|
Posted on 11/25/2012 9:10:01 AM PST by cotton1706
WASHINGTON (AP) — When the next Congress cranks up in January, there will be more women, many new faces and 11 fewer tea party-backed House Republicans from the class of 2010 who sought a second term.
Overriding those changes, though, is a thinning of pragmatic, centrist veterans in both parties. Among those leaving are some of the Senate's most pragmatic lawmakers, nearly half the House's centrist Blue Dog Democrats and several moderate House Republicans.
That could leave the parties more polarized even as President Barack Obama and congressional leaders talk up the cooperation needed to tackle complex, vexing problems such as curbing deficits, revamping tax laws and culling savings from Medicare and other costly, popular programs.
"This movement away from the center, at a time when issues have to be resolved from the middle, makes it much more difficult to find solutions to major problems," said William Hoagland, senior vice president of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a private group advocating compromise.
In the Senate, moderate Scott Brown, R-Mass., lost to Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who will be one of the most liberal members. Another GOP moderate, Richard Lugar of Indiana, fell in the primary election. Two others, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Olympia Snowe of Maine, are retiring.
Moderate Democratic senators such as Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, James Webb of Virginia are leaving, as is Democratic-leaning independent Joe Lieberman.
While about half the incoming 12 Senate freshmen of both parties are moderates, new arrivals include tea party Republican Ted Cruz of Texas, conservative Deb Fischer of Nebraska, and liberals such as Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Hawaii's Mazie Hirono.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The democrats love bipartisanship because it gives them cover. Fewer moderate, middle of the road types means they'll have to strong-arm their ideas through the legislative bodies for all to see. And if republicans like Chambliss and Graham help them, they'll be shown the door next election.
A loaded, slanted, BS article.
Translation: Corrupt, pork laden criminals who thought they could ride the government train forever.
In 2016, the people can judge the outcome:
Should the GOP be the governing party?
Should the GOP be an actual opposition party? (In other words: compromise is bad).
Should the GOP go away because the Democrats have given us Utopia?
The people need to SEE what the end result of left-wing policies really is.
The last thing we need are moderates from either party.
The left is being handed everything it wants.
What is there to compromise on?
Tea partiers elected in 2010 are no longer freshmen meaning that leadership doesn’t have as firm a grip on them now.
We need to cut Congress in half. Half the Senators, half the Representatives.
They don’t do anything anyway ,Obama makes all the laws, and we could save a lot by just cutting them in half.
We would never miss them if we cut them in half.
The GOPE establishment hates TEA partiers and did what it could to undermine them even at the cost of fewer R seats in Congress.The GOP “leadership” is corrupt!
The only thing better than a gridlocked Congress is a Congress that never meets. Everytime they meet they trot out some new POS legislation that is the result of compromise.
The last time I had to listen to Saxby Chambliss telling me that he was looking for common ground and compromise I sent him a letter defining the word compromise. Compromise: You don’t get what you want.
The majority of Republicans are moderate. The Democrats have moved so far to the left they are now socialists
Why should Republicans want to make deals with Democrats, who will only corrupt the process anyway, once they get some kind of agreement.
New tax rates and taxation applied to services and goods not now taxed, in exchange for future reductions in Federal expenditures? First of all, the reduction in Federal spending is never anywhere near the original amount offered, and secondly, there is always some particularly urgent reason why the “spending cuts” will not be implemented.
Probably a good time for the Republicans, particularly in the Senate, to “go John Galt”.
Show up at the legislative meetings, offer no amendments or floor debates, vote “present”, and go home
Over in the House of Representatives, the Republicans continue to propose, shape and pass legislation which is of the sort that would REVERSE most of the agenda passed by the Democrat-dominated House and Senate in the period January 2009 to January 2011.
Gridlock is not necessarily a bad thing.
Why should Republicans want to make deals with Democrats, who will only corrupt the process anyway, once they get some kind of agreement.
New tax rates and taxation applied to services and goods not now taxed, in exchange for future reductions in Federal expenditures? First of all, the reduction in Federal spending is never anywhere near the original amount offered, and secondly, there is always some particularly urgent reason why the “spending cuts” will not be implemented.
Probably a good time for the Republicans, particularly in the Senate, to “go John Galt”.
Show up at the legislative meetings, offer no amendments or floor debates, vote “present”, and go home
Over in the House of Representatives, the Republicans continue to propose, shape and pass legislation which is of the sort that would REVERSE most of the agenda passed by the Democrat-dominated House and Senate in the period January 2009 to January 2011.
Gridlock is not necessarily a bad thing.
Moderation is a virtue. The problem is not moderation, it is “moderation.”Journalists define the meanings of words. They have the propaganda power to do so, and the question is not “Why would they?” - the question is “Why wouldn’t they do so, having the power?” Journalists’ bias lies in their interest in being thought of as informative and wise. We all want to be thought of as wise, but most of us are constrained to moderate our claims to wisdom. The journalist - at least the member of the Associated Press - belongs to a homogeneous group with amazing propaganda power. But to remain in good standing in the group, the reporter must stay within the herd and never compete with comrades on the basis of ideology. Each stays within the consensus and helps to promote all. And in doing so, it is natural for the journalist to promote with positive labels anyone who promotes journalism, and to denigrate anyone who does not promote journalism by smearing him with negative labels.
In the United States progress is a virtue. The word “progress” is in the Constitution, mentioned as something to be promoted. Not progress of tyranny, of course - but progress of science and the useful arts.” Progress of, by, and for the people. But the journalist applies the word “progressive” to the socialist politician because socialism is the arrogation of power to the critic and away from "the man in the area” who actually gets things done. And journalists are in the former rather than the latter category. The opposite of progress, in that lexicon, is “conservative” - thus, the person who wants to see progress of the useful arts, and the concomitant increase in the prosperity of the people, is smeared with the negative label “conservative.”Similarly, moderation is a classical virtue - and journalists apply the term to Democrats, and the occasional “maverick” Republican who does not promote liberty and constitutional freedom and progress. Moderation and progress are virtues - but as used by journalists - “moderate” and “progressive” denote not virtuous but evil intent.
Moderates=Rinos
We through many out in 2010 and made more flat out retire!
More will go in the future!
Through=threw
I just WISH we were through throwing them out!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
