Centerfield

Tully, things like this are also fueling the Republican split. How centrist or sane is our policy regarding antiterrorism funding?

On the other hand the Post prints a fairly centrist comment about Haditha . Is Murtha centrist? I have heard several cable generals link troop levels to Haditha. From what I have gleaned from the history of our invasion and occupation, IF reports are true this outrage has little to do with troop levels and much to do about breaking the law. Why not blame disbanding the army or the lack of initial police?

Yes, politics are local but the binary filter is ubiquitous and as you have said, outrageous hammers could easily change who is jumping ship.

It wouldn't shock me to see Democrats somehow reverse all this....

Haditha has bloody what to do with Kansas domestic politics? (Ans: Nada--totally different subject.)

In the case of the Kansas LTG pick, I have too much inside info, and at the same time not nearly enough. But it's completely local, as I indicated. Note the last sentence of the article. The question is, how many other states are finding themselves in the same quandary?

Sebelius is running as hard to the middle as she possibly can to get away from the radical Dem left. If she gets hooked to them, she's toast to ANY Republican in this state. The moderate Republicans are willing to accomodate her--they've had their fill of the more radical so-cons giving them a bad name.

So rather than picking a moderate Dem, she latches onto a reputable moderate Republican who is willing to jump ship rather than kow-tow to the so-cons. You can bet he had assurances ahead of time about the centrism of Sebelius' platform and plans.

all 5 Kansas radical left democrats?

wow

A switch is always noteworthy because most minimally competent pols at a high enough level to run for such an office know that you generally only get one switch.

There's nothing in this one story to suggest a trend, and I'm not suggesting there is. But IF there is a trend of moderate republicans crossing the lines to go democrat because they feel that socons have made a moderate republican position untenable, that would be aqvery BAD trend for the GOP, augering a base loss as socons return to the true believer wilderness. I speculated in the aftermath of the 2004 elections that the power the socons were flexing might be suggestive of a highwater mark either then, or impending within the next cycle.

I hope that's right. My admittedly biased sense of socons is that they are an especially insatiable sort when it comes to their priorities, to the point where it seems inevitable that they'll overreach. And when this ultimately leads to a failure, the failure is due to reaching the point where the socon message's appeal finds its limits, where the rest of us just aren't as socon as the socons. But socons don't ever accept that. Instead they attribute the failure to corruption, impurity, compromise of the true message, which of course can't be wrong or have limited appeal. Then it's time to head back to pure wilderness and purge the heretics who suggest further compromise in order to broaden the appeal of the message.

There's nothing in this one story to suggest a trend, and I'm not suggesting there is.

Read the last sentence of the story--Parkinson is not the first moderate local Republican to switch parties recently for purely local purposes. I could provide other examples if I wished--it's a trend here, if a minor one so far. The so-cons peaked out in the state voter base years ago, but retain a tenuous grip on the county party structures and the state convention. We've also seen the reverse--moderate Dems becoming Republicans to challenge GOP so-cons in local primary elections.

As Sebelius' election in '02 showed, the hard right can get a so-con on the ticket, but can't get a hard-right so-con governor elected against a Dem moderate/centrist. The odious Phill Kline barely squeaked by in '02 himself for AG. It'll be much tougher for him this time around, running against a moderate (former) Republican prosecutor who switched parties specifically to challenge Kline.

I've pointed out the trend of red states electing moderate Democrats in state-wide races many times. Ben Nelson (D) is still the favorite to keep his Senate seat against so-con challenger Pete Ricketts, for example, in the solid red state of Nebraska (66/33% Bush/Kerry). Brad Henry (D) should have little trouble getting re-elected gov in Oklahoma (65/35% Bush/Kerry). Dave Freudenthal (D) looks to be gold for re-election in Wyoming (69/29% Bush/Kerry).

In red states? I am in a true blue state, and moderate Republicans are jumping ship here like they are on the Titanic. The Senate Minority Leader quit his job and announced he would not run for re-election over gay rights and transportation, and in what used to be the most Republican district in the state, a moderate state representative is now running as a Democrat against an entrenched conservative incumbent over the same issues? The Republicans are losing moderates in large numbers, and rightfully so.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Napolitano for Vice-President, if the Democratic nominee has half a clue.

It happens the other way too. Remember the Cuellar election in Texas. Not a party jump, but a strong showing that centrists and moderates can kick ass on wingers IF they can get on the ballot.

And it will, of course, vary from place to place depending on the demographics. There are moderate Republicans in office in blue districts because their opposition was wing Dems. I cited some of them back in the Cuellar election. Using a simplistic dualistic GOP/Dem filter misses the nuance in local elections. Moderates seem to do well beating wingers IF they can get on the ballot, and wing control of the primary tends towards losses in the general.

The farther the parties get from the middle, the greater the chance that voters will ignore party labels and vote for the less extreme candidate, the one closer to the (local) mainstream. And the less power the parties have over their elected members.

To which I say, hoo rah!

The idea of jumping ship to the Dem side seems ludicrous to me.
Mind you, I do not know the details of these various elections, but what have these Dems offered their constituents? What have the Reps offered their constituents? Are they changing and are we voting - only based on the letters 'D' or 'R'?
I find it hard to believe that the SoCons have dictated policy. Maybe they have been pressuring inhouse but I argue they have less power and influence than in 2004.

Rachel, that's why I specified the Tip O'Neillism that all politics is local. Kansas is a red state--only 28% of all voters are registered Dems. But we have a Dem governor because the hard-right so-con candidate won the GOP primary in '02, and Sebelius is a moderate Dem. The so-cons were coordinated, the other two GOP candidates were mods and split the primary ticket and lost.

The Lt Guv who just retired was also an ex-GOP aisle-crosser, who joined the Dem ticket as a protest against the so-con control of the primaries and the county parties. Sebelius tried in vain to find a mod Dem known statewide who would add votes to her ticket, failed, and recruited another mod GOP'er, just as she did in '02. If the GOP can come up with a solid mod out of the primaries they might be able to unseat her. If they nominate another hard-right so-con she's good for four more years.

The majority of Kansans are moderates, and whenever a GOP moderate makes the state-wide ticket, they win. But the so-cons often control the GOP primaries, and it can be tough for the mods to get on the ticket. On the Dem side, by contrast, ONLY a mod can win on a state-wide ticket. A far left Dem would lose 2-1.