Centerfield

Special interests pull them away from the center, as was seen recently in the Judiciary committee. The leadership is already far from center even before their influence. The only movement they are talking about today is changing how their messages are marketed and worded, without changing how they actually vote on issues.

There is a major opportunity for change during the next presidential primary. Serious challenges will come from centrist candidates, someone like Evan Bayh. Could be the start of a sea change within the party. Then again the primary is the whole problem for centrists, Lieberman didn't get very far did he. In any case, with the president soon leaving office, reflexive Bush-hate won't fly as a raison d'être anymore.

Having another party on the left would make it much easier to stake out the center, as is the case in the UK.

I attribute it in part to the Green Party. Democrats blame Ralph Nader on Gore's loss in 2000. They don't want to alienate the extreme Left again.

That and right now they are trying to tap into the energy of the anti-Bush Left. Hopefully the Dems will realize that they are losing everyone else in the process by associating to hateful fringe groups.

Susan is so right. Follow the money. It's not in the center.

Um, hello? Britain's "center" is America's "left."

See, e.g, a speech that "ranged from pensions to alternative energy".

Sometimes Britain's "center" is our "far left." I remember in the late 1990s, one of the top 10 items on the Labour platform was reducing the homosexual age of consent from 18 to 16, since that's the agent of heterosexual consent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/318661.stm

I think Oberon's right. New Labor is still much more liberal than the DLC. Most liberals did not consider Clinton's administration to be particularly liberal--after all, he enacted welfare reform. The "democratic wing" of the Democratic Party was never particularly enamored with Clinton so it doesn't surprise me that they aren't embracing more Clintonism. And they don't necessarily think (or purport not to think) that Clintonism is really a winning strategy. Some think that Clinton won only because Perot pulled votes from Bush. Plus, a lot of them look to the success of the conservatives within the GOP and think that a principled liberal policy is good politics. I think that's comparing apples and oranges, but that is how a lot of Democrats think.

Rick, Dems reject the center for the same reason they "reject Kansas". They don't agree.

A real Centrist not only thinks abortion is bad; they think it should be legal, and rare -- and NOT for underage girls on demand without parental knowledge, NOT for partial birth abortions in the 21 or 32 week, NOT as a welfare paid lazy birth control method.

Centrists think civil unions are reasonable for same sex gay couples, and sodomy laws are unreasonable, but gays don't need "marriage" for children they won't have, and most Centrists are unhappy with the idea of gay male couples adopting young boys.

Centrists think booting Saddam was a pretty good thing - he was nasty little Hitler type. Kinda split on the Iraq war; most are waiting for democracy (Bush victory?) before fully supporting it.

Centrists think the UN's handling of Darfur, where the US has said it IS genocide, but the UN has said it isn't, seems pretty weak. Murders keep happening. (Admittedly, only those few Centrists who are watching think this.)

Centrists think gov't is too big, too wasteful, and too impersonal; but want a few more specific gov't benefits for themselves. [Despite this being a contradictory set of thoughts.]

Centrists are mostly home-owners, or expectant reasonably near-future home-owners. Tax breaks for home-owners are welcome.

Actually I think the Reps are more, in actual policy, near the center. If you look at the radical pro-abortion position (outlined above as what centrists are against), and the radical pro-life position (of it being illegal, which centrists are also against), most potential "centrist changes" to current positions are due to an excessive prior movement away from the center, towards the radical Left.

I agree with Susan here. again. [Perhaps a record, Susan? :-) ]

Since I do, I'd like to take the opportunity to again stress my oft-repeated point related to primaries. Since the primaries are driven by the wings, they are the way that the wings dominate and enforce polarization.

We as centrists, many as independents without real party homes, need to find a way to have a substantive impact on the primary process. This means that we need to educate ourselves on our state's rules for primary participation, and then participate.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the centrist coalition could serve a useful purpose in identifying the nuts and bolts of each state's primary process, and recommending a both centrist strategy specific to the state, and also an alternative national strategy, perhaps involving the appointment of a proxy candidate that we could commit to writing in, if that's an option.

Gee, Tom, I didn't know you were such a big fan of Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton, in 1998, pushed thru the official US policy of regime change in Iraq.
This was a reasonable policy -- but Slick Willy (whom I don't like personally, but generally DO like in his policies) was not the President to take expensive action in the face of "small gov't" (rhetoric mostly) Rep. Congress.

I'm a much bigger fan of W.