RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Call Me A Raving Moderate

(Steve is one of our regular readers who submitted his way of “venting.” More of your submissions are coming, and we’re so excited about the quality and diversity of your submissions! – Susan)

STEVE: Politically, I am an Independent Moderate, like an increasing number of people. Some call us Centrists, but that epithet actually better describes those who are members of one of the major parties but avoid the extremes of their own party. President Clinton was a Centrist, and Garry Trudeau turned him into a waffle. (I can’t wait to see what he does with Obama. A radiant messianic angel, perhaps, so he can gradually molt feathers from his wings and crumple his halo as reality sets in).

Also, I like the initials for Independent Moderate: I.M. I am an I.M. Or I.M. what I.M and that’s all what I.M. After all, I’m sure Popeye the Sailor was an Independent Moderate. He hated extremists.

There are lots of I.M.s and Centrists in this country, flying beneath the radar of the political pollsters and spin-doctors. We been hesitant in the past about spouting our voting preferences or positions on controversial topics because we don’t like being assailed by the political proselytizers who can only see things in black and white, for or against, left or right, friend or foe, beans or slaw.

But I think it is high time we Moderates started thinking about banding together to take this country back from the extremists on both sides of the two-party system. I believe there are more Moderates in this country than there are Liberals or Conservatives, not counting the clueless imbeciles who vote for fad candidates. Clearly, being a Democrat does not mean one is fanatically Liberal, and being a Republican doesn’t mean one is zealously Conservative, especially in an election year (or months with an R in them).

The political system has lately become so polarized, with the country almost evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, I think the time has come to do away with the two-party system and implement a three-party system. Forget about Democrats and Republicans. We should have three parties: Liberals, Conservatives, and Moderates. If you don’t fit into one of those categories, perhaps the Libertarians have something for you. They would like to pay no taxes, own any kind of weapon they want, and grow their own marijuana without government interference. Sounds good, but without taxes, how would we raise the money to build more prisons to incarcerate the pot smoking gun owners?

I know there have been attempts to create a major third party for Independent candidates, but since they were usually founded by loonies on the extreme edges of the political spectrum, they never really caught on. For example, when that rich jug-eared Texan, Ross “I’m in, I’m out, I’m in, I’m nuts” Perot finally gave up, the political party he formed, “United We Stand, America,” pretty much evaporated. I’m not sure what those people stood for, but I’m pretty sure who they voted for this year. The fad candidate.

I think it’s high time the Moderates of this country got bold and crossed the aisles in both directions. We can only hope that many politicians of both major parties finally start speaking their own consciences instead of the “party line” (yes, I admit, I am old enough to remember using and listening in on party lines, but I was just a kid).

I can hear it now: the wing-nuts of both parties will be calling Moderates “Mugwumps,” fence-sitters, indecisive, and worst of all, Compromisers! Ridiculed for seeking compromise! Imagine that! Boy, we really haven’t progressed much since the Hatfields and McCoys were feuding; “Yer either fer us or agin’ us!” Right, Dubya?

But seriously, when one looks at some of the positions supported by the two major parties, one might easily recoil in horror, but I can think of many important issues on both sides of the aisle that split me down the middle. I really can’t say that a majority of my political beliefs are held by either major party right now. How could I register as a Democrat, for example, when I’d rather have us drill for oil in Alaska than be put over the barrel by Jihadists? How could I register as a Republican when I fully support a National Health Insurance plan?

But when the roll is called publicly, politicians feel the peer pressure. The Democrats can’t let the Republicans get their way, or vice versa, even if they happen to agree with them. So whether they agree or not, they go along party lines (I swear, I wasn’t eavesdropping!)

Many politicos have been party switchers because their consciences finally woke up and they realized they were out of step with their party. Others switch parties simply because there was more political opportunity for them that way. And yet others switch parties because the liquor ran out.

I firmly believe that there are MANY voters like me who think all primaries should be open to all registered voters to vote for the best candidates from all parties. Let them all put their ideas and candidates out there and we’ll have a run-off election. Best two out of three. Then maybe the levelheaded, mainstream candidates might have a chance against the wing nuts from both wings. So, by creating a three party system, we could have three wings… or two wings and a drumstick with your choice of beans or slaw on the side.

Hey, it couldn’t be any worse than the system we have now.

  • Pennsylvania Red

    Independents do have considerable political power.

    They broke for 0bama this year.

  • Pat Racimora

    Hey–I want to be an I.M! I wish it were possible to create a third party–I have no place to call home now. We need a strong leader–How about Michael Bloomberg?

  • csuzeq

    I would love to see a thrid party formed. It could be very successful, but you have to have a known candidate. I don’t know who that would be. I was hoping Hillary would do it, but she’s just a politician after all. Party over the people.

    I wonder if we could get Chelsea?

    Leiberman isn’t popular so he’s out.

    Any actor we could do a massive O type marketing campaign on?

    Any politician who is fed up with the Government who might want to facilitate real change?

    I can call, write letters, and email. Just let me know who we have to draft.

    Lady Lynn De Rothschild maybe? Or Greta’s husband?

    We can’t have a party without a candidate.

  • Dawnelle

    btw

    I’m a PEROT NUT (twice)
    but voted for HILLARY
    then SARAH er MAC

    that blows that theory
    but I was not as politically savvy as I am this go round

    (thanks to GW’s pet goat & katrina disaster it made me want to suddenly pay attention – I think it made the country wake up, which is my theory why we’ve not been attacked since)

  • AnninCA

    I simply don’t see any sign that most moderates weren’t happy with their Obama vote.

    If there was a group unhappy to vote, it was obviously Republicans, who stayed home in some key areas.

    I don’t see much support for the idea of a 3rd party right now.

  • http://americanpumainitaly.blogspot.com/ sarainitaly

    i like the idea. i am an indy now.
    love the post! :OD

  • hi

    How Obama Got Elected
    http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

  • http://ontheseventhday.wordpress.com/ Al

    Independents are the glue that holds the USA together. Without them, one Party or the other extreme will simply ruin what’s right and best for America–balance is key.

    Al

  • mountaingirl

    I voted for Perot also, was a passionate Hillary supporter, and a McCain/PALIN supporter. I am all in favor of a third party. I’ve been talking this to everyone I know here in NC. Now is the time. We have the people. Apparently, 16% of the people who voted for MacPalin were Hillary supporters. That’s 9.8 million. I also support your idea for the primaries. Let’s get working on these ideas.

  • Dawnelle

    W00T! :-)

  • notrees

    How much would it cost to form a third party? Seems as if it cost the democrats(?) around a $billion or so to win this time around, and a new party will not even be considered to be a party until they have won something. It’s sort of like maybe the socialists knew that and they just bought the democratic party so they could just bypass all the other requirements for building another one [party]. I think it may be easier to form a new republic.

  • Justin

    Obama seems pretty moderate to me. At least as moderate as Clinton. Obama and Clinton agreed on most issues during the debates, but on the big one that they actually didn’t agree on, Clinton was to the left of Obama. Clinton’s health care plan was much more liberal than Obama’s.

  • AnninCA

    I agree so far, but he’s not yet taken over, of course.

    I think his decision to offer Hillary this position absolutely validates him to me, frankly. I view it as acknowledgement that he knew full well just how prepared she really was for the position he won, and how he knows, too, that she really is a straight-shooter. She said she’d work for him. She meant it. He respects her.

    I respect him for respecting her. *haha

    He’s done more with this move to heal my wounds, anyway, than any other decision.

    Shoot, he may even get my vote in the future if he keeps this up.

  • wodiej

    I have always been a moderate We don’t have to have a 3rd party, We just need honest people who are capable, qualified, objective, and whose primary interest is what the job of President and Congress calls for, We the People, and done so with integrity. As unplausible as that may seem, I still believe there are people like this. The problem is they are simply outnumbered by dishonest, greedy people who could give two shits about this country and don’t have an ounce of integrity in their whole body. A third party can be just as dishonest as the two we have.

  • csuzeq

    I don’t think we really even have a 2 party system anymore. We have a one party system. Oh, sure they mascarade as dems and repubs, but they are really for themselve and their pockets. They have nothing whatsoever to do with serving the people in America anymore. I can’t think of one who wouldn’t throw us under the bus for their politics. Even Hillary would play is the slop for her own advancement.

    Not two partys. It is one party. It is called the corrupt party.

  • AnninCA

    I don’t agree about Hillary. It seems that a lot of people insist that Hillary operate out of her own disappointment and resentments, which I would never admire. She dusted herself off and went forward. I admire that.

    But I do agree with you about the real truth, which is that the moderates DO pretty much already rule both parties.

    The squawkers on both sides are noisy, but sort of like those messy birds people have in their homes. They just parrot the latest fear/anger drivel.

    Look at the current “outrage” against Obama’s first major decision. *heh*

    I love it.

  • barry bums a ciggie

    well said Steve. As I get older, I am moving more and more toward the middle. Both sides are nuts as far as I’m concerned. Whatever happened to common sense?

    I want my country back!!!!!

  • notrees

    Hillary didn’t dust herself off, Obama dusted her off and Hillary like the good democratic(?) poodle she is picked herself up off the dirt and fell into lockstep with the rest of the DNC for Obama cult.

  • mountainaires

    Extremism in defense of moderation is no vice? ;o}

    Or maybe that should be “The moderates will inherit the earth…”

    Kidding…

    I thought I was a moderate. Now, I’m just disgusted. I have no personal ideology any longer, except financial survival.

    This country is going to have a very rude awakening in the next 3-4 years. We’re in for the Great Depression, II. Think not? Better start re-thinking your denial. It’s going to happen. It will be painful, protracted, and perilous.

    But Bill Ayers will capitalize on his newfound fame, like the cockroach he is:

    http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/billy-ayers-is-just-a-misunderstood-demonized-whiner/#comment-5439

  • onen

    IMO the biggest problem it existing independents ska lou dobbs is that they spend more time complaining about the two parties than they do talking about reasonable solutions in the form of a true third party. I think this article has the same fault. If you really want a third party stop whining about the other two and start forming a new one.

  • barry bums a ciggie

    Protectionism is moderate? supporting FISA is moderate? Saying he’ll support the Faith Based Initiative is moderate? Hellllooooo??? Let’s not get delusional just because he is looking at Hillary for the SoS role. Ask yourself, if she thought she was so capable, why not be his number 2 as VP? It’s called politics and he owed the Clintons big for stumping for him.

  • http://www.madinthemiddle.blogspot.com churl

    I called my blog “Mad In The Middle” years ago and that perfectly suited my political attitude– I’m sick of the crazies in both camps. Which is worse a Jesus boot camp for Bushies or fainting, simpering Oborg? They’re both equally bad for this nation and this people.

    I absolutely agree that we desperately need a third party of Moderates from the Republican and Democratic center. The crazies are now running both parties and all of us in the middle are taking fire from the two opposing camps.

    PUMA is the way.

  • Choo Choo Magoo

    csuzeq – I agree. We only have one corrupt party now. They just trade off who’s hat to wear.

    Steve – great post. As a socially liberal, finanically conservative registered independent do I qualify as an I.M.

    I’m ready for a third party. A “we the people”‘s party.

  • Pennsylvania Red

    I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later, I agree with you.

    I’ve been trying to locate the numbers for the final election results. I was on Rasmussen, since they most accurately predicted the election, and I couldn’t find the breakdown according to party affiliation.

    However, I do recall right after the election that the exit polls showed a considerable margin among (I)s for 0bama. (They were with McCain in 2000, but not 2008.)

    And yes it is true that McCain wasn’t able to muster the support required within his own party.
    My point in my original post above is that the past few years, it’s been the Independents, Moderates, whatever you wish to call them, that have swung elections. And that includes party line crossers.

  • barry bums a ciggie

    Was there any doubt Obama is Soros pet project?

    Soros-Funded Democratic Idea Factory Becomes Obama Policy Font

    Thanks in part to funding from benefactors such as billionaire George Soros, the Center for American Progress has become in just five years an intellectual wellspring for Democratic policy proposals, including many that are shaping the agenda of the new Obama administration.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aF7fB1PF0NPg

  • I have a bracelet 2

    one should not eat oysters in months without R

  • CE415

    As a politically social moderate who believes in fiscal responsibility (we used to call this fiscal conservative until the conservatives proed they could not balance a checkbook) and an independent for 25 years I totally agree with a centrist or middle party.

  • oowawa

    I absolutely agree that we desperately need a third party of Moderates from the Republican and Democratic center.

    I agree. Steve in KC suggests the term “I.M.” for “Independent Moderate.” I would prefer the name “Centrist” for a political party–same idea, a little simpler, and already in the mainstream. I AM a PUMA, but think it’s probably best to stay away from acronyms, and we’ve already been stigmatized.

  • Pennsylvania Red

    As a politically social moderate who believes in fiscal responsibility (we used to call this fiscal conservative until the conservatives proed they could not balance a checkbook)

    Whoda thunk it?

    Many conservatives stayed home during the 2006 midterms for this reason.

  • http://~ jackie

    How do you see him as anything. he has made it an art to avoid committing to any point of view. He has no credentials short of 2 books of fables and a degree from Harvard–like Barney Frank. Whoopee.

    He is not moderate or mainstream in any form.

  • beebop

    Sorry, Pat. Michael Bloomberg would spell it “I’m.” That is not the way to start a third party. Any guy changing the rules to give himself another term is just wrong. What if Rudy had done it? Screams would still be heard. No. Bloomberg is just one more power mad big city mayor. IMHO that is.

  • susan h

    Dear Steve: What a wonderful article. This election forced me to realize I am not a “liberal” in the sense that Daily Kos, Huff Post and other raving lunatics are, but a moderate “D”emocrat who sometimes agrees with things the republicans have to say (heaven forbid). I even respected Sarah Palin even though I did not agree with some of her ultra-conservative views, and yes, I agree, let’s get un-dependent off foreign oil as quickly as possible no matter what kind of U.S. drilling is involved. Because of all that went on this past election cycle, I can no longer officially call myself a “D”emocrat (having failed to show up to vote on Nov. 4 and support the CHOSEN CANDIDATE) but truly think both sides have good ideas and very bad ones and we should ALL work together for the best interests of our country.

  • barry bums a ciggie

    Sorry, OT…this story still hasn’t died.

    http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/elections/presheadlines/34587804.html

    SACRAMENTO, Calif.- A former opponent of Barack Obama’s has come back to haunt him over questions regarding Obama’s citizenship.

    According to a press release from the American Independent Party, former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and other members of the party have filed suit in California Superior Court in Sacramento to stop the state from giving its electoral votes to President-elect Barack Obama until documentary evidence is provided to prove Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States.

    Some conservatives have questioned Obama’s citizenship in recent months. Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961.

  • beebop

    What about Arnold? All that Kennedy dough. All that Hollywood pizzazz. No one minded that 0mama never showed up his … birth cert that is. Four years from now, it won’t matter a good damn.

  • beebop

    Limit the amount of money that can be spent and we don’t get the unknown candidate. The Soros bought candidate. LIMIT THE MONEY.

  • Janoh

    I’ll probably get called a troll for this one but whatever.

    CNN just announced the Dems are letting Lieberman stay in the caucus and keep his chairmanships. I think we need to give credit to Obama and the Dems on this one.

    After 8 years of a vindictive “decider” who held grudges like my 9th grade girlfriend, it’s nice to have some adults in office who don’t hold vendettas when they’re bad for the country.

    If Hillary actually gets SOS as well, I’d be pretty impressed. A far cry from Bush’s cronyism. I think I’m starting to understand what Obama meant by change that whole time.

  • oowawa

    Csuzeq, the prospect of watching sweet Chelsea being thrown to the wolves of the MSM would be more than I could stand. It was bad enough to watch Hillary and Sarah being mauled. Of course, Chelsea has not even entered the political arena yet, and I hope she never does.

    Right now it’s time to watch the dust settle and see what emerges. My crystal ball is as opaque as an 8-ball right now. It’s just too soon to discern viable candidates emerging from this mess.

  • beebop

    Please. He hasn’t been coronated yet.

  • rw

    “I think it may be easier to form a new republic.”

    The best solution. This one is broke, it runs on the power of money and not the vote of the people.

    The French are on their fifth…

  • Pennsylvania Red

    CNN just announced the Dems are letting Lieberman stay in the caucus and keep his chairmanships

    Of course they have to do this…they’re mortally afraid Lieberman will switch party affiliation to “Republican”!

    There’s still a couple Senate seats undecided, remember? But even though the Senate Dems are being so “generous” doesn’t mean that Lieberman will stay in their camp.

    A far cry from Bush’s cronyism

    Bush took so much heat for those in his own party for reaching across the aisle to Ted Kennedy. As for the “change” you refer to, so many political talking heads see NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER in an 0bama administration populated with Clintonistas.

  • DeniseVB

    I like being a radical centrist :) This way I can b*tch about both parties and enjoy visiting both left and right blogs and communities.

    What I do hope, the PUMA movement does become more than “sour grapes” and more the moderate Dems they evolved from via Hillary.

    I still want to hold Obama’s feet to the fire and I want the media of Walter Cronkite back.

    Let’s get ‘em !

  • Dee

    We live in a binary culture. We can’t start a third party – it won’t work.

    Right now we just need to take our ball and leave the field. We all need to go into a holding pattern with one purpose in mind – revenge against the liars, thieves and cheats.

    In short – we all need to go take a seat in the bleachers.

    We will need to keep on our protective gear for when we want to enter the game but meanwhile, we need to be the noisiest, most rambunctious and obnoxious bums that any political party has ever seen.

    But we need to something to hold us together. So lets start this way – everyone who has not already done so needs to register as unaffiliated or independent. Everyone who is pissed at the DNC and Obama needs to become unaffiliated or independent. Everyone who is pissed at Bush, Rove, conservative Christian commandos or the RNC needs to become unaffiliated or independent. Everyone who is mad about the treatment of Hillary or Palin needs to change to unaffiliated or independent. Everyone who is pissed at the MSM or the Republicans turned faux-Progressives who are so prominent on the internuts needs to register unaffiliated or independent. So lets all go get in the stands and have one big pissing contest.

    The last time I checked Independents or Unaffiliated were about 30% of registered voters. In order to change the party power structures both parties need to lose a massive number of partisans. If Unaffiliated or Independents grow to 50% of the electorate and either or both parties had to win us over every two years, our elected representatives would have no choice but to become honest brokers.

    If you can’t or won’t walk off the field, you have no bargaining power. Let both parties think about trying to play and win a game with just 1/3 of the players/voters they will need.

    I nominate Lynn De Rothschild for team captain.

  • beaming

    To all who hold Hillary above the rest of the corruption in Washington [ soon to be renamed East Chicago ] ; She is there for the power, money, they will bail bail bail for votes, but the hole in the boat will get bigger and it may be impossible to stop the sinking.

    No one in Washington, but a minute minority seems to have the guts to do the right thing for the American people. I think term limits for Congress may solve that ” buy reelection votes spending “.

  • rw

    Exactly, I’ve written it before, Obama will be whatever people want him to be. Left for some, centrists for others, right of center yet for others. That’s his one and only talent, he himself has stated it, he is people’s projections.

    IMO, in his personal convictions he is extreme left, but for political expediency he takes on the stand, platform, etc. of those seasoned politicians with which he believes he can succeed. Self interest is the name of his game.. first, second and third.

  • Missouri Dove

    I agree! Rather than being of the left wing or the right wing, I’d rather think of myself as of the up wing. Not to be self-righteous, but centrism or “up-wing-ism” tends to de-politicize our views and how we interact.

  • Pennsylvania Red

    But we need to something to hold us together. So lets start this way – everyone who has not already done so needs to register as unaffiliated or independent. Everyone who is pissed at the DNC and Obama needs to become unaffiliated or independent. Everyone who is pissed at Bush, Rove, conservative Christian commandos or the RNC needs to become unaffiliated or independent.

    I wanted to register as an “I” however my state has closed primaries, so I stayed “R” in order to have a say in who gets nominated.

  • Janoh

    Well I disagree. I see enormous change in an Obama administration populated with Clintonistas. Heck, I’d be happy to see an administration filled with a few McCain advisors as well.

    The best ideas don’t come from a room filled of similarly-thinking people; they come from a room full of people who passionately disagree.

    Obama says he’s reading “Team of Rivals” (a must read for any political junkie). So far, it seems like he is.

    And if you think Lieberman is going to jump ship and give up his chairmanship to join a caucus with which he disagrees on 90% of the issues after begging to be kept in the democratic caucus, you are simply clueless.

    If only Bush had been willing to take more heat from his own party. That small gesture to Teddy wasn’t enough.

    If Obama had asked the Dems to remove Lieberman, they would have.

    I’m not saying I love the guy – I still have my issues with him. But I’m the kind of person who gives credit where credit is due. This clearly won’t help Obama or the Dems with the netroots or the liberal faction of the Democratic party, who you all thought were taking over the party. This wasn’t the easy way out – it was the mature adult decision.

    Speaking of political moderates, shouldn’t we all be able to acknowledge when our politicians actually do something with the best interest of the country at heart? Regardless of the letter next to their name?

  • Irish1139

    To register unaffiliated in Florida means you cannot vote in the primaries. I re-registered this year as a Republican I was so mad at the DNC after they screwed Hillary.

    I would like a new (spanking new) third party for the people. I am also a PUMA.

  • Steve_in_KC

    Thanks for the comments above, but in truth I was just playing with the phrase I.M. for wordplay. My real wish, as stated in the main post, is three parties: Conservative, Liberal, and Moderate. It fits better with international standards, too.

    Assuming the Dems and Reps kept their names, and if all the Moderates left, the Dems and Reps would be minority parties! Yessssss!!!

  • rw

    And limit the campaign season. One month before the election. No time to fill up 24 hour news with bullshit about likability, clothes, shoes. No time to present a candidate like a rock star. No time to have to endure the vile bullshit from MSM windbags that are politically past their prime and mentally masturbate as the forth at the mouth about their favorite candidate.

  • Pennsylvania Red

    And if you think Lieberman is going to jump ship and give up his chairmanship to join a caucus with which he disagrees on 90% of the issues after begging to be kept in the democratic caucus, you are simply clueless.

    Lieberman’s retention of his Senate seat was a smackdown to the MoveOn crowd, and due in large part to crossover voting by Republicans.

    Who knows what goes on in Lieberman’s heart and mind?

  • Janoh

    Don’t need to know what is in his heart and mind – just look at his actions. As soon as this election was over he started taking back his words. He could have jumped ship to the Republicans before this vote but now it’s too late. He’s not going to piss off his friends and everyone in the majority party by making them look like fools for voting to keep him in, then suddenly jump ship. He’s a politician and politically it’s the best thing for him to be in the majority party, with his chairmanship, especially since that’s the party he’s been in for 45 years and the party with which he agrees on 90% of the issues. It’s called reality. What world are you living in?

  • don tufts

    another take on why they would offer sos is by putting her at state they eliminate her from opposing any of their more radical ideas in the senate where they cant fully control her.

  • SN in MN

    Your posts have been irrational, and from both sides. I don’t think you should keep coming here just because you got hounded off huff n’ puff. This is a NOBAMA site.

  • Steve_in_KC

    If your only realistic choices are Candidates A or B, you choose one or the other. The fact that Candidate B drew more Moderate votes only means the Moderates had no other choice. It had to be heads or tails. If there’s a fork in the road, you go left or right, because there is no third choice. Unless you have an ATV!

    Also, the three party system would work best in an open run-off primary, where the two top candidates of the three parties are the Finalists. If there had been a third choice, a realistic third choice, it would have been a different slate of candidates. The Republicans wouldn’t have nominated a Moderate, for one thing.

  • Steve_in_KC

    Thank you, Sara! Indies rock!!! :)

  • http://moderateinthemiddle.wordpress.com/ ginaswo

    GREAT piece!!

    I am a moderate too!!! who knew? I thought I was a wild lefty, but I find I am really a moderate

  • torland077

    Honestly? Did you say Chelsea? Really? What has she ever done? You have got to be kidding. The Clinton worship is unreal. I see the reasons to support Bill and even Hilary (to a lesser degree) but Chelsea? You were kidding, right?

  • SN in MN

    Naive.

  • interested party

    Actually, TPM had this headlining yesterday’s page. Joe Lieberman is a big item for Josh and crowd.

    Joe goes whichever way the wind blows. If the republicans where in power, he’d jump ship himself. He’s pro-War, pro-Israel and Liberal on most everything else. Specific, he is a political opportunist, somewhat like what I think the Obaman will show himself to be.

    And actually Joe was stripped of a minor committee assignment, something about environment… punishment for his betrayal.

  • Sassy

    Oh, I love this post! Great work!
    Although I have identified myself as a dem, I have always weighed both sides of issues…that is the most interesting part of politics for me.
    When folks become so deeply entrenched that they refuse to negotiate, their usefulness is over!
    That is the problem in D.C. and it will only get worse.
    Can we make a difference though?
    With as much resistance as we put up this year, and still failed, I think the logical, practical people have been silenced permanently! I never considered passing up the duty of voting, but now it crosses my mind often!

  • oowawa

    Hmmmm . . . OK, suppose there were 3 parties, the conservatives, the liberals, and the moderates, and the populace was asked to line up behind the parties of their choice. Some would line up behind “Conservatives,” the vast majority would line up behind “Moderates,” and a much smaller number would confess to being “Liberals,” the problem being that the once-respectable term “liberal” has been successfully demonized by Republicans. Nowadays, asking folks to choose “liberal” would be like asking the kids at Hogwarts to line up behind the House of “Slytherin.” Of course, the kids at Hogwarts were assigned a House by a magic hat. It would be neat if we had one of those . . .

  • torland077

    moderate? on what? his fiscal policies are far left liberal, his foreign policies are far left liberal, and even his health care policy is far left liberal. But more importantly than his stated campaign positions is, his voting record (both in Ill. and DC) is far, far, left liberal.

    As far as your contention that Hillary’s health care was more liberal, it shows how duped you are on Obie. He is working toward the exact same univeral, government funded health care as Hillary (and I think that is probably over stating her latest plan) he is just “back door-ing” his way there. He is going to require private business that provide health care to have coverage to a standard that is beyond there ability to afford and if not the feds will fine them HEAVILY making it impossible for business to carry health insurance any more. The businesses will drop there insurance plans to avoid the liability and avoid the Fed gov from going after them and everyone will be put on the government dime. His is more liberal in that it has the same end and he plans on getting there by government coersion, government regulation and deceit.

  • Tversky

    I don’t think that validates Obama at all. The only thing that will validate Obama with me is if he actually governs from the center and not the left. That will mean rejecting alot of the ideas of Congressional leaders like Pelosi, Reid and Frank. Moreover, it’ll mean throwing the big unions under the bus. Lastly, it’ll mean throwing the MoveOn.Org/HuffPost/DailyKos crowd under the bus with respect to some key issues. If he does that? He’ll be validated with me.

    As far as him offering the SOS position to Hillary goes. Pfft. That means nothing to me because he risks nothing by making that offer. It makes him look gracious and kind to the press and people like you. It ties Hillary to his administration and it’s success, making her less of a threat in 4 years. Lastly, if things go as poorly in the world as they likely will under his admin (assuming he really does follow the prescriptions of the DailyKos crowd) he can hang all those failures on Hillary. It’s a win win for him.
    Obama is a very smart and very strategic man.

  • oowawa

    Ah, Steve in KC, it suddenly dawns upon me what you are saying. Sorry for being so obtuse. I think I need a magic thinking hat to replace my tinfoil propellor-driven beanie.

  • SfHillary

    Yes, the moderates in the political center basically decide every presidential election. They broke decisively for Reagan in the 80s, for Clinton in the 90s, for Bush in 2004 and of course, overwhelmingly for Obama this year. You can call him a “fad candidate” but in fact he was very clear about his priorities, which were mainstream Democratic party priorities. It’s pretty clear that after eight years of Bush, the great moderate middle has shifted somewhat to the left.

    I’m curious, given your comment about “extremists” in both parties, which mainstream Obama/Democratic policies or positions you consider “extreme?”

  • AnninCA

    Just not as mad still as some of you. Why not let the moderator decide, anyway, OK?

  • AnninCA

    Well, they sure are upset over this appointment. :)

    Anything that makes the Big Orange mad is OK by me.

    Lieberman gets to keep his chairmanship, too. Obama had nothing to do with that one, but it still cracks me up.

    MODERATES rule, eh?

  • interested party

    A third party is a no-go.

    Under a different kind of government (read parliamentarian), a third party might work. Here no.

    I think though, the party willing to sound and compromise with its adversaries, ala Bill Clinton, or even (horrors) Richard Nixon is best for the country.

  • oowawa

    It seems that in this Brave New World, the qualifications necessary for holding high office have been greatly diminished.

  • AnninCA

    Obama actually stayed out of the Lieberman fight. I’m curious, too, to hear what the back story is. I have read that some of the new democrats elected are, in fact, very moderate Dems. That may have signalled to Pelosi/Reid Inc. that punitive measures will NOT be well received by the public.

    The main message the public truly sent all year? We are SICK of the retaliation/punitive partisanship.

    And I completely agree with you regarding being adult and moving on.

    Heck, someone just told me I shouldn’t post unless I continue to hate Obama. *haha Now, there’s a maturity check for bloggers, eh?

  • Tversky

    I bet the result would have been very different if it had been a PUBLIC vote.
    All it shows me is that in their heart of hearts most the Dems in the Senate are not vindictive nutbars. They’re reasonable people.
    But if they’d been forced to vote in public I bet the vote would’ve gone very differently due to pressure from the George Soros crowd that now owns and operates the Dem Party.

    Here’s the big irony in this vote:
    The majority of these same Senators support the Employee Free Choice Act which would take away the secret ballot for unionizing. Even George McGovern, practically the patron saint of American liberalism (really the guy that gave us the Clintons and post-LBJ Dem party)is against this act.

    So secret ballots are OK for them but not for the average worker. Hmm…. Frankly, I think this and the Dems overwhelming support for the automaker bailout (which is really a payoff for goldplated healthcare policy for retired UAW workers) shows the unions are no better than any other powerful political interest group. (One of my only big beefs with McCain is that McCain-Feingold exempted unions.)

  • Pennsylvania Red

    Also, the three party system would work best in an open run-off primary, where the two top candidates of the three parties are the Finalists.

    I like this idea.

  • SfHillary

    I’m not so sure this is still the case. The GOP did its best to demonize Obama as a “liberal” this year and we saw the result.

  • AnninCA

    She has more money than God, for heaven’s sakes.

    Hillary’s motives aren’t for money, or I’d eat a toad.

    And power for power’s sake is boring. She’s into good works for the country.

    Now, you may not agree with her ideas, but that still doesn’t justify your cynical viewpoint.

    There are some public servants who truly are public servants. I try to judge that based on actions, and I haven’t seen her do one thing that doesn’t indicate, she is for the people, always.

  • http://www.madinthemiddle.blogspot.com churl

    I disagree.

  • Pennsylvania Red

    Lieberman’s voting record is probably not too different than Arlen Specter’s or Olympia Snowe’s.

    I do agree that it is in his best interest – as a politician – to stay with the majority party. Your initial post had some kumbaya-ish overtones, but now a few posts later, you address the reality of political expediency.

    I was able to address your comments without resorting to personal attacks. And yet you feel the need to question what world I’m living in.

    And BTW I’m sorry that you were hurt by your 9th grade girlfriend. But you don’t need to take it out on me. ;-)

  • rw

    “The best ideas don’t come from a room filled of similarly-thinking people; they come from a room full of people who passionately disagree.”

    right, that was proven by the Bush administration, correct?

  • AnninCA

    *hehe….it’s a gloomy day at Big Orange. Even BTD is mouthing the usual blather about how Hillary could “do more good in the Senate.” Yeah, right. LOL*

    People are nuts.

  • rw

    “It’s called reality. What world are you living in?”

    Maybe you should question your own world reality. Guess you think the Democrats don’t need Lieberman as much as he needs them. They know, including Obama, the reality that is before them in terms of the economy and two wars, they know they better not even seem to fail in containment (never mind solving) the problems ahead in the next few years. The last thing they need is an active opposition (as it should be)and the last thing Obama needs is to be the first AA president and a failure. His order is a tall, tall one.

  • Tversky

    I definitely have a guiding ideology so I never considered myself a moderate per se. But like you, I feel like I have no party either.

    Specifically, I think the government should be a last resort and as Jefferson said “A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.”
    I also think we should try to harness market mechanisms the majority of the time because they’re superior in terms of information transmission and collection and in terms of incentives. Lastly, I think the government should stay out of our personal lives – I hate the social conservative agenda for federal amendments against gay marriage and abortion. I say let that stuff be handled at the state level.

    Those stances are probably most consistent with the libertarian party and then secondly the Republican Party. But my problem is that those parties (as well as the Dem party) seem to be dominated by ideological zealots right now. These Republicans and libertarians seem to believe in NO government spending at all and zero government intervention.
    In contrast, I think it’s unreasonable to expect NO federal government and no taxes. Moreover, I think it’s irrational to have NO regulation at all (particularly since we’ve had prior government interventions that have distorted market incentives. In addition, market participants like all human beings are only boundedly rational. Like all of us, they rely on heuristics and exhibit biases that systematically degrade the quality of their decision-making.) Lastly, markets DO fail under certain conditions. All economists would agree with this. Externalities and high coordination costs are just two reasons why they may fail to allocate resources effectively. So I see a role for the federal government that goes beyond just national security. But if you say something like that on a libertarian or rightwing blog today you’re labeled a fraud and a RINO and told to join the Democratic Party!!! lol. The funny thing is I disagree with the Dems most of all!!! Bottom line for me: I have no party either.

    I wanted to add one more thought:
    One thing I noticed this election year that I find really disturbing is an uptick in partisanship in rank and file Dems. (For the GOP I see the problem as more ideological zealotry than partisanship per se.) Many young Dems on the net totally buy in to whatever policy, stance or action engaged in by Dems, no question asked. For example, they’ll passionately defend the Dems on things like sexist treatment of Palin or the way Dems abused the public trust by rifling through databases to find private information about Joe the Plumber’s personal life and then using it for political points. That kind of hypocrisy really sickens me. Partisanship and ideological zealotry over the best interest of our country is a cancer on our democracy.

  • La Compania Volante

    One thing that wouldn’t work, if a centrist party was to be viable, would be any kind of cult of personality re candidates.

    The way I operate as a centrist/Independent in the atmosphere of this “gentleman’s agreement” between the two major parties is to vote for the person, not the party. I also watch closely to see if that person hold to his or her stated principles. If not, I vote for the other, even if I don’t agree with him/her, in order to remove the prevaricator from office.

    You can’t afford, as an Independent, to get too attached to any one politician.

  • xax

    I don’t understand where you guys are getting this moderate thing from. I watched him during the primaries and his recent comments/actions all equal to “Tax, tax, SPEND, SPEND”.

    As far as cabinet picks: It’s all show to me. The man’s a technician who has a carefully managed image. Still waiting. Not HOPEful.

  • AnninCA

    Good point, which probably means I’m not a good Independent.

    I’m very attached to Hillary. I want her in this SoS position in the worst way.

    If I can’t have her as president, then I want her in a key spot.

    That means…..I’m not pretending to be neutral.

    BUT…I did watch closely, and she DID deliver on her stated promises. She promised to work her heart out, regardless of who was the nominee. She delivered.

    I respect that. She lived up to my own expectations of her.

  • Tversky

    The “Big Orange”???? What’s that????

    I’m glad Leiberman got to keep his chairmanship. It was a finger in the eye of the MoveOn crowd screaming for blood.

    I’m not upset about Hillary getting the SoS position. I just don’t see it as evidence that Obama is a great guy. To me, it’s just evidence he’s smart and strategic as hell. I’d like to see him take a few personally risky stances. Then I might moderate my position on him.
    Right now I just see him as a cautious, careful, tremendously strategically smart person. There’s alot to admire in those traits and it may (crosses fingers) make him a decent manager of our country. But that doesn’t make him a leader I can believe in.

  • AnninCA

    Yes, the partisanship of the “progressives” was disturbing. They justified a great many things that, in my opinion, represent despicable thinking.

    It was the war based on a lie, and the Bush policies of expanding the executive branch, torture, etc., that initiated this anger and fueled it. Unfortunately for McCain/Palin, the last nail in the coffin was the collapse of the economic system due to excessive greed/corruption allowed by the Bush administration. Katrina in all of our lives.

    Sheer and complete incompetence. Even I voted for McCain, knowing full well it wouldn’t matter. Blue state here. But it doesn’t slip past normal thinkers that he would have had a horrible time putting together an administration that wasn’t Bush-like.

    So I understand the Independent swing to Dems.

  • AnninCA

    Daily KOS.

    They are spitting like mad kitties over this! LOL*

    Which just frankly made my morning walk a bit perkier!

    I try to not be vengeful, but it doesn’t hurt to get a giggle once in awhile, eh?

  • Tversky

    Oh!!! DailyKos!!! lol. There’s absolutely NOTHING wrong with a little spitefulness toward that crowd! ;-)

    My one comforting thought about Obama winning is that he’s BOUND to dissapoint someone. He’s managed to convince too many people with too many completely different POV that he’s one of them. Centrist ex-GOP’ers, lefty Bushhatin’ DailyKos types, even a few evangelicals! lol.
    I’m actually kind of thrilled at the moment that the group he seems to be dissapointing (at least right now) are the DailyKos crowd since 1) I disagree with them the most and 2) they’re the nastiest, smuggest, most hypocritical and frankly DUMBEST of all his supporters! ;-)
    Yeah, I can be a vengeful bitch too. lol.

  • Nobody Special

    I agree that the majority of the public is moderate, but forming a viable third party would take years if it ever happened. I think the idea of having everyone give up the R and D after their names is good one, but that’s not going to work either. That leaves people out of the primary process in too many states.

    But how about starting such a movement with REAL election reform? I think that’s an issue the overwhelming majority of Americans can agree on. Simple things like a national voter registry, so that people can’t register to vote in five states. Open primaries, true public funding. Take one issue at a time starting with the simple, doable, one person one vote concept.

    The two parties will fight it, because they both game the system. They both talk about reform, but neither of them REALLY wants reform. But I honestly think a well thought out campaign with well spoken, level headed people leading the way could accomplish the one person one vote possibly by the next Presidential election. You’d have to start with petitions, NOT with Congress. No, it would have to be grassroots and overwhelming in nature. A movement that couldn’t be silenced, I truly think that is possible. People on both sides are fed up, even some obots are appalled by the ACORN mess.

    Once you had that grassroots structure in place then you could use it as a spring board to bigger things. Again, this would take years and I don’t think trying to jump into the Presidential race from the starting gate is the way to go. That would almost by its nature end up with a cult of personality. I think the smarter way to go would be to find level headed moderates in purple districts and begin to ebb away at either of the two parties having a majority. Using grassroots volunteers and internet fund raising it’s possible you could take enough seats to force the two major parties to work together. That would force bipartisanship and begin the process of neutering the wing nuts in both parties.

    Just my two cents, which isn’t worth much these days you know.

  • AnninCA

    Well, you’re up against state’s rights.

    Which is still relevant.

  • FreedomFries

    torland077 and xax I guess from your comments you are anti Obama and not Pro Hillary. Hillary had a more radical health care plan, which was in my mind still not radical enough. It prosecuted people for being too poor to pay money to private health insurance. America as the richest Country in the World should have proper, universal health care, free at the point of use. Period.

    Republican lies about socialized medicine are just that LIES. Private insurance is much cheaper in the UK because the NHS is more than adequate for most people.

    As for tax and spend Liberal. We have had 8 years of a spend spend spend President and where has that got us? It wouldn’t be half as bad Bush had spent it on something useful, but oh no, just some new wars. One of which his own Father said would be stupid.

    Bushbot Republicans deserve prison for all they have done.

  • AnninCA

    Well, I DO see this as evidence that he’s not stupid.

    That alone…..

    Well, anyway.

    Frankly, even how he’s leaking this is smart. The biggest mistake McCain made? PR. He blew everyone away with Palin.

    That’s a mistake, from a PR standpoint.

    Never surprise the press. They ARE vengeful.

    And so they were.

  • Margaret

    Love your title! I am, also, a raving moderate. There are lots of us, and I love your idea of a third party system.

  • FreedomFries

    I do not think anyone can denu the level of problem that the Republican crooks have left America (and the World) with.

    This is a biggee. The whole monetary system is effectively dead and all politicians want to do is hide the problem by throwing more money at it.

  • torland077

    FF,
    Nice ranting not responding to the reality.

    How is Hillary’s plan more radical, Obie is going to have universal health care for everyone provided by the government and will force private companies out of the health care provider business. How can you be more radical then that? Total government health care, no private funded health care. Again what could be further to the left?

    As far as Bush’s spending you are just repeating liberal propaganda not founded in reality. Bush did spend, spend, spend but most of it on health care, education and welfare. The total he has spent on “new wars” is an average of about 100 billion a year. He has increased medicare/medicaid spending by 400 billion a year since taking over, spending on education has increased about 50 billion a year and welfare spending has increased about 100 billion a year, not to mention an increase of almost 20 billion for aids relief. So 570 billion annual increase on Education, Health Care and Poverty. I guess you dont consider education, health care, poverty and AIDS “useful spending”.

    The problem is we can’t keep spending money we dont have it. Bush was wrong and fiscally liberal for doing what he did but Obie and you liberals just want to double down on Bush’s spending. Obie proposes a TRILLION dollars in additional spending when we are already running a 500 billion dollar deficit. The government provides health care for 20% of our population now (pretty crappy coverage by the way) and it costs the government 900 billion dollars. What’s the cost going to be when we cover 100% 1.5 trillion, 3 trillion, 4.5 trillion. Where’s the money going to come from? You wont even be able to get a loan for that amount.

    This is not about Republican or Democrat it is about real numbers and spending trillions of dollars you dont have doesnt work and if you think increasing taxes on the wealthy is going to provide it you have NO historical perspective. Whether your upper tax rate is 90% or 28% government receipts stay (have stayed) constant.
    (http://bp0.blogger.com/_XUJQnJBlydc/SFE3A7OitiI/AAAAAAAAAgI/OhkBndTzZmc/s1600-h/Hauser%27s+Law.gif )

    Your partisan ignorance is unbelievable. Bush’s greatest mistake was NOT following a CONSERVATIVE fiscal agenda. What provided Clinton his success and surpluses, was his restrain in spending on health care, welfare and education. He increased in those areas over 8 years 40.5% Bush increased 75%. If Bush would have imitated Clinton’s rate we would be running a surplus and have a healthier economy.

  • Tversky

    How are the Republicans and the Republicans alone responsible for our financial crisis? Everyone’s fingers are in this. EVERYONE’S. There was not one piece of relevant regulation offered by the Dems during this time that was blocked by the Republicans. NONE. In fact, the only attempt at regulation (e.g., stronger oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) relevant to the current crisis was attempted by Republicans (McCain, Dole, Sununu and President Bush of all people) and BLOCKED by liberal Dems (Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, etc.) Moreover, no one can pin point one piece of de-regulation over the last 20 years that the Dems made any attempt to fight. NONE. Lastly, the idea this is just a regulation problem is a total fallacy. The government’s implicit guarantee of alot of Mortgage backed securities through Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae and the social engineering attempts by both parties (Clinton’s attempt to give teeth to the CRA and Bush’s “ownership society”) contributed too (Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae most of all IMO.) As did all the previous government interventions that helped distort market incentives and contributed to greater risk taking (i.e., the market participant enjoys the rewards of success/luck but shares the downside risk with the government).

    So the idea the Dems are all pure and wonderful while hte GOP is the devil is complete baloney.

blog comments powered by Disqus