To Be A Fighting Centrist

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:39:06 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I am a Centrist. I believe the Democratic Party is a centrist Party. I wish the Democratic Party would fight for its centrist ideals. Like ending the the war in Iraq. Like not going to war in Iran. Like bringing balance to our tax system by reversing the extreme and radical Bush tax cuts. Like doing something about global warming. Like protecting equal rights for all Americans. Like protecting the right to choose. Like offering health care to all Americans. And so on. These Democratic principles stand in the center of American public opinion, held by a strong majority of Americans.

The Republican Party is an extreme party whose views are completely out of the mainstream of American thought. The views espoused by the GOP must be marginalized and beaten at every turn. It is because of this that I strongly dislike this view articulated by Sen. Hillary Clinton:

During this campaign, you're going to hear me talk a lot about the importance of balance," she began, after acknowledging that the Bush Administration had gone too far toward deregulation in most areas. "You know, our politics can get a little imbalanced sometimes. We move off to the left or off to the right, but eventually we find our way back to the center because Americans are problem solvers. We are not ideologues. Most people are just looking for sensible, commonsense solutions."

I think the views may be correct but it is poor politicking. Clinton needs to espouse her views on issues. Her problem solving views, not give silly buzzwords that implicitly relegate her Party to the extremes. It ignores that there is an extreme political party in the United States. The Republican Party. It ignores that there is a pragmatic, centrist problem solving party, the Democratic Party. This fight is not beyond politics. It is the CENTRAL political fight going on in this country. I wish Democrats, including Hillary Clinton would get that.

< Tuesday Open Thread | The Time For Obama To Lead >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

To Be A Fighting Centrist | 92 comments (92 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Centrist??? Bah! It'll never fly. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Edger on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:01:13 AM EST

I wish the Democratic Party would fight for its centrist ideals. Like ending the the war in Iraq. Like not going to war in Iran. Like bringing balance to our tax system by reversing the extreme and radical Bush tax cuts. Like doing something about global warming. Like protecting equal rights for all Americans. Like protecting the right to choose. Like offering health care to all Americas.

You don't like killing people, you ask for people to be much too reasonable, and to make much too much sense, and to care too much about other people, and to be much too concerned with constitutional rights.

You're an extreme centrist. ;-)

Kind of the opposite of wingnut.

Repeat (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:19:49 AM EST

Extremism in the defense of centrism is no vice.


You don't even want to poison the environment. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Edger on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:38:37 AM EST

Or overheat the planet.

What a nut!


: What did you eat for breakfast this morning (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Edger on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:03:39 AM EST

anyway?
Granola? Tree bark and twigs? Organic fruit?
Jesus! Hugged a tree lately???
;-)

You define your position. (1.00 / 0) (#43)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:08:01 PM EST

I love the way you set this up (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by andgarden on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:03:33 AM EST

It's nice to be a centrist. The alternative, of course, is to be a Mississippi Republican.

: What it requires is (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:18:41 AM EST

calling the GOP what it is.
I am not saying enough of that from Hillary especially.
She is the frontrunner. That is her role.

um, BTD, (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by cpinva on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:04:07 AM EST

according to the right, you're an extreme, bomb throwing pinko. justice and healthcare for all? i mean, come on, what kind of base, greedy, "i got mine, the hell with you", "let's drop the big one now" american are you?

oh, and you probably think adults should be free to marry just whoever they so choose, too, instead of who the state says they should. it's that kind of far left, whacko thinking that's brought this country to the edge of the abyss.

ok, that, and a couple of really idiotic wars, a few massive violations of the constitution, and just complete lunacy at the top.

but aside from that......................

shame, shame, shame on you!

But the American People do not (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:17:53 AM EST

They think the GOP is extreme.


: Only the ones that aren't paying attention. (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by Edger on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:55:48 AM EST

And a few that can't pay attention.

Actually both BTD and I are centrist (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:18:21 AM EST

The Democratic party is a center left party, not a left-wing party. The Republican party, on the other hand, is an extreme right-wing party. The GOP has cleverly shifted the dialogue to the right and claimed mandates without the necessary landslides, but the country has never moved that far right.

(The Reagan election and re-election were partial landslides overall- the GOP never gained control of both houses. See the elections of 1932 and 1964).

To give but 2 examples, the claim that water-boarding is not torture is an extreme position as is the unitary executive theory. Both positions are common to the GOP, however, and they cannot claim with a straight face to be moderate and maintain those positions.

Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:20:23 AM EST

Flashlight Molly needs some batteries. (1.00 / 1) (#45)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:11:46 PM EST

See the elections of 1932 and 1964).

Elections that are 75 and 43 years ago prove nothing.

And some people thought the Senate Majority Leader declaring the war lost was kinda of extreme... and stupid.


Your lack of understanding of history and its (5.00 / 4) (#52)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:01:08 PM EST

importance today is quite revealing. Try to keep up and stay on topic and stop exposing yourself, you are frightening the horses in the street.


Flashlight Molly tries to make a point. (1.00 / 1) (#62)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 04:33:55 PM EST

History is a wonderful thing.

I think it was Churchill who said: "History will be kind to me because I will write it."

My point had nothing to do with "history per se." Merely that old history is not always relevant.

As far as frightening the horses, I will fix that by taking your picture off the front and back of my shirt.


Why oh why (5.00 / 3) (#63)
by andgarden on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 04:45:36 PM EST

is this person still allowed to post?


So we have someone (5.00 / 5) (#64)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 04:48:06 PM EST

to make fun of.


For contrast. (5.00 / 3) (#65)
by Edger on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 04:51:13 PM EST

To show how centrist and mainstream the rest of the world is.


edger and BTD (1.00 / 1) (#74)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:28:25 PM EST

I suppose you both are proud of this??

Posted by edger at September 3, 2005 01:04 PM
This may get me kicked off this site, and I'll probably regret saying this later, but here goes...
Jim... you know how to use a gun? Bullets are cheap, and plentiful, you can get lots of 'em almost anywhere if you are out of 'em...
You only need one, though...

I could also show you one where edger called me a liar, and when I conclusively proved him wrong he would not apologize...


: Just think, ppj.... (none / 0) (#80)
by Edger on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 07:42:08 AM EST

Of all the lives you would have saved.
And the reward! The chance to be part of something greater than yourself. The glory, ppj!
But you threw it all away.
You and the rest of the neocons could have had your very own party in Guyana, had the day named after you, floated up into the sky and been seated at the feet of The Lawd by now.
And a million Iraqis and 4000 American Soldiers would still be alive.
Not a very centrist idea, I must admit, except the part about 1,000,4000 people still being alive..
But you were never much of a centrist anyway....

I was thinking the same thing when Molly wrote (1.00 / 0) (#70)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:22:11 PM EST

this about me.

and stop exposing yourself, you are frightening the horses in the street.

Want some more?? I'll be happy to provide them.

Or is it your belief that free speech and the insult is reserved for the Leftist commentators??


Do please remove the photo (5.00 / 0) (#66)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 04:59:04 PM EST

I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea...


Certainly (1.00 / 0) (#71)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:23:14 PM EST

the flies it was attracting were quote annoying.


Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:25:52 PM EST

Oh, did you notice how I pointed out how you got off track re: President Clinton?


: Well, there is nothing too good (1.00 / 1) (#76)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:45:30 PM EST

for my friends...
And you brought Clinton up. Early onslaught of senility??

Now that we have (1.00 / 0) (#72)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:24:30 PM EST

demonstrated a middle school level of nasty remarks, did you read my point re Clinton??


The Democratic Party... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Dadler on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:24:37 AM EST

Hasn't been "a pragmatic, centrist problem solving party" since I don't know when -- the New Deal? Civil Rights? It's been almost half a century at the least. We are a capitalist nation and politics plays to money (everything plays to money), always has and, unless we face that the Democratic Party is broken almost beyond repair -- and that the value of money is ONLY determined by the confidence of its citizenry in it -- it always will. Not that I won't vote for the party or its candidates over Republicans every time, just that I don't harbor any significant belief that the Dem party is anything more than a slightly less corrupt and conservative party.

THERE IS NO OPPOSITION PARTY IN THIS NATION.

And there hasn't been for most of our lifetimes.

Although the irony is... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Dadler on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:26:31 AM EST

...the Republican party acts like a vibrant opposition party (though opposed to my views) when they aren't in power much more than the timid Democrats ever do.

Sad but true.


: Vibrant and in opposition (none / 0) (#37)
by jondee on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:26:31 PM EST

mostly in the Yeatsian sense: as in, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

Problem: the opponent redrew the lines (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Ellie on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:25:48 AM EST

As has been highlighted here and on other blogs, you're saying this in a climate where the lawless First Preacher in the White House is painted as a liberal by his own flock the second he veers even slightly from his lawlessness. (Liberal isn't a meaningless or innately bad word to me but the right wants to make it a knee-jerk vilification, like all the "types" they hate": feminist, gay or lesbian, Muslim, Islam, ... anything that isn't Christian, etc.)

What you call yourself has been rendered irrelevant in the face of a concerted attempt to gloss over St. Ronnie's egregious and very real legacy of racism, kill-them-all anti-gay and anti-woman, corruption and xenophobia is hardly benign.

(Me, I've been called way worse than a centrist and don't care as much about that as I do about this revisionism. To that, I say: Oh HELL no.)

: Whoops ... browser / text window issue (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Ellie on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:32:46 AM EST

For some reason, words and phrases vanish into my selected area when I paste from a text window. If the middle of my post (above) makes no sense, it's because some of it got lost in transport:
What you call yourself has been rendered irrelevant in the face of a concerted attempt to gloss over St. Ronnie's egregious and very real legacy of racism, kill-them-all anti-gay and anti-woman, corruption and xenophobic agenda. It's hardly benign but it appears more so if what is actually centrist is defined as very far to the left.
(I'm mildly techtarded, but I'll have to play around with the automatic selection in my browser's or word pro's editing function.)

Good one (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Maryb2004 on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:28:33 AM EST

It's an interesting phrase though - fighting centrist, as most people associate centrism with not fighting. Although in battle people fight hard to hold the center.

I agree with Molly B above.

Agree (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by timber on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:49:53 AM EST

Right --Republican Party
Center ----Democratic Party
Left ----Green Party

Hammer that Guiliani, et al are very DANGEROUS, and SCARY.

If you think Bush was bad---beware of Guiliani and Thompson!

Centrist? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by tnthorpe on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:06:12 AM EST

Hillary calls herself a "modern progressive"
Compared to the Republicans who isn't?

Let's just say I'm underwhelmed.

Living in Indiana, I'm not too sure about the progressive center latent beneath the polarizing extremism of post-Reagan politics. This is Bush dog dem country.

Point is, asserting the center against the extreme works when you're on the extreme--Reagan's "morning in America" strategy comes to mind. If you are in the center in opposition to the far right, you need progressive credibility, which the Dems need to be much more assertive about--i.e. not caving on FISA, Mukasey, etc--, whatever part of the political spectrum they call home.

well past time to lose linear model (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by wystler on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:08:33 AM EST

Any reference to "right", "left", "center", based on a linear model, marginalizes argument. (Even if one is choosing to claim the mainstream.)

These are American values that BTD is espousing. They must be promoted (and defended) as exactly that. Let the losers splutter on about "-wings".

Fighting centrism (5.00 / 0) (#54)
by Alien Abductee on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:09:05 PM EST

There's something very strangely skewed going on with the nation's political sanity when the two candidates most focused on upholding the most traditional ideals of constitutional principles are the two most marginalized and ignored by the mainstream political culture - banished to the supposed lunatic fringe "extremes" of right and left. via greenwald

If (none / 0) (#1)
by Patrick on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:54:24 AM EST

You're a "centrist" then I'm the Pope. I mean, come on, apparently we can just call ourselves whatever we want. IN your words...HEH.

I guess to you (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:19:15 AM EST

the American People are Commies.


Some are (none / 0) (#17)
by Patrick on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:49:23 AM EST

Some aren't....But I find it hard to believe you would think that you represent the middle ground


The polls say I do (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:01:43 AM EST

Polls....Right... (1.50 / 2) (#24)
by Patrick on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:21:27 AM EST

So if I cherry pick an issue, like, I oppose the kicking of puppies, then I can claim to be whatever I want depending on which side of that issue I decide to place myself. Polls??? Yeah well, we're all familiar with how solid that data is. That you would use it to label yourself is kinda funny.

What conservative philosophies do you support? What traditional values do you espouse? If you're truly in the center, then there must be something, because after all that is the center, a combination of both sides right? Or perhaps we should define what you mean by Centrist, so there's no moving the goal posts later on.

Of course arguing this with you will be like head butting a concrete wall, I've seen your debating tactics with people you disagree with. But you're no centrist and that shouldn't be too hard to show with a minimum of effort. One only has to go back and look at your posts and comments. So let's take a poll here...Based on his own words, who thinks BTD is a centrist?

Cherry picking? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:24:43 AM EST

Well, try and pick an issue where I am not in the center.

I listed 5 or 6 of the leading issues.

You pick one. Even a trivial one.

Actually I have one for you. DL for undocumented aliens.

But I 'll add one for myself in response, pro-science and anti-Dobsonite war on science.


: That's a dodge. (1.00 / 0) (#48)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:38:10 PM EST

Actually I have one for you. DL for undocumented aliens.
A centrist would say shut down the borders and don't worry about a DL for illegal aliens.

Big Tent is a centrist (1.00 / 0) (#42)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:07:12 PM EST

of the anti-war Left.

;-)

As for problem solving, he appears to be against stopping illegal aliens, solving the social security funding problem and funding NHC via a sales tax that would be acceptable to the middle class, thus actually doable.

As for the so-called majority of people wanting us out of Iraq, no one ever wants to ask the right question:

"Would you support losing the Iraq battle of the WOT by withdrawing all US troops as soon as possible?"


No one agrees that's (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by jondee on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:11:34 PM EST

"the right question", (outside the Faux/Rush nexis), either.


Why are you frightened (1.00 / 0) (#47)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:34:03 PM EST

of asking a question that contains a defined result?

You could also ask the same, but specify that everything would be wonderful..

The first question would have a high negative, the last a high positive.

What you want to do is ask an open ended question.

"Would you like some candy?" vs

"Would you like some candy if you have to pay $10. for it?"

All of this reminds me of the early market polling re so-called "custom calling" features ... three-way calling, call forwarding, call waiting,etc... for the new generation of telephone systems.... Supposed there was an 80+% take rate.

When the actual product arrived it was like 10% when people had to buy it.


Maybe "the right question" is: (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by jondee on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:52:18 PM EST

What self-corrective measures do we take when misguided power grabs in the M.E go South?

But I forget: you'll be the judge of what the right questions are around here.


One man's propaganda (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by jondee on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:03:00 PM EST

disguised as inquiry is as good as anothers.


Nope (1.00 / 0) (#61)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 04:25:07 PM EST

I am just pointing out that you, and the Left, want to define the question, thus the answer.

That's BS.

I repeat. Why are you frightened of asking straight forward well defined questions?


Yep (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by jondee on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 09:59:36 AM EST

Just curious Jim: what happens if you're intellectually honest for one second; would you fall to pieces like Rumplestilskin?

As if your "question" wasnt the epitome of the very thing you describe. lol

Would that your favorite foreign policy savants had been as concerned about "winning the WOT" (nice bumpersticker, btw), along the Afghan/Pakistani border, not that the primary training ground of Al Queda, the hideout of Bin Laden and an unstable, nuclear armed Pakistani govt should be a priority of the order of those mobile chemical labs and WMDs of every shape and description..

But then, maybe the whole problem started when the administration bit off more than it could chew before proving that they could master smaller, simpler tasks like proving they could locate their own as*es with both hands.


Actually, we all know (5.00 / 0) (#84)
by jondee on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 10:04:16 AM EST

that they "real question" that'll be "asked" ad nauseum in the coming months is something along the order of:

If a Democrat is elected will the increased presence of gay, pro-abortion, secular humanist, illegal alien terrorists weaken our once great nation?

Something along those lines.


Honest???? (none / 0) (#86)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 08:19:06 PM EST

You wrote this:

And you wrote this:

Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

And you want to talk about intellectual honesty?

Go ahead.


: Hahahahhaha (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by squeaky on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 10:39:34 PM EST

Humpty Dumpty and you have a lot in common. Particularly the idea that you get to decide what a word means aka delusional fantasy.

: I wrote that? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by jondee on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 04:03:08 PM EST

Time for your medicine, Jim.

"Thats b.s" (5.00 / 0) (#85)
by jondee on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 10:29:11 AM EST

lol.

The level of chutzpah and self awareness phobia is nothing short of astounding.

No wonder he gravitates to the neocon nutbars.


as noted up the page ... (none / 0) (#26)
by wystler on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:27:17 AM EST

I believe that the entire notion of a linear model, or even a two-dimensional planar representation (political compass), does a gross disservice to the business and philosophy of politics.

Stop this marginalizing. We're debating what should be taken as broad American values. The labels only serve to mislead.


Huh? (none / 0) (#29)
by Edger on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:39:10 AM EST

no centrist & that shouldn't be too hard to show

Then why only make the spurious claim?

Do it. If you can.......


Lets (1.00 / 1) (#32)
by Patrick on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:49:03 AM EST

first pick who gets to decide, since it's all a perspective issue. To someone like you he probably is more centrist. To someone like me he isn't. If you need it proved...then you can't think for yourself. It's an unwinnable argument from either side.

I'm all for ending the war in Iraq.
I don't want to invade Iran
I support equal rights for all citizens
I oppose DL's for illegal immigrants
etc, etc...It's not the issue that defines a person, it's how they implement it or what takes precedence that really defines a position.

His description of the "radical" tax cuts should be enough for someone with an open mind. In what way were they radical?


You made the claim (5.00 / 0) (#33)
by Edger on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:05:14 PM EST

Back it up.

Telling me what you think you are has nothing to do with the claim you so far can't back up, Patrick.

Try thinking before you spout, or throw insults.

You'll look like less of a wingnut.


go ef yourself. (1.00 / 2) (#35)
by Patrick on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:18:44 PM EST

If opposing you is being a wingnut, I'll gladly accept that "label." Like I said it should be obvious to anyone with an open mind. Clearly that excludes you.


So you have nothing (none / 0) (#38)
by Edger on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:28:49 PM EST

to back up your ::opinion:: with.


I guess that (none / 0) (#40)
by Patrick on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:48:34 PM EST

depends on your definition of nothing. I have everything he's ever written in these threads. I think that's enough. You want proof, saying I made the claim, but I didn't. I refute his claim. So he needs to prove it. I don't think he can. I usually avoid responding to you directly because I find you offensive and particularly extreme in your views. So, your support of his claim is just one more item of proof. Remember Edgar...It might be a different flavor, but it's still kool-aid.


: everything he's ever written? (5.00 / 0) (#57)
by Edger on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:01:51 PM EST

You've said that twice now. And provided nothing, not even one example, to back it your statement except a link to all of his comments.
Twice I've invited you to substantiate your statement "no centrist & that shouldn't be too hard to show" and you haven't. After the first request you resorted to insult. Then you resorted to telling me to go "ef" myself when challenged, and called on the insult. And you've still made no attempt to "show".
I guess it's too hard for you to show. But you are showing more about yourself than you probably intended to when you began.

You say what?? (1.00 / 0) (#49)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:39:25 PM EST

You are the king of not providing links.


No. BTD claimed first that (1.00 / 0) (#50)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:41:42 PM EST

he is a centrist.

His proof.


Maybe it's time you (none / 0) (#39)
by jondee on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:45:14 PM EST

gave an example of someone YOU think is a true centrist Patrick.


A thread by BTD about BTD? (none / 0) (#27)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:36:12 AM EST

So all his lapdogs can lick his loafers?

The cult of BTD.

Jeralyn, I want TL back.

here here!! (1.00 / 0) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:14:40 PM EST

Or at least flavored shoe polish.

;-)


Yeah...And what did I do (none / 0) (#30)
by Patrick on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:40:03 AM EST

but jump right in with both feet....DOAH!


Look deeply into my eyes . . . (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:43:05 AM EST

You funny. (none / 0) (#34)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:08:23 PM EST

See? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:22:24 PM EST

It worked.

You love the new TL now.


: Jeralyn, see what I mean? (none / 0) (#41)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:01:55 PM EST

Every which way but Dem (none / 0) (#28)
by Ellie on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:36:23 AM EST

Feinstein Faces Dem Censure After Backing Mukasey
One day after voting to elevate a divisive conservative judge to the federal appeals court in New Orleans, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein was the president's guest aboard Air Force One. She had been invited to survey the damage from the recent spate of Southern California wildfires.
The senator later remarked privately that she found her conversation with Bush aboard Air Force One "illuminating," a source close to Feinstein told the Huffington Post. [...] (November 12, 2007 11:50 PM, Huffington Post)

Oh gods and goddesses please not another round of this tiresome Dem Spelunkin' Game! These pointless pseudo rebellions for the cameras that cynically protect the Dems' strategy to do SFA -- except give Bush whatever he wants with a salute and a smile -- so as not to screw up the Hillary annointment grow more intolerable by the minute.

Can the Dems make their impotence and oily loathsomeness even MORE obvious than when a creep like Schumer ass-pats Mukasey forward as a choice the Dems like, and then having the party tip toe forward and "condemn" DiFi for her support of a pro-torture whackjob?

THIS is what today's GOP regards as cooperation. The Mukasey recommendation is what they regard as the spirit of bipartisanship.

As for the Dems spreading around their cave-ins so that Bush always gets what he wants but voters and watchdogs find it harder to pinpoint the collaborators ... bah, I'm betting it'll bite them on the ass in the form of lost turnout.

: So?? (1.00 / 0) (#68)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:12:56 PM EST

THIS is what today's GOP regards as cooperation. The Mukasey recommendation is what they regard as the spirit of bipartisanship.
We don't elect a President every four years to let the losing party appoint members of the administration.
I suppose you think the Demos will let the Repubs appoint an AG?? Judges??

BTD (none / 0) (#55)
by Slado on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:14:06 PM EST

you talk of yourself as a centrist but you're not.

You are a standard run of the mill progressive democrat and you do not hold some middle of the ground view .

You sound like the newswomen who famously said..."I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon".

How can you explain the country voting for Bush with over 50% of the vote in 2004, almost 50% in 2000 and never giving Bill Clinton over 50% in 1992 and 1996? It's because the true center of this country looks more like Joe Liberman and less like Goerge Bush or Hillary Clinton.

I have news for you. You are no more centrist then me. Don't try to pass yourself off as a centrist to justify your views. Be proud of your veiws but there is no need for the charade.

Has it occurred to you that Dole and Bush got (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:16:02 PM EST

even less of a percentage than President Clinton did? So was the country's views closer to President Clinton or to George I? President Clinton's views or Dole? Were you trying to make some sort of point with this, or were you just throwing numbers out?

Lieberman has drifted right of center. I doubt that most of the country looks like Joe. For one thing, Joe things the Iraq debacle is a good thing, I need not tell you what most of the country thinks.


Check your batteries. (1.00 / 0) (#67)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:09:37 PM EST

1992 - Clinton got 43% a plurality
1996 - Clinton got 50.006% a very slim majority
2000 - Bush got 48.77% a plurality
2004 - Bush got 51.24% - The biggest majority in 12 years.

It is argued that had Perot not ran, Bush would have beat Clinton easily. Since Perot's message was largely anti-government/libertarian I see a lot of truth in that statement.


Check your election years and compare apples to (5.00 / 0) (#69)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:20:45 PM EST

apples.

You really don't want to compare Bush and Gore percentages in 2000.

You really need to learn to keep up and stay on topic.

Oh, one more thing, the exit polls showed that the Perot voters split evenly and President Clinton would still have beaten Bush I.

hehe (1.00 / 0) (#75)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:43:05 PM EST

The exit polls also showed Kerry winning in the FL panhandle...

lol

BTW - Check this out.

It is electoral votes that counts.

You do remember the Constitution don't you?


Jim, I am worried about you, you are less coherent (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:51:19 PM EST

than usual

Your argument was: but for Perot voters, Bush I, would have won. You do understand your snark

It is electoral votes that counts.
You do remember the Constitution don't you?

Would apply to that argument?

The only way we could determine how the Perot voters would have voted, if Perot wasn't there, would be their response to the exit polls. If this is too speculative for you I can appreciate that, but can you appreciate that I can supply some evidence for my proposition, whereas you can supply ZERO evidence for yours?

Maybe you should call it quits for the night, you have really been off your game... I mean this has been even easier than usual.


Well I hope that your worry doesn't (1.00 / 0) (#78)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:29:10 PM EST

give you too much of a headache.

Here. Let me revisit this oh so complex exchange.

I wrote:

It is argued that had Perot not ran, Bush would have beat Clinton easily. Since Perot's message was largely anti-government/libertarian I see a lot of truth in that statement.

You replied:

My reply:

The exit polls also showed Kerry winning in the FL panhandle...
lol

That is a reminder of the accuracy of exit polls, and ends my comment re Perot.

The

BTW - Check this out.
It is electoral votes that counts.

Was just reminder that Gore's slight majority of the popular votes is really meaningless.

No charge for the explanation. Don't forget to charge your batteries. Their light has faded.


Now now no switching argument mid stream (5.00 / 2) (#79)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:36:49 PM EST

you made the bad argument, your stuck with it.

The Go back and review the thread and maybe it will occur to you why for that particular thread popular vote was the correct percentage to cite.

Again changing the subject, won't save you Jim.


Is your bulb shot? (1.00 / 0) (#81)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 08:55:28 AM EST

I concluded one and then started another...

Or didn't you see the "BTW."

Typical Molly. Shines her light on the truth, gets frightened, declares she won and runs off.

Let's revisit the key point. Perot's supporters could not, under any circumstance, be called supporters of government. In fact, Perot's (almost) total appeal was anti-big government.

Now. Take Perot out of the picture. Where would these voters go? To the Demos who have been known as the party of big government for the last 70 years??

I think not. They would have held their noses and voted for Bush.


Again you have no evidence (5.00 / 0) (#82)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 09:44:55 AM EST

We must have a factual basis Jim. Not sheer speculation or theory.

Again I gave you the evidence that when asked, the Perot voters split evenly between Bush and President Clinton.

So far you just feel it it in your gut that they would have overwhelmingly favored Bush.

When you have some factual basis, please feel free to return to this. Otherwise its just fertilizer.


I hope your light device (1.00 / 1) (#87)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 08:28:29 PM EST

is better than your memory...

I said:

It is argued that had Perot not ran, Bush would have beat Clinton easily. Since Perot's message was largely anti-government/libertarian I see a lot of truth in that statement

I then noted:

Let's revisit the key point. Perot's supporters could not, under any circumstance, be called supporters of government. In fact, Perot's (almost) total appeal was anti-big government.
Now. Take Perot out of the picture. Where would these voters go? To the Demos who have been known as the party of big government for the last 70 years??
I think not. They would have held their noses and voted for Bush.

Is it your claim that Perot supporters were believers in big government.

Pardon the snicker.


Stephen Colbert is a parody Jim (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 06:39:46 AM EST

Keep that in mind when you reject evidence for what you feel in your gut. You've been real active of late round these parts of late. You should ask your employer for a bonus, for all the hard work.


: Who is Steven Colbert?? (none / 0) (#90)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 11:13:22 AM EST

And alas, I am a ROF living in his palatial retirement compound, catfish pond and BBQ stand....
When not trying to correct Molly I busy myself polishing the solid gold bathroom fixtures and buffing the marble floors....

: LOL (none / 0) (#91)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 02:40:09 PM EST

He's a pair of what????
I prefer aces myself, even though they get beat often enough.
I don't do Comedy Central.... your comments keep me grinning 24/7.

Perot (none / 0) (#56)
by andgarden on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:55:26 PM EST

You know, the guy with the funny ears. But don't let that keep you from making an irrelevant point.


: Thanks for the assist (none / 0) (#60)
by Slado on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:35:12 PM EST

I was typing a similar response before I read your post.
The center is not BTD, it is not Slado and it is not TL.
Frankly IMHO the center is nobody. We are all partisan and some are just split in their partisanship supporting different parties on different issues.
The partisans are simply the ones who side with one party on all issues and BTD comes down with the democrats on every one (even more left on some) so that means he can't be a centrist.
If he was correct the Democrats wouldn't be floundering in Congress with a weak president.

What's your beef? (none / 0) (#59)
by Lora on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:29:46 PM EST

Read the bottom of the article:

"You don't usually talk about political philosophy" in a political campaign, she said, but the public understands that Bush's stampede to the right "is exactly what is wrong today ... And it has been a dangerous experiment, in my view."

Sounds like just what the BTD ordered.