Its seems a Centrist is a Democrat, a Moderate is a Republican. The rest is minor (and possibly individual).

Centrist/Moderate?

Is there a difference?

For the record-

I am a registered Democrat in Ohio.

drindl
Regarding abortion-

I should have prefaced the abortion portion to say I am generally opposed to abortion PERSONALLY.

I have no intentions of repealing Roe and certainly support a woman's right to choose. What I would like to get to is the point where they are unnecessary except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mothers life.

Conservatives opposing abortion yet opposing contraception availablility and family planning or relying on "viginity promises" as sex ed programs is ridiculous.

How I conducted myself as a younger man and what I am teaching my teenage son is that sex is a big deal. The responsibility of a man begins well beyond the removal of any clothing. If you do not think through all of the consequences, then you certainly have no say so. I never entered into any physical relationship without resolving to be an involved partner and making such intention clear to a partner prior to any physical intimacy.

This kind of attitude certainly, I feel, entitled me to be a part of the decision making process.

Not to say I would impose or direct what a woman did with her body and health care decisions but certainly would be a part of the process.

I once drove a school mate to a clinic and had to deal with the emotional turmoil both before and after. It was not a pleasant experience but a very instructive one. I used that experience in my own personal conduct and decided it was not something I wanted to be the cause of. I also use it to try and impart some wisdom to my son.

Thank you DC Lberal, that is what I was hoping to see. Shall we call my list the "Moderate" List, your list the "Liberal"/"Progressive" list and RMill's the "Centrist" list

Then again, maybe I am the Centrist and RMill is the Moderate.

Bobby WC -- It's TRUE that Roe didn't guarantee an unqualified right to an abortion; however it DID explicitly preclude the States from criminalizing or outlawing abortions during the first trimester. Under the modern Casey "undue burden" standard, again the fundamental right to an abortion is absolutely guaranteed pre-viability. So I must say, under the Court's current jurisprudence I don't think that your view regarding substantive due process works.

Moreover, I note that in your discussion you seem completely at ease ignoring the countervailing rights of the woman carrying the baby. From my vantage point, those rights are beyond dispute whereas arguments are nearly inevitable when the courts or any two people start arguing about when exactly a fetus is "alive" and therefore possessed of its own rights. For example, there is a large segment of the population that would argue your own stance - in supporting even the morning after pill - constitutes an abandonment of life, since life begins at conception. Given all of that, it strikes me that (1) the courts really may have been better off letting this be decided democratically; and (2) If they are going to intervene, the line they've drawn probably makes as much sense as any other...

Colin,

This is where Scalia, as always, is wrong - We live under a Social Trust - not contract - according to Jefferson we the people institute government - the people are both the creator and beneficiaries of the trust - we empower the government - my rights, such as madison made clear in the Federalist papers, have nothing to do with the Constitution - they come from my creator -

Scalia has the constitution backwards - the constitution does not confer rights it recognizes existing rights - the constitution confers authority on the government not rights on the people

The issue as to the fetus, being a women aside, is about the government not denying life without due process - which means the government can deny life if there is due process.

The problem with Roe is not the result but the process - it puts the burden on the fetus to prove it is life - true civil libertarians and human rights activists must presume life -

The best and most immediate way to solve Roe is the morning afterpill and emergency contraceptives - real sex education which shows the negative results of sex such as STD's cervical cancer would also help (parents should be allowed to op out their kids - kids talk the other kids will learn about it anyway)

Being a women does not negate being responsible - when a women has sex, other than rape, she is taking a calculated risk as to pregnancy - it is about personal responsibility - if it is an unfortunate one night stand - go to a clinic get the pill and end it then - what is the need to wait 3 months?

Oh if any were to read Roe, Blackmun said a women does not have an unqualified right to an abortion - Roe is one of the most misread Supreme Court opinions in history.

I wonder if college women could go to a campus clinic to get emergency contraception how many abortions that would stop? The religious right is responsible for nearly every college womens abortion. Plain and simple

As a queer male I was using covers long before we knew about HIV - why, because in my sex ed class we saw pictures - pictures of things rotting off - that will scare you into always using a cover

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

It's kind of funny listening to men discuss abortion. It's all so dry and theoretical and abstract.

I'll give you one more reason why government shouldn't regulate abortion:

It's my body. I'm sure if the government tried to tell you which medical procedures you may have, and which you may not, you would protest.

Bobby,

I respect what you have to say, it is thoughtful. But I have to disagree. You have no idea what it means to be a woman-the experience, what can happen to you, or what is available to any given woman, or for that matter, the limitations of some of the 'remedies' you discuss. That's my problem with all who would regulate it.

It is the most personal decision anyone can imagine and I just don't think the government needs to be involved. But you are certainly right when you say the radical right causes more abortions. Many who oppose abortion also oppose birth control, the morning-after pill and responsible sex education.

Bobby -- Again, very interesting stuff. As a brief aside, when I was in law school Justice Scalia actually spoke and an ardent pro-life student asked him whether he felt that the Constitution affirmatively precluded abortion for the reason you give. Interestingly, for someone who hates Roe as much as he does, his position was that the text of the constitution clearly articulates what individuals are privy to the protections of the constitution and precludes reading the document as bestowing constitutional rights on a fetus.

Colin,

with the exception of the health of the womwn I believe the fetus as has constitutional right to life - simple - as to Roe there is no simple solution - today is not 1973 - today a women can go to doctor after a rape and make sure she never becomes pregnant - or if she does the pregnancy is only a few hours old-

I never bought into the issue that if a brother and sister have consensual sex that she should be entitled to an abortion - also - if a women has unprotected sex she has the ability to see a doctor immediately and prevent pregnancy - it is not like women do not have options outside of abortion.

For the record the radical religious right is the primary cause for so many abortions - they are the ones opposing the simple solutions for rape cases and regretful one night stands

Prayer - prayer is not universal and even debatable among Christians - CHrist opposed public prayer "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." Matt 6:6

Prayer has no business in public schools - there is nothing wrong with a moment of silence - you can pray - you can think about cheating on your girl friend - a private moment of reflection

Bobby WIghtman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Nobody cares about Third Way, to be frank. It's an organization looking for a movement, not the other way around, and it shows.

Bobby WC -- Interesting views to be sure. Just to be sure I understand you, however, are you saying that (1) you think that State's have the authority to outlaw abortion (i.e. you think Roe/Casey should be overturned) but that each state should decide this issue itself; or (2) That as a policy matter the federal government can and should outlaw abortion?

Similarly, on the church/state side of things, I wonder whether you see a need to draw a line somewhere. Now, I don't care if a public school is made available for a bible study group to meet after hours and I don't think the Constitution precludes such a meeting. But what about voluntary prayer at the beginning of the school day? Or a mandatory prayer at the beginning of the school day? Moreover, what KIND of prayer is acceptable? Should it simply be a local issue, such that if I'm Jewish and live in a majority Catholic area I should have to say the Lord's Prayer?

Basically, what I'm saying is that these church/state issues get more complicated that I think your posting seems to recognize. Religion is a positive thing in general, but when the government gets involved, as you seem to support I think we risk weakening both government AND Religion. Because when government starts "promoting religion" it is either going to end up promoting a PARTICULAR religion (which I think really is unconstitutional and vioaltive of the rights of any other faith) OR it will water down ALL particular religions in order to come across as sufficiently ecumenical. I don't think either option sounds particularly appealing.

I'd have to say that I personally consider myself fairly moderate, actually, from my own way of classifying things, which might be surprising to some. But I agree with a great deal RMill says, and I think he's a republican[forgive me if I am wrong RMill.]--but not a screaming radical one.

To quote him:

'I was for NAFTA/CAFTA but with environmental protections and displaced worker re-training. I recognize that the economic threats of the EU and Asia blocks require a response and access to new sources of natural resources (S. America) but it should not have been the giveaway it turned out to be.

I was for welfare reform, but with longer benefits periods and more job training. The system was no longer working or encouraging job seeking. Even in a good running economy, however, removing the stigma of welfare and getting workers properly prepared for the workforce was going to require time.

I am not generally in favor of abortion, except in case of life of mother, rape/incest, etc. but I oppose notification and would like to see more comprehensive sex ed and wider contraception distribution.

I am generally opposed to the death penalty except in particularly heinous crimes and support broader appeals for DNA testing.

I am for strong defense for justifible programs and support of troops (pay, veteran benefits, equipment) but not for overpriced defense systems that don't work. I also want a sane foreign policy to remove many of the constraints now placed on the military. Military action is not a replacement for diplomatic solutions. It has been said that violence is the last refuge for the incompetant.

I believe we should never have gotten into Iraq but now that we are there, it probably requires an escalation of forces to adequately protect current troops so they can be complete their work and be safely removed within a year.

I am for civil unions (my marriage does not need protecting from the gay and lesbian community) but that gay marriage is not a governmental/secular issue but in the realm of religious organizations to decide.

I would like to see current immigration laws enforced but oppose "building a wall" and prosecutions. Fines and testing for citizenship for current illegals in a reasonable timeframe (seven years).

I would like to see a budget freeze at the levels of the CPI but remove the competition between discretionary spending items which often pits NASA vs. housing vs. school lunch programs instead of considering defense and foreign aid budgets. All budgetary items should compete and prove their value.

I am for sustainable development policies that don't simply take environmental issues into consideration but as an integral part of the overall strategy and cost benefit analysis.'

I disagree only somewhat in terms of abortion, which I honestly feel isn't any man's business. You simply are not qualified to dictate what medical procedures a woman should have or not have. You are not my father or my husband, or my doctor, the only men who should be involved.

Also, Iraq is such a mess it's hard for anyone to know what to do. I'd say either more troops [but where would we get them?] or start drawing down and tell Iraqis it's time to get their act together. The one thing we shouldn't do is what we are --which is to continue a course that is clearly failing.

Also, stop giving away the ranch to the rich. Christ, can't they pay taxes every now and then? Why should working people have their income taxed at a higher level than people who have never worked a day in their life? Tax all income at the same level.

couple more quick ones:

13) Decrim. marijuana. The money we'd save on the prison-industrial complex can go for better schools and more cops on the streets.
14) No school prayer. (You keep your prayer out of my classroom, I'll keep my science out of your church.)
15) President elected by popular vote.
16) Return to the Fairness Doctrine. Political debate is filtered through the press. Let's have a check on that. I know it's big-government-heavy-handed, but it worked for decades.

That's all for now. Need to at least *look* busy.

www.partybase.blogspot.com

Dan W said:

"Would some of you die hard liberals/progressives please give me a laundry list of your political beliefs so we can compare the various moderates with our more progressive posters. "

I say:

Fine, I'm up then :) In no particular order of importance:

1) National health care- Yes! I don't have time to go through the differences (Canadacare vs. Australia vs. Belgium etc,) but YES on a national system.
2) Out of Iraq last Tuesday. Redeploy around the region.
3) Cut funding for extravagent weapons programs, redirect into VA, plus human intel. for GWOT more priority than spy toys.
4) Roll back Bush tax cuts. Don't have to raise them again anywhere necessarily if you pull those back, but I don't have *ideological* opposition to higher taxes if they're progressive. (Americans for all our griping DO pay the lowest taxes in the industrial world.)
5) No privitization of Soc. Sec.
6) Abortion = Legal, safe, and rare. (Ambivalent re: notification)
7) Vaguely pro-gay marriage. I don't see it as a "civil rights issue" to be compared to the 1960s, but I'd be for it if it were feasable. I'd also be for civil unions if the Constitution could swallow them. I'd vote for a candidate who opposed it (short of putting his complaints in the Constitution,) if he were right on other things.
8) Ambivalent on guns. Wish it could be handled as a local issue, not a national one. If I have to concede "God, guns, [or] gays," I'll concede guns.
9) No on school vouchers. Evidence doesnt justify plowing money into them. Yes, I'm a tool of the teachers' unions. :)
10) Pro-nuclear. (Power, not bombs.) This is my heterodoxy I guess for a fairly straight-ticket lefty. It works for Europe. Let's give it a shot.
11) Come home, America. I have a McGovern twitch. Dial down the US troops in European bases.
12) Pro-affirmative action. It's broken. But it's better to keep it broken than throw the baby out.

I've got a lot more points, but those just popped up.

Non-negotiable: YES national health care, US out of Iraq, stop reckless tax cuts.
Negotiable: Guns, nuclear power, gay marriage to an extent.

Discuss.

Dan, I think the unfortunate answer is neither. The left sneers at the Chimp for his "you're either with us or against us" attitude. But, that's exactly the sort of zero-sum political game they play. Both sides are dominated by these sorts of folks. As a result, problems are never solved. Its childish as hell.

Abortion - wrong unless healh of woman in question. For me it is a human rights issue of the fetus - putting the burden on the fetus to prove it is life is not the position of a true civil libertarian.

Marriage - none of the government's business when between two consenting adults - the government has no business in sanctioning any marriage - people should be allowed to file certificates of marriage in the county courthouse and be done with it -

William Blackstone, at the time of the American Revolution, summarized the law as to marriage as follows: "Our laws consider marriage in no other light than as a civil contract. The holiness of the matrimonial state is left entirely to ecclesiastical law; the temporal courts do not have jurisdiction to consider unlawful marriages as a sin, but merely as a civil inconvenience. ... And, taking it in this civil light, the law treats it as it does all other contracts." 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries 421*

Faith and Religion: faith is the belief in a higher being - be it one god or many - Thomas Jefferson's use of the term "Divine Providence" in the Declaration of Independence clearly provides for public faith and the promotion of faith in general by the government.

Religion is the politicalization of faith and does not belong as something endorced or sanctioned by government.

Ordered Liberty does not mean everyone must conform to one sense of mutual acceptance - our schools should be allowed to provide meeting places to organizations which limit their membership such as BSA unless the limiting of the membership is part of a specific political agenda - keeping queers, such as me out of BSA, is not political it is just who they are - the same for a religious group promoting abstenance - or a black group promoting black pride or a latino group promoting biliteracy - Ordered liberty if it is to survive must accept that we have the right to choose with whom we associate, and that so long as every group is given equal access to our schools they should be allowed to meet in our schools.

So guys what am I - overly accepting of a diversity of ideas and values - a hate monger - what?

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

The ACLU seeks to make American in its image and likeness - a society devoid of faith and devoid of a moral compass

Thank you Dan W - I read it after it posted and I saw Lonestar JR suffering a stroke

you know guys when someone can properly use the word whom and not end their sentences with "it" the assumption should be its a typo not grammar - but then its substance stupid

Once again today's posts from all political corners prove Bennett is imply wrong -

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

The ACLU seeks to make American in its image and likeness - a society devoid of faith and devoid of a moral compass

http://balancingtheissues.com/ACLUImage.htm

Hey, why is it that the people who have stated what they believe seem to be moderates?

Would some of you die hard liberals/progressives please give me a laundry list of your political beliefs so we can compare the various moderates with our more progressive posters.

Rick, we both belong to the same party. Lets figure out what that is and figure out which candidate (real or wishful - yes Tina, thats for you) most represents us.

Bobby,

Knew" is spelled with a "K" in this instance.

Colin, Bobby and you have been informed of this assuredly unintentional slip of his keyboard skills. Let let this be the last statement about spelling, double words, and other gramatical shortcuts (Intentional or not).

Its always been a burr under my saddle that the word "liberal" has become an epithet. To my chagrin, I learn from reading these comments that "centrist" or "moderate" is probably equally disdained. I consider myself moderate. I don't think you can define these terms, any more than trying to define "conservative" or "liberal" really get your anywhere. There are Republicans who are Al Gore passionate about the environment. There are gay Republicans. African-American Republicans. Pro-choice Republicans. And so on and so on. I consider myself a centrist because I believe in some of the things that each of the Republicans and Democrats hold dear. I am pro-choice, but I support sensibly written parental notification laws. I believe in a strong military, but don't believe that cowboyish projections of power are good foreign policy. I'm an adherent Catholic, but it makes me squeamish when someone tries to erect a copy of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. I could go on and on, but hopefully I've made my point.

DC liberal--

You gently note that I missed your point, and I must admit that I'm guilty as charged. You're right that it wasn't due to intentional misrepresentation. I'm afraid that the sentence I quoted inspired me to a rant whose relation to your post was tangential at best. In retrospect, quoting you wasn't necessary.

Sorry for intruding, folks.

Colin,

The ACLU for a very long time has not been about unpopular issues - the days when they represented Nazi's marching in Skokie are long gone - those were the great days

According to Charles S. Sims, counsel for the ACLU National, they will never agree to denounce the conduct of any affiliate even if the conduct is criminal and a violation of someone's civil rights

This is not the ACLU I new so long ago - Mr. SIms statements will be posted this evening on my web page related to the ACLU.

As a queer male I never think twice about going after queer organizations which in my mind cross the line and try and silence our opposition - why? because I believe in speech -

If the ACLU truly believed in civil liberties they would be willing to denounce their own for wrongful conduct.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

BTW - if Chris Bell or Strayhord are the best chance for beating Perry on election day I will not be voting for Kinky - whomever according to the polls has the best chance of beating Perry will get my vote.

The ACLU seeks to make American in its image and likeness - a society devoid of faith and devoid of a moral compass

Colin did you read my piece explaining my position?

http://balancingtheissues.com/ACLUImage.htm

Bobby WC -- I'd probably vote for Kinky if I were you too. Gotta ask though, what's your gripe with the ACLU? They're definitely not right all of the time, and they clearly represent VILE people sometimes, but isn't that exactly WHY they're useful? I for one think it's important to have an organization around that ISN'T focused on being popular, but rather is committed to trying to protect what they view (rightly or wrongly) as the rights represented by the Constitution.

To Lonestar JR.

He proved my point - I am my own worse editor - I type and read for substance - also the hearing impairment have made how I hear things change how I type

Instead of looking to the substance of what I am saying - Kinky is not threatened by non-substantive issues and seeks to remain focused on the issues - all he has to add is that I mispelled Friedman

This is why the Dems cannot win - In Brownsville - a traditionally hardcore democratic backyard everyone I know is behind Kinky -

The polls have CHris Bell number 4 of 5 candidates - my vote is simple - whomever has the best chance of beating Perry on election day will get my vote - I will not return Perry to the governor's house on blind party loyalty.

I do thank Lonestar because he proved my point - no substance just petty nick-picking over issues of no substance.

Bobby WIghtman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

The ACLU seeks to make American in its image and likeness - a society devoid of faith and devoid of a moral compass

Actually that's correct. Show me a dem in the middle and I'll vote for him.

I was a McCainite until he ran to religion.

DanW - I take it from your post that you must hate the modern Republican party then, eh? :) Strikes me that GWB and his pals are about as far away from being "conservative" as one can get...

Peter,

"Liberals and Centrists aren't all incompatible." Um, yes they are. While they may agree on issues and be able to compromise, they are still rather different.

In the world I come from (grew up in Oh, VA, DC, AL and TX. I currently live in Taxachussetts) Liberals spend money we don't have on social programs. Conservatives spend money we don't have on Defense.

Centrists would like us to only spend money we have.

Balance the Budget. Don't do it by raising taxes. I already pay 30% in deducted taxes (Meaning I pay other taxes beyond this.)

Sorry, SocSec has to go. Even its creator said it wasn't meant to be permanent.

NO National Guard overseas. Period.

No national Health care. I've never heard of a country getting it right yet. I live in Mass until I can find a job in a different state. They actually passed a law here REQUIRING you to get health care. Thats liberals in action. I fear a national model would be based on the soon to fail Mass model.

I guess my problem is I make too much to be protected by liberals and I don't make enough to be protected by Conservatives. If I quit my job and relied only on my wifes salary, we would pay no taxes, would qualify for state Health care and State assisted housing that can be afforded. Hey maybe thats the way to go.

I also believe that Separation of Church and State does not mean a lack of God in society, just no one in government telling me what God means.

I am in favor of Social programs we can afford as well as a well funded defense. But at the federal level I believe defense wins over social. Social should win at the state level.

Colin - if you read my first post outlining some of my positions on issues or RMills post on his/her beliefs, you will get an idea of what I mean by a centrist. I was responding to attacks on my centrism that did nothing to address the specific positions I outlined but simply leveled rather childish insults on being a centrist.

one more thing, Drindl and DC Liberal - I never said that your views were the same as Rush Limbaugh's on anything other than your "moderate bashing". And if you substituted Democrats and Liberals for Republican and conservative in your comments on moderates, it would be almost exactly what Limbaugh said.

JimD -- I don't have any problem with someone who picks - issue by issue - what they think the best solution is. If that's what you mean by "moderate," then I for one certainly wish there were more "moderates" around. However, I think the disdain that folks on the left feel is directed at individuals who think being "moderate" means always splitting the difference. Frankly, I think that kind of an attitude precludes any kind of authentic and principled debate and is bad for the country.

for Drindl and DC Liberal

Actually the substance of Rush's comments on moderates was that they were really did not stand for anything and were dupes of the liberals. The basic thrust of your comments (as I understand them) are that centrists do not stand for anything and are just Republicans "lite". I am heartily sick of the name calling, demonizing and vituperative partisanship between the parties. It sometimes seems that the harshest rhetoric is reserved for those of us who do not adhere to either wing of the political spectrum.

Don't see any reason why someone who is "moderate" should be considered lacking in conviction. Why should we play into this artificial construct, where you have to either agree with right or left versions of the key Q&A? How about the correct Q&A, instead? In the article, eg, they mention what sounds like a pretty sensible approach on abortion -- women should have a right to choose one, if they must, but come on. No one actually *likes* abortion and thinks it's a good thing! Why can't politics be sensible? That sounds like a great idea to me.

Re: Chris Cilliza's statement..."Republicans have used Democrats' support for abortion as a tool to strip away culturally conservative voters in the South and Midwest -- two regions that were once Democratic strongholds."

The tool the Republicans used to strip away voters in the South was not abortion, Sir. It was race, beginning with Goldwater's vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and being finely honed by Nixon as the Southern Strategy. The Republican party has made itself home to the kind of people who really think it is terribly unfair for blacks to compete in the Miss America pageant and still have a Miss Black America pageant. There is no prize in this life worth pandering to racists to achieve.

Those who do not think it is imperative to regain our momentum in the drive for racial justice in this country SHOULD be Republicans. Those who think it's OK to slow down in the quest for racial justice do not belong in the Democratic party. Those who would compromise racial justice for ANY goal have missed the point of our party's mission.

Those who stand against progress are always going to have their moments--their times in the sun. But we will move forward again, perhaps sooner than some of you think, and Democrats will provide the leadership when we do.

Wesley Clark was the only NATO Commander ever to get fired (By Clinton no less)Not exactly good resume material for being Secretary of Defense.

Colin probably the only Presidents more dislike than Truman while he was POTUS would be Nixon and W. Presidents always start looking better as soon as they leave office(I even starting to grow fond of Bubba)Frankly I don't know of any democrats who share Truman's/FDR's/ and JFK's tough stand on dealing with our enemies. (you may disagree with republicans but they are not your enemy) Which is why you guys are going to lose in 08.

FH --Agreed, probably not a politician. Sigh. You know, I used to like McCain - although I always knew he was too conservative for me to vote for. It would be interesting to see what he would do if he was actually elected, but I suspect that the primary voters will preclude that from happening. I love Clarke, but I suspect he'll have to settle for making one hell of a Secretary of State or Defense in the next administration. No doubt he'd do a heck of a good job in either role - not that it would be hard to outperform Rummy or Condi.

I wonder, will that provoke a Tina comment?

Will Drindl and bhoomes please go back to their corners and act like good children? Thank you.

As for Bhoomes, stop equating support for Israel as a partisan belief. I am a Jewish liberal and I love Israel. I was actually over there a couple of weeks ago (I guess my timing was good, sigh). Nonetheless, it is not out of opposition to Israel that I pray that they stop this bombing campaign. It is out of compassion for human life. It is out of the belief that people with good intentions can go too far. Hezbollah is a murderous faction borned out of Israel's original invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Their actions now may be creating a new wave of radicals with anti-semitic revenge on their mind.

I would also like to quickly express my beliefs on partisanship. Political issues are often complex. Belief in a certain side of one issue does not always correlate with a specific side of another issue. Hence Joe Lieberman and his stance on the Iraq war, but also unflinching support and championing of environmental issues. An odd corollary for those who find it necessary to lump people into a box. We are all individuals who try to deal with many, many problems in our lives and in society. Our methods of dealing with these problems, and our underlying ideologies are a mishmash of beliefs and personal preferences.

Let me respond to this comment by Bobby Wightman-Cervantes:

"Kinky Freeman appears that person in Texas - for now - when the Republican Secretary of State said that Freeman's independent opponent for governor could not use the word Granma on her ballot Freeman stepped up to the plate and said the Secretary of State was wrong- Republican Gov. Perry called it sour apples on the part of Granma Strayhorn -"

There is nobody named "Freeman" running for Governor of Texas. Kinky Friedman is on the ballot as an idependent, although I certainly am unfamiliar with this defense of Carole Keeton Strayhorn's attempt to have part of her slogan "Texas Needs One Tough Grandma" on the ballot as part of her name. The Secretary of State's ruling was correct. Friedman will appear on the ballot as Richard "Kinky" Friedman, although he has not used 'Richard," either personally or professionally, for about 40 years. I hope good Democrats will remember that Chris Bell is on the ballot as our party's duly-chosen nominee for Governor; he will have my vote.

Having read a number of posts by Mr. Wightman-Cervantes, I think having the wrong name for a candidate to whom you ascribe a position he hasn't taken is about as close to accuracy as you get.

As for JimD's "reservations" about abortion, I look at a name like Jim and I kind of wonder what business it is of yours. I am not a woman; I am not comfortable dictating what medical procedures will and will not be available to women and I am very uncomfortable with the government's being involved in this personal area at all. I recall well the words of a very wise woman named Flo Kennedy: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

Colin: I'm sure there is an individual with those characteristics out there, although probably not a politician.:)

These are my top two possibilities.
1) McCain - despite his recent pandering, I still believe he is an independent force.
2) W. Clarke - The thoughtful warrior.

Because of the entrenched "two party" system in this country, it is difficult to define a "third way" without staking out positions from one camp or the other.

Every issue comes down to besically two positions, for or against with Dems taking one side and Reps taking the other.

What then, is the third way?

I consider myself a moderate with an open mind.

I was for NAFTA/CAFTA but with environmental protections and displaced worker re-training. I recognize that the economic threats of the EU and Asia blocks require a response and access to new sources of natural resources (S. America) but it should not have been the giveaway it turned out to be.

I was for welfare reform, but with longer benefits periods and more job training. The system was no longer working or encouraging job seeking. Even in a good running economy, however, removing the stigma of welfare and getting workers properly prepared for the workforce was going to require time.

I am not generally in favor of abortion, except in case of life of mother, rape/incest, etc. but I oppose notification and would like to see more comprehensive sex ed and wider contraception distribution.

I am generally opposed to the death penalty except in particularly heinous crimes and support broader appeals for DNA testing.

I am for strong defense for justifible programs and support of troops (pay, veteran benefits, equipment) but not for overpriced defense systems that don't work. I also want a sane foreign policy to remove many of the constraints now placed on the military. Military action is not a replacement for diplomatic solutions. It has been said that violence is the last refuge for the incompetant.

I believe we should never have gotten into Iraq but now that we are there, it probably requires an escalation of forces to adequately protect current troops so they can be complete their work and be safely removed within a year.

I am for civil unions (my marriage does not need protecting from the gay and lesbian community) but that gay marriage is not a governmental/secular issue but in the realm of religious organizations to decide.

I would like to see current immigration laws enforced but oppose "building a wall" and prosecutions. Fines and testing for citizenship for current illegals in a reasonable timeframe (seven years).

I would like to see a budget freeze at the levels of the CPI but remove the competition between discretionary spending items which often pits NASA vs. housing vs. school lunch programs instead of considering defense and foreign aid budgets. All budgetary items should compete and prove their value.

I am for sustainable development policies that don't simply take environmental issues into consideration but as an integral part of the overall strategy and cost benefit analysis.

These are not "new ways" but provides a context for moderate republicans (Collins, McCain, Snowe etc.) and conservative democrats (Bayh, Lieberman, Nelson-NE, etc.) to have a more formalized voting block.

President Clinton defined it as new opportunities with new responsibilities. Of course, Dick Morris used triangualtion to hijack it for the 1996 re-election strategy (successful but demeaned the value to political gain) instead of a governing policy.

These are just thumbnail examples of very complex issues but governing needs to step back from politics whereas these days it has been inexorably intertwined. Third Way may be largely marketing but it could allow a break in the cycle of poll driven political government (pie in the sky I know).

I think I am rambling at this point so I'll just stop there. What I would like to see in our government is too unrealistic given the political climate and comes under the heading of wishful thinking.

bhoomes -- Harry Truman would eat our current President for lunch if he was still alive. Using force when force is required shows strength. Choosing to fight a war that doesn't further the interests of the United States shows nothing but a lack of good judgment. Any comparison between Truman and Bush are ridiculous and insulting to one of our great presidents.

FH -- we clearly seem to admire the same set of presidents, as TR is also one of my favorites. It really has been a looong time since we had anything approaching a transformative leader in this country. Personally, I have a feeling that Barrack Obama may end up being that figure eventually - although he isn't quite ready yet. I'd be curious to hear about any current figures that you think might actually be able to clean up the mess that we currently find ourselves in - on either side of the isle. I'm not sure there's a Republican out there I could vote for today, but I always admired Senators Chafee (Lincoln's Dad) and Rudman...

History will show that Bush is a clown on most issues. A clown, a frat boy, a coward and a dumbass. And don't forget incompetent. More than anything, he is massively incompetent.

I also admire Truman, because just like our current President he was not afraid to make tough decisions and take the heat for them. He was one tough SOB when it came to dealing with our nations enemies unlike the current crop of democrats who want our adversaries to like us. Of course you may not like him Drindl because he helped create Israel and also he was going to draft striking railroad workers into the military to break the strike. (Supreme Court told him he didn't have that authority.) History showed Truman was right on most issues, just like history will show Bush was right on most issues.

I say again, today's discussion only prove the inside the beltway consultants know nothing - it is sad that the politicos do not understand that it is cheaper to listen to the people than their paid consultants.

An honorable Marine one day does not excuse a childmolester the next - Drindl the ACLU has losts its focus and has long ago not been about the constitution.

Faith is not religion - our country was founded on Faith "Divine Providence" being a liberal and progressive does not mean ignoring historical facts

This mistake has cost the Dmeocrats dearly and will continue to cost the Democrats until they can understand the difference -

Bennett and all of his games will not change how so many Americans feel on this issue.

In law we have a rule - never ask a witness a question unless you know the answer. I agree with the idea of tapping the voters who stay home - I believe in participation - but be careful guys - these untapped voters could be the people who quote the National Enquirer as God -

They could be the people who work for CNN or Fox - do you really want them voting? I do because I believe in full participation - DO you? or just participation by people with whom you agree?

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

The ACLU seeks to make American in its image and likeness - a society devoid of faith and devoid of a moral compass

For Drindl

http://balancingtheissues.com/ACLUImage.htm

Colin: Truman was a Centrist in that he had adversaries on both sides. I agree he was very progressive.

Teddy Roosevelt was my favorite president...another president with adversaries on both sides. Where have all the leaders gone my friend. We need one to step up now more than ever. I would vote for a dem. in a heartbeat that would stand up and say, "I will win this election and make these Republicans like it and don't you forget it."

Here's a good example of one of our main problems as Democrats, which is the press. Look at the absurdity of this quote, which sounds like its straight out of rove's mouth:

'The Middle East crisis is giving Bush a second chance to be a peacemaker and, however counterintuitive, an unexpected new chance to make headway on Bush's grand goal of leaving the Middle East more democratic than he found it.'

'counterintuitive new chance to make headway on bush's 'grand goal' --Bush's 'grand goal' in the middle east was to pay back oil companies for their support and avenge his father. This synchophantic sucking up by the conversative press [this is the so-called liberal CNN] is what really hurts us.

And it sure is 'counterintuitive' all right. In fact, it's absurd on the face of it. But that's the way they've covered this moron all along.

A tongue-in-cheek stab at political ideologies/labels:

Liberal: Believe in the power of the Constitution and Democracy, individual rights, and serious debate on issues.

Conservative: Believe that the Federal Government exists to solely to protect the citizenry, and that the job of elected officials is to support the Commander in Chief at all costs.

Moderate: A Conservative with a conscience.

Independent: Both parties are full of crap. And/or, I'm too wacky for a political label and my constituents are too.

Discuss......... :):)

Oklahoma Primary Primer

Governor
Rep Primary
Istook
Sullivan
Williamson

CD 5
OPEN(Istook- see above)
Dem Primary
Hunter
Smith

Rep Primary
Bode (OK state corporation commissioner)
Calvey
Cornett
Fallin (Lt. Gov)
Morgan (State Sen.)
Roy

Just another thought. I'm admittedly a liberal, but I would contend that liberalism and centrism aren't all incompatible. In my opinion the most effective liberals are those with liberal goals who employ moderate rhetoric and seek out sensible, as opposed to radical, discourses and methodologies. See Obama.

The effective liberal focuses his liberal goals on good policy, not good talking points.

"Progressive" was originally a sociological designation describing the left-leaning camp of the cultural wars. "Traditionalist" describes the right. The sociologist James Hunter coined these terms.

As several posters have pointed out, progressivism has acquired a more political connotation as liberals have used it as more or less a euphemism to describe their movement in light of the stigmatization of the word "liberal."

The conservative movement began to grow when Barry Goldwater and later Ronald Reagan were unafraid to say, "I'm a conservative, here's what I believe in, and here's why."

Reagan led an administration popularly considered to be very successful. Poof. "Conservative" isn't a dirty word anymore.

Whether liberals call themselves by that name or opt for "progressives" is immaterial; it's the substance of the policy that matters. But it's just something to think about.

Yeah, I'm afraid that my comments about moderates do not sound like rush limbaugh.

I never advocate murder, assasination, or execution of people I disagree with. That's the difference between left and right in this country -- violence.

FH -- Truman is my favorite president, and I also love the quote and would be thrilled to see the Democratic party more fully embrace Truman as a model for moving forward. However, I would disagree with any characterization of Truman as a "centrist," in so far as the term implies that his views were an equal mix of "conservative" and "liberal."

The guy was a fervent new dealer who was the first president to propose universal health care, presided over the first strong civil rights plank in the Democratic Party's platform, always stood for the interests of the consumer/individual when in conflict with those of big business, and CONTINUED THE LIBERAL TRADITION of a strong and internationalist foreign policy. I don't think any steps he took against labor (hey, sometimes labor is simply wrong)or in fighting communism (which really wasn't a partisan issue in the '40's)change the fact that he was a proud liberal.

Oh-by the way--we've now spent $400 BILLION DOLLARS to turn Iraq into a dying heap of radioactive rubble. We've managed to utterly destroy an entire country.

If that's being 'strong on national security' you can keep it.

Your comment was a cop-out, so I responded with snappy garbage.

*Their* side has a plethora of media personalities who advocate the murder of supreme court judges, blowing up of press outlets, and execution of journalists.

*Our* side has my puppy comment and a primary challenge to Sen. Leiberman.

*Their* side has what is best described as "eliminationist" rhetoric; liberals are disloyal, a threat to security, non-native (Kerry=French,) basically unAmerican. This has no parallel on the left.

Here's your more substantive response:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607150001

I would also reccomend this, if not for the big issue it deals with (also interesting but tangential) so much as for the discussion of Yalta and mythmaking:
http://www.harpers.org/StabbedInTheBack.html

That's more of the substantive, intellectual response to the idea of "mean nasty liberals" and the weird false equivalency you suggested.

Though I still love puppies.

Here's a good example of our incoherent foreign policy. First, American taxpayer dollars are used for bombs sent to Israel to destroy Beirut. Now, american taxpayer dollars are being used for humanitarian help to Beirut.

And I'm sure when the time comes, we will be asked to help pay to rebuild Beirut--and what will have changed? Will anyone be safer? Will Israel kill or create more terrorists? Will the fractious nature of the middle east be changed? Does anyone ever really win in a religious war?

All that happens is a lot of people get dead--and we pay for it.

Wow, DC liberal, that really makes a substantive addition to this discussion. I am amazed at how the extremes on the political spectrum try to ridicule those of us in the middle who do not fit into their ideological boxes.

Jim D said:

"One quick observation - I was once trapped in a waiting room somewhere with Rush Limabaugh on the radio. He was ranting about "so-called moderates". His rant was remarkably similar to some of the liberal attacks on centrists I've read in these posts."

I say:

"Romanian dictator Nikolai Ceausescu loved puppies. I love puppies. My love of puppies is remarkably similar to Romanian dictator Nikolai Ceasescu's love of puppies."

Sorry, it's been too long for a Monday already...

www.partybase.blogspot.com

FH- wow! loved the Truman quote:

"Understand me, when I speak of what the Republicans have been doing. I'm not talking about the individual Republican voter. Nobody knows better than I that man for man, individually, most Republicans are fine people. But there's a big distinction between the individual Republican voter and the policies of the Republican Party. Something happens to Republican leaders when they get control of government...Republicans in Washington have a habit of becoming curiously deaf to the voice of the people. They have a hard time hearing what the ordinary people of the country are saying. But they have no trouble at all hearing what Wall Street is saying. They are able to catch the slightest whisper form big business and the special interest."

--Absolutely right on and absolutely what we should be saying, word for word. It's amazing how consistent the republican party has been, all these years.

I find that always happens when you disagree with a self-identified 'conservative man', mikepcfl. They really feel threatened by women already, so they always attack a woman's 'virtue' -- it's sooo predictable.

It just makes me laugh--but if it offends anyone here, I will stop responding. I just find it amusing.

But it does reinforce my point, rjm--this character is like a lot of conservatives. spouts the same few talking points they all do. How do you find common ground with people who are so narrow and limited?

Bennet is wrong when he says "Because our base is 50 percent smaller than the conservative base, we have got to win not just a majority of moderates but a supermajority in a lot of places in order to win." The large majority of the liberal/left base does not vote.

Note the words of DC liberal:
"Election 2004 had a 60% turnout. Seventy million eligible voters stayed home. Congressional elections usually only have 30-40% turnout. THERE, rather than in the GOP, are the missing Dem votes." But that is only true if the Dems clearly stand for social responsibility by government and social justice.

America needs a party that is willing to say clearly that they believe in a decent minimum wage, a decent minimum annual income for all residents, getting people off the street and into decent homes, good decent universal government supported medical care. A party which stands for these human values can mobilize those who believe that the "system" in not for them and they have no reason to register or vote.

There must be a party that has the conviction to stand for social responsibility and social justice. Parties that have conviction win. See Lincoln's Republicans and FDR's Democrats. It may take time. "Conservative" was a dirty word when used by Goldwater. One should look not win an election, but to change America.

One quick observation - I was once trapped in a waiting room somewhere with Rush Limabaugh on the radio. He was ranting about "so-called moderates". His rant was remarkably similar to some of the liberal attacks on centrists I've read in these posts.

I know I don't often write anything that dems like to hear, but I want to tell you who your ideal candidate would be in this election...a man who in his day was considered a centrist, and that's Harry Truman. Most of what I'm going to say came from a book "Independent Nation by John P. Avlon...a book I recommend Drindl if you want to know what a Centrist stands for.

"Within his own party, Truman's willingness to meet the Communists with equal force in Eastern Europe had cost him the not inconsiderable support of liberals with socialist sympathies. His endorsement of pioneering civil rights legislation provoked the wrath of conservative southerners, and his tough-minded tactics with striking rail workers alienated the labor vote that had always been firmly in Roosevelt's corner."

A centrist by their very nature must cut across the grain of individual party loyalties to do what they believe is right.

And how is this for the perfect speech at the next dem. convention. This is a direct quote from Harry during his bid to get reelected.

"Understand me, when I speak of what the Republicans have been doing. I'm not talking about the individual Republican voter. Nobody knows better than I that man for man, individually, most Republicans are fine people. But there's a big distinction between the individual Republican voter and the policies of the Republican Party. Something happens to Republican leaders when they get control of government...Republicans in Washington have a habit of becoming curiously deaf to the voice of the people. They have a hard time hearing what the ordinary people of the country are saying. But they have no trouble at all hearing what Wall Street is saying. They are able to catch the slightest whisper form big business and the special interest."

How ironic the Republicans have been able to cast the Democrats as the party of special interest in the last decade and a half.

To H.L.
Conservative was a pejorative in the 30s. It was associated with Hooverism and even Toryism. It was much like the term liberal is now. FDR definately ran proudly as a liberal.

You know who else proudly talked about his liberal party? Strom Thurmond (back when he was a New Dealer in the 30s).

There was even a time when there was idle chatter from the 30s through the 50s of the republicans and Democrats folding up and new liberal and conservative parties being formed (like in Canada). This was because the parties still had both very liberal and very conservative elements within their ranks. That never happened as the ideological reallignment happened on its own within the parties. So we now definately have a liberal and conservative party, it's just that they're still known by their old names.

Liberal started becoming a pejorative in the mid to late 60s when Northern liberals took control of the party and passed civil rights legislation which southern conservatives hated. Plus hippies and Vietnam of course. So by the early 70s liberal was definately a pejorative. Conservative became a term of strength when Reagan became president.

This is why Bennett's stand is silly. Nobody calls themselves a liberal because it is seen as a pejorative, not because of our issues. A majority of people in this country favor abortion rights and gay rights. Aren't those the epitome of "liberal" hot-button issues that Bennett is trying to get Democrats to talk differently about? Well, the "moderates" are already with us on those issues, so what is there to change then? It's the name, the candidates, and the convictions.
That's why we've taken to calling ourselves progressives. It's harder to conjure up feelings and images of permissiveness, weakness, and elitism than the term liberal. And it has a sense of strength to it that equals the term conservative. Nobody wants to be against progress right? And bleeding heart progressive just doesn't have the same sting as bleeding heart liberal.

To see what I mean about the images of permissiveness etc. think about the Democrats that gather socially weekly for something they (not intelligently) call "Drinking Liberally". Subconsciously they are showing why people are afraid to think of themselves as (and vote for) liberals. A liberal means "excessive".

Changing our ideological term to Progressive would probably do just as much as Bennett's work.

There have been some very good points today. I think we've had informative points of view from both sides. But I think attacking people's marriage and/or children is crossing the line. The debate is entertaining enough today.

TJM, you sort of missed the point entirely. Particularly with this comment:

"We uphold the tradition of James Madison, who warned...against the "violence of faction". We stand for addressing real problems rather than...a war of ideologies. We will not participate in the race to see which side will be first to produce another Robespierre."

You cited my post without actually adressing my point, which I'll take to be the result of a misreading rather than ill intention. My point was that the method of trying to pick off GOP-voting "moderates" will not work because, as I said, the GOP base is more solid as evidenced by their success in lower-voter-turnout races and the fact that some, though not all, of their base has a worldview which is based in a dichotomy of good versus evil. That is, larger pond to fish out of (more self-identified Cons. than Libs.,) but less fish (Cons. harder to bring back to the party.)

SO, what I was suggesting is not some "Robespierre"-type purges of the party. (Yes, Lieberman should go, but not because he's too conservative; Ben Nelson is too conservative for my personal taste, but he doesn't make his political career by trashing his side of the aisle in the press...this is another discussion though.)

What I'm getting at is that the 70 million non-voters (100 million in off-year races) are a more fertile ground than trying to peel off 5 or 10 million Republicans. Pandering to the "center," which the DLC and "Third Way" consider to mean socially liberal/economically conservative, (or "liberal" in the classical sense,) doesn't win the votes of those 70-100 million. Both parties already stand for that. Even for all the rhetoric, Bush hasn't really *delivered* on what the base wants, with the recent exception of the stem cells. (Abortion is still legal, The Gay still roams at the state level, etc.)

The mass of non-voters are more likely to me ethnic minorities, more likely to be poorer, more likely to support programs like national health care,..."disaffected" generally. Because of their policy preferences, and demographic makeup, THIS is the ideal target for Dems, and they can be won by stronger progressive stances on issues like, again, health care, rather than offering more of what both parties ALREADY offer. (War, unrealistic tax cuts, ambiguity on immigration and social issues, privatization as God,...)

Get out the base, even if *our* base is smaller than theirs. Something like 68% of whites voted in the last election, but only 60% of blacks and 45% of hispanics. Obviously these are not 100% homogenous blocks, but if 68% of blacks and hispanics also had voted, we might not be having the "why do Democrats lose all the time" discussion.

What a juvenile fool you are bhummes. So you do live in your mama's basement-- in Ohio. I knew you weren't a man.

Oh- by the way -- I'm not jealous of you. Seriously. I kind of doubt you are more successful than me.

'Critics used to say that what was really needed was the will to understand the other side's point of view and to come to a mutually acceptable agreement. Nowadays those voices have been all but drowned out. Now we're informed that those seeking rapprochement with conservative Americans are collaborationists and traitors'.

I'll be happy to address your comments, RJM. You don't really understand fundamentalists--I do, I was raised as one. They don't believe in rapprochement, nor is there any such thing as a mutually acceptable agreement. It's either their way, or the highway. Like bush. Why they are so lousy as governance.

So go ahead, try to find common ground with them and you will find yourself caving on all of your principles. They do not tolerate differences of opinion. Look at the rigid lockstep voting patterns of conservatives in congress.

I, and progressives like me, stand for addressing real problems rather than a war of ideologies. We are the ones that stand for separation of church and state. I don't really see how you perceive that as a 'kind of religion'.

And I think you are right, colin, that it comes down to terminology and framing. I believe that most of the public believes in progressive values--once they understand what they are. It's just that the conservative media [ it stopped being liberal about 30 years ago] has convinced them that 'liberalism' means something entirely different than what it does. We should just jettison the term -- it is utterly meaningless now.

Drindl I hope your husband doesn't have a blood test anytime soon and finds all of the kids he thought he had with you all have different fathers. Actually, I am reasonably well off with a nice home in rural Ohio. I am not rich by any means but I am happy with what I have and do not begrudge other people who have more money or property than me. That is why you lefties always play the class warfare card because secretly your really angry that other are more successful than you.

JFK made many many speeches saying he was a liberal and proud to be one and he was elected. New poll in Ohio shows Blackwell running 20% behind Strickland for Gov and DeWine running 8% behind Brown. Welcome to BLUE state Ohio

DC liberal said: "At the risk of sounding cliche, many Republicans see the world in black-and-white, good-versus-evil terms. This isn't lefty blather, nor is it necessarily perjorative; it's simply the case when you're dealing with people to whom religious values and messages resonate the most. Someone who views the world as operating in religious absolutes is less likely than a relativist to change his mind."

In answer to Drindl and JerryT, this cuts to the heart of what centrists want: we want a ceasefire in the holy war. Let me explain:

Once upon a time, one used to hear widespread criticism of conservatives on the grounds that they divided the world into Good People and Bad People, with Good People to be supported unconditionally and Bad People to be fought unmercifully. Critics used to say that what was really needed was the will to understand the other side's point of view and to come to a mutually acceptable agreement. Nowadays those voices have been all but drowned out. Now we're informed that those seeking rapprochement with conservative Americans are collaborationists and traitors. Those old critics had it all wrong: conservatives are the Bad People, and we progressives are the Good People. They aren't our political opponents who represent a segment of the people with a viewpoint to be considered. They're our blood enemies who incomprehensibly manage to hold a segment of the people in thrall with some black political magic. To give an inch of ground to them is immoral, an act of apostasy. Add if we can only get the Bad People out of power, then somehow everything will be alright again, no matter what we've had to do or say to accomplish that.

I've heard this story before. It's a mirror image of the ideology that has ushered the far right into power over the last couple of decades. Oddly enough, some progressives seem to see this as a virtue. "If it worked for them," they say, "then we should make it work for us." That seems like a schizophrenic kind of idea to me: the tactics that conservatives use are odious and irresponsible, and in order to defeat them we should use exactly the same tactics." By doing battle with monsters in this way progressivism risks becoming a monster itself. A progressive movement that uses these tactics to win elections will ultimately fall prey to the same fate that we see unfolding now for the far right. It will become a pitiful, ruthless prisoner of its own ideology. It will have become so focused on its own assumptions that it will angrily dismiss crucial facts as enemy propaganda. It will have become so intent on persecuting enemies on the outside and schismatics on the inside that it will have forgotten how to govern. It will have joined extreme conservatism in transforming from a political movement into a kind of religion, and a vicious, fanatical religion at that.

Centrists stand for rejecting that disastrous but effective route to power. We believe that compromise need not mean betrayal. We stand for real separation of church and state, whether the churches in question serve a god or a political ideal. We uphold the tradition of James Madison, who warned in Federalist 10 against the "violence of faction". We stand for addressing real problems rather than wasting resources on a war of ideologies. We will not participate in the race to see which side will be first to produce another Robespierre. That is what centrists stand for.

Drindl said "Just give me someone who's got sensible, competent solutions to the vast challenges we face today--someone who believes in what they're saying-- and stop all the sound bites and labels."

Now that is a statement with which I wholeheartedly agree and I do not often find myself in agreement with Drindl (or bhoomes for that matter). One thing I and many other centrists believe is that ideologues of the left and the right let their ideology get in the way of common sense solutions to today's problems. Since the right has been in power for the last 6 years, there are many more recent examples of that on their end than on the left. Certainly Bush's breathtakingly incompetent mismanagement of the Iraq situation after the stunningly successful military victory is an example of ideological blinders trumping rational planning. Leave aside the question of why we invaded for a moment(I was never in favor of it), and consider how the neocons blithely assumed that it would be France in 1944 all over again. Various agencies (CIA and State in particular) warned about the likely outcome of the invasion. The then Chief of Staff of the Army, General Shineski, warned that over 200,000 troops would be required to stabilize Iraq post-invasion. For this bit of prescience, he was ridiculed by Rummy and his pals. You can also look at the stem cell issue, 'intelligent design', the morning after pill, and a wide range of environmental issues for more examples.

As for the Democrats, I am a small business man who is very uncomfortable with the influence of the trial lawyers over the Democrats' agenda. I believe that ridiculous suits, like the woman who feeds her children EVERY MEAL at McDonald's suing McDonald's for the children's obesity, need to be eliminated. This comes down to a belief in personal responsibility versus the notion that the public are hapless pawns of the corporate media. Too many jury awards are going against scientific evidence and or common sense. One jury awarded millions to someone whose new car had been re-painted by the dealer and the dealer did not notify the buyer. This is an area that cries out for common sense solutions that can protect consumers while curbing the many abuses.

Above all, on economic issues, I am concerned about the deficit. We are facing a fiscal train wreck if something is not done soon. When my generation (I am over 50) retires, the cost of entitlement programs will swallow the budget whole. Medicare and Social Security are the problems. Unless costs are contained, the government will go broke. Some combination of benefit cuts, raising entitlement ages, means testing and/or tax increases will be required to fix these programs. The longer we delay this the harsher the remedies will have to be. This is another area where the ideologues will not let common sense interfere with their posturing.

I, like many centrists, am pro-choice. However, I am not an absolutist. As the parent of 2 teen-age girls, I believe in parental notification. Like many people who have viewed sonograms, I am uncomfortable with very late term abortions. I am also not comfortable with restrictions that do not allow health of the mother exceptions and would not require that those exceptions be life or death issues. I think the Democrats have lost many voters by supporting the most absolutist demands of the pro-choice movement.

I need to get back to work, will post more thoughts later.

Looks like Kinky is right. I saw an item of Friday where the first two gays married in Massachusetts have split-up.

Bobby W-C - Your comment on two of Strayhorn's sons being tied to corruption followed by the mention of Scott McClellan being her son makes it appear that he's implicated also. I've never heard a word about McClellan being unethical (daily press briefings aside).

I meant to include this in my last post, but people should study the writings of Geoffrey Nunberg on the Republican's success in 'framing the debate.' Read his book TALKING RIGHT or the article in the LATIMES, "Democrat's Losing Linguistics"
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-nunberg11jun11,0,4829380.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary

I believe Kissinger once wrote that "the keys to leadership are a clear direction and the strength of one's convictions." I really believe the American people respect that, even if they dont completely agree with the direction. I think that was one of the keys to Reagan's popularity and to Bush's immediately following 9/11. I also think it could help a Democratic candidate like Feingold in 2008. The problem is that when you take a strong position it can be assailed by the opposition. I think Kerry would have been much better off in the long run had he just taken a stand on the war and defended it. His waffling was worse than whatever his position might have been (we never really found out til after the election). I think the winning candidate in 2008 (and the controlling party in 2006) will be the one who takes a stand consistent with their values (both parties have them) and defend that stand.

The Democrats HAVE TO and CAN win the next two elections, but not the "Third Way"/DLC way. Americans have never liked 'mugwumps' (the classic definition, someone whose 'mug is on one side of an issue and his wump on the other.') On the other hand they have liked AND VOTED FOR politicians who take positions they might disagree with at first, simply because they respect someone who 'speaks their mind.'
Democrats have let Republicans, and the worst of them, the Roves, Atwaters, and Coulters 'define the political discourse' for too long. We have to start taking positions that are firm, and defending them, and challenging the lies from the other side. We can start by proudly embracing -- and EXPLAINING -- the word 'liberal.' Sure, we'll suffer a slight drop in the polls at first, but by the time the election comes around, we'll be on the winning side.
The Third Way convinces 'conservatives' that we are lying panderers, and liberals that we are weaklings.

Do you come out from the basement again, bhummes? and I have to laugh at you, [again] for your comment about bigotry and crawling under a rock. You conservatives have a gift for projection.

And just for sheer idiocy and self-delusion -- this statement 'NeoNon you are not welcomed in my party, we are a big tent party where everybody is welcomed that shares some our conservative principles and values' speaks volumes about your internal incoherence.

'You are not welcome to my party we are a big tent party where everybody is welcome'-- hello?

People don't identify as "liberal" but they like "liberal" or progressive solutions to specific issues. Ultimately, I think that the challenge for Democrats is to improve their branding rather than to change their views on any of the most important issues of the day.

As far as saying that Democrats have to run as "moderates" to win, I suppose that's true to a certain extent. For example, Clinton certainly branded himself a "moderate" when he ran in '92. However, when you look at the IDEAS that Clinton ran on (which resonated with the public), they were largely populist and progressive. That's an important thing to note, b/c it shows that while the public likes the amorphous idea of a moderate president (Bush II ran as a moderate in 2000 as well), they're ultimately perfectly comfortable with liberal or conservative policy positions.

But that is precisely what I am talking about. What is a 'liberal'? What is a 'moderate?' What is a 'conservative'? None of those labels mean anything anymore. It's all conventional wisdom, which may be conventional, but is less than wise.

I'm tired of the labels. It's all talk. What we need is substance. I don't want a candidate who calls themselves anything -- I want a candidate who DOES something.

And bobby, I think the ACLU has done some dumb things, but how on earth protecting the Constitution [which is what they mostly do] is 'devoid of faith and moral compass' I just don't get. Whose faith and whose moral compass are you talking about?

Democrats can only get elected to the WH by pretending they are quasi-conservatives. NeoNon you are not welcomed in my party, we are a big tent party where everybody is welcomed that shares some our conservative principles and values. Please take your bigotry and crawl back under whatever rock you came out of.

I agree with you Drindl, that we need politicians with conviction, but I would ask you to name a U.S. President that came out and said "I am a liberal" and got elected. Even someone like LBJ who was very liberal ran as a moderate to get elected, as did Clinton, and Carter.

What I am loving about most of today's posts is, the voters disagree with Bennett - to the politicos-

it does not cost one red penny to listen to the voters - try it you'll like it

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

The ACLU seeks to make American in its image and likeness - a society devoid of faith and devoid of a moral compass

I agree with everything you said too, colin, except I still don't know what a more 'moderate' position is.

Chris, anybody? What is the bleeping difference between a 'moderate' and a 'progressive'?

If you can't answer that question--you can't win an election.

It's the problem with Hillary, and with Kerry and everyone else who calls themselves a 'centrist'.

Ask them to take a stand on anything. Ask them what they believe in. They can't answer. Triangulation does not win elections.

Convictions do. Just give me someone who's got sensible, competent solutions to the vast challenges we face today--someone who believes in what they're saying-- and stop all the sound bites and labels.

Call it 'common sense'...

DC liberal-- thank you for the kittens.

Also for your comment on the nature of conservatives. It's true-- there is a distinctively authoritarian, black/white way of thinking who are susceptible to 'hot-button' manipulation, even while voting against their own self-interest.

The republican party has only two strategies, and two modes of action:

One is to talk the talk of the social conversatives, and throw them a bone from time to time. Hence, meaningless votes on flag burning, gay marriage, abortion. They don't have to pass, they're not meant to, and it costs them nothing.

The second is to walk the walk of their true constituency -- the wealthy, lobbyists and corporations. Pay them off big time, no matter how dearly it costs the middle class. Cut taxes at the top end, pass big corporate welfare programs, authorize vast black-box contracts that no one oversees, destroy social security and medicare.

Ralph Reed is a good example of this. Fleeced the flock on a regular basis, until he got caught. And a lot of folks down there still love him.

That's one of the big problems we face--simple brainwashing. Few self-identify as 'liberals' because the media has demonized the term for 30 years.

What we don't need is Michael Dukakis' loser strategist. We need candidates who believes in something other than getting into the cookie jar.

"We are Republicans too only not as much" doesn't sound like a winning slogan to me.

Arguing that the Dems need to win over the "moderates" in order regain power is ducking the issue. One man's "moderate" is another's extremist, i.e., in a democracy, all parties must "win over the moderates" in order to win.

What Dems need to win over are white voters, a huge voting bloc they've eschewed as they long ago embraced ethnic identity politics.

GWB has joined Nancy Pelosi and the Dems in a rousing chorus of "Blame White America First (Katrina version/Immigration dub)." While his "moderateness" earns him a pat on the head now and then from the properly educated white editorialists at the Post, the NYT, et alia, out in Voterland, folks don't readily cotton to being unfairly cast as the enemy--no matter how moderate they are.

"Third way" is the opposite of the GOP's winning strategy. Instead of turn-out-the-base, it's an effort to steal from the other side. This makes sense on the surface because of the fact that there are more self-identified conservatives than liberals.

Where is goes wrong is by not recognizing two things--First off, conservatives are harder to convert. Why does the GOP win low-turnout elections? Because the base is more solid, and the solids are a bigger percentage of the party. We on the left appear to have a bigger pond available to us, but there's less fish in it.

The other problem is the nature of the ideology. Religious conservatives, who make up a good chunk of the GOP, are not going to be won over by shifts on guns or tax policy. At the risk of sounding cliche, many Republicans see the world in black-and-white, good-versus-evil terms. This isn't lefty blather, nor is it necessarily perjorative; it's simply the case when you're dealing with people to whom religious values and messages resonate the most. Someone who views the world as operating in religious absolutes is less likely than a relativist to change his mind. (I'm talking in terms of broad philosophical trends, so spare me the story about the friend of your friend.)

So what's the implication? Does that mean we (the political left) are hopeless?

Election 2004 had a 60% turnout. Seventy million eligable voters stayed home. Congressional elections usually only have 30-40% turnout.

THERE, rather than in the GOP, are the missing Dem votes. The profile of the non-voter is closer to *our* side in terms of economic status, race/ethnicity, the non-voter probably doesn't have health care, etc. Even if we could just blacks and hispanics voting in the same percentages as whites, that could drastically shift the electoral map.

And on a somewhat related note:
Every time a press outlet cites Marshall Wittman as a "Democrat," God kills a kitten. Please, Washington Post, think of the kittens.

www.partybase.blogspot.com

The problem with the approach of the "third way" isn't that they advocate more moderate positions on some issues; I think that's fine. The problem is that their strategies USUALLY amount to splitting the difference after Republicans have framed the debate. The result is that the Democratic party, in the interest of moving to the "center," allows the Republican party to continually shift that "center" further and further to the political right.

What I would really like to see is a progressive movement that produces original ideas designed to address the problems of the day. Producing progressive solutions that actually work is ultimately the only way to shift the "center" back to the political left.

I view myself as a left-of-center Democrat.

The Third Way does have the right idea on what it takes for getting elected. The rea