Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Which party is dominated by extremists?
American Thinker ^ | 10/14/2010 | Rick Moran

Posted on 10/14/2010 8:37:53 AM PDT by WebFocus

According to a poll conducted in battleground congressional districts by The Hill, more Americans see the Democrats as being dominated by extremists than Republicans.

The poll found that 44% of likely voters say the Dems are more dominated by its extremist elements while only 37% peg the GOP as more dominated by extremists:

More than one in every five Democrats (22 percent) in The Hill's survey said their party was more dominated than the GOP by extreme views. The equivalent figure among Republicans is 11 percent.

Results for independent voters reflected the larger sample. Forty-three percent of likely independent voters said the Democratic party is more dominated by its extreme elements compared to 37 percent who though the GOP had fallen under the sway of extreme views.

The figures by party do come with one caveat. Because the voter sampling size is smaller, the margin of error by party is 4.5 percent.

The data surprised Democratic strategists and political experts in a campaign season when much media attention has focused on the battle between the GOP establishment and Tea Party-backed candidates such as Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware.

They said it suggests problems for a Democratic party seen as too liberal.

For more than a year, the media has hammered the tea party and the GOP for being "too extreme." But the proof is in what each party has been pushing during that time. The Democrat's agenda is seen as radical by a plurality of voters - even 22% of Democrats think so.

Another false narrative crashes and burns before the election.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: democrats; extremists; gop; party
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 10/14/2010 8:37:59 AM PDT by WebFocus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WebFocus

Obama is the best the democrats had to offer now that’s extreme.


2 posted on 10/14/2010 8:42:26 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus

My view from the middle would be both, with a slight edge to the left.


3 posted on 10/14/2010 8:47:09 AM PDT by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus

If you ask the Dems, It’s just a P.R. issue.


4 posted on 10/14/2010 9:06:26 AM PDT by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Just as what every man does is right in his own eyes
if he doesn’t have an objective, external standard,

so every man is viewing the political spectrum from
his own definition of “middle”.


5 posted on 10/14/2010 9:08:35 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg

Usually, the ‘rat answer to this is that the voting populace isn’t smart enough to understand the leftists’ superiority.


6 posted on 10/14/2010 9:09:21 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Hi Mr.B! Boy I sure wish I was smart enough to understand all them big words you used! :)


7 posted on 10/14/2010 9:16:10 AM PDT by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
My view as a patriotic American is the left...the middle...and the RINO....those are the extremists. The left, for OBVIOUS reasons...the middle for their pious view of being “Middle”, which is not middle at all, just lazy and pretentious....the RINOs, who just want to be like the ‘Rats... The ONLY group that is NOT extreme are the Conservatives...because it is IMPOSSIBLE to be an extremist when your only wish is to adhere to our CONSTITUTION. THAT is the middle of the road.

You're either with us....or against us....the middle is where you get killed in the cross fire.

8 posted on 10/14/2010 9:18:09 AM PDT by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus

That’s easy. The man who was voted most liberal senator is now leading his fellow extremist rats off the cliff.


9 posted on 10/14/2010 9:18:31 AM PDT by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Here’s a question: What conservatives that are considered “extremist” would have been considered extremist 40 years ago, and why?

I will suggest that the so-called “middle” has moved significantly in the last 40-50 years, and it is moving back to where it belongs.


10 posted on 10/14/2010 9:19:51 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MrB

With subjects like this, who is to say there really is an objective, external standard, or if that standard is right, or even if that standard is any better than one’s own?


11 posted on 10/14/2010 9:26:34 AM PDT by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

You have to have a fixed standard to measure against,
or words like “middle” and “extreme”, and even “left” and “right” don’t really have any meaning.

Use the founders and the Constitution as written and ratified as your standard, and now almost everyone is “extreme left”.


12 posted on 10/14/2010 9:28:12 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rightwingextremist1776

Can’t have sides without a middle, can you? How can something in the center, be extreme with relation to the sides?

The middle is dynamic, where the demands and the requests go to come up with solutions. Being in the cross-fire, is not for lazy or the wimps. The lazy and the wimps, seek protection from the cross-fire by going to one side or the other.


13 posted on 10/14/2010 9:32:09 AM PDT by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

See, if you don’t have that standard, or even believe in one,

you can’t discuss any issue,
as all you are expressing is an opinion,
and your opinion is no better than anyone else’s that isn’t based on a fixed, unchanging, and objective standard.

That standard, the standard of moral absolutes, the standard of absolutes in right and wrong,

exists and is discoverable in the Bible.

Reject it, and you have no place to stand in order to assert anything other than an opinion that isn’t any more truthful than anyone else’s.


14 posted on 10/14/2010 9:32:56 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MrB

>>Use the founders and the Constitution as written and ratified as your standard, and now almost everyone is “extreme left”.<<

This.

And that is exactly where I was going.

Is a person that thinks Social Security should be abolished an extremist? Not by constitutional standards. ;)


15 posted on 10/14/2010 9:34:10 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

The whole thing seems to shift left or right over time.


16 posted on 10/14/2010 9:34:37 AM PDT by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
The middle is FILLED with people who are;

1. to stupid to pick a side
2. to lazy to pick a side
3. to pretentious to pick a side
4. to pompous to pick a side
5. to scared to pick a side
6. to popular to pick a side

see a pattern here?

PICK A SIDE!

17 posted on 10/14/2010 9:39:17 AM PDT by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Actually the opposite is true, one can discuss any issue, in any manner.

Why is an opinion that is based on a fixed, unchanging and objective standard, any better than one’s opinion, when discussing such topics as politics, religion, faith, morals, spirituality, etc? All that means, is one’s arguement, faith, beliefs and so on, are relative to that standard, not that that standard is correct.

If it were the way you say it is, then we probably would all be believing the same thing after enough time had passed.


18 posted on 10/14/2010 9:41:29 AM PDT by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

>>The whole thing seems to shift left or right over time.<<

Although that may be true in the VERY long run, there is no evidence of any shift to the right that I am aware of since the signing of the declaration of independence. There has been plenty of shift to the left, however.

I may have missed something, but what would you say shifted to the right of our founding fathers in the last 240 years?


19 posted on 10/14/2010 9:43:38 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rightwingextremist1776

When one picks an equal amount of issues from each side, isn’t their position the middle?


20 posted on 10/14/2010 9:43:46 AM PDT by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Middle isn’t about “picking issues”.....this isn’t about “picking issues”....this is about RESTORING OUR FOUNDATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE. THERE IS NO MIDDLE WHERE THAT IS CONCERNED!

Still want to take the cowards way out?


21 posted on 10/14/2010 9:47:09 AM PDT by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

I start with the assumption that the standard is correct because it has self affirmed as being from a divine source.

And can you seriously ask why an opinion based on no standard is better than an opinion based on a fixed, proven standard?

When you have nothing to stand on but your own opinion on any of those topics, you have really nothing to discuss, because you can’t state that your opinion is better or righter than someone else’s.

Example:
Prove that Mother Theresa was a better person than Adolph Hitler, when there are no standards.


22 posted on 10/14/2010 9:47:57 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. — Barry Goldwater

Extremism opposing liberty is treason.


23 posted on 10/14/2010 9:50:49 AM PDT by AZLiberty (Yes, Mr. Lennon, I do want a revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

I would say pretty much all the amendments were shifts to the right.


24 posted on 10/14/2010 9:51:25 AM PDT by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rightwingextremist1776

I thought the thread was about which party someone considers is dominated by extremists. There has to be a middle, or there wouldn’t be any sides. It’s as legitimate a position as either side.

Obviously we don’t agree...there must be somes sides involved.


25 posted on 10/14/2010 9:54:43 AM PDT by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Dude (or dudet)...there is NO middle...NONE. Answer this and THEN I'll agree with you....

Where is the middle when it comes to infanticide (abortion)?

26 posted on 10/14/2010 10:01:03 AM PDT by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

>>I would say pretty much all the amendments were shifts to the right.<<

I would disagree. I would say they were clarifications of what was not spelled out clearly enough in the constitution. A sort of “making it official” sort of thing. And many of the later amendments were actually shifts to the left. I doubt very seriously that the first 2 were not what the founders had in mind even before the war for independence.


27 posted on 10/14/2010 10:02:23 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rightwingextremist1776

>>...the middle for their pious view of being “Middle”, which is not middle at all, just lazy and pretentious...<<

Yep. I love being around people that I suspect call themselves “moderate” and before they get a chance to actually say it, I casually mention that the sad thing about our system is that elections are won by persuading the moderates, when the moderates are the most misinformed and indecisive part of the electorate.


28 posted on 10/14/2010 10:05:05 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MrB

How is it self-affirmed? Whose self? Everyone’s?

An opinion about these subjects that we are talking about, is dependent/based/relative on/to one’s belief.

That’s right, because I do not believe that anyone’s opinion in these matters is better or righter than anyone else’s.

That would be impossible, as someone may be a follower of Hitler. I would say she was because she didn’t order the murder of millions, but that is my opinion. That follower of Hitler would disagree, but neither of us could prove anything. It depends on the mores of the time an event occurs. These change with time, region, societies, beliefs, etc. That is why I do not believe in absolute standards. Standards are relative to something.


29 posted on 10/14/2010 10:09:19 AM PDT by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rightwingextremist1776

The mother’s decision.


30 posted on 10/14/2010 10:11:04 AM PDT by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

You think the 3rd to the 11th, were shifts to the left? The 18th, 19th and 20th too?

It seems we really don’t agree.


31 posted on 10/14/2010 10:14:56 AM PDT by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
EPIC FAILURE!

No it's not....the kid is either DEAD or NOT....

Thje mother is either a MURDER or not....

NO F'IN MIDDLE!

The middle just accepted the EXTREMIST position. POINT, GAME, MATCH.

32 posted on 10/14/2010 10:17:48 AM PDT by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
EPIC FAILURE!

No it's not....the kid is either DEAD or NOT....

The mother is either a MURDER or not....

NO F'IN MIDDLE!

The middle just accepted the EXTREMIST position. POINT, GAME, MATCH.

33 posted on 10/14/2010 10:18:09 AM PDT by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

Like our forefathers EVER invisioned an INCOME TAX....

Like what was said earlier....no shifts to the right...ONLY shifts to the left.


34 posted on 10/14/2010 10:21:56 AM PDT by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Like our forefathers EVER envisioned an INCOME TAX....

Like what was said earlier....no shifts to the right...ONLY shifts to the left.

35 posted on 10/14/2010 10:22:04 AM PDT by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

I see the third through seventh as clarifications. I don’t see the 8th as a “right” or “left” issue. I think the 9th and tenth are definitely a clarification of what our founding fathers already believed. And with all of these, that is what it comes down to: Is it to the right or the left of the founding father’s beliefs that led to the constitution itself.

The 11th I also believe jives with the beliefs of our founding fathers. As does the 13th. I do think the 18th was a move right, but the only people I can think of that would really support such a law now would be muslims and mormons. Ok, a few southern baptists may SAY they’re for it, but the ones in dry counties in Kentucky just go to the wet counties to get what they need. ;)


36 posted on 10/14/2010 10:25:48 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

I just read your post. You are correct. We really don’t agree.

If all standards are relative, there are LITERALLY no standards. That is the position of an atheist - or a wishy-washy agnostic.

You are right about one thing. Standards are relative to something. They are relative to God.


37 posted on 10/14/2010 10:29:10 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
The funny thing about the 18th is that it was a product of PROGRESSIVE (read left) doctrine...so really it's a turn to the left.
38 posted on 10/14/2010 10:29:31 AM PDT by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MrB

>>Use the founders and the Constitution as written and ratified as your standard, and now almost everyone is “extreme left”.<<

That is my position as well.I am amazed when I talk, even to conservatives, about health care, etc. They will say things like “Obama’s plan is a catastrophy. What the government should do is...”.

My response? It is none of the government’s business. The function of government is to protect our borders (military of some sort) and protect us within our borders so that we may live free and prosper without fear of crimes against us (police, copyright laws, courts, jails, etc.)

Anything else usually does more harm than good, though I like public roads.


39 posted on 10/14/2010 10:33:22 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rightwingextremist1776

That’s not quite the same as a middle position on politics, is it? A murder/death can easily be proven.

No point, no game...due to two different matches.


40 posted on 10/14/2010 10:34:51 AM PDT by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rightwingextremist1776

>>The funny thing about the 18th is that it was a product of PROGRESSIVE...<<

Turns out that sometimes “progressive” is just a word. And “progress” does not always move us forward. The “progress” Germany made in the 1930’s eventually bit them in the butt.

I love violating Godwin’s law. ;)


41 posted on 10/14/2010 10:35:14 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Are you deft?

Bottom line...was a life taken by human hands? YES

POINT, GAME, MATCH...

Was nice playing....have a nice day...

OH...and point to the part in the Constitution which allows MURDER if that decision to MURDER is made by the victim’s mother?

42 posted on 10/14/2010 10:38:33 AM PDT by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

Yes, they are relative to God, and I believe that God manifests Himself in each of us individually, as He sees fit.

Not the position of an atheist or a wishy-washy agnostic, but that of someone that thinks/believes differently than you.


43 posted on 10/14/2010 10:38:41 AM PDT by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

In this case, the word progressive is more than just a word...it is the name of a political movement made “popular” by and during the Wilson administration.....who was as Marxist as is comes.


44 posted on 10/14/2010 10:42:31 AM PDT by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: rightwingextremist1776

Bottom line...in war, lives are taken by human hands? YES

Sorry, still 2 different matches. This is not about which party is dominated by extremists anymore, is it? So you’re right, it was nice playing with you, but your game’s over.


45 posted on 10/14/2010 10:43:32 AM PDT by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
We are not talking about war...we are talking about moderates and how they really AREN'T moderates but one (or more) things as mentioned previously. Moderates aren't moderate, they just cherry pick their position based upon how they “feel” or need to be “viewed”. I used ONE example in which your “moderate” answer was not moderate at all....allowing Murder for the sake of the convenience of the Mother...

That isn't moderate...that is murder.

46 posted on 10/14/2010 10:51:38 AM PDT by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Believe it or not, I suspected this was your position. What I am reading into your post is that you do believe in absolutes, but that we tend to individually apply it where it doesn’t belong - like people who think Ford is it and GM is trash, and anyone that disagrees is stupid or immoral.

We may agree, at least on a philosophical level, more than I originally thought.


47 posted on 10/14/2010 11:00:12 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: WebFocus

The left constantly calls the Tea Party ‘fringe’, ‘extremist’ etc. Just them framing the argument as usual. This is how that works for those who’ve never thought about it. I never say “Florida 2000” but call it “When Gore tried to steal the election.” That can’t be stressed enough especially when the left always refers to Bush stealing the election.

I consider Tea Party people to be ‘normal’ Americans while I regard the left as too dumb to walk and chew gum, hence their reliance on ‘feelings’ instead of logic.

Or they live on Neptune so out of touch are they with what the producers in America will no longer tolerate. Then, of course, you have those who are just plain evil and use the other groups as cannon fodder when they need them.

Which group do you want running the country you live in?


48 posted on 10/14/2010 11:08:37 AM PDT by Let's Roll (Stop paying ACORN to destroy America! Cut off their federal funding!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Starting from the bottom, you’ve shown the absurdity of rejecting the idea of absolute standards.

And, you when you reject the idea of absolute standards, you have stated that there is no way to really know anything, as all things are just a matter of human opinion, and no human’s opinion can be any “better” than any other’s, because there is nothing to judge it against.

As for the “self affirmation” of the divine nature of Scripture,

there are many reasons to assert this, but first and foremost,
it affirms its divine source through fulfillment of SPECIFIC prophecy, as verified by eye witnesses within the same lifetime as other eyewitnesses who could have refuted the claims, but did not.

The odds of these fulfillments have been characterized as the equivalent of being struck by lightning over 2000 times.


49 posted on 10/14/2010 11:21:39 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

The rejection of absolute standards is an absurd logical position to be in.

Also, it’s impossible to live consistently with this “belief” - because if someone “wrongs” you, you have NO RIGHT to be upset (and you would be upset) because there is no way to say what the person did to you was wrong.


50 posted on 10/14/2010 11:23:45 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson