Do you prefer a moderate Republican Party to their current wacky status?

[nyc 4 Biden]

Poll question: Do you prefer a moderate Republican Party to their current wacky status?

An http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091214/rice">article I read in The Nation recently about South African politics and how they basically had one political party (the ANC), got me thinking about the benefits of having a healthy two party system.

Because recently I have been too thoroughly enjoying the downward spiral of the GOP. I always expected that their journey to the fringe would bring more Democrats into office (a great thing). I would cheer the presence of the Palins, Bachmanns, Steeles, Becks, etc.

But now I feel that having a moderate, thoughtful, intellectual, if conservative GOP (even if their policies are wrong) would benefit us as well. Maybe we would be able to actually debate policy as opposed to the nonsensical, bumper sticker, ad hominem attacks that currently make up the GOP's arsenal and thus the MSM's coverage. And we all know that the truth has a liberal bias.

Another benefit would be that we wouldn't have to go nuts and contemplate leaving the country when the inevitable happens (hopefully a long long time into the future) and a Repub takes back the POTUS.

Finally, the corporate $$$ will always flow to the party in power so having a healthy two party system may delay the purchasing of our Dem politicians.

So, do you prefer a more tolerable (to us Dems), moderate GOP?

[rd_kent]

1. yes, moderates are more rational and can be reasoned with.

The current batch of wingnuts are just an obstacle to progress.

[timeforpeace]

14. What the Repukes REALLY need is us telling them how we prefer them.

[YOY]

2. A moderate republican party means a left-leaning Democratic party.

As opposed to us moving to the right to do their damn jobs for them.

Of course some folks will come along and tell me what a right leaning country we are...they can bite me. The people I know who don't vote don't vote because they see no difference between the two parties these days.

Show them that they are wrong.

[damntexdem]

3. It depends.

I would prefer a more-moderate GOP only if the Democratic Party were to clearly stand for beliefs in contrast to it, not if they were look-alike.

[SPedigrees]

4. I went with "the wackier the better" because this, together with a timely bank collapse, is

what has marginalized them. If their party should regain a semblence of respectability and electability in the future, then I certainly prefer moderate repubs.

[ShortnFiery]

5. All the GOP seem to be nutty and corporate. I don't like CORPORATE legislators.

Left vs. Right and Republican vs. Democrat are useless measures.

Is the Politician for his/her CONSTITUENTS OR the large CORPORATIONS = that's the test.

[moondust]

6. Yes. The People are better served by

the competition of SOUND ideas. That's not going to happen when there are only two major parties and one of them has become a bunch of wackos.

[existentialist]

7. This present crop of wing nuts

has the potential to cause the collapse of civilization as we know it. (my opinion)

[NICO9000]

8. Have they ever really been moderate though?

They've historically opposed just about everything that would help people while shilling tirelessly for corporations. There are moderate Republican pols and voters obviously, but as a party, they've been nothing but hard-right scum during my lifetime.

[Sebastian Doyle]

9. We need a Liberal Democratic party and a moderate Republican party.

There should be no such thing as a neocon extremist major party, and no party should be corporatists.

[spoony]

10. I think the more "reasonable" the come across as, the more dangerous they are

Because whether they're acting as the face of the party or not, the right wingers are the ones that will be pulling the strings, and I don't want America getting suckered into thinking it'll be different if they vote for the "moderate" GOP.

[rasputin1952]

11. They are traveling the road the Whigs took, at a higher rate of speed

no less.

Let them get even wackier, the sooner they are crushed to dust, the better. They gave us Reagan, bushI, bush the Lesser...and McCain as a candidate. They seem to choose their candidates from the vegetable bin at the local supermarket. Let them wither, and a new and better arty emerge. We need at least a 2 party system...but they have nothing, they need to do a LOT of housecleaning if they ever expect to have some power again.

[TheKentuckian]

12. I voted yes but fear it comes at a price

In a two party system you got to take sane over batshit every time and that allows sane a lot of wiggle room to be up to no good.

[burning rain]

13. Yes.

An extreme-right GOP leads to the Democratic Party moving to the right--and the reverse holds true as well. Recall how Bill Clinton's abandonment of Democrats' previously leftish economic positions (most notably by supporting NAFTA) encouraged Republicans to run so many extreme right-wingers in 1994, besides gravely damaging unions, the most logical organizing groups for the Democratic Party.

[ChicagoSuz219]

15. Absolutely!

On the outside chance that they would win, I'd want someone who was fairly intelligent & not a wingnut.

[Kaleva]

16. I voted "yes" for the Ike, Milliken, Warren, Ford, Rockefeller types

[ShadowLiberal]

17. Yes, but the problem isn't just polarization, it's the dumbing down of politics in the GOP

I agree that a nation where one party draws a line in the sand on almost every issue at the extreme end (which is what's happening with today's GOP) and refuses to compromise even a little bit causes a dysfunctional and highly ineffective government that screws everyone over. Just take a look at California's budget problem, the tyranny of the minority (from 2/3's needed to raise taxes/pass annual budgets) has made the process virtually impossible to get done. I mean democrats literally need just like 3 GOP votes to pass it one house of the CA legislature, and the GOP threatens to recall/remove anyone who dares to even consider even a tiny tax hike in any way. Look at how much good it did the state, California's budget deficit went up something like $2 billion dollars this year because the legislature failed to pass a budget in time, way to help the tax payers guys!

But I think another problem, besides the increasing polarization in politics, is also the rapidly dumbing down of political rhetoric into short simple messages that usually don't work out so well when implemented as a policy. This is much more visible on the republican side lately (Nate Silver once graphed how the educated voters have moved to democrats over the years, so no wonder why the GOP's policy and rhetoric has gotten dumb over time).

Just take a look at a few simple stuff the GOP are demanding of law makers, and examples of why it doesn't work.

-Demand: No raising taxes for any reason, spending must always be cut to balance the budget.
-Problems in implementing: Look at Mike Huckabee, when he was governor of Arkansas he decided his state's roads needed fixing (then ranked as among the worst in the nation/most in need of repair), he figured that doing this would help the state in the long run and help attract businesses. But to fix the roads he had to raise taxes, which he did. Worst yet, that same year the state supreme court ruled his state was spending an unequal amount of money in minority-majority school districts, and ordered Huckabee to increase spending in those school districts so they'd be equal to the others, well he has to raise taxes to do that to. The club for growth didn't agree with Huckabee's explanation in 2008's presidential campaign that some tax hikes are for good reasons & for good investments in the long run for the tax payer.

-Demand: Fix the economy without wasteful spending, give tax cuts to fix problems, don't add new regulations to business
-Problems in implementing: Lack of regulation caused the recession, tax cuts are blamed by many economists for helping to cover up the problem while it got even worse. Stimulus spending is needed to jump start the economy, because it's the worst since the great depression, and Hoover tried to just do nothing and calm people down rather then spend money on stimulus measures, we all know how well that worked out.

And then there's health care, this issue more then any shows why we're suffering from a polarizing environment. Rather then the two parties working together to solve a complex problem, the GOP is making up scary lies with no basis once so ever (like death panels from compensating doctors for giving end of life counciling to seniors on medicare). The fact is there's a big problem with health care which is making it's costs, and medicare's costs, unsustainable, and the GOP knows it. Yet all the GOP chooses short term political gain over fixing a long term problem that could cause serious damage to the US.

If the GOP was really open to compromises then they could go in and say something like "we agree, health care needs reform, but we can't support some new government health care program like the public option, here's our idea to lower costs ". I only just realized this a few days ago from hearing it on the news, but health care reform is on the verge of becoming the first major congressional act that will effect most American's daily lives, while passing on only party line support. Sure other stuff like social security was strongly opposed by the GOP, but when it came to actually voting for it a lot of them chickened out and voted yes to avoid the consequences of a no vote, no such luck here.

[depakid]

18. We already have one- though it starts with a "D"

and has an ostensibly separate platform.

[levander]

19. Think you're misinterpretting..

Maybe we would be able to actually debate policy as opposed to the nonsensical, bumper sticker, ad hominem attacks that currently make up the GOP's arsenal and thus the MSM's coverage. And we all know that the truth has a liberal bias.

Your confusing Rush Limbaugh with somebody we'd actually have to negotiate with. Limbaugh is just a fat mouth drug addict with a radio show. We don't have to negotiate with him.

But now I feel that having a moderate, thoughtful, intellectual, if conservative GOP (even if their policies are wrong) would benefit us as well.

Bush finally started firing all the neo-cons five years into his presidency. By year 6, they were all gone. Yeah, taking that long to fire them was too long and it was too late for Bush to achieve any kind of popularity. But, the thing is, the Republicans have been a much more moderate party for several years now.

McCain was their nominee for president. He's hardly one of the more conservative members of that party.

Yes, Palin was a whacko. Who the hard-core right forced McCain into picking. Remember? McCain wanted Lieberman. The right wing nut-jobs are there and hold some power. But, they're not in control of that party right now. Palin was one of a few major reasons McCain couldn't win. Her popularity surged when she came on the scene, but her popularity plummetted like a popped hot air balloon as soon as the country recognized how unready she was.