Centerfield

Mr. Web was back tracking today from the seemingly anti Semitic ad he ran against Miller (see the Kerry connection). Bloomberg is a great Unity candidate (I don't think he can win against certain other candidates), but McCain might get ripped by conservative Republicans and be a much better Unity candidate should he see his Republican options fade. Unity would probably endorse many of his ideas (Iraq and Iran?)

Isn't it weird that McCain and Clinton can use Independent possibilities in their present battles for Republican and Democratic support? Unity could pack more punch than Nader. This may be a case where the candidates (whoever they are) bring with themselves the criteria for their Unity plank. I have always thought major defections from both parties could propel a third party in the absence of weak Right/Left candidates.

Posted by: maxtrue at June 12, 2006 09:17 PM

Unity could pack more punch than Nader.

Be that as it may, as I will point out in a forthcoming post, Nader's candidacy was an abject failure by the standards of other "successful" third party candidacies in the last century, being elevated into the limelight only by the unique circumstances of a close result. Posted by: Simon at June 12, 2006 10:20 PM

You may be right, but still McCain or Hillary level defections from the Left and Right could eclipse the footprint of a Nader or Perot in the general election. Who would get top billing?

If McCain is excluded by the conservatives, or the Leftist win and Warner, Clinton or Biden are excluded, 1. the possibility of a Unity run as leverage in their prospective party battles and 2. a possible Unity ticket with an amalgam of notables (which would hurt who?).

Bloomberg isn't the glue to go all the way, but his money certainly gives notables a cushion, if it comes to that. Imagine two extreme candidates. A heavy weight could make some big waves. There is the possibility that the victor gets no majority of voters, but rather the largest minority share of them.

I wonder what the electoral college does in such a case....or the courts

Posted by: maxtrue at June 12, 2006 11:42 PM

Max,
I'm kinda reluctant to get into this, because its pre-empting something already in the pipeline, but in any event, the whole point is that you can't seriously compare Nader to Perot. Ross Perot won nearly 20% of the popular vote in '92, and 8.40% in '96; Nader's best showing was a pitiful 2.7%. The most apt comparison for Nader would not be Perot, it would be Eugene Debs, who won similar numbers for the Socialist party in the first half of the last century (although to give him his due, even Debs managed a high water mark of over 5%). Ralph Nader's candidacy was and is an abject failure.

Why is it, I have to ask, that you continue to include Joseph Biden -- a man who avoids being the most obnoxious and contemptible man in the Senate by virtue of the serendipitous good fortune of serving concurrently with Schumer of New York -- in your list of potential "centrist" democratic nominees? I've noticed this in several of your posts, but it is hard to imagine someone who less represents the acceptable wing of the Democratic party. Were you just not watching the Roberts/Alito hearings? If they accurately reflect his understanding of the Constitution - and his self-absorbtion - then the man simply isn't fit for public office (admittedly, that same accusation could be made of all but one of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee). If Biden runs, I will be hard pressed not to go work for Hillary rather than see him win a single percentage point.

I wonder what the electoral college does in such a case....or the courts

In what particular situation? The electoral college casts its votes, which are transmitted under seal to the President of the Senate, who then opens them in the presence of Congress. There are no plurality victories in the electoral college: if one candidate has an a majority of the votes cast, they are President; if no candidate has won more than 50% of the votes cast, the House of Representatives will choose between the three candidates with the most votes, in the manner I described earlier in the month. Posted by: Simon at June 13, 2006 09:20 AM

This isn't exactly a new rumor, Ron at Politics stoked it the day that Unity '08 started. I like Mike Bloomberg and think he is an outstanding Mayor; however, Unity '08 would probably need to do better. Money or no money, I don't see the American people buying into a Bloomberg candidacy, although I personally feel he would make a good President and would have no problem voting for him. I think Max is on to something... Unity '08 can declare victory and go home if the nominees of the two political parties are individuals such as Giuliani, McCain, Warner, or Bayh... The movement becomes obsolete in my view under that scenario. The trouble is, I think we are long way from any of those four winning the nomination of their party, and the American people will be looking for something different if the nominee's names are Allen, Romney, Gore, or Clinton.

Posted by: Mathew at June 13, 2006 11:43 AM

Unity '08's biggest challenge won't be to the Democrats or the Republicans it will be to Centrists.

Assuming '08 is actually telling the truth and accepts the ballot of the on-line convention voters their platform and ticket are going to look different than they had hoped.

The intent of this whole thing smacks of the "revenge" of John Anderson (R-IL), if you can even imagine such a thing. (Revenge of the vengeless) This is exactly the kind of person Unity '08 is thinking America will vote to nominate.

How come he only won 7% of the vote that year? I don't begrudge people their 7% but where does that begin to become a movement?

Some people do think of Ross Perot as a more modern version of this phenomenon, but I gaurantee you this is NOT the kind of person that Unity '08 has in mind. Granted, he had favored most of the Andersonite ideas of balanced budgets and Corporate responsibility, but he was also strongly protectionist. Do we discount that fact in our analysis as part of his quirkiness? Or do we concede that it takes an aspect of genuine populism to form anything approaching a broad coalition?

There is a strong streak of anti-Populism in the Centrist movement, as evidenced by Unity '08's opposition to wedge issues.

Both liberals and Centrists think they have the pulse of the balance of power in this country, when really they have the pulse of the great many of those on the right wing of the Left.

When the right splinters as it did in the 90's the Center has an opportunity to elect a President, but the when the Right unites under the GOP banner it wins by default.

I don't say these things to be insulting. I say them to be provocative, because I think a genuine 3rd party in this country is past-due and yet it hasn't happened. I think I know why, but I'd like to know if others can see what I see when I look at the political landscape of this country.

A century ago, when the New Deal politics we know today was yet 20 years off, the GOP and the Democrats were very different than they are today.

Yes, the GOP was even then a staunchly pro-business party, but it was the birthplace of this country's "progressive," politics, not the Dems. Anti-Trust legislation, Civil Service Reform, the Income Tax, these were ALL passed by the GOP sometimes over significant Democratic opposition. The GOP was also far more oriented towards Separation of Church and State in their attitude while the Dems were more Religious Right for lack of a better term. I think that is what alot of Centrists may be trying to get back to.

But, the defining aspect of our changing politics today is the attempt by elite forces in this country to change America in a manner that is alien to alot of Americans. Affirmative Action, Gay Marriage, Free Trade, tolerance towards sexual predators, the press pre-occupation with "human rights" over national security, and, finally, immigration control. I know these things wouldn't normally go together in our discourse, but I think for a pivotal segment of America, they do.

Liberals and Centrists are on the same political terrain on these, and I think the GOP wins by default because they're the only ones fighting on the "American" side of these issues. When the Center disavows wedge issues it cedes the balance of power to the GOP.

Having said this, I think the Center could learn a lesson here. Balanced budgets, Corporate reform including of Corporate Welfare, Redistricting Reform, etc. are all achievable if they are promoted under the same banner as this Americanism. But as long as the Center opposes this sentiment as gauche, it will surrender the balance of power to Corporate stooges who are even LESS on the side of America, but who know better than to let the People know about it.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 13, 2006 02:03 PM

I like a lot of what Cavalier829 just said, particularly that "elite forces in this country to change America in a manner that is alien to alot of Americans," but on that point, let me add something else to the pot. Consider "What's the Matter With Kansas" by Thomas Franks. And assume, for sake of argument, that most of Franks' observations are accurate (they aren't, but that's another story). Franks book is regarded as "important" by many democrats, yet it has a number of critical flaws, the most prominent of which is that Franks concludes that the GOP has used the gap between the Democratic party and blue collar America to syphon off votes that "should" be going to the Democratic party. In his haste to condemn Americas as stupid and the GOP as manipulative, Franks never stops to consider the importance of his own assertion: that there is a vast gap between the Democratic party and America. If it was not there, the GOP could not exploit it. The GOP didn't put gay marriage onto the nation's agenda, the LGBT community - aided and abbetted by the Massachusetts Supreme Court and five members of the Supreme Court of the United States did. The simple fact is that the left is out of step with America on social issues, and yet their reaction - typified by Franks' - is to bewail and belittle Americans for being as interested in those issues as are democrats, yet having the temerity to have a different point of view.

The problem for Unity '08 is going to come when it tries to define a "centrist" stance on issues which are only "wedge issues" because they are important to a great number of people. I mean, stop to think about it for a moment: what an asinine assertion it is to talk about a wedge issue as if it were a marginal issue. What kind of wedge would it be if it did not stir intense emotional engagement in a large number of people? The reason that both parties play to these wedge issues is precisely because those issues are of vital importance to a great number of people, and they lack any center ground. The only centrist position that I can imagine on abortion, for a Federal candidate, would be to say that Roe should be overturned, and the Federal government shoiuld return to playing the same role it had always previously played, which is to say, absolutely none. Count on one hand the democrats who will get behind that platform. Count on one hand the number of republicans who will get behind a platform any more supportive of abortion than that.

This movement will not only fail, it will make it easier for the two major parties to marginalize and mollify their moderate wings. I do not see any of that as a good result.

Posted by: Simon at June 13, 2006 04:48 PM

Simon,

You hit the nail on the head.

But do you think U '08 will attempt to define a Centrist stance on the wedge issues or completely ignore them in the interest of Unity?

The Reform Party had the same problem. They took NO stance on these in order to unite people on the economic and political reform issues. The problem being that even though the vast majority find the most important issues are other than the social ones, they still insist on their candidates getting the social ones right.

I'd go for sending abortion back to the states. I even think a nice chunk of the Right would accept that. Probably the same on Marriage as well.

And THAT would defuse this issue for the Right.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 13, 2006 05:29 PM

But do you think U '08 will attempt to define a Centrist stance on the wedge issues or completely ignore them in the interest of Unity?

But how CAN they? I mean, I really can't believe that they would be so naive as to say "our candidate simply isn't going to have a position on these issues," as if there is anyone who in fact doesn't have a position on abortion, or on homosexual marriage, or on fiscal policy. Thus, they have to have a policy on these things, and yet it is impossible to develop a policy on these things without driving away a significant chunk of voters. They might as well announce that John Yossarian is their candidate. Posted by: Simon at June 13, 2006 06:38 PM

Simon,
My reference to Biden is not so much the potential for his candidancy, but rather, that he represents my concept of centrism as much as Clinton or Warner (well the Kos connection aside). Is he much more Left of Clinton or Lieberman? He has the ability to forcefully lay it out on cable and I believe was dead on regarding Iraq and Iran. Since you like Roberts and Alito, I suppose even Scalito, I am not exactly sure you are any more centrist than you imagine Biden to be. The reality that many here see a discussion of centrist criteria will yield little, makes it pointless right now to digress into comparing "personal" standards. Is conservatism more centrist than Liberalism (full spectrum)? That's another thread...

I certainly think Perot had bigger numbers, but Nader gave us Bush. I wasn't really comparing them, but rather speculating that big names could easily jump to Unity and make a real crap shoot come election day. That is, if such notable centrists are shut out of either/both parties and defect.

I think that both parties are dead even about now (Democrats seem to have an edge)with neither party getting much traction. That is why Republicans have made gays and immigration as crucial issues. The Democrats have a Daily Show list of issues to throw at the Republicans. And who could imagine Lou Dobbs would be leading the charge against two unlikely partners, McCain and Bush?

Given the last election, I was just imagining what would happen with three campaigns in court over the results of a close three-way election in numerous States. Wasn't Florida bad enough with two parties? And the two other groups who lose, might constitute an even greater majority than the last two elections produced for the winner. I wonder if it will be a simple House vote, especial if all three candidates hover at 33%.

I am glad you are ready to help Clinton. Is that your preference?

Posted by: maxtrue at June 13, 2006 06:54 PM

Simon, I don't see how they succeed either.

But that's also exactly why I think this whole experiment could be particularly challenging for Centrists. If they actually leave the on-line Convention open to their internet base I think they're going to end up with a party different than they anticipated.

The issue, then, will be whether they roll with it or shut it down, indicating that the American people are just, "too divided," to form a major 3rd party, when the real reason is that they are opposed to the product they helped to create.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 13, 2006 07:37 PM

First, Biden strikes me less as a centrist than as a pompous, preening, self-absorbed buffoon, with only the most tenuous understanding of the document he swore to uphold. It is perfectly possible, I suppose, that he hides a genuinely fine intellect hidden behind the visage of a pompous, preening, self-absorbed buffoon because he thinks that will win him votes, but that possibility hardly speaks better of him. Imean this in a purely non-partisan way; if he were a Republican, I would say the same thing about him.

Second, Republicans - that is to say, the GOP leadership - didn't make "immigration and gays" the political issues of the moment; to be sure, they are guilty of pandering to the base on these issues, but to successfully pander is to play to the pre-existing convictions and prejudices of the base. It would be an odd kind of populismindeed that ran contrary to the concerns of the base. Illegal immigrants are the single biggest driving force in putting immigration onto the policydebate, and homosexual marriage sprung fully-formed into the public conscience as an issue by the authority of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts and the pen of Anthony McLeod Kennedy.

Third, I agree with you that Nader had a larger effect on the outcome of an election, but in this context, I think that point is less valuable than it might seem. Nader had an import grossly disproportional to his actual electoral success. But that doesn't really help third-parties, because all Nader demonstrated was that a thid party can have an effect with very few votes if the election is otherwise close. In 2008, say the GOP nominates a ticket with John McCain or Rudy Giulliani, with someone the right is comfortable with - say, Newt Gingrich. And say the democrats nominate, as they seem likely to do, Hillary, with Mark Warner on backing vocals. That election is unlikely to be as close as the two Bush elections. The greater the disparity between the two serious candidates, the more workathird party has to do. Which means, ironically enough, that a third party can ONLY prosper in a very polarized election - the same polarizataion that is precisely what Unity '08 bemoans. Worse yet, Nader gave democrats Bush, but Perot gave republicans Clinton. Is that really healthy in a democracy? Is it really healthy that we have a plurality president?

I am glad you are ready to help Clinton. Is that your preference?

My God, no! LOL! The fact that I would even consider it should tell you more about how much I strongly I would oppose Biden - who would be a national embarrasment - not that I am particularly well-disposed to Clinton. Under normal circumstances, the only Democrat I can imagine working for is Stephanie Herseth, and to be fair, for her, I would not only cross the aisle, I'd cross hot coals. *swoon* If only she could be pro-life... Posted by: Simon at June 13, 2006 07:57 PM

Simon,

She's not pro-Life? Damn. Too bad for you. Now excuse me as I cross these hot coals.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 13, 2006 08:48 PM

I'll settle for her simply being the kind of opponent I'd like to have more of. I don't, after all, expect democrats to be moderate Republicans.

On a more sober note, it does seem to me that Herseth has figured out what the rest of the Democratic party is struggling with: Democrats are out of step with America, and America will not bend to meet Democrats. Now, you can have views that are at variance with America on many issues and still succeed, but you can't be at odds with them on EVERYTHING, and thus, Herseth has chosen America over Democratic dogma on a wide range of issues - gay marriage (on which, ironically enough, this Republican disagrees with her), gun control and so on. Unlike Thomas Franks, Herseth has understood that the mountain will not come to Muhammed.

On some level, it's very tempting to give money to Herseth and Bob Casey, because I think they might well bring back some balance to the Democrats, and that has to be good for America; but on the other hand, one worries that if they succeed in that endeavour, my party could be in trouble. Hmph.

Posted by: Simon at June 13, 2006 09:38 PM

Simon,
Some other time I can learn more about your criteria of centrism. Scalito, pro-life, pro-unlimited intelligence powers?, anti-any-form-of-amnesty, less taxes, the great wall, no global warming etc. etc. This is of course, NOT what comes to mind for me as centrist. Sounds more like a conservative that doesn't love Bush (for not being conservative enough?).

I have heard Biden say many intelligent things. Perhaps you should review his speeches on Iraq and Foreign Policy in general. I also think his view regarding intelligence and the Constitutional obligations to keep intelligence capabilities in reasonable check by Congressional and Justice Department review are centrist and correct. He does try to present a TV face at times, but he has made great jokes instead of vindictive blather. This is not the case when I listen to a Delay, Frist,....oh you get the point. A bit of the pompousness is probably Congressional in origin.

I understand your point about Nader. I also agree that Unity08 works best under extremely polarized conditions. In such a state, Unity gives moderates of both parties an insurance plan for leverage against their base. A president has to learn how to stand up to their base. Clinton did that. The base of Republicans is clearly wrong about immigration given the global context. I fear you will not be happy until Mexico joins Chavez. Yes, cut taxes and build a great wall. Now I see why people say "Republicans can't govern and Democrats can't win".

I think Unity works negatively in a Hillary v McCain. Is that a lose lose for you? In a struggle between Frist and Gore, a McCain or Hillary could conceivably win. The attraction of Unity, unlike an Independent Party, is that it is committed to policies both Republicans and Democrats could agree on. It confers to its candidates an immediate "center" status and an aggressive organization. The fear is that it bleeds in defeat the narrow victory for a moderate on either side. That is why I think it is a cop out for Unity not to have a clear plank on major issues that would help anyone jumping on. It would prevent any heavy weight from simply forcing Unity to accept the plank of the two candidates and the money trail.

GOP leadership did make gays and the great wall election strategies. I do not see how you consider it otherwise.

"It would be an odd kind of populism indeed that ran contrary to the concerns of the base."

Just look at the Democrat front runners that have not played to the antiwar base. They have not called for impeachment. They have held more closely to the centrist line than the clear attempts to unseparate church and state, create unchecked security powers, threaten international agreements (replacing Trident missiles and Justice memos on the Geneva Convention) and in Specter’s view declare that 750 laws do not apply to executive powers. What have the Democrats done to erode the Constitution? The whole campaign by Republicans is to pose, "what would Democrats do"?

Calling Biden to be a potential national embarrassment after listening to how many hours of Bush speaking is quite a statement. Shall I quote Rumsfeld, or Rice? Bring em on? So you think Biden would be as obtuse? I think not Simon. Republicans are in power and they will have to run on their record. No great changes in energy, massive debt, poor global PR, Katrina, Abu Graib, growing socialism in South America, NK and Iran barking, MDA spending almost 100 billion for what? Just look at this fine piece of news

So Bush 1 hands Somalia to Clinton. Bill is blamed for the fiasco fighting the Warlords while Republicans denounce him. Later the military blames itself upon review. Meanwhile Clinton pulls out. Bush 2 does little and then backs Warlords who get their asses kicked by the popularly supported Islamic Warlords. Where were the Republicans back in 1998? Or after the embassy bombings? They played with the base then to get them more isolationist and they do now, by championing pro democracy (with little game plan). Centrism doesn't make such concessions to minority bases and flip flop when its to their political advantage. Democrats have done this too. Republicans have made it an art form while Democrats look silly doing it.

Posted by: maxtrue at June 13, 2006 09:58 PM

What have the Democrats done to erode the Constitution?

LMAO. How long do you have? The Warren Court. Roe v.Wade. Substantive due process. Defeating Robert Bork. The continuous attempt to degrade the Constitution and the public's understanding. The continuous attempts to co-opt the constitution to their cause. It seems to me - and I make no apologies for this exaggeration - but almost every aspect of the democratic party's view of the constitution (not limited to, but most particularly as it pertains to its view of the powers of Congress and the Supreme Court) is at war with the Constitution, and it guarantees that no matter how much I disagree with the GOP's candidate, I have to vote Republican in Senate and Presidential elections, because to do otherwise is violative of my oath to support and defend the constitution, as I interpret it.

I have heard Biden say many intelligent things. Perhaps you should review his speeches on Iraq and Foreign Policy in general.

Sure, but one always has to cross-reference them against speeches made by Neil Kinnock...Leopards don't change their spots.

Calling Biden to be a potential national embarrassment after listening to how many hours of Bush speaking is quite a statement. Shall I quote Rumsfeld, or Rice? Bring em on? So you think Biden would be as obtuse? I think not Simon.

I very much think so. I have no particular love for Rumsfeld, but I suspect that in Biden's case, he has met his equal.

(To be fair, on the actual hard questions of policy, I actually disagree with Biden far less substantially than I do with many other members of his party. So far as I understand his position, his view is that now we're there, we should be there in greater numbers, something I fully agree with. But would Biden have put us in Iraq in teh first place? Would he keep us there when it became unpopular? Would he fight an election on it, knowing he could lose? I confess doubt.

I have never said that I support "unlimited intelligence powers"; I have said that none of the programs that have come to light appear to violate the Constitution, and that I have my doubts that they break the law in terms of government conduct. Whether one agrees or disagrees with me in terms of legality, you must surely admit that saying that something is constitutionally permissable is far from a normative endorsement of it.

I agree with your tacit swipes at Frist and DeLay,for the record. I am delighted that Tom is gone, and nothing will please me more to see the talented heart surgeon go back to a job he is apparently very good at.

A president has to learn how to stand up to their base. Clinton did that. The base of Republicans is clearly wrong about immigration given the global context.

It seems to me that what the base wants is an enforcement-only bill. I have gone on record several times, here and elsewhere, as saying that I don't think an enforcement-only approach can work. Ironically enough, Bush is now "standing up to the base", but I would venture that while both Bush and the base are wrong, Bush (and apparently you) are more wrong. Enforcement is not enough,but we must start with enforcement, or our imigration policy will remain in practise, as it is now, open borders.

GOP leadership did make gays and the great wall election strategies. I do not see how you consider it otherwise.

I consider it otherwise because that is the reality. Lest we forget, this issue came to the fore when the Massachusetts Supreme Court put it there. The base reacted viscerally (and, I might point out, disapprobation of gay marriage is FAR from contained to the Republican base; if a referendum was held tommorow, in each state, every state would ban gay marriage), and the leadership pandered to that feeling. You have the cart before the horse.

It's intriguing to me, by the way, that you continue to use the "Scalito" monicker, even in contradistiction to Justice Alito (where, frankly, it's just weird). Justice Scalia and Justice Alito are very different jurists, something that should be entirely evident to anyone who compares their records. In any event, I would probably not choose the term "centrist", more now than ever, since Unity '08 is no doubt intending to co-opt it. I consider myself a Republican moderate; on my blog's masthead, you'll notice that next to the GOP elephant there is a stylized rhino. It's there for a reason.

Posted by: Simon at June 13, 2006 10:27 PM

The attraction of Unity, unlike an Independent Party, is that it is committed to policies both Republicans and Democrats could agree on.

So far, the only thing we've seen that they're committed to is not having policy. Posted by: Simon at June 13, 2006 10:42 PM

I would probably not choose the term "centrist", more now than ever, since Unity '08 is no doubt intending to co-opt it.

I'm reminded of a quote from Office Space:

"Why should I change my name when HE's the one who sucks?"

Posted by: bk at June 14, 2006 10:11 AM

I'm reminded of a quote from Office Space:

"Why should I change my name when HE's the one who sucks?"

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

If we're going to run away from a given label whenever somebody we don't like adopts it, then we may as well invent a nonsense word. And then we *each* have to invent our own, because we will invariably wind up not liking each other all the time, either.

"Centrist" and "Moderate" are two excellent terms, because, after some reflection, they stand for two completely different things, both of which are lacking. Centrism steers a middle path between political dichotomies of left/right, liberal/conservative, libertarian/authoritarian. Moderation opposes radicalism. Apparently, some confusion arises when people also use one of these words to mean "picking the best solution, regardless of source." I think this is a whole different concept -- "A La Cartism" or maybe simply "Independence," since that solution may well be identified with a partisan movement, and may well be radical.

Posted by: Greg63 at June 14, 2006 12:42 PM

Apparently, some confusion arises when people also use one of these words to mean "picking the best solution, regardless of source." I think this is a whole different concept...

I dunno, centrism is working OK for us so far. We're usually able to use any confusion as an opportunity to teach or explain. Centrism as it manifest here is a middle path really only to the extent that it attempts to acknowledge the genuine insights of both patisan wings and debunk the most negative spin that each wing can put on the others views. Both partisan wings thin k that they are 100% right and the other side is 100 wrong. Centrists know that's a huge pile of crap. But we also know that there is no intrinsic reason to therefore assums that each side must be 50% correct.

Listen to both sides? Yup. Find a solution by splitting the difference? Maybe, maybe not.

Posted by: bk at June 14, 2006 04:15 PM

Apparently, some confusion arises when people also use one of these words to mean "picking the best solution, regardless of source." I think this is a whole different concept...

I dunno, centrism is working OK for us so far. We're usually able to use any confusion as an opportunity to teach or explain. Centrism as it manifest here is a middle path really only to the extent that it attempts to acknowledge the genuine insights of both partisan wings and debunk the most negative spin that each wing can put on the other's views. Both partisan wings love to suggest that they are 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong. Centrists know that's usually a pile of crap. But we also know that there is no intrinsic reason to therefore assume that each side must be 50% correct.

Listen to both sides? Yup. Find a solution by splitting the difference? Maybe, maybe not.

Posted by: bk at June 14, 2006 04:16 PM

See? Consistency. Same explanation for both wings. ;-)

Posted by: Tully at June 14, 2006 05:32 PM

President Bush misuses and mispronounces the English languish alot.

Joe Biden, while more of10 than not, is more graceful in the delivery of his dialogue (albiet the use of the word "damn" every three sentences during interviews (trying to come across as an everyman. But Alan Simpson did that too though for a different reason-he WAS an everyman and didn't know otherwise (my political hero after President Nixon and Senator McCain)). But the thing about Biden is that he says he picked up from some dead guy who said it first a hundred years ago...

Posted by: RealRepublican1854 at June 15, 2006 03:53 AM

Biden? For me, the thing with him is that when I read his statements in the papers, he sound like he makes a fair amount of sense, which leads me to consider him to be a smart and reasonable guy. But when Isee him on TV, I sense something undeniably false and opportunisitic and venal (and yup, pompopus) about him. So I don't like him. I trust this instinct more than I trust that his talking purty will manifest in sensible actions should he become our leader.

Posted by: bk at June 15, 2006 08:36 AM