Centerfield

The 2006 mid-term elections will be upon us very soon. What kind of influence do you believe Moderate Republicans, New Democrats, Centrists, Independents, etc. will have on these important and trend-setting elections? Are we to remain as polarized as we seem to be this year?

Posted by: Carol Gee at November 27, 2005 08:26 PM

Nothing serious, just happiness on the football.

Well, Texas got some egg on its face against the Aggies, though we still won. But the TX State Bobcats beat the Georgia Southern Eagles in a pretty nice come-from-behind 50-35 win. They're staying in the playoffs, and are playing at home again against Cal Poly.

Posted by: Jon Kay at November 28, 2005 01:25 AM

I have a dumb question. Why are PDF warnings issued on links?

Posted by: WHQ at November 28, 2005 09:24 AM

Because PDFs are heinous.

Posted by: bk at November 28, 2005 09:53 AM

Because some folks despise Adobe, and lesser computers can get veeerrrryyyy sssslllooowww when digesting an Adobe download. (I reflexively issue warnings for any non-HTML filetype link. "Informed consent.")

Posted by: Tully at November 28, 2005 10:02 AM

Carol, I strongly suspect from dissecting recent polls that we've hit a point of "wing fatigue" on the part of the Big Middle. The center seems really sick of the polarizing rants. I expect a centerward shift in rhetoric in places where the races are actually competititive, which is sadly a small fraction of the races.

The place to watch for signs of moderation from the parties themselves would be in contested primaries for "safe" districts. That's where the internal party factions can be heard best, and where any actual "dragging to the center" will manifest first.

Posted by: Tully at November 28, 2005 10:12 AM

Just out of curiosity, can any of our northern neighbors explain the political situation up there? I just heard on the radio today that the Canadian Parliment was expected to be giving a "no confidence" vote to the current government, triggering another round of parlimentary elections.

Posted by: cengel at November 28, 2005 10:20 AM

Speaking of fantasy, I see one of my favorite guilty pleasures, The Warriors has just been remastered on DVD, as well as being made into a video game and a new movie. One of the reasons I love it is because it takes a real problem (street gangs), infuses it with classic history, (Xenophon's march to the sea) and makes it into fantasy (the weird outfits, the unorthodox weapons, the omniscent DJ, not to mention the totally tangled geography). It's a great movie; one of the few things I agreed with Ronald Reagan about. ;-)

It's worth watching the Salon ad just for the quote at the end "No matter how sordid a life is, there is room for heroism." It's corny, but I love it.

Blue Jean

Posted by: Blue Jean at November 28, 2005 12:53 PM

"Waahhrriioors come out to pllllllaahhhhyyyaaaa"

Blue Jean, did President Reagan recommend the movie or something?

Posted by: PatHMV at November 28, 2005 03:27 PM

Tully, you are right about where the movement may take place. I remember before all the gerrymandering redistricting was done that there were fewer safe districts, and people actually went out and worked for their local candidates. Those were the good ole'days, and politics was more fun.

Posted by: Carol Gee at November 28, 2005 04:57 PM

What a deliciously creepy line!

Blue Jean, did President Reagan recommend the movie or something?

No, but he screened it at the White House, and then called star Michael Beck to say how much he enjoyed it. Oddly enough, when the social conservatives were lining up to denounce The Warriors for the usual reasons, Reagan's voice was conspicuous for its absence. That was about as close to a recommendation as the political climate allowed.

The article is fun; it's worth the usual Salon commercial.

Posted by: Blue Jean at November 28, 2005 04:59 PM

Random thought; Reagan's favorite movies were Westerns (if you disregard the flicks he and Nancy starred in); maybe he saw The Warriors as an urban Western, where the innocent heros have to fight their way through hostile tribes to get home. Or maybe it was a reflection of the political processs; the innocent conservatives have to fight their way past hostile interest groups to return America to what they see as home. Just sayin'. ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at November 28, 2005 05:05 PM

Reagan always loved the underdog, fighting against uphill odds. Even if the heroes were tarnished, they weren't as tarnished as their opponents.

Posted by: Tully at November 28, 2005 06:16 PM

Hey, I never said that Reagan's perception was accurate. Just that The Warriors'theme was more universal than previousy thought. Sooner or later, almost about everyone in politics feels like they're part of a small, unjustly accused set, fighting one interest group after another in order to reach their goal; I know I have, and the highest office I've ever attained was President of my 4-H club.

Interestingly, the most screened movie of almost every President, from Eisenhower on to Clinton, has been High Noon. Not too hard to figure out why, either.

Posted by: Blue Jean at November 28, 2005 10:51 PM

If I were Prez I'd try to boost Holy Grail and Blazing Saddles onto that leader board. :-)

Posted by: Tully at November 30, 2005 10:13 AM

Sooner or later, almost about everyone in politics feels like they're part of a small, unjustly accused set, fighting one interest group after another in order to reach their goal

And they're almost always right, Jean. It's just not a permanent condition, and they usually don't realize that all the other folks they're fighting are in the same sea, just in different boats.

Posted by: Tully at November 30, 2005 10:16 AM

If I were Prez I'd try to boost Holy Grail and Blazing Saddles onto that leader board. :-)

Tully, this summarizes nicely both why you should be, and why you will never be, President of these United States... ;-) Posted by: PatHMV at November 30, 2005 12:42 PM