Centerfield

PS:

here's a larger DKos poll without Gore. Seems like Feingold picks up most of the slack with Warner and Clark grabbing a few scraps.

Who do you currently prefer for 2008?

No frickin' clue 460 votes - 4 %
Other 352 votes - 3 %
Warner 1345 votes - 12 %
Vilsack 32 votes - 0 %
Richardson 231 votes - 2 %
Kerry 184 votes - 1 %
Feingold 5405 votes - 48 %
Edwards 784 votes - 7 %
Daschle 68 votes - 0 %
H. Clinton 306 votes - 2 %
Clark 1719 votes - 15 %
Biden 146 votes - 1 %
Bayh 128 votes - 1 %

11160 Total Votes

Honestly, I'm not really sure about Gore. The right certainly paints him as a moonbat, but his positions on a lot of issues in 2000 were clearly moderate. Gore is really gung-ho for the environment, but I think its his critiques of Bush that get the most heat from the right. It's kind of like Robert Byrd, who is a conservative Dem in every sense, but has criticized Bush harshly on the war.

As far as 2008 goes, a lot of lefties think Hillary is too soft on Bush, and think Gore does a better job. I'm opposed to Hillary for different reasons. Concerning the GOP, they could win the Presidency if the Dems are stupid and put up Hillary, and the GOP runs McCain or Rudy.

The GOP is too foolish to figure this out, so they'll play to the base and run a righty like Frist or Allen. Of course I'm hoping the Dems run a solid pick (Richardson, Bayh, Lieberman), but I wonder: Could either of them win over the base?

Rafique,

"(Richardson, Bayh, Lieberman), but I wonder: Could either of them win over the base?"

IMHO, no. Richardson stikes me as the only one the Dems could stand behind, but that's still weak. I expect a bigger name to win out.

As for Gore, in terms of strength, is pretty solid against Republican except McCain and Rudy. Ofcourse, Gore's "Lefty" persona, should he look like a winner, by the GOP base may make them more bold in picking a strong conservative.

I don't think Giulliani is a viable candidate - too much baggage and too liberal for many republicans.
Unless the GOP loses badly this November.
Then he becomes a "Hail Mary" pass.

For about a year I've considered Al Gore to the second-most likely candidate for the Dems (the first being Mark Warner).*

But recently I've run the idea past non-political junkies like my parents, and they've all ridiculed Al Gore. So I'm starting to change my mind on Gore's future.

* I also think Hillary won't even run, so I'm obviously out of the mainstream

Gore has completely lost it. Surely you all remember the debacle in Saudi Arabia... here is a refresher if not. I know this is just one incident, but I'm not going to write an essay here. Is that really the kind of behavior you want a Presidential candidate to be displaying? It's bad enough he's an ex-VP.

I can almost guarantee that I would vote against Gore, unless the Republicans manage to put somebody even worse up on the block... which is sadly possible. Please, democrats, please give me somebody I can vote for. I beg of you!

Fortunately for those of us who think he's loopy, Gore is not planning to run.

I'm personally hoping it's Warner and Clark as VP - Clark has a little too much baggage to be the Pres candidate but has the foreign policy experience to shore up the former Governor, who won a Red state..

Gore looks like a moonbat to righties, which is not much of a surprise. Pretty much anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman is on the wrong side of the line that separates responsible from moonbat, according to the GOP Hoyle.

So Dean and Gore are tinfoil hat batsh!t crazy according to them.

Now if you are a democrat, Lieberman is a DINO and Dean and Gore are right smack in the middle of the democratic party. So it's a matter of perspective. But overlaid on this perspective is that the nation is leaning conservative, largely but not exclusively in the wake of 9/11. This means that the very coinservative portion of the GOP base can filed a standard-bearer who must be taken very seriously. I am not convinced that's true for the democrats. I don't think anything like a far-left standard bearer will be accomdated by the democrats, let alone taken seriously. Does Jesse Jackson's perenially vanity candidacy count?

And let's face it, the far left here in America is an entity unto itself. I think you can argue that its radical, inflammatory nature is a self-marginalizing feature, in that its very socialist positions are not ones that appeal to the vast majority of likely voters. For better or for worse, the people of Earth's richest nation don't warm up to a pessimistic, glass-half-empty, constant crisis, apocalypse around the corner message.

I don't think losers get second chances any more in American politics--even if Gore was (arguably) robbed in 2000. He 's old news. I wouldn't put too much weight on who the Kossites want.

Gore is no radical (except, perhaps, on the environment), but I think he is very bitter about what happened in 2000 and it has affected his judgement. I wasn't crazy about Gore in 2000--mainly because of the way he pandered to Al Sharpton. Also, he has spent too much time in Washington and has no real poltical base any more. I think the barn door has closed for Gore. He won't get the moderate support, which will go to Edwards, Warner, Richardson, etc. And the lefty vote will be split.

And, of course, if Gore doesn't run, that makes it even less likely that he will be the nominee!
-;)

Marc, just for clarification. I don't necessarily think that Gore is a radical leftie, I just think the man is loopy in general. Loopy, in my vernacular, has nothing to do with his politics, just him and his personality.

What Pat said.

...the far left here in America is an entity unto itself. I think you can argue that its radical, inflammatory nature is a self-marginalizing feature, in that its very socialist positions are not ones that appeal to the vast majority of likely voters. For better or for worse, the people of Earth's richest nation don't warm up to a pessimistic, glass-half-empty, constant crisis, apocalypse around the corner message.

Note: Much the same can be said of the far right.

True Tully, I've no desire to devolve this into CPD. Yet I can't help but notice that in the current climate (which need not be fundamental, intrinsic, enduring, natural, etc), the further right seems to have more success fielding a legitimate standard bearer and has shown IMO more satisfaction with the viable candidates their nominal party has chosen as presidential candidates.

I hestitate to speculate about what this means or what it shows. Currently, I think the far left is more marginalized, but I don't think such marginalization is necessarily a bad thing or undeserved. Were I to speculate, I'd say that mainstream conservatives are able to find ample common ground with the further right on basic cultural values, the ones that aren't especially moonbatty...the ones about character and responsibility. And these are values that democrats actually share (no one is anti-character or anti-responsibility) but that the GOP is more prone to emphasize and more prone to using as an interpretive lens on any given issue. In the relationship between the democrats and the further left, do they have the same type of uniting values/lenses? If they do, maybe it's that they aren't especially resonant. Suppose these character lens were, oh, I dunno, equal oppportunity, a government more responsive to the have nots, social equity. I don't think these values have the same sort of broad and comparatively uncontroversial resonance across the main stream of our culture.

Of course, I could be entirely full of crap about this, just speculating out loud, off the cuff.

Brian,

You are correct about the radical left in America--that's probably a primary reason why there has never been a significant radical movement in the US as in Europe--although whether that is cause or effect is unclear. I'm not even sure you can call it socialist--there seems to be no real defined economic position at all except that it's against capitalism. It's more nihilist than anything else.

I'm not sure I agree with Tully about the right--unless you are talking about Aryan Nation right. Other relatively far right movements--such as the John Birch Society and, of course, the KKK, have been much more accepted at least in parts of the country, even if they have not necessarily had electoral success.

Pat,

Agreed, there is something about Gore that is discomfitting. I don't think he is a natural politician, but he was sort of bred to be one by his father.

In the first place Gore is not a radical leftist, secondly why is "moonbat" only used to describe those on the far left and not the far right?

Go Hillary!

"I'm opposed to Hillary for different reasons."

Could this have something to do with that?

Excerpt for those who might have access trouble:

Last summer, as other potential 2008 presidential candidates were making their first sojourns to Iowa, Hillary Clinton did something a little different. She brought Iowa to Washington. In June, the senator, who is up for reelection this year but who has yet to draw a Republican challenger worth fretting about, entertained several key caucus-state activists and donors at her five-bedroom brick home on Embassy Row. Known to Hillary aides simply as Whitehaven, the 4,700-square-foot mansion is the site of the senator's regular Washington fund-raisers and strategy sessions. Other 2008 contenders--Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, John Kerry, and Mark Warner--have all recently introduced (or reintroduced) themselves to Iowans. Clinton introduced the Iowans to Hillaryland.

why is "moonbat" only used to describe those on the far left and not the far right?

I think we do a pretty decent job of criticizing each wing when the partisianship is unthinking. But I agree that certain pejoratives do seem to apply more to to one wing than the other. I think you do see "moonbat" used more in reference to the left, and I think this is because the general overiding impression of the main flaw in the left is a disconnect between the ivory tower idealism of social theory and real-world application. The general overiding impression of the main flaw in the right, by contrast, is that's it's rigid and unappreciative of the merits of differences in human nature and preferences. So, the right more poften gets insulted as rigid, puritanical, and intolerant.

Now I'm not saying these general stereotypes are entirely accurate. Only that they explain the types of pejoratives chosen.

I consider it a badge of honor to have been accused of being both a lefty stooge and a righty stooge. Using tempered langauge seldom seems to protect me from such accusations from whoever's ox, or rather sacred cow is getting gored. So If I'm going to be called a stooge anyway , I figure I might as well enjoy myself by indulging in a little baiting now and then.

Not shooting for CPD, Brian, noting the fact that if you change two words, it applies to the other end as well. That says nothing about why the rad-left seems more marginalized than the rad-right. That could lead us into the Lakoff/Frank/Texeira swamps of framing and such. If forced to speculate, I'd say that the right is more "nativist" in "appeal" than the left. In any case, the right has a larger wing base to work with.

Laura, the origin of "moonbat" in Internet usage was in the libertarian right to describe over-the-top rad-left conspiracy theorists. Like "idiotarian," it can be applied universally to describe anyone out of touch with reality. Depending on your own POV, of course. Why it's generally not is your own mileage.

Observations: Wing usages seem to trend around "crazy" when aimed at the left, and around "stupid" when aimed at the right. Left-to-right labelling tends to be a bit more obscene and scatalogical than the right-to-left labelling. Once again, why is your own mileage.

It seems to me that the hard left criticisms of the hard right seem to be more about attributed motives (racist, corporate whore, etc.) and the hard right criticisms of the hard left seems to be more about alleged naivete or more general moonie/loonie-ism.

Justin's link to CNSNEWS included this comment:

["What possesses a former vice president of the U.S. to travel to the birthplace of Islamist terrorism and denounce his country?" asked the website Investors.com in an editorial.]

But I guess it's okay for President Bush to host, hold hands and do business with the Saudis at Camp David.

why is "moonbat" only used to describe those on the far left and not the far right?

Because the correct term for someone the far right is "wingnut."

I thought "wingnut" was generic for the fringes on either side, with "moonbats" on the left and "fundies" on the right.

Laura,

"why is "moonbat" only used to describe those on the far left and not the far right?"

In my experience, moonbat tends to get used for the far left while "wingnut" tends to go to the far right.

Neither is good.

It's not ironclad but it's what I've noticed.

No, wingnut describes a zealous partisan...there are right wingnuts and left wingnuts. I think we should hand out golden wingnuts once a month, 1 per side.

Tod, I'm not sure I agree with the "motives" assertion. Both sides ascribe the other's actions to ill intent. I think one of the fundamental attribution erros of partisans is to ascribe the other sides actions to malice, which explaining their own actions as stemming from circumstances. Positing malice.

The usual motives ascribed vary though. Acc the right, lefties are unamerican traitors, assaulting the american way of life. Acc the left, the righties are greedy and selfish when it comes to economics, ignorant puritans when it comes to social issues. Strangely enough, it's almost as though the left thinks that economics should be governed first by morals and culture by the free markets(personal choice), and righties vice versa.

A neat observation. RealEconomik, of course, just rolls right along regardless.

If only one side is notably nutty one month (a vanishingly unlikely circumstance, to be true) do we issue a "lone nut" award?

To avoid that, we can give the award to the previous month's "reigning champion."

Here in NYC there is a palpable feeling of being screwed anyway you look. On the Right is clearly an administration squandering America's unique position in time with incompetence and fundie ideology. President Custer I presume. On the other side is the New Left trying to use Bush to slide their way into the Democratic Party. Calling the New York Times part of the "Jewish Conspiracy" and over playing every political ace they are dealt has soured Liberals here on the leadership of the Democrats for allowing such remarks to sneak into their camp. We see Hillary trying to wrestle control away from Rove/Pavlov's Dean. Many just can't predict if Iran and more terrorism will give Republicans a chance to nominate a real Righty, or if polls will force both sides to move to the center. If the Republicans do float a Righty, I suspect McCain and others will withdraw a certain amount of support and energy. The nomination process will be ugly on the Right side. On the other hand, moving center before the Democrats might give a Republican moderate a chance to beat a Centrist Democrat and certainly a Lefty. Most here are waiting to see the 2006 election results. Will the Democrats run on "impeach Bush", or simply no message at all?

I agree Kerry and Gore both won't cut it because Americans have reservations about loosers (though Gore won the popular vote). The real movement will be a shift in Congress. A split in power often leads to compromise and more Centrist outcomes. Polls suggest Americans would like to see a balance of power between the Parties.

With Hillary comes Bill Clinton, so I would not rule her out. She has done a good job for New York, braved attacks from the Right and Left and has the credentials of the center. Her worst problem is the shrillness of her voice when she tries to sound passionate. Her ego isn't half Bill's. Warner has a shot, but I like Biden. He has the best personality and directness. He called Iraq from the start and has a good Centrist resume.

Gore seems a bit emotionally disturbed and after Bush the next Presidenet must have some intelligence and warmth in their communication. Americans don't trust their leaders much anymore. Corporations and special interests have never so dominated national policy. The Atlantic predicts two more terms before Americans pick an Independent. But then, Clarke's article in The Atlantic several months ago predicts by 2010, America will be a far different place having been attacked by more terrorism.

Obama in 2012 if Democrats loose the next one.

BK makes a good observation. Republicans and Democrats have strangely reversed themselves. Added to BK's observation is that now conservatives follow a pro-active foreign policy and Democrats urge isolation (via the New Left). They use the Constutition to denounce intelligent design, yet have serious problems that the Constitution rests the good of the many on the rights of individuals including the right to make a profit.

The most amazing thing on the Left is that before Iraq the Democrats demanded Bush get international consensus before invading. Now as the world forms a consensus about Iran, they complain such "consensus" is just a bunch of bullies trying to dominate another oil rich country. Wasn't it not to long ago that Kerry proclaimed, "I will not allow Iran to get the bomb"? Or witness the sudden excitement over the port deal. Or the silence over defending Danish free speech or even South Park. This reversal of principle based on "not Bush" is almost as bad as having principles that are either wrong or are destroyed through incompetent action.

Perhaps that's why many are here.......

Can you say "stream of consciousness"?