Centerfield

Well, I'd like to thank the Academy ....

Oh wait, wrong speech. But I'm still pretty sure the reason I'm relegated to middle-of-the-pack status on the blog ratings is due to the incessant posts on oddball B-movies and the prior posts regarding goat sex. That aside ... I do my best and I try real hard.

More seriously, I think the missing ingredient to a fair number of more mainstreams in the blogiverse is that one needs a fighting posture of advocating what it is exactly that we advocate. One of the things that is unfortunately a knock on many moderate pols is their seeming wishy-washiness on many issues. Personally, I think Simon Rosenberg at NDN Blog has potential to raise the bar, however. Next project ... convince someone at the DLC to blog. Maybe they can rehire Andrei Cherny for that purpose. I'll be happy to take a back seat to either.

A few others to properly deflect some of that limelight to, however:

- Michael Totten - I sometimes disagree with him from a variety of angles, but he's no doubt a better writer and has a better Q-rating than I'll ever have among bloggers.

- Jeff Lemieux - If Jeff ever blogs more extensively, he'll leave us all in the dust. Obviously, he does a good deal of quality research that gives some heavy duty ammo to any centrist looking for concrete policy proposals, so he's for the wonkiest among us. But still required reading.

- Amy Sullivan - Maybe not a noted centrist, per se, but given her background, I think she offers a lot. Again, a great writer ... and that helps a lot.

- OxBlog - Read everything David Adesnick posts, and you'll be richer for it. Remember his name, and when he's climbing the ladders of the political world, you'll be able to claim you "remembered him when he was a mere blogger." The other bloggers on there are also worth reading on a daily basis. I just gravitate more strongly towards Adesnick's views on most areas.

- Dan Drezner - Probably scratches the surface of the potential that Lemieux could have if he blogged more. Drez narrows his focus a bit more than most, as does OxBlog, but that's ok. Drez is technically either a conservative or outright GOP (I forget which), but his takes are right down the middle, he offers a fair policy outlook, and he's more intellectually honest than most. Granted, his focus on international trade tends to be one of those truly arcane pet issues of my own.

Ack, my HTML's fallen and it can't get up!!!

Did a little tinkering with the HTML.

You're right, though -- there's a lot of very rich political discussion and observation in the blog world. The interesting thing, it seems to me, is that the politically or ideologically affiliated sites that are reasonable and careful in their analysis are almost de facto centrist. They end up leaning towards the middle because they realize some of the arguments typically made on their side of the aisle are bogus, and some of the facts paint less than a rosy picture of "their" guys.

It's nice to find that some of the "big" bloggers fall in that category -- Drezner, CalPundit, OxBlog, Tacitus. Very encouraging.

What William said...honest, rational examination of issues by anyone tends towards "centrist" because honesty means acknowledging when the party line is ideological cant and propaganda.

Don't get me wrong, centrism is an important part of what my blog is. I'm somewhat to the left of a dot smack dab in the middle of the center, so I consider it especially important to think hard and honestly about the arguments offered by blogs right of center. Steven Den Beste is one of my favorites, because if there is a rational argument for something liberals consider kneejerk fear and anger on the part of conservatives, Steven will make that argument clearly and explicitly.

In my opinion though, it is a big mistake to equate opposing Dean with being in the center.

Is saying a given war was a mistake, and saying that the man who made the mistake does not have the ability to deal with the consequenses AUTOMATICALLY an extremist position, or is it clearly so as relates to this particular war? It is true that this was and is favored by many centrist and even leftist Democrats, but if thinking hard about uncomfortable ideas is part of being centrist, we need to listen to him. Of course if being a centrist means supporting anything favored by most of one party and a chunk of the other party too that's different.

How about criticizing the Bush tax cuts, even the popular parts? I remember when concern about the budget used to be considered centrist. I actually think we might need to spend much more to solve this Iraq mess and the terrorism problem, which is all the more reason to be wary of politically popular tax cuts AND spending.

Which pretty much leaves the attacks on Clinton. Actually I don't think those were a good idea at all. They do need to be considered in the context that the DLC has been saying Dean is unelectable and extreme over and over again, thus giving the Republicans ammunition against the man who might be our candidate. That being said, while Dean's record in Vermont and actual positions are not extreme, his attacks on the Clinton wing of the party may actually provide the same sort of ammunition. The Democrats need to get together and talk.

David -- I don't consider opposing the war to be extreme. In fact, that was my position.

I do consider it very, very clear, now, that Howard Dean is not a centrist, or that he doesn't intend to run as a centrist. He's been making that clear with one statement after another in just the past few weeks.

Perhaps the most important substantive issue is the war in Iraq. Whether you opposed the war or not, it's critical to demonstrate your commitment to winning it now. We have overthrown the Iraqi government, and there's no choice now but to find a way to make this work. It became an important battle in the war on terror as soon as we overthrew that government.

Dean's statements on our commitment over there are pretty muddled. He says, at times, that we have to stay and see it through. But then he says, at the time of Saddam's capture, that we should accelerate the timetable for tranferring authority.

Given that Bush already accelerated that timetable, and that it's only 6 months away, I certainly question any plan to further accelerate. Such plans are similar to the Kucinich plan of simply withdrawing.

Bush announced the accelerated timetable for both political transfer and military drawdown a couple months ago. A bunch of folks objected -- a bipartisan group of foreign policy realists including McCain, Biden, Hagel, Lugar, and Lieberman. Dean's voice was not added to that group.

I have a pretty strong feeling at this point that Dean is basically playing both sides of that issue -- saying we need to stay and see it through, while also minimizing our commitment of manpower and resources.

He's in a bit of a political bind on this issue -- survey's suggest a substantial segment of Americans simply want to withdraw from Iraq, and that faction is most likely concentrated among his supporters. That's why he gets tangled up on the issue and probably can't offer us strong, clear leadership on the war.