We need more moderate politicians

[arnegrim]

Or they just threaten the nuclear option. The Democrats have to pander to the Republicans to even get moderate concessions.

Really? Like Roberts? Or the next nominee? I understand the plans for a fillibuster are already in place... sounds like they're pulling the bones back in.

As compared to large parts of the world, although there is a truth that there are nations that are more right-wing, the United States tends to be fairly right-wing. For the matter, both political parties are right-of-center from a global perspective.

Again... if you ignore the extreme right wing nations you would be correct... but the US is essentially centrist if you consider a 'global scale'.

And again... we don't live in a 'global scale' in the US... so more moderate politicians are needed... to the left of Republicans and to the right of Democrats.

 

[arnegrim]

Interestingly... the 'nuclear option' looks to be a brainchild of the Democrats.

http://www.changeforamerica.com/community/node/view/1919

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030513-104057-4994r.htm

 

[Alarum]

Interestingly... the 'nuclear option' looks to be a brainchild of the Democrats.

http://www.changeforamerica.com/community/node/view/1919

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030513-104057-4994r.htm

Yes, and 67 was ridiculous, requiring a 2/3rds majority to pass a motion. That's really not the intention. 3/5ths? And it costs a party major political capital when it's used? Seriously, I'd like to change the rules so that 2/3rds of the senators HAVE to agree on Supreme Court Nominees. It's a very very very important decision.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Right as in authoritarianism?

You can have right and left wing authoritarianism.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Not really... we live in the USA... not a global scale. On a global scale Republicans are very liberal.

Are you kidding me? Right wing favours free enterprise, small government, large military, as little social spending as possible, and harsh criminal sentences, sounds pretty republican to me.

 

[Sneezy]

You'd have more moderate politicians if you had more moderate people.

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

There are moderates. They just don't get airtime.

 

[arnegrim]

Yes, and 67 was ridiculous, requiring a 2/3rds majority to pass a motion. That's really not the intention. 3/5ths? And it costs a party major political capital when it's used? Seriously, I'd like to change the rules so that 2/3rds of the senators HAVE to agree on Supreme Court Nominees. It's a very very very important decision.

The problem is that there are those who will disagree with a nomination simply because of who nominated them. If you can remove that type of petty bickering then I would agree with you.

 

[arnegrim]

Are you kidding me? Right wing favours free enterprise, small government, large military, as little social spending as possible, and harsh criminal sentences, sounds pretty republican to me.

Again... if you want to compare to a global scale... Republicans are not even close to being the 'right-wing'.

 

[arnegrim]

You'd have more moderate politicians if you had more moderate people.

Not true. The districts that politicians draw up for themselves ensure that fringe members can be elected and reelected.

 

[arnegrim]

There are moderates. They just don't get airtime.

How many? Do the numbers coincide with the number of moderate citizens there are?

 

[ScottishJohn]

Again... if you want to compare to a global scale... Republicans are not even close to being the 'right-wing'.

I'd be very interested in a list of countries you consider more right wing than the US. On a world scale those on the left of the US would include all of Europe, Russia and all former soviet states, China, India, Australia, Canada. Thats just off the top of my head, not an exhaustive list, and already quite a large area of the globe covered.

 

[arnegrim]

I'd be very interested in a list of countries you consider more right wing than the US. On a world scale those on the left of the US would include all of Europe, Russia and all former soviet states, China, India, Australia, Canada. Thats just off the top of my head, not an exhaustive list, and already quite a large area of the globe covered.

You're joking right? You can't think of ANY nation that is more 'right-wing' then the US?!?

BTW... do any of those 'left' of the US have political parties that are to the 'right'?

 

[ScottishJohn]

You're joking right? You can't think of ANY nation that is more 'right-wing' then the US?!?

BTW... do any of those 'left' of the US have political parties that are to the 'right'?

That isn't what I said, I can't think of enough countries more right wing than the US to justify saying that the Republicans are liberal on a global scale.

Of course there are right wing factions within left wing countries, but what we are talking about is a sliding scale. For instance the right wing party in our country approve of socialised healthcare, as they realise were they to attempt to abolish it noone would elect them. Whereas I get the impression that for many republicans the US is not right wing enough.

 

[arnegrim]

That isn't what I said, I can't think of enough countries more right wing than the US to justify saying that the Republicans are liberal on a global scale.

Of course there are right wing factions within left wing countries, but what we are talking about is a sliding scale. For instance the right wing party in our country approve of socialised healthcare, as they realise were they to attempt to abolish it noone would elect them. Whereas I get the impression that for many republicans the US is not right wing enough.

What does the number of countries have to do with it? If you look at where various groups stand on a liberal/conservative scale, the amount makes no difference. Either there are groups more 'right-wing' then the US or there aren't. Take the extreme from the right-wing and the extreme from the left... and I think you'll find the US almost squarely in the middle.

 

[MaryS]

Yes, and 67 was ridiculous, requiring a 2/3rds majority to pass a motion. That's really not the intention. 3/5ths? And it costs a party major political capital when it's used? Seriously, I'd like to change the rules so that 2/3rds of the senators HAVE to agree on Supreme Court Nominees. It's a very very very important decision.

With the exception of Antonin Scalia who was approved by the Senate unanimously in 1986, it seems that Republicans have been more supportive of candidates for the Supreme Court picked by a Democrat than Democrats have been supportive of candidates picked by a Republican president.

John Roberts confirmed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court , 9-29-2005,
22 Democrats voted against him
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245

The Senate voted 87 to 9 to confirm Stephen Breyer in 1994, 9 Republicans voted against him
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00242

The Senate voted 96 to 3 to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, 3 Republicans voted against her. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00232

The Senate voted 90 to 9 to confirm David Souter in 1990, all 9 opponents
were democrats: Adams (D-WA), Akaka (D-HI), Bradley (D-NJ), Burdick (D-ND), Cranston (D-CA), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=2&vote=00259

The Senate voted 52 to 48 to confirm Clarence Thomas in 1991, 48 Democrats voted against him.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00220

After the Senate voted 58 to 42 against Bork for the Supreme Court, Reagan went with his third choice: Anthony M. Kennedy, who was approved by a vote of 97 to 0.

 

[Alarum]

With the exception of Antonin Scalia who was approved by the Senate unanimously in 1986, it seems that Republicans have been more supportive of candidates for the Supreme Court picked by a Democrat than Democrats have been supportive of candidates picked by a Republican president.

John Roberts confirmed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court , 9-29-2005,
22 Democrats voted against him
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245

The Senate voted 87 to 9 to confirm Stephen Breyer in 1994, 9 Republicans voted against him
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00242

The Senate voted 96 to 3 to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, 3 Republicans voted against her. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00232

The Senate voted 90 to 9 to confirm David Souter in 1990, all 9 opponents
were democrats: Adams (D-WA), Akaka (D-HI), Bradley (D-NJ), Burdick (D-ND), Cranston (D-CA), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=2&vote=00259

The Senate voted 52 to 48 to confirm Clarence Thomas in 1991, 48 Democrats voted against him.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00220

After the Senate voted 58 to 42 against Bork for the Supreme Court, Reagan went with his third choice: Anthony M. Kennedy, who was approved by a vote of 97 to 0.

Or you could say that the Democrats have more of a tendancy to promote moderate, reasonable candidates. Does anyone really have that many complaints about Stephen Breyer's decisions? Ruth Bader Ginsburg is pretty much universally respected, as far as I can tell.

The Republicans tend to nominate people like Bork, who are completely objectionable. Note that when they nominate reasonable choices, like Kennedy, it goes pretty smoothly.

 

[Redneck]

For instance the right wing party in our country approve of socialised healthcare, as they realise were they to attempt to abolish it noone would elect them.

Hrm. Maybe I should pay careful attention to Alexis de Tocqville then.

 

[ScottishJohn]

What does the number of countries have to do with it? If you look at where various groups stand on a liberal/conservative scale, the amount makes no difference. Either there are groups more 'right-wing' then the US or there aren't. Take the extreme from the right-wing and the extreme from the left... and I think you'll find the US almost squarely in the middle.

The extreme right wing are marginalised in most countries, the right wing which are in power in the US right now, are further right than the majority of the rest of the world. What countries are you thinking about that are more right wing than the US? Are there many? Because so far we have covered the Northern Hemisphere, and... nothing.

 

[MaryS]

Or you could say that the Democrats have more of a tendancy to promote moderate, reasonable candidates. Does anyone really have that many complaints about Stephen Breyer's decisions? Ruth Bader Ginsburg is pretty much universally respected, as far as I can tell.

Ginsburg and Breyer are definitely the furthest to the left. They didn't even help to try to set any limit on the racial preference admissions in the Michigan University case. That's one area where Kennedy shows his conservative side because he joined with Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas and O'Connor on that case.

The Republicans tend to nominate people like Bork, who are completely objectionable. Note that when they nominate reasonable choices, like Kennedy, it goes pretty smoothly.

Bork was no more objectionable than Scalia or Thomas. Kennedy was a compromise, but he doesn't have much of a conservative side except for the affirmative action issues.