Centerfield

I'd like to re-visit this in a month or two and see how ol' Zell is doing with Democrats for Bush.

P.S. correct spelling: "Ara Rubyan"

I think this sentiment, honestly, has more to do with frustration in the middle than any distinct desire for a Kerry presidency.

I agree entirely. The frustration I see is with an insular "Good Ol' Boy" faction that has control of the party, and no issues other than theirs will be permitted as long as they hold the White House and Congress. And this GOB faction is dedicated to Big Business, and will kiss up to the far right to keep them "in house," but moderates can just go bleep themselves.

Unfortunately I see much the same thing in the out-of-power left, so perhaps my thesis doesn't hold water. Maybe the polarization and extremism is dedicated and inherent and therefore not solvable short of a full-scale party revolution.

Of course that's my take too, so perhaps I'm projecting. But I think the general feeling isn't so much that they want Bush gone, as they want some restraint on the unbridled excesses of those holding the reins. On a more personal level I believe that when one party has unilateral control of the government, they will self-immolate through corruption and pandering and hubris. And I don't want to see that happen, as it allows the other extreme to come in as "saviors" and do the same damn thing all over again, only from the other side.

Wild oscillations between extremes aren't centrism or moderation, even if the averaged effects over time look much like. The center may be in the same place, but the extremes just get farther and farther out. And at any given time, one of the extremes will be in power.

Ooops. Sorry, Ara.

I suspect this is one more case when both parties are giving us candidates who really shouldn't be president.

William, in that case, who do you think the parties should have nominated? Just curious.

For the Democrats, Lieberman, for the Republicans, Colin Powell. Now that would be an interesting campaign!!

In 2000 I considered myself a Centrist. I was pretty split between Gore and Bush, ultimately deciding on Gore simply based on experience.

The last three years have seen me become a hard-core Democrat, while not changing my stand on any issue. The reason? George Bush is an extremist and Congress is controlled by extremist. More than any particular policy it is the way they conduct government that bothers me the most. Their inability to be accountable and the way they use every loophole to marginalize those who disagree is deeply disturbing. Add to that the lies that are put out by their deputies and I fear for our democracy.

I think there are many people like me, people who never knew they could care so passionately about getting a President out of office. This election is not about John Kerry, it is about George Bush. We can survive four years of John Kerry and a GOP congress, I am not sure the same could be said about Bush and a GOP congress. Plus, if Bush loses it might actually mean that we would get a GOP candidate our nation could be proud of.

There's a couple different ways of answering your question, Lionel.

In the primaries, I initially supported Joe Lieberman, and then -- when I concluded he couldn't win the nomination and that John Edwards had a real chance -- I supported Edwards.

I blogged here for both Lieberman and Edwards pretty extensively.

That's somewhat different, though, from selecting an "ideal" candidate. In most cases, that would be someone who didn't run.

I kind of suspect that any of the following folks would make a strong president:

• Christie Whitman
• John McCain
• Angus King (former Gov. of Maine)
• Anthony Zinni (retired Marine Corps. General)
• Tom Carper (former Gov., current Sen. from Delaware)
• Roy Barnes (former Gov. of Georgia)
• Wayne Gilchrest (Rep. from Maryland)
• Jim Greenwood (Rep. from PA)

I also think there are a few folks who aren't centrists, but would make strong presidents. Chuck Hagel and maybe Dick Lugar fall into that category.

Looking at this list as a whole, we have 6 Republicans, 4 Democrats, 1 independent, and 1 undeclared (Gen. Zinni). There's a lot of experience on this list, and, more importantly, good judgment. Ideally, you could have a ticket mad up of two of these folks, and build a really strong leadership team around it.

I count myself as a moderate Republican, and I'm unhappy with a lot of Bush's domestic policy (although I think the notion that Kerry--or any of the current crop of Democrats--would be *less* protectionist and *reduce* Federal spending rates a laugh)--but all that it irrelevant to me compared to the war. I'm voting for Bush, and I think it's insane to vote for someone who refuses to even articulate a policy on the most important issue of our time, but instead contents himself with platitudes about instituting a golden age of diplomacy and greater cooperation with our allies. Our allies are the countries actually risked something and made sacrifices to further the War on Terror; you know, the ones that Kerry calls the coalition of the bribed and coerced. (This is the way to usher in a golden age of diplomacy?) Kerry faults Bush's plan, but what's Kerry's plan? More money for first-response? More hot air at the UN?

I think it's a mark of how successful the Bush team has been in changing the rules of engagement against the terrorists and the states that back them that Americans feel safe enough to consider making gestures like not voting to "teach them a lesson"; I'd rather think that than think that Americans have just forgotten that there are organized fanatics out there who would give their lives to see as many of us die as possible.
I also think that it's a pretty dubious proposition that getting kicked out would cause the Republicans to move towards the center. If that's the dynamic, then why is it that two elections after Clinton, the Democratic candidates range from the left to the far left--so much so that Democrats are calling Joe Lieberman a Republican in Democrat's clothing? The guy goes from being the VP on a ticket that got the (admittedly barest) majority of the popular vote to an also ran the very next election? How does it fit in with the thesis that moderate Republicans ought to be more at home in the Democratic party when moderate Democrats are no longer welcome in the Democratic Party?

Hi Mary Lou, and welcome. I'm about to take a peek at your weblog.

You have a good point about Lieberman, Joshua. He wasn't just rejected in the primaries, he was hated by much of the core of the party. A lot of folks amended the "Anybody But Bush" to "Anybody But Bush and Lieberman".

It's a curious turn of events. I was told by one Democrat a couple years ago that Lieberman was drawing a lot of support in the party and was prefered by many for a 2004 run. But then the Iraq war happened, and because feelings were so strong in the party base, Lieberman became deeply unacceptable. A lot of Democratic activists convinced themselves that he was no different from Bush, even though the facts don't come close to supporting that view.

This is a pattern we seem to go through in the primaries. Activists in both parties convince themselves that the moderates in their midst are actually, rightfully, members of the opposite party. There's "no difference" between them and those awful folks on the opposite side of the aisle.

The ideological spectrum tends to get really distorted during a primary.

Here's the real problem: the zealous, noisy, partisan extremes of each party are usually able to scapegoat the moderates when they lose..."we lost because we departed from our core principles." And think how much sense this makes, when the alternative is to re-examine and possibly change your principles.

Brian, I think you've hit on it. I sense the same kind of cynicism that I feel about the current two major parties.

I would still like to think we are reaching a point where a new, more moderate party could emerge.

Yup. Rick and I just had lunch, and we were talking about our hope that something might emerge, with patience. Neither of us had a grand vision for centerfield, but we hope simply that people visit because it has value, and that with patience, critical mass might grow, and something will emerge.

To riff on something Instapundit said earlier today, maybe what will emerge is a preference for leaving no stone unturned in trying to get at the truth, instead of the current preference for leaving no stone un-flung in a fight over which side is right about truth.