Letters to the Editor

• Remo, Remo, Remo

  [Read the article: How Bush helped the GOP commit suicide]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  I made the statement I hoped we didn't replace the Christian Coalition with MoveOn to which you bristled and then asked why it would indeed be necessary.

  Let's address both points.

  1. The christian right and MoveOn operations actually do parallel one another. The christian coalition was one of the first large special interest group organizations seeking to give the evangelical (dare I say old Nixonian silent majority?) a voice. It did. Over time it began seeing that it needed to temper a few of its issues in the interest of compromise to get things done. It's rank and file got ticked for having sold out. Eventually Ralph Reed left as a result.

  There are two articles about MoveOn put up here talking about a push poll and the grumbling from the flank that it sold out on the war. MoveOn's argument is that it grabbed for the possible.

  That's compromising, which brings us to:

  2) The nation is fed up with seeing extremists scream at one another across the great divide. They didn't like all the elected brances of government in democratic hands and hence the 1994 Gingrich "revolution." That Gingrich etal deluded themselves into thinking it had to do with the Contract with America rather than being scared of Clintonian hubris and over reaching brought about Newtie's own little downfall.

  Go back in time a little and remember various leaders. Tip O'Neil could hammer away at Reagan and knock one down with him at 4:00 telling Irish jokes. Bob Michel and Bob Dole could work with democratic leadership. Reasonable people such as Alan Simplson and Sam Nunn (to try to keep the examples bipartisan) got fed up with the increasing animosity and simply left rather than put up with the gross partisanship.

  It is annoying to hear the usual relativist argument whenever broaching the subject of returning to colloboration and compromise to get things done. Each side blames the other. Each side argues the other's past conduct is far more egregious than theirs.

  In **MY** perfect world a centrist party emerges from the ooze of the Washington swamp marginalizing one of the two extreme factions into irrelevance. Unfortunately the odds of either party dying off and being replaced by another are slim and none and slim's in Texas.

  The bottom line is we cannot keep screaming at one another. We cannot keep using outlandish hyperbole and thinly veiled contempt for our opponents. Challenging one to name one thing of merit that has taken place under the opposition guidance is incendiary as hell. One can build a case the so called Reagan Revolution and Economically stable Clinton years were the result of divided government tempering the extremes that *could* have potentially ensued.

  The '06 changing of the guard happened for a lot of reasons. It is not necessarily a new phenomenon, either. The 6th year of an incumbent presidency has seen a reduction in that party's seats in all but one or two occasions as I recall. (I am too lazy to look it up for this stream of consciousness.) Personally, I point back to the Terry Shiavo case as the high water mark of the so called Christian Right. We have bodies dying over in Iraq and these moralizing twits had to grind government to a halt to make a stand over what quite clearly falls under the purview of state's rights. Good old fashioned Goldwater conservatism staunchly defends state's rights.

  So, yeah, Remo, we need to turn back the clock to a more civil time when we sought to meet somewhere in the middle for the purposes of governance rather than point scoring. We need to disagree respectfully. Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy remain fast friends, yet few are going to argue their political view points are interchangeable. It's not "wimpish" to compromise as Alan Simpson stated when he explained why he packed it in.

  We need to return to co-opting the center rather than energizing the base. The base energizing the thrives on demonizing the opposition is likely a very major reason why the poll data shows so little uptick in democratic support while showing republican support on the wane. People want positive commentary rather than vicious lambasting.

  Obama has used an image I like very much when he says for the past 40 years the national debate has revolved around a feud within the baby boom generation, and the nation is finally tiring of it. From Vietnam, to women's rights/abortion, to watergate, to "family values" it has all been the same. A tail-end boomer myself, I am ashamed to admit I am part of the generation.

  So let an Obama come out with his positive disertation. Let him stay above the typical political attach mode evidenced by Hillary's attempt to eviscerate him because of Geffen's shots at Clinton ethics.

  And let's hope someone emerges on the right with similar optimism and conciliation. Romney has that talent, and his flip flopping on social issues don't bother me personally for I ascribe to Dean's notion that Guns, Gods, and Gays don't have thing to do with running the country, so I really do not care where one stands on those things. Another one on the right could be Mike Huckabee, an affable enough guy with a religious background but one who is not leading with those concerns and tolerates disagreement.

  The penduluum swings back and forth between parties and between tactics. The people are making it clear they're sick of nastiness. Affiliation and enrollment stays on a steady decline while the nastiness stays on a steady incline.

  It doesn't take a mensa candidate to connect the dots.

  Permalink Tuesday, March 27, 2007 09:05 AM