Comments on: Voter Registrations Bode Badly for GOP

By: noidea

noidea — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:10:32 +0000

Jim,

By saying “running to the middle”, do you mean lie about their intentions? Then when they get elected declare a “mandate” to do whatever that they want? Different from what they ran on? If they remain true to their intentions, to remain moderate after election, will you then write columns (forgetting about what you just said here about the middle of the road folks being key in the vote) discussing how these Democrats are betraying the people who you will then say voted them in, the liberal? I imagine so.

If we can keep this quiet, Jim, it just might work…

By: Adam 2

Adam 2 — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:33:31 +0000

You are exactly right about how some candidates are trying to stay in the middle and in some cases, out of anything controversial.

Salazar has done a good job of that. When elected, I believe some supporters thought he would represent their liberal viewpoint. Lefty Salazar quickly dropped the “Lefty” part.

Instead we find Salazar voting on each issue not based on some liberal philosophy. However, will we see him go a little more conservative based on the GOP and independent voter registrations?

On the issue of immigration, we have seen at least “one liberal Democrat from Boulder” co-sponsoring a piece of legislation that Tancredo is also supporting. That doesn’t sound like seeking a moderate position to me. More like listening for which way the wind is blowing on immigration.

In the end, the politicians will say what the voters want to hear. And so when they go to Washington, we have no idea where they will end up on issues.

So vote, but when you do, don’t expect your candidate to believe what you believe…it will only depend on which way the wind is blowing and who has the edge on registrations and possible voters.

By: Anoldguy1944

Anoldguy1944 — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:52:22 +0000

Quiet or not, I certainly hope this trend continues. I’m not from Boulder, but I’d very much like to have a “Boulder Liberal” in the Senate from Colorado. However, I’m well aware that that won’t happen given Colorado’s fear of substantial shaking-up of the status quo. That being the case, if a candidate has to “run to the middle” to get elected, so be it. And that’s true to some degree even if the candidate is a Republican. If the growth in “moderate” votes means that lunatic right-wing agendas can no longer be pursued with the enthusiasm of previous years, hallelujah!

By: Keith

Keith — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:05:54 +0000

Well said, all around! We all know candidates run to the middle to get elected, and then vote their conscience. Look at Hillary; now she’s taking heat for it. Look at “rightie” Salazar! I can’t count on two hands the number of times I’ve written to condemn him for his vote on a variety of things including letting gun makers off the hook and for the war. He’s the one who introduced and promoted “his good friend” Gonzo, and his OTHER “good friend” is another rightie, Lieberman, who he wants to be like Salazar is the biggest disappointment as a Dem, and should be replaced, but I don’t buy into this “run to the middle” AFTER getting elected. Vote the people’s agenda who got you elected. If the state wants a more middle of the ground response, vote that way. I believe Colorado wants out of this war and to stop funding it - can someone tell Salazar to vote what the state wants and not his national security fears?

By: Wildflower

Wildflower — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:08:04 +0000

It’s not surprising that the newly unaffiliated GOPS have become disillusioned with their party. What took them so long?
But the Democrats, when given a mandate in 06 only half-tried to complete their mandate of ending the war and sided WITH the president on immigration issues. There is disillusionment all around. A lot of these independents belong to the vanishing middle class and I’d guess the next election will hinge on what these independents do.
To quote a song: “Left or right, right or left, man it’s all the same”

By: Keith Koch

Keith Koch — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:25:01 +0000

Is a Boulder liberal worse that a Colorado Springs conservative crazy, such as Douglas Bruce?

The moderates will decide the presidential election which is why Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee will be losing candidates.Both are polarizing candidates.

In my view, the decrease in Colorado citizens registering with the GOP is a reflection of dissatisfaction with the President and his administration. As Wildflower states, why has it taken so long, and what does it say for the 30% of the people that think the President is going a great job.

By: noidea

noidea — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:27:57 +0000

Wildflower,

That’s the point here. The Democrats did not really have a mandate. As Jim points out here, 1/3 of the voters in Colorado (and I suspect the country as a whole too) are independent. There is not mandate to do anything that accomodates either fringe element, left or right. Which is good. Both parties desire candidates that are electable by appealing to the middle of the road guy that is just trying to pay his bills.

Because people are inherently narcissistic, they believe that their point of view is the only one where “the people have spoken”. We hear that a lot here. If the people had REALLY “spoken”, some of the issues that we hear constantly about on Jim’s site would already be passed.

The only way that we are going to advance in this society is if we all come together and compromise for the common good. Name calling and bitter finger pointing only perpetuates a cycle of “do nothingness”.

By: urthpigg

urthpigg — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:43:15 +0000

What’s the difference between what is now called a “moderate” Democrat and what used to be called a “moderate” Republican? Many of us, myself included, will continue to be unrepresented in this “democracy.” There is no one left in the presidential race for me to support who has a ghost of a chance for winning. It is long past time to abolish the two party system and the Electoral College. Global corporations, especially those that manufacture weapons, will continue to run everything no matter who wins.

Not long ago, polls showed that 70% of the public opposed the war in Iraq. Whoever wins this election is guaranteed to continue the war for at least four more years. How is that democratic?

Democracy does not work in this country whether you participate or not.

By: noidea

noidea — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:43:42 +0000

Watching the debate tonight it occurred to me that John Edwards is the exception to running to the middle. He is running to the left. Unfortunately, his voting record and recent employment history does not reflect those values..

Voted for nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain..”made a mistake”

Voted for the bankruptcy bill..”made a mistake”

Voted for the war in Iraq..”made a mistake”

He keeps on railing on Obama and Hillary about accepting money from the pharmaceutical industry, but doesn’t mention that the hedgefund (Fortress, an offshore corporation that is a tax haven for the wealthy) that he was employed part time (earning $500k) donated $150,000 collectively to his campaign. Included the maximum amount from a secretary. For those who don’t know, hedgefunds are the vehicles by which ’subprime’ mortgage loans were (are) bought and sold. Butter doesn’t melt in his mouth..Two America’s indeed!!!

This debate was a total waste of time..Dennis Kucinich would have at least kept them honest, but was excluded.. I am sure that the candidates are glad (or perhaps had something to do with it) that the thorn in their side is gone..

I might add that Obama at least does not appear to speak with a “forked tongue” as much as Hillary and Edwards.

These candidates have nothing to offer, except b.s.