News and Politics Forum

I've never really 'liked' any candidate I've voted for...save for Cheney being on the ticket, twice.


Given a choice of candidates, I vote for the one I'd most prefer to be President [from that group].

Lesser of two evils.

You are correct, sir.

I'm going to write in my own name. Why not? I mean, as long as we're going to practice in self-indulgent and utterly pointless exercises of "sending a message", then I might as well go big, right?

Last edited by Seabird (03-14-2008 04:31 PM)

Uh, are you seriously suggesting that Obama or Hillary are more center, that is, to the right of their constituencies?  If so, God help us all, but I think you're quite wrong.  Both Obama and Clinton belong to the partisans of the party.  Hell, almost every faithful Democrat I know (and they would be the "centrists") is happily voting for McCain this time around.

And I actually had occassion to listen to Rush recently (I rarely do).  He didn't seem mad at all to me.  Actually, I'm pretty sure he was laughing his ass off.  I've never heard him enjoying himself so much, watching the Democrat implosion.

Is he mad about the McCain part of it?  Sure (or rather, I would understand if he is, even though I didn't hear him being mad at all).  I am too.  Why shouldn't we be?  Cause the truth ain't your "both sides are mirror images of each other" claim.  Obama and Clinton both represent the far left of their party, and McCain represents the far left of -his- party.  That effectively symbolizes a large shift of the entire spectrum to the left.  That's a legitimate thing for people on the right to be disgusted about, and it has nothing to do with "partisan vs. centrist".

Qwinn

Last edited by Qwinn (03-14-2008 08:40 PM)

Qwinn wrote:

That effectively symbolizes a large shift of the entire spectrum to the left.  That's a legitimate thing for people on the right to be disgusted about, and it has nothing to do with "partisan vs. centrist".

Do you really think that the country as a whole has shifted to the left in such a broad stroke, or this is a reaction to 8 years of GOP controlled White House?

As much as I have little faith in the people as a whole, I think something interesting is going on here, so bear with me:

In 1980, the country reacted to a disgraced office of president via Nixon, a lame duck (Ford), and inept (Carter) leadership by looking outside to a more conservative yet broadly appealing candidate from outside the Beltway, IE: Reagan. Reagan's approach appealed to the broadest group of people (he won twice. duh), on both sides.

The so-called Reagan Democrats, or centrists as they are, ensured his victory. 12 years after he came into office, they swung back to the left a bit and put Clinton in, then they swung right to elect the first GOP controlled Congress in what, 40 years? They put a GOP in the White House, then swung back a bit left to elect a Democratic Congress once more.

If anything, the majority of Americans are neither hard-line left wingers or right-wingers, but right smack in the middle, and willing to straddle the line. They react accordingly and vote moving power around quite well.

But here's the thing that gets me- Clinton and Obama are so hard to the left, they make moderates like McCain look liberal, when they really aren't. He has gone left when appropriate, and right when correct. He can easily work with those on both sides, and frankly, based on his congressional track record, may actually get something accomplished!

This is one of the reasons why I have zero problem voting for McCain, and can't understand why the GOP pundits are in uproar, is because HE APPEALS TO THE MODERATES! That clear majority that doesn't have an issue voting left or right if the candidate is the right one for the job. (people like me.) If Huckabee had been the candidate of choice, I'd have to write in Giuliani or McCain. I don't want a hardliner of either flavor in the chair, i want a moderate.

For that matter, the self-destruction of the Democrats is amusing at best. It shows Hillary for the cold-hearted bitch she is, and Obama for the intellectual derelict he really is. Al

Qwinn wrote:

To me there are two prevailing definitions of the word "moderate".  What I consider to be -actually- moderate (not that I'm saying it's a good thing, more on that later) is for someone to pick positions that are -actually middle of the road-.  An example would be "no abortion after the first trimester under any circumstances except life of the mother", or "amnesty, okay, but not until we -really-, I mean really, not the BS we've been passing off as enforcement for decades, enforce the border".  I can think of "extremes" to the left and to the right of both of those positions.  (But note, incidentally, that the Left makes it an integral part of their strategy to constantly call even those positions "extreme right")

Then define a person such as Zell Miller, who freely admits that his party has moved away from him. For that matter, the vast majority of the Reagan Democrats, too. Tell you what, the two-party system's greatest flaw is that there are only two parties. If you're on the left or the right, you're automatically swept into one and in the view of the public you hold all views of that party.

You can pick the issue and I guarantee that there are dissenters to the party's position on each side. It's only the extremists (Bob Beckel's and Ann Coulter's) that take a hard line regardless.

But that's not what gets called "moderate" these days, at least not most of the time.  What gets called "moderate" seems to be people who pick what are generally considered "extreme" positions on both sides.   The notion that someone who is extreme left on social issues and extreme right on war issues is therefore a "moderate" makes no sense whatsoever to me.  Just as many of the individual positions are extreme as they are for your average person who's consistently called an "extremist".  That's not "moderate" to me, that's just a cafeteria extremist.

Don't you think that's a bit too cut and dry? Can't someone be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative?

It is precisely because of that that I don't see how Giuliani can really be considered a moderate, because all his positions seem to fit that mold to me.  That's part of why I am innately suspicious of when people use the word "moderate".  It very often isn't.

Tough on crime, heavy on social programs, solid fiscal policy, I don't see the problem. Hell, I hate to say it, but I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted Ed Koch or David Dinkins in there on 9/11. My disappointment is that he didn't run a solid race in the first place

Then there's my problem with what I actually consider to be really, truly "moderate", as I described earlier.

The problem, Turd, is that you seem to feel - and I can somewhat understand why, even though I disagree - that "moderation" is by itself a virtue.  That splitting the loaf is generally the best solution.

Given the extremes of both sides, it most certainly is. Instead of getting anything done, the partisanship simply logjams EVERYTHING. Maybe this isn't as evident on the national level, but in the states it sure as hell is a problem. I won't go into the debate and the sheer hypocrisy of the Democrats in Maryland as example, but you understand where I'm coming from. "Splitting the loaf" as you describe it isn't the issue here, its being able to work with both sides effectively without polarization and eventually (hopefully) getting something done. Instead of bitching.

If a solution is pigeonholed as being the "extreme" one, this sets off all sorts of buzzers in your head that make you instinctively recoil from it.  Would this be an unfair assessment?  If so, please let me know, it's just my read of it from you (and a LOT of people feel this way, the idea goes all the way back to the Greeks so it's not that hard to push today, but I think it's actually pushed now in a perverse defense of extremism, more on that later).  And I totally understand why that seems to make a moral sense from a philosophical perspective, but in practice I disagree.  Give me a moment to give you a couple reasons why:

Depends on the person delivering the message. Hillary's universal health care measures are in fact extreme and I recoil from them like they were sour milk. But if you said we're building a wall 20 feet tall and 10 feet thick along the border and lining it with broken glass, its patrolled by hungry rottweilers, and booby trapped with claymores, then tell me where to send my check. It all depends on the issue. I can't, and have never, been a one-party voter, simply because they're the other side. I vote for who would do the best job. Period.

Wait.  Actually, not quite yet.  First, let me ask you:  I'm sure you've heard the Barry Goldwater quote:  "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."  What is your response to that quote, if I may ask?

Goldwater was a conservative libertarian, Qwinn. And remember his vocal opposition to the religious right? For all intents and purposes by today's standards, Truman and even JFK would be considered conservatives. Besides, that quote is out of context entirely. For that matter, the archetype for the "South Park Republican" [b]is/[b] Goldwater.

Goldwater was ostracized by the religious right and much of the GOP establishment because he didn't toe the party line. Ironic that McCain and represent the same state.

I'll leave it at that for now, as I think your response to that would greatly help me frame the remainder of my response.

Oh, and while you consider it, you can assume I'll likely be bringing up some of the arguments made in this classic Jonah Goldberg column "The Case For Extremism" as well.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Jona … _extremism

Will re-read it later and respond.

Last edited by Turd_Ferguson (03-15-2008 04:55 PM)

Bingo!

I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004, and he might get my vote again in 2008.  LOL!

Mr. Escher, perhaps a discussion on Left/Right dynamism is in order.

Do you want the serious answer, or my standard answer?

Then define a person such as Zell Miller, who freely admits that his party has moved away from him. For that matter, the vast majority of the Reagan Democrats, too. Tell you what, the two-party system's greatest flaw is that there are only two parties. If you're on the left or the right, you're automatically swept into one and in the view of the public you hold all views of that party.

You can pick the issue and I guarantee that there are dissenters to the party's position on each side. It's only the extremists (Bob Beckel's and Ann Coulter's) that take a hard line regardless.

Honestly not sure what you're asking here.  I don't disagree with anything you're saying here, but I don't see how it negates my point that someone who is an extremist social liberal and an extremist fiscal conservative doesn't really merit the term "moderate".

If you're saying that "moderate" is an adequate label for such people, I heartily disagree because it carries a lot of connotations that simply aren't appropriate for someone who, on an issue by issue basis, always takes the extremist position.

Oh, I think an appropriate label for Zell Miller is a "blue dog Democrat".  Yes, no?

Don't you think that's a bit too cut and dry? Can't someone be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative?

Well, sure.  I usually call those people libertarians, though unfortunately there's a fair bit of dissent even within people wanting to claim that label.

Tough on crime, heavy on social programs, solid fiscal policy, I don't see the problem. Hell, I hate to say it, but I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted Ed Koch or David Dinkins in there on 9/11. My disappointment is that he didn't run a solid race in the first place

I'm not fond of "heavy on social programs", and don't think it really gibes with "solid fiscal policy", but I didn't say there was a problem per se as a mayor.  All I did was say he was an extremist, if not a partisan one.  That's not automatically a condemnation from me, as I hope I made clear later in the post.  Though in his specific case, yeah, some of his extremist positions were the opposite of mine, and I couldn't have voted for him for Prez.  I'm -totally- with you that he was a better mayor than either of those other 2 asshats though.

Given the extremes of both sides, it most certainly is. Instead of getting anything done, the partisanship simply logjams EVERYTHING.

You assume I would consider this to be a bad outcome.  I'm a small government guy. Considering the inexorable growth of government, a logjam that stops EVERYTHING isn't the best outcome, but it's way better than most.

The only thing I'd like to see them actually do is dismantle their bloated departments and bureaucracies that are almost always the cause of the problems in the first place.  "Cooperating and getting things done" between the two parties always winds down to throwing good money after bad, and making the problem -even- worse.  Sadly, actually shrinking government -never- happens, and isn't going to while Democrats and squishy Republicans make up 75% of elected officials.

As for the Goldwater quote:  Meh, you're right about Goldwater's history, and I wasn't really looking to see the writer analyzed so much as the meaning of the quote itself.  There may have been a context to it, but I don't think the statement -needs- context, I think it's meaning stands on it's own, and is applicable to the wisdom of the statement: "extremism is always bad".

The Goldberg article does a good job of articulating my feelings on that question, I look forward to hearing what you thought of it.

Qwinn

Last edited by Qwinn (03-16-2008 06:29 PM)

Zell Miller is a 50s New Deal Democrat, before the Neo Marxists took over post 60s.

*rolls eyes*

Please... just, shut the fuck up, pussy.

Qwinn