In today’s Washington Post, op-ed columnist Richard Cohen contends:
The Iowa caucuses alone take the GOP so far to the right that it all but dooms the winner. Romney had to vow to stop thinking.
Why does Cohen suggest such silliness? He continued to explain and point towards some reinforcement of his hypothesis:
Across the board, Romney pandered to the right. He did so on guns, abortion and even Iran. A GOP candidate has to oppose same-sex marriage, deny global warming and insist — against all evidence — that local control of education is the best. The only way around these positions is to skip the Iowa caucuses entirely. It is no place for a moderate. It is, really, no place for a thinking person. It’s just preposterous that Iowa — 30th in population among the states — gets to be the gatekeeper for the Republican Party and, in a sense, the entire nation.
Cohen further contends that all Romney had to do was show up. The field of Republicans jockeying for the front runner position was just too weak and that we are a weaker nation because of the Iowa Caucus practice.
Open the window and listen. You will hear the moans and groans of Republican officials and their trained pundits. But where were these people when their field of oddballs was being assembled? Why were they so silent when Hispanics and women were being told to shove it and the long-dead Darwin was being debated? More to the point, maybe, how come they put up with a primary and caucus system — Iowa first, New Hampshire second — that seemingly was designed by a sly Democrat? The answer is that they do not have the courage nor the intellectual integrity to stand up to the know-nothing (dominant) wing of the Republican Party. They have designed a system where, politically speaking, the lowest common denominator wins. We are all the poorer for it.
Ouch. Is that what the problem is? We keep saying here at Moonhowlings that we are tired of the whining. Republicans have had 4 years to come up with a candidate to beat President Obama…to send him howling back to Chicago. They have not done so. Obviously it wasn’t important enough to compromise within their own party. I honestly don’t think I can stand to hear 4 more years of caterwauling over something only Republicans have the power to change. I can’t stand the middle school rebuttals of “so and so did it first or worse or better or longer.” Get a valid candidate out there. Get a candidate who believes in conservative values rather than bumper sticker sound-bytes. Get a candidate who represents minorities and women and who doesn’t believe in making reproductive choices for all women.
Try it. You might win. Meanwhile, cut George Bush a break. You all elected him. He didn’t change over the 8 years. There has to be some reflective thought here somewhere.
Romney IS the compromise. He’s a centrist.
Besides, Cohen said this: “insist — against all evidence — that local control of education is the best.”
Really? He believes that local control of education is NOT the best? So….everything should be run from..where? How far away should that control be?
George did change over the years….but he still governed as the progressive Republican that he campaigned as.
Just because YOU don’t like him, doesn’t mean that said candidates are not valid.
An excellent piece by Mr Cohen. The republican nominating field looked like a circus side show of freaks this year. Romney was the least of the goons, kinda like the blonde chick in the Munsters family.
Whatever happened to Herman Cain, anyway? He still making pizza?
I saw him on TV the other night. Herman Cain that is.
Pretty much standard drivel from the Washington Fish Wrapper. Are they still selling time with powerful politicians?
I thought he hit the nail on the head, actually. What part to you disagree with, specifically?
@Cargosquid
@Cargosquid
Who is the “him” I don’t like? I don’t like Romney’s politics…this week. If he were the Mass. gov, that would probably change. I dont think he is proving he is ready to be president. Do I dislike him? Personally? No.
Romneys current policies aren’t centrist.
All of it. In fact, take everything he said, make it far left instead of right, and it’s dead-center Obama and the Democratic Party.
All of it? Oh be specific? Otherwise I might have to assume you don’t know what you are talking about.
Right….you and Starry.
You have a problem with Starry and me?
@Moon-howler
The “Him” is any candidate that you disagree with.
Across the board,Obama pandered to the left. He did so on guns, abortion and even Iran. A Delmocratic candidate has to accept same-sex marriage (he opposed it until this year), believe in global warming and insist — against all evidence — that local control of anything is the worst. The only way around these positions is to skip the caucuses entirely. It is no place for a moderate. It is, really, no place for a thinking person.
Oh..look…there was nobody to challenge Obama.
@Starryflights
The republican nominating field looked like a circus side show of freaks this year.
And yet, you support the clown.
In the entire United States there was no one to run against Obama? Maybe the standards shouldn’t have been so high. I mean, Bachmann? Cain? Santorum? Perry? 🙄 I realize these candidates shouldn’t have run but there are other people who could have been run.
One doesn’t have to belong to the flat-earth society to run for office.
Obama didn’t “pander to the left.” He did nothing with gun control so get over that one. He is pro-choice. He begrudgling saw same sex marriage as a civil rights issue while personally opposing, and most people believe global warming exist. Againist all evidence? Evidence suggests that global warming is very real.
Those issues you mentioned are not far left positions. Moderates accept these ideas.
You can’t just run people who are extremists. They won’t win.
Now the referee strike involves King Football, I guess unions don’t look so bad do they?
I’m just saying you “are of one mind”. I think Cohen should talk about how Harry Reid is an arch-typical Democrat….class from start to finish.
There are a lot worse people to be of one mind with than starry [staring at pokie]
Starry and I don’t agree on everything.
Would the hard lefties here have had supported a RINO err.. “centrist” like Huntsman over Obama?
Why? If you align with Obama even a move to Huntsman would be too hard to the right, yes?
That is impossible to answer. I thought Huntsman was a good candidate for several reasons. I would have liked to have heard more of his ideas.
I don’t consider myself a hard leftie. I consider myself an anti Republican until they stop some of the crap they are pulling. Maybe Huntsman wouldn’t have fallen into that trap.I find calling Huntsman a RIno offensive. Its judgemental name-calling. But that’s ok. It clears up my conscience for a little name calling of my own.
@Moon-howler
So, lots of downside for a candidate that runs as a moderate for a wishy washy rate of return from ‘moderates’, independents and democrats that may cross over. Maybe. Who knows?
Smelling a lot of IF on this plan..
“Romney is Comprimise. He is a centrist.” A flip flopper is not the same as a centrist. Nothing he espouses is centrist. The Republican Party has been hijacked and ruined by social conservatives and tea party nutbags. This is not the party of Reagan, Reagan would be called a RINO around PWC. Something has got to give or there will never be another Republican president in my lifetime.
@Watching, I agree. What Romney used to be is also not what we are seeing now. I don’t have a problem with the Old Romney. I have a problem with Mr. Make-over. I also agree with you about the hijacking and ruination by the social conservatives and tea party nutbags. As a moderate I have been sneeringly called a Liberal so many times it doesn’t even tweak my conscience to say tea party nutbag. I have found it does no good to try to find common ground. The only thing it has gotten me is mud and dirt of my shoes.
Watching, I also think there is too much blame being placed on George Bush the son for the decline of Republican status. Regardless of policy disagreement, he and Laura both exibited grace and tolerance. The problem is the Republican party trotted out clowns like Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum and expected the American public to buy into those people being President. You have got to be kidding me. Then there are the others: the little witch, Kookoonelli, Mr. Legitimate Rape, These people aren’t leaders. I don’t know what they are but not leaders. Jokes. This is a good time to be a comedienne. I doubt if there will ever be a greater supply of “material.”
Not sure I see the issue. If you all are proud of the job Obama is doing and intend to vote for him again why would you want any R candidate including a RINO?
Why not stick with who we have and people like him and see how forward we go?
I’m trying to understand this ‘advice’ on the thread? To me it sounds a lot like dropping a neg on a girl at a bar. If you all aren’t predisposed to voting for an R why give the R’s advice on a candidate? Why not just sit back, enjoy te show and fiddle while your candidate does or doesn’t do what he says he’ll do?
@Marinm
Just the left trying to “help”.
@Marinm Because the world is not that black and white and not all R’s are bad and all D’s good. Our system of democracy has a base of checks and balances and when any branch, person, party or state holds too much power nothing good can come of it. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutley. Has every single thing that Obama has done been wrong? He kept Bush appointments in Defense and the Fed. Was that bad too? I am sure Slowpoke will have some snide comment about liberals but to me that kind of vitriolic line in the sand rhetoric is what is bringing this country down. Nothing can get done unless we meet in the middle. I was thinking today that Romney would be a great Secretary of Commerce. Is that crazy?
The point is that the Republican Party today is not the Republican Party I grew up with. It is massively fearful and inflexible. It can’t seem to even grasp the idea that comprimise is possible. Not in any area. Moderates aren’t buying what they are selling. It used to be that the highly educated patricians were the leaders of the GOP. That certainly isn’t true anymore. I think the new base is often ……well it’s not who it used to be.
I think Romney has some good ideas and am not afraid to say so. Does that mean that I will vote for him? Not in a million years because of all the rest of the far right Republicans out there like Cuchinelli, Bachman, Akin, Norquist, Cantor, McDonnell who might actually gain more power from him winning. Those are the ones I worry about.
Watching, you pretty much summed up how I feel about things. I remember a day when I actually had to sit down and compare differences between the D and R candidates. Today we are speaking of light years.
If we could get Romney away from the rude, crude and socially unacceptable elements in the R party, he would be fine. Sadly, he is trying to appease those who will never be appeased.
People used to pride themselves on not being members of the flat earth society. Now it appears to be a badge of courage.
@Watching
Thanks for the history and civics lesson. As a student of public education I didn’t really get a good education so I appreciate it.
“Nothing can get done unless we meet in the middle.”
For me that’s sort of the point. Citizens are safer when government is gridlocked and unable to pass legislation that oppresses the citizens. One of the major pieces of legislation that passed recently permitted President Obama to assassinate American citizens without trial. Mo can provide reams of information more than I can as he’s more passionate on that topic than I. But, can you imagine for a second.. If President Palin had that power?
I agree that its not a -R or -D thing. It should NEVER be allowed.
“Is that crazy?”
Not really. Commerce is a pretty do nothing department so I think he’d do fine there without having any impact one way or the other.
“The point is that the Republican Party today is not the Republican Party I grew up with.”
You mean change is ‘bad’?
Compromise in the last year has gotten us drone attacks, ability to surveil citizens and the ability to kill Americans without trial or warrant. Oh and a fiscal cliff. So, how is compromise a ‘good’ thing?
“I think Romney has some good ideas and am not afraid to say so.”
I think he’s full of crappy ideas and he should stick him up his own arse. What’s funny is I had a politics discussion at work and mentioned how I don’t see a difference between Romney and Obama. Two guys that are voting for Romney chuckled and said.. Well, yah.
People *know* they are the same. Two faces of the same coin. We want change? We need to man up and demand REAL change. And both knuckleheads on the ticket ain’t getting us that.
Moon would have me point out that I’m to the right of the Cooch. So,……..
Moon would also tell Marin that if he didn’t get a good education in PWC it is because he was lazy and didn’t do what was expected of him. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Marin, if you feel you have a less that decent education, I am afraid you have no one to blame but yourself.
Yes, you are right of Cuccinelli other than you don’t necessarily want to impose your values on others as much as he does.
@Moon-howler
“Yes, you are right of Cuccinelli other than you don’t necessarily want to impose your values on others as much as he does.”
Thank you. Unlike democrats and republicans I don’t think I can run your lives better than you can. Both of those parties have no issue telling you what to do and how to think. I’d rather you (everyone) think for themselves. 🙂
“Moon would also tell Marin that if he didn’t get a good education in PWC it is because he was lazy and didn’t do what was expected of him.”
Apparently, I did. I graduated. 1.1 GPA for the win!!
If that’s all that you were going for, then consider it a success. Just don’t blame anyone else for not geting what you consider a good education. It was there for the taking. I didn’t always take advantage either so…I understand and I own my own deficiencies in most cases.
“For me that’s sort of the point. Citizens are safer when government is gridlocked and unable to pass legislation that oppresses the citizens. ”
Wow. Is that the government’s aim, to oppress the citizens? You and I do not live in the same reality. You have a completely different world and spiritual view than mine so no wonder we can’t agree. There is no sense wasting time on debate, I wish you well.
“He did nothing with gun control so get over that one.”
Fast and Furious is all about setting the stage for more gun control. If he wins, I predict he’ll jump on that bandwagon. Right now, obvious gun control efforts are non-starters.
As for gov’t oppressing citizens? What do you call it when the President signs an executive order authorizing indefinite detention and assassination of American citizens? What do you call it when certain citizens are demonized? What do you call it when tax laws and regulations interfere with property rights more and more? What do you call it when certain Congressmen advocate the restriction of rights?
When Congress is in session, no man’s rights or money is safe.
And this vaunted “compromise” is how we got here, in this mess. Because all compromise seems to lean leftward, toward spending and liberalization. Funny, that. Why don’t we see liberals compromising? If the compromises are what got us into this mess, its time to change the way we do business.
Fast and Furious was NOT an Obama iniative.
exectutive order? continuing the Bush plan?
Demonizing? talking about Barack Obama if you are a Republican?
tax laws and interfer with peroperty rights? Same thing I called them under Bush administration. Bad tax laws.
Certain congressman restricting rights? hmmmmm…Henry Hyde? Mike Pence? Chris Smith?
Why don’t liberals compromise? I thought they had. The ykeep hopping right. No more hopping.
@Watching
“Wow. Is that the government’s aim, to oppress the citizens? You and I do not live in the same reality. You have a completely different world and spiritual view than mine so no wonder we can’t agree. There is no sense wasting time on debate, I wish you well.”
So, all your previous talk about compromise was just that. Check.
Again I point you to the bipartisan compromise that is the NDAA. Do you support that? Do you support the assassination of American citizens without warrant or trial?
Actually, Watching probably feels like many of us do on here. Some of you all live in what I consider an alternate universe. You would alter the face and shape of the America I know. Hell no I wont compromise. I wouldn’t have compromised with Hitler, Tito, Herihito, Stalin, or any of those people either.
American citizens have always been assassinated without warrant or trial if they pose a danger to the rest of us. I guess its a little late for me to start worrying about it.
Actually I don’t support the assassination of American citizens without warrent or trial when they are on American soil. The other seems to be the fuzzy area for me, when people are outside our borders. Could we compromise on that change?
Do you want our government to have targetted strikes against any group outside our borders? What if an American gets swept up in that? I think it would be a great discussion.
It is the underlying and belief that our government is going to use that power to turn on us that I don’t buy into. But I could see how thinking this way would lead someone to think about joining a militia. I just don’t worry about that. Have they done that already on US soil?
I certainly don’t think that we should be assassinating Americans. I don’t think we ought to be assassinating anyone. We certainly can’t assassinate heads of state. However, I also don’t want absolute laws that take away the edge when something unforeseen happens.
I keep thinking about those Americans who were on that plane that crashed in Shenksville, PA. What if we had had to shoot that plane out of the sky. Its a horrible thought but the alternatives are also horrible to think of.
“Actually I don’t support the assassination of American citizens without warrent or trial when they are on American soil.”
They still are Americans on foreign soil.
“Could we compromise on that change?”
Doesn’t work that way. Think of it like this. Are those Americans still required to pay taxes? Yah so let’s not kill them without at very least letting a Judge OK it.. I know the 6th Amendment is a pain in the ass but it’s still on the books.
“Do you want our government to have targetted strikes against any group outside our borders?”
Sure. Like of we bomb Mexicans in a congressional declared war. Bomb away.
“What if an American gets swept up in that?”
I think a massive check to the family of the citizen, an apology and some people being fired, demoted and locked up would work.
“It is the underlying and belief that our government is going to use that power to turn on us that I don’t buy into.”
The govt always keeps its promises. Just ask any Native American or Professor Warren. Last I checked it’s still legal to lock up [the Japanese] in detention camps.
On some level I guess I believe that if there is an American citizen abroad, and we know they are planning/leading attacks on the United States, then they have given up their rights afforded to Americans on US soil. If it is easy to capture them abroad and bring them back to the US to stand trial, then great, go ahead and get them and let’s spend money on a trial on US soil But what if it’s not easy to bring them back? What if the government of the country they are in won’t allow that?
The world is not black and white. Governments are made of people and people are fallible. Why didn’t people speak up for the Native Americans or Japanese Americans? Why did some people support slavery? The world is an evolving place and killing American citizens abroad will someday probably be seen as the wrong side of history. Does that make me fearful of my government? No, I still trust that it is trying to do the right thing. That’s what gets me, it’s all the anger and the fear of the governement that libertarians have started espousing. The government may at times and in small areas be misguided but I do not believe it is evil overall and out to oppress us. Who is it exactly that wants to oppress us and why? What do “they” gain?
“On some level I guess I believe that if there is an American citizen abroad, and we know they are planning/leading attacks on the United States, then they have given up their rights afforded to Americans on US soil.”
They are still Americans and still endowed with Constitutional rights and protections.
I think an exception can be made for an immanent threat in the same way that a police officer (an agent of the State) can shoot and kill someone in self-defense. But, in our hypothetical we haven’t discussed that scenario.
“What if the government of the country they are in won’t allow that?”
Makes for an interesting challenge does it not? Also, interesting that we have armed personnel in a country that may not want us around…… Probably violates a few international laws, eh?
Maybe I’m looking at this too simply. I just want the Government to follow its own laws. Is that really too much to ask?
Going back to the ‘compromise’ remark (I find it amusing). Let’s try this. Compromise is about meeting each other in the middle.
How about we get rid of 50% of our countries gun control laws today. That’s a compromise I’m very willing to engage in! 🙂
I think controls on automatic weapons are more important than background checks. So how about we allow people to buy at gun shows without a background check (oh, that’s right we do) how about we allow people to buy as many each month as they want (oh, that’s right,now they can) and allow them to carry concealed weapons almost everywhere (oh, that’s right, now they can) in exchange for a ban on automatic assualt weapons?
Sure. Comprimise is great isn’t it? My evangelical sister in law was talking about getting a gun (too much Hannitty) and I asked her if that is what Jesus would do……
But you didn’t answer my basic question: WHO is out to oppress us and WHY? Are you hiding conspiracy theories behind all that rhetoric?
@Watching
LOL. No. I just choose not to engage in your ad hominem. You think I’m some nut ball. Check. You trust your government completely. I do not. You can sleep well that I’m a heavily armed minority nut ball living in PWC and I vote. 🙂
I think a govt that can deploy drones and kill people – including its citizens needs to be looked at.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/28/vid-wake-the-fck-up-a-rebuttal (NSFW)