI WMDs were found in Iraq, and the Wikileaks only
added to the proof that they were there.
WE need all to be moderate; we need to use good sense. If an idea is good,
let's use it; maybe modify it as needed. But, to ignore or castigate an
idea just because it originates from "the other party" is destructive to
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahSurprise! It's not the
Republicans who are telling us that the sky is falling,==========
Surprise! Yes, it was the Republicans who were telling us that the
sky was falling, and then dropped taxes for the wealthiest Americans and then
lied to us about mythical Weapons of Mass destruction and that Al-Qaeda was
everywhere and was going to continue terrorist attacks all over America unless
we attacked every oil rich country in the Middle east and spent over $2 Trillion
on unfunded Government contracts.9/11 was joke.Republicans
fell for it, Americans have paid for it.
Surprise! It's not the Republicans who are telling us that the sky is
falling, that "old folks" will starve, that children will fend for
themselves and that everything will fail UNLESS the Republicans get in line and
obey Obama. The Democrats have not passed a budget in years, yet
they blame the Republicans for holding things up. The Republicans HAVE passed a
budget. Harry Reid has not allowed the Senate to vote on that budget and Obama
has promised to veto it if it does pass. Who's holding things up?
Who's lying? Hint: It isn't the Republicans.Who told us
that the Republicans were spending money like drunken sailors? How much of the
deficit has Obama signed into law?It is the liberals who have
stopped all progress. They can read yet they continue to demand that money be
spend for non-authorized programs. Do they think that the American people are
total fools? Do they actually believe Obama's rhetoric? Why do they let
Reid shut out all votes? What's wrong with the Democrats?
I like this article. He brings out a lot of good points about how our
government is so devicive and binary and I would personally love to see more
moderates in government. But, he fails to acknowledge that maybe the extreme
politicians actually represent the majority accurately and we as moderates are
the minority wishing we had more influence. He only looks at the possibility
that moderates are under represented (also a plausible explanation). His
solution though is where I disagree with him. If changing the caucus/convention
system and other changes would fix it, then we would expect more moderates in
other states. But, we don't! I think that no matter the system, increased
participation is the only way to get better representation!
One mans extremist is another mans moderate.
"If it makes you feel better they censor liberal points even more than
conservative points."For what it's worth, the censors
don't like moderates who are anti-Republicans either. Can't tell you
how many times my comments have been denied for purportedly breaking the DN
"rules" that conservatives repeatedly get away with violating. It's
really rather hilarious.
FatMan86 wrote: "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."Absolutely right. I couldn't agree more.
Once again, the Richard Davis column is the most thoughtful and constructive
article in the Deseret News. If we took his advice, we might actually move
forward as a nation instead of remaining mired in all the bickering.
Tyler D,They are geometric shapes. But they are the ones for which
you need a few hours to calculate their area.Brave Sir RobinAgreed.Patriot,Reagan may have talked that way
but in practice he could work out a deal with the Democrats (and did so many
times). He could never have governed California otherwise.Linus,Seeing those who oppose our own views as treasonous is precisely the
problem. We cannot possibly cooperate with someone who is treasonous, so we do
not cooperate. Govt. grinds to a halt and degenerates into camps at war with
each other.Read Washington’s Farewell Address. It summarized
well the problems of parties and the absolute mess they have gotten us into.And BTW, there are certainly moderate Democrats. I know many.
@patriotCedar Hills, UTmoderates? 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.1:35 p.m. Aug. 7, 2013========== Psssst...Reagan was a RINO, Democrat-Lite -- i.e., BIG tent
@LinusIf it makes you feel better they censor liberal points even more
than conservative points. Especially in the morning, the moderators (interns)
seem to be extra cranky and self righteous at that time of day.
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.
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."
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.
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.
The problem with moderates is this: Everybody thinks they're moderate,
almost nobody truly is.
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!
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.
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
As much as we need moderation, we're not going to tolerate it.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
"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 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
The only structural change needed is to make Congressional Districts look like
actual geometric shapes.
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.
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.