Centerfield

While not an 'undecided' I have linked to you on my personal page. I also have a political blog, but it's fairly anti-Bush, so it's not a site for the weak of heart or easily swayed.
It's sites like yours that I enjoy reading. It keeps me on my toes and alert as to what both sides are thinking. You are respectful of both sides and don't condem anyone for their opinions or lack thereof.
The upcoming election will be 'decided' by the undecideds. It is they who will decide if we will have change or continue on the current path. I hope they fully understand and appreciate their importance in the overall scheme of things.

Wanda,

You are remarkably optimistic. If the elections were really decided by the undecideds, we wouldn't have to choose between Kerry and Bush, but would have some real options out there. The only thing the undecideds get to decide is which of the two candidates presented to them by the partisans is less offensive. And given the focus on perceived electability in the Democratic primaries, it seems pretty clear that all the partisans care about is their side winning.

I'm not suggesting that voting third pard is the answer, since thinking people support a wide variety of causes and thus any single third party would stand no chance against the power of the two-party system. But anything we can do to decrease the power of the parties is a positive step.

I think we cycle between elections when one of the parties offers us a good choice, and elections where they don't. The latter may outnumber the former, but we still have opportunities sometimes to push for a candidate in one of the primaries.

Both parties have really strong leaders. It's quite a challenge, though, to get them to promote them to the top spots.

I was thinking about this a little bit while reading the Eisenhower chapter of John Avalon's book Independent Nation. It surprised me to discover how unlikely it was in the year that Ike ran that he would get the nomination. Sen. Robert Taft had the support of the party, and seemed to have the votes lined up at the beginning of the Republican convention. Ike's ultimate victory was quite a longshot.

It's clear looking back that Ike was the right man historically -- not the isolationist Taft or the dovish Adlai Stevenson. It was a very close call electorally though -- it almost didn't happen.

That's the situation we face, basically. The core factions in both parties are against us, and we have to find a way occasionally to wrest control of the process from them.

The bottom line is that we need to organize. We need to develop a sizeable faction of committed voters who will go to the polls for a strong centrist. We need to be on the air advertising for our folks just like the activist groups MoveOn and the Club for Growth. We need to make our case and push for our people.

Jeremy, I disagree with you about the viability of a third party, but unfortunately, I don't see it happening any time soon. It's far more likely that one of the two existing will self-destruct or morph.

William, does centrist.org have anything in place to raise money for the promotions you recommend? I've never made a political contribution in my life, but for something like this, I would.

Rick, are you from Oregon by any chance?

Is it possible that you overestimate the importance of the parties? Parties and candidates to some degree reflect what is going on in society at large in my opinion.
The debate itself is what is important.
With (the importance of) the internet growing eventually the influence of non-partisan politicians (that's anyone thinking about solutions for political problems) will grow as well.

Because a lot of political and economical challenges require a global approach i think it's not inappropiate to comment on this all-american site (being from the Netherlands)

Hi Frans, and welcome. We're grateful for any observations you're able to make from a European perspective, or any other way you choose to participate in the debate. Centrism is quite alive, actually, in other parts of the world -- and more likely to take the form of a political party positioned in the center.

Heather -- we haven't actually set anything up yet at the Centrist Coalition to accept contributions, or to advertise. I think we're looking at a process with a few steps on it to make that happen:

1. We need to organize a little more and develop a formal structure -- e.g., with officers and board members.

2. We need to incorporate as an organization.

3. We can then raise money and spend it on behalf of centrist causes and candidates.

Basically, we need to have a defined status that tells us what kinds of things we can and can't do under campaign finance laws.

If you have any interest in getting involved in that -- maybe you'd like to help organize or serve on the board -- we'd be grateful for the help.

Kevin,

I live in the Boston area.

I've been to the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. That was back in '85.

I am not undecided...this year. I've never voted "straight party" on a ticket, because al though most of my votes do tend to end up in the "Democrats" column, I try to keep an open mind and go issue-by-issue. I have Centerfield in the blogroll on my blog and try to get here as often as possible, though. I don't read here because you provide a haven FOR the undecided but because I often need a haven FROM the hysteria of the decided!

Agree, Laura.

Alex

Rick - I wasn't sure if you'd referenced an Oregon blog set up for undecideds because you're from Oregon or because Oregon is an important swing state this year. I live in Oregon and was naturally curious as to whether you might be a fellow web-foot.

Please no off topic posts. I like Kerry after the debate. What worries me the most about Bush is that he will draft me to go fight in Iran. We do not need another war now.