Centerfield

He definitely grabbing the third rail....but then again, Richarson was a Clinton guy and Clinton was a student of "The Third Way" which Blair in the UK has also used with great success.

I like how he's touching on issues that the establishment keeps ignoring. Hopefully, if winds up in DC again, he succumb to the "out of touch" disease that plagues the DC establishement.

Yep, Richardson words are in the right place. I hope, given the opportunity, that he backs them up with action. He lean Left of Center (like me) but he's always shown a willingness to role up his sleeves and put pragmatism above ideology, which to me is all we should want out of government. Keep it up , Bill!

But the problem is that the conservatives "showed" that ideology wins. Politicians look at results. It wasn't the Rockefeller wing of the GOP or the moderate wing that won power, it was the conservatives. Of course, like every kind of discourse like that, you can probably poke holes in it. For example, Reagan didn't exert much effort to advance social conservatism and he ended up dealing with the Soviets. But the perception is that Republicans took power because of their committment to conservative principles. Newt Gingrich was the personification of extreme partisanship. Now the Democratic left has decided that's the lesson it wants to take from the last 25 years. Until somebody shows that there is a difference between being moderate and being unprincipled, bipartisanship has an uphill battle.

I like Bill Richardson and it obviously makes sense for a Democrat to play down ideology. I hope desparately someone like that prevails.

The right wing showed that ideology can win elections but it is also demonstrating that it handicaps governance.

If the GOP showed me anything in 2004, it was that tight message dicipline, bumper sticker soundbytes and smart campaigning and branding coupled with a war will win.

I never really saw the "social conservative agenda" winning the day. That's not the same as social conservatives delivering a key voting bloc...which they did.

Nobody I know that voted for Bush in 2004, voted on the grounds of gay marriage, abortion or "moral values". Those people are not around me up here in the Northeast. The people I know were moderate Republicans (a la Main St. republicans) who really like Powell and McCain.

Maybe I'm being condescending, but I don't think many registered people of either party look for moderation or centrism, I think they just assume "their man" is the Mainstream choice because they have vested interest in their party ID and feel a vote for the other guy would put their own judgement into question. Again, this is all my opinion.

My brother, for example, doesn't distinguish between McCain and Bush vs. a Dem. To him, they're both Republicans and that's enough. Yes, he greatly prefers McCain but he doesn't see certain Dems as being closer to McCain's view than Bush, Cornyn or Frist, for example. He just looks for the party label even though he would never call himself a right-winger. It's easier that way. A lot of people don't care to look at things at a more nuanced level.

He looks at me and says that if I vote GOP, I'm seeing things the right way, if I vote Dem, I'm being a Lefty.

That's a big obstacle to centrism.

Clinton showed that you can play to the middle and win. As John notes, the "Third Way." (See other threads below, especially the King study.)

Of course, as soon as you're in the running you're automatically labelled as an "extremist winger" by the other side, regardless of the realities. To win, you have to convince the Middle that you're less extremist than the other guy.

I like the "The Third Way". They seem to support majority opinions on virtually everything. It truly is the center in my opinion. A social agenda that is mindful and open to diversity with some grounding and preference to tradition WITHOUT being strict and overbearing.....like most people.

A fiscal agenda that supports strong business growth, balanced budgets and restraint but without a will to constantly slash taxes to a fault...especially upper-end taxes...like most people

At the same time the budget priorities are a bit left of center. There is a commitment to giving enough aid to the poor but also to a policy of controling entitlements without being overly cruel or overly lenient...like most people.

Foreign Policy is proactive based on strong defense without an urge to give it massive increases. It promotes cooperation with the UN but also forward thinking with America exerting its presence and protecting its interests but without seeming imperialistic...like most people.

Public vs. Private? Whatever works best. There is no ideological preference to make things privatized or socialized just for its own sake...like most people.

How does this style lose?? Oh, it didn't.

For anyone not familiar with "The Third Way" and wanting to learn more, here's the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_way_%28centrism%29

It opens:

Third way (centrism)

The Third Way is a centrist philosophy of governance that, at least from a traditional social democratic perspective, usually stands for deregulation, decentralisation and lower taxes. It is embodied by such figures as British Prime Minister Tony Blair, former US President Bill Clinton, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, former Dutch Prime Minister Wim Kok, former Australian Leader of the Opposition Mark Latham, Chile's Ricardo Lagos, Brazil's Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Canada's former New Democratic Party leader Alexa McDonough.

The "Third Way" of the US Senate centrists, following Bill Clinton's lead, emphasize governmental fiscal conservatism, governmental action to replace welfare and other social assistance programs with so-called workfare, and a stronger preference for free markets. At the same time, such centrists claim to dissociate themselves from pure Laissez-faire economics and other Libertarian positions.

The general idea is included within Radical middle.

ENJOY!!

For anyone not familiar with "The Third Way" and wanting to learn more, here's the Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_way_%28centrism%29

It opens:

Third way (centrism)

The Third Way is a centrist philosophy of governance that, at least from a traditional social democratic perspective, usually stands for deregulation, decentralisation and lower taxes. It is embodied by such figures as British Prime Minister Tony Blair, former US President Bill Clinton, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, former Dutch Prime Minister Wim Kok, former Australian Leader of the Opposition Mark Latham, Chile's Ricardo Lagos, Brazil's Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Canada's former New Democratic Party leader Alexa McDonough.

The "Third Way" of the US Senate centrists, following Bill Clinton's lead, emphasize governmental fiscal conservatism, governmental action to replace welfare and other social assistance programs with so-called workfare, and a stronger preference for free markets. At the same time, such centrists claim to dissociate themselves from pure Laissez-faire economics and other Libertarian positions.

The general idea is included within Radical middle.

ENJOY!!

My personal impression of Richardson has always been he is a politics first type of a guy. You know, whatever it takes to get elected, wants to be President just a little too much, but I am open to anyone at this point. Especially those with Executive level experience. I think the fact that Richardson has been a Department head and Governor says something about his possible ability to govern at the White House level.

I still don't like his "lets declare it a federal ememrgency" approach to immigration. It wasn't any better 8 years ago but there were no declarations of "federal emergency".

Otherwise, I agree mainly with him.

As a presidential candidate he'd be carrying the mojo of other successful Presidential candidates - by being a governor. The last Democratic Senator to win the Presidency was JFK.

I wouldn't count him or Hillary Clinton out. Both could probably beat Frist and any other Republican given the current mood but the latter would have troubles against McCain.

While the "third way", particularly as implemented by President Clinton, is non-ideological, that does not mean it was non-partisan. President Clinton was a master at political maneuvering in ways that damaged Republicans badly. He was very adept at getting Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot. When he implemented primarily Republican-oriented reforms, such as welfare-to-work, he did so in such a way as to keep Republicans from getting much credit for it at all. Personally, I think that's one of the reasons Republicans wound up despising him so much. He took all the credit for stuff they had pushed for for years (balanced budgets, etc.).

So "third-way" does not necessarily mean politically "centrist". It may be "policy" centrist, but not politically so.

Important points, those, especially about partisanship. But "Third Way" does incline towards moderation, simply by stealing from the opposition. Forced compromise.

Pat's right. The GOP was dumbfounded and their outrage barely concealable when Clinton just waltzed in and took the reins by shaping the outcome of welfare reform and balancing the budget, just as though they'd been his ideas all along.

My jaw dropped when he did this. I bowed to a master. Clinton knew that the President is the quarterback and Congress is the offensive line. If you play like Trent Dilfer in the Super Bowl and strut like Tom Brady after winning the Super Bowl, everyone assumes you're Tom Brady. If you're on the offensive line, you're lucky if anyone knows your name. That's the way it is.

Of course, Clinton didn't develop a taste for agenda-jacking until he'd gotten spanked hard in round one, and lost the House. But one of the signs of ability is adaptability.

First he rammed through all the Democratic agenda he could, then when the Gingirch Revolution came he reversed course and grabbed all the most popular bits of the GOP agenda. Which let the GOP keep Congress, but locked Clinton's second term down tight.

Right. That's what made it so stunning, no? The GOP thought they had him on the run. Measured. Handled. Beaten.

It was like a short-handed goal, or when Larry Bird stole the ball from Isaiah Thomas when the Pistons had the ball and a 1 point lead with 5 second left in Game 5, and all they had to do was inbound it.

Except even sneakier. As it was unfolding, the GOP was sort of thinking, "OK we're in charge and doing what we want, we can toss Clinton a scrap or two, but basically we're the schizzle. "

And then Clinton got all the credit, and the GOP was left standing around looking at each other, saying "what just happened here?"

And partially as a result, Brian, he was impeached. Let that be a lesson to all future presidents. Don't hog all the credit from Congress and the other party, especially when you are stealing their ideas as your own. Rather than tightly holding on to every drop of political rewards, spread the wealth a tad so that everybody has some stake in your success. They may be more inclined to work to make you successful, that way.

Yes, and likewise to Congressional majorities. Although in fairness to Newt and the GOP candidates that year, it was the first time the GOP took control of the House for nigh on 40 years. They had been locked out of real power for a long, long time, so it was not out of line for them to have a strong desire to push through the agenda which got them elected.

Clinton's politicking and "bait and switch" maneuvering may help explain some of the animosity towards him inside the beltway, but I never fully understood why so many casual rank and file Republicans hated him so much (and still do).

The farther populist Left hated Reagan for his massive supply-side tax cuts, the Left in general despises (or at least dislikes) Bush 2 for the Iraq War. But what did Clinton do to get so much steadfast hatred from the Right? I'll never understand it. The man was always OK in my book. I'm not talking about getting Christmas cards (since I'm not a Dem and wasn't a donor) or putting a poster of him in my office; just a thumbs-up stamp of "non-opposition". I always had faith him, approved of his performance and thought he did a job with his work.

Wow, Pat. WOW! I'm surprised you'd concede that any of the impetus for Clinton's impeachment was political jealousy. I agree.

But I'm agnostic on whether Clinton actually hogged it so much as he was granted it, as the QB of record. Can you really blame the guy for standing up and saying "hey, things are great. The budget is balanced, the economy is firing like a volcano, welfare's been reformed, the country's on the right track."

If he was insufficiently bipartisan, he just commited the same sin as everyone else on capital hill. And consider the lesson of Bush the senior. If ever there was an act of responsible bipartisanship and doing the right thing even if it contradicts foolish promises made earlier, wasn't it Bush 1's decision to support some tax increases to stabilize the budget numbers? Can't you make a good argument that it was this that set the stage for the prosperity of the budget-balanced 90s?

And his reward? Tied to the whipping post. Deserted by his own side's partisans. Booted out after one term. Don't mistake me, I'm pro-magnanimity, too. I'd love to see a President with charisma and bipartisan grace. I'd love to see a unicorn, too.

BK,

"Can't you make a good argument that it was this that set the stage for the prosperity of the budget-balanced 90s?"

No, I can't make a very argument to support that statement because I don't know how. BUT, I agree 100% wholeheartedly with every ounce of scant economic knowledge I have that Bush 2's policy choices were right when faced with the recession. His cautious and patient approach to dealing with it were altruistically right though politically dangerous. I commend him. Without his tweaking where needed and non-action where it wasn't, the 90's boom would not have been as strong.

I will always commend Bush 2 and Clinton during those crucial years in the early 90's for doing the right things and not doing the wrong ones.

This combo of "new classical" economic approach (see Philip Navarro) from Bush and mild keynsian "rubinomics" from Clinton allowed the economy to recover quickly and healthily. It wasn't until I studied this a bit later that I realized the power and value in subtle changes to lower debt and interest rates. Bush 1 will never get much credit for it but he deserves his share.

I meant Bush 1. I'm punchy today.

A lot of it is a sense of betrayal, Brian, on several levels, and a lot of it was Clinton's cocky swagger... he thought he was better at politics than everybody else, and he showed it.

President Clinton didn't just parse words with a scalpel when being deposed about his (frequent) acts of sexual harassment. He parsed them whenever he made agreements with the Republicans in Congress. They would leave a meeting convinced he had promised X, but in reality he sort of had his fingers crossed and was using a non-standard definition of "is", so he didn't in his mind say what they heard him to say. Nobody ever likes a "sharp dealer". There was a general feeling that his handshake wasn't good. In politics, that's not good. People quickly stop working with you if you do that too often.

And don't forget that he had plenty of rhetoric about Republicans being against the children and against the poor, simply because Republicans believe the children and the poor will be better helped by a stronger free market and less government regulation than by more government bureaucrats. The anger felt by all the left who feel that the GOP has called them unpatriotic for opposing the war? That's the same type of feeling felt by Republicans after decades of Democratic control of Congress and with a Democratic president accusing them of being in favor of children dying of whooping cough from lack of government-paid health care and old people dying in the streets from Social Security cuts. President "I feel your pain" Clinton had plenty of that rhetoric.

As for impeachment, I place primary responsibility for that fiasco on President Clinton. I think he put the Republicans in a position where they had little other choice but to do what they did. He lied. Under oath, as well as while looking straight in the eyes of the American people. He weakened all of his cabinet, including the U.S. Secretary of State, our face to the rest of the world, by forcing them to repeat his lies in his defense. And he did that over such a tawdry, tawdry matter of lewd, inappropriate, disgusting behavior. He lied for the worst of all reasons, just to get himself out of trouble for something he actually did (the sexual harassment of Paula Jones).

Had Clinton admitted his conduct much earlier, before his infamous "I did not have sex with that woman" tirade, he could have cut a deal with Congress to accept a censure. He could have settled the Jones lawsuit by paying some money without admitting liability. Instead, he fought tooth and nail at every turn, lashing out on his critics as if they, not he, were the ones who had broken the law. Imagine how you feel when you catch someone doing something wrong, and they retaliate by blaming you for everything.

And don't forget minor scandals like TravelGate and HillaryCare, in which the President's wife single-handedly took charge of trying to bring socialized medicine to this country. Her involvement in substantive policy management was nepotism which is prohibited by law in almost every other government job out there.

As an aside, I also wish the Supreme Court would have put Paula Jones' lawsuit on hold until after he left office. While justice delayed can be justice denied, I think we place too much trust and power in the sitting president for him to be distracted from his duties by lawsuits for his conduct prior to becoming President. There is too much potential for political abuse, and the job is just too important. President Ford always says the main reason he pardoned Nixon was because otherwise, the White House would have spent all its times cooperating with the grand jury investigation and dealing with the repercussions of an on-going trial. He felt (correctly in my book) that the country had more pressing issues for him to worry about.

As for Bush I, that was betrayal of his word, plain and simple. Go back and listen to the whole speech leading up to his "read my lips" line. It wasn't just a one-liner. He described how Congress is going to come to him and tell him he must raises taxes, and he'll say no. And then Congress will come again, and he'll say no... he repeats this message several times before culmination in "read my lips, NO NEW TAXES." He should have insisted on reductions in spending rather than increases in taxes. I'm not in favor of holding politicians to every single little promise they make on the campaign trail, but that was a key one, a central component of his description of how he would govern. Absent a war or similar crisis, you can't break that kind of pledge.

Pat,

while I respect your opinion o Bush 1, I think he did the right thing. Bush 1 always struck me as a sincere man who tried to do the right thing. The fact that he would go back on such a promise means the reality of circumstances were too great for him to stick to his pledge and he had to change his mind. The fact that he was a Republican and did that makes it all the more meaningful. We can always say he should have cut spending but that may ( I say MAY) have not been politically feasible at the time. I don't know. Look how hard it's been for Bush 2 to cut much and he has majorities in both houses.

As for the whole Clinton thing, what you said, again, works for explaining the anger from inner-beltway Republicans and conservative political enthusiasts but it's not the kind of explanantion that makes much sense for hatred and anger from the rank and file who rarely follow things that closely.

My brother (partisan republican) still hates Clinton. Why? "I just do. He was a bad president...ooh, I can't STAND him." he would say.
All I hear is irrational partisan subjectivity. My brother is no wonk or avid news consumer. I think his narrow and shallow depth of understanding is more mainstream than the likes of people like us. Your above explanation would be all Chinese and Greek to him. He spends more time reading about cars and sports than anything else. He couldn't even name 10 senators...let alone 10 congressmen. But come election time, he gets his small dose "water-cooler conversation" and goes and votes straight GOP no questions asked.

Hatred of Clinton from this all too common conservative citizen is the one I'll never understand for the life of me.

Side-note: He hates our gov. Rendell too. Why? He's just an A-hole. As republican and a steelers fan, he's voting for Swann. Me, I have no idea.
I don't really like Rendell either and don't know much about Swann. I do know that Rendell is hardly a flaming liberal. His fiscal record is one of business-friendly conservative-like policies: tax cuts, debt reduction, program cuts etc....hardly a record that should repel republcians. But ofcouse he is kinda sleazy...I'll admit that. But I guess that D or R means more than anything some pols ever do.

I didn't vote for Clinton in 92, I voted for Perot. My sense of Clinton was that he was a weasel. IMO, this is a vibe that you can sense in your gut about the guy. The first time I saw him, a light went off, and I thought "this guy is completely full of crap, he's a snake oil salesman and not even a good one. Does he really think this isn't obvious to most people as soon as they meet him?"

Then he won. And I voted to re-elect him because despite my continued dislike of him, I approved of what got done, and I liked the result of a GOP congress and a democratic President.

My sense is that everyday joes who hate Clinton hate him because of the weasel vibe and the fact that he is demonstrably such an utter weasel that he will look you right in the eye, smile, and lie. It's a sad fact of life that charming people who are utterly full of crap fool alot of the people a lot of the time.

But if he was on the ballot, I'd vote for him again, not because I like him, but because of the results. If any one quickly describable policy is symbolic of this conundrum, it's "don't ask, don't tell." Intellectually and morally, it's absolutely unsatisfying and indeed deeply cynical. But it's product is a pretty durable truce that bridges the social policy divide. It's got that third way, real world 'crappiest except for all the other policies" vibe.

BK,

Funny, I voted the same way:

Perot 92 and Clinton 96 and for the same reasons pretty much. Perot was a no nonesense breath of fresh air in 92 and Clinton deserved re-election (IMO) in 96. My prez doesn't need to be that likeable but good results will always get my nod.

BTW, I agree that split partisan power between the legislative and excecutive branches is a good set-up.

John, we'll have to agree to disagree on Bush 41. Don't get me wrong, I liked him very much, and I have a tremendous respect for how well he handled Gulf War I. His foreign policy skills were tremendous (as should be expected given his background). Had he merely raised taxes by a relatively small amount, that's one thing. But the broken promise was too central to his campaign, too much a violation of principle for me to excuse.

And sure, maybe he had little choice given the political realities of Congress (but of course a recalcitrant Congress was part of the scenario used in his campaign pledge). On the other hand, what is politically possible often depends on how much political capital one is prepared to expend. And he didn't expend all that much political capital to insist on domestic spending cuts instead of tax increases.

As for Clinton, I don't suggest that people like your brother go through that exact thought process in reaching their intense dislike for Clinton. But they do hear about most of those things, and they all add in to their emotional reaction. Additionally, that kind of feeling filters down from the Members of Congress and the national GOP leaders through to the state and local GOP leaders and out into the GOP community at large (your brother and his conservative friends). But by the time the message gets down to that level, it's necessarily been simplified a great deal to little more than just the emotion.

But as I noted and Brian amplified, the "weasel factor" also played a big part. Like I said, despite his "I feel your pain" faux-empathy, he acted like his policy ideas were the only possible way, and anybody with a contrary suggestion was just stupid, ignorant, and just bad. He (and even more so, Hillary) thought they were just better than everybody else. That's annoying.

And partially as a result, Brian, he was impeached. Let that be a lesson to all future presidents. Don't hog all the credit from Congress and the other party, especially when you are stealing their ideas as your own. Rather than tightly holding on to every drop of political rewards, spread the wealth a tad so that everybody has some stake in your success.

A lesson to all politicians, period. If you want to keep your butt intact playing the populist game, keep spreading the praise. Toot your own horn loudly as you do (mostly by humble association) or it'll be a short run, but when you're spreadin' it, be sure to spread it far and wide. Makes all your critics look very small.

John. people hated Clinton because he WAS a weasel. A smirking smarmy sociopathic Golden-Boy ego interested only in Clinton. I hated him before he hit the national stage, because I knew Clinton's Arkansas all too well. But I also recognized his astonishing charisma, impressive intelligence, and mastery of the game. The sleaze surprised me not a bit, the ability to actually handle himself and excel in DC did. That same ego was his Achille's heel, though. Ten tons of brass but not a lick of discretion. A slightly humbler man would have dodged the bulllets no prob. Still, on the bright side, he's bound to be our most interesting and amusing ex-president for a good while.

But he just couldn't resist rubbing everyone's face in his untouchable gloriosity, and that drove the wingers over the edge. Like Melville's Billy Budd, it all just kept stacking up until a reaction was inevitable. Like that incredibly bright D+ athletic-scholarship frat jerk who walks out of school into a $500K New York broker's job and just can't quit consciously and aggressively reminding you of it, a bloody nose was inevitable. Whether it was actually called for is your own mileage, but it's tough to deny that he asked for it.

Still, you don't get too many Bill Clintons in a lifetime. He did a lot of good things simply because they helped Bill Clinton. And he did a lot of half-ass weenie things because he WAS Bill Clinton. But he was never ever dull.