Centerfield

I love Giuliani's executive experience, something we haven't had in the White House for a long time

"For a long time"? Giuliani was Mayor of New York for eight years; the incumbent President had five years of executive branch experience as the Governor of the second largest and most populous state in the Union. Posted by: Simon at August 17, 2006 01:21 PM

I would speak every two weeks to the American people.

I was under the impression that the incumbent speaks to the American people every one week, via the tellingly-named "weekly radio address"? Posted by: Simon at August 17, 2006 01:23 PM

I must admit that I'm torn here myself.

I voted for Sen. McCain in the Virginia primary in 2000, and strongly feel he would have been a better President than George W. Bush. And less polarizing, at least in a bi-partisan sense, though maybe not within the GOP.

But his open-borders stance is just unacceptable. I strongly respect what Senator McCain would do with the Congress and stand down the insane overspending, but I think the GOP needs someone who will work to make the GOP a Conservative instrument so that when he leaves the White House everything doesn't go BACK to the way it was.

I'd support John McCain over Giuliani for sure, but as for any of the rest of the GOP field I'd have hear more about them first. The issue of illegal immigration is JUST to important to the future of this country and the balance between Right and Left.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 17, 2006 01:28 PM

Simon,

G.W. Bush is HARDLY a hands-on President, nor the brains of the outfit. And you know quite well that Texas Governorship is perhaps the weakest Governorship in terms of Executive power in the country as nearly ALL the cabinet department heads are directly elected. So let's not oversell what amounts to technicality.

And whoever succeeds Bush, one thing that is quite likely is that we'll get someone who accepts responsibility for explaining what the hell is going on in Iraq, if only because it's a mess THEY didn't create.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 17, 2006 01:35 PM

Cav -
Immigation is one of the two major areas where I'm sceptical of McCain (the other being his apparent general indifference to the Constitution), but I do have to add that there are people who take this matter too far. There are commenters on RedState and ConfirmThem, for example, who have said that McCain's view of immigration is so beyond the pale that they will not only oppose him i the primary, they will stay home on election day. I hope you do not go so far as that; it is readily apparent that McCain's views on immigration are the views of the political elite in this country, and they are views that the Democratic nominee will share if we are lucky (they may have an even less palatable view, but they will certainly not have a more palatable view). Whatever happens in the primary, whoever the nominee is, it's important to get behind them.

I liked very much something Mary Cheney said on NPR's "Fresh Air" recently. She said that she doesn't agree with Bush on gay marriage, but she doesn't have the luxury of being a single-issue voter. I don't agree with McCain on immigration, but I don't have the luxury of the naive myopia required to be a single issue voter. The lesser of two evils is, by definition, less evil. That is still better than more evil, and a Republican President I disagree with on many issues is still better than a Democratic President who I disagree with on almost everything.

Posted by: Simon at August 17, 2006 01:40 PM

"I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts. And I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption. Obviously, from what we've been seeing lately, we didn't complete the job. But I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government." - John McCain

After that, I wouldn't vote for McCain for dog-catcher.

Posted by: Joshua Macy at August 17, 2006 01:41 PM

G.W. Bush is HARDLY a hands-on President

I was under the impression that one of the first things that one learns at business school -- that incredible waste of money where rich people go to "learn" what is blindingly obvious to everyone else -- is that successful managers are almost invariably managers who learn to delegate. Has that changed? Is being "hands-on" now the sine qua non of succesful executives? Will history record that the main problem with George Bush's credibility was that he didn't get sufficiently bogged down in minutiae? Posted by: Simon at August 17, 2006 01:50 PM

Well yeah, Simon, for one. Sure there are hands-off Executives, but sometimes one gets the idea that even the big ideas aren't Bush's. He's not just hands-off, he's kind of just there to put the face on it. He's definately on-board and you're meant to get the idea it's his idea, but alot of people are skeptical.

I'm not for Giuliani, but is there any doubt he'd be a workaholic in the White House? Debate the merits of that attribute if you want, but he's got it.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 17, 2006 02:20 PM

Simon,

I would disagree with the statement that being the Governor of Texas is "executive experience." Maybe I should have made myself clearer. I believe Giuliani, at his heart, was an executive in that he mastered the role, where in my view Clinton and Bush were politicians who happened to be Governor. Clinton's state was last in everything, and Bush was a glorified ribbon cutter.

For the record, I didn't say that the incumbent did not address the public every two weeks, but to be honest I stopped listening a long time ago. I don't think Bush speaks in anything other than political talking points in his radio address, and I don't ever learn anything from him that I don't already know. I think McCain's point is that we need more honesty and that has been my point all along about the case for the Iraq war. I agree with him that this administration has not been straight with the American people at times. Do you honestly feel you truly know what is going on in Iraq?

Josh,

I don't think that quote means what you think... By saying "quote" First amendment rights, McCain is implying that many are misinterpreting the First amendment in regards to campaign finance reform. I hate to even bring it up, because we have beaten this horse to bloody hell, but I agree with Keegan and McCain... In my view, money is not free speech. I also would rather have clean government rather than allowing people to spend what they want on politics, although I also agree with Pat, Brian, and Simon that it is unlikely to happen in my lifetime. Where I disagree, is that I don't believe that means we should stop trying.

Posted by: Mathew at August 17, 2006 02:21 PM

Will history record that the main problem with George Bush's credibility was that he didn't get sufficiently bogged down in minutiae?

I'd say heres a pretty good chance of that, actually. But it depends on what you call minutiae, don't it? Suppose for example Bush had allowed himself to "get bogged down in the minutiae" of deeply and seriously challenging the quality of our intelligence about Iraq.

The fact is it's a balance between not micromanaging and not managing at all. Seems to me there's plenty of room between those extremes. Between the following coupla stereotypes, how many people think GWB is more of

1)a shrewd, patient, listener with a solid gold BS detector who's a very good and highly intelligent generalist

and how many think he's more of

2)an impatient C-student quality intellect who never had much patience for deep thinking and details, and woi is therefor prone to convincing himself its OK not to sweat the details

I don't wanna call Bush a knucklehead, but I think it's an easy call as to which way he tends. While we're at it, let's not assume that everything that's generally a good tendency for a garden variety manager is also good for the President. Charismatic hands-off management might be fantabulous for a 200-person firm that makes hammers and paperweights, but is it every bit as good for a 10,000 person software company or a 280 million person global superpower? Hmm...

Posted by: bk at August 17, 2006 02:39 PM

I'm glad you haven't given up on me Simon.

I will say this much, in a two-way race between McCain and a Democrat, I WOULD vote for Sen. McCain. But I wouldn't extend that to ANY Republican nominee. For us political junkies, we all have our life-and-death issues. Sounds like yours keep you pretty-much party-line. I've never voted Republican for President. (but I won't say who I DID vote for. Given my posts you can imagine it's not always the obvious alternative)

Spending has always been my issue and now (within the last six years) immigration is, too. And while I don't share the anti-Israel bias of the Buchananites or the Pacificist views of the Democrats, I do find this idea of spreading Democracy in the Middle East to be a dangerous one, whatever the result. Even if the terrorists pulled-off another attack in the U.S. this country WOULD survive. If we don't stem the tide of illegal immigration the politics of this country will just keep getting more and more liberal, as they already have since the Reagan era. It is already questionable whether we have a genuinely conservative Party in this country (remembering that I am a Goldwater, and not a Bush or Robertson "conservative.").

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 17, 2006 02:41 PM

So, as you might imagine, Simon, I don't think very much of the Mary Cheney sentiment.

Most polticians are in it for the glory, not the principle, and HAVE to be watched. That INCLUDES most of GOP a select group of whom are a bunch of scoundrels and far too many of whom have taken to embracing milk-toast political-correctness in fearing the Soccar Moms.

I understand we don't stand on the same side on this issue, Simon, but I'll state my opinion. I'd rather lose one or two elections (that's ALL it would take, truly) sacrificing a regular-business-type Republican to wolves and discipline the GOP in to being what it's supposed to be, than vote like a machine for people who don't view the world the way I do.

I suppose a different strain of conservatism, but I don't think we can afford to simply win elections. We can't afford any more new Medicare Drug Plans, No-Child Left Behind, or other big government non-sense come out of a Republican Presidency and/or Congress. They've got to start being Conservative.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 17, 2006 02:54 PM

To be more specific, I should say not JUST ANY Republican nominee. I'd keep my eyes and ears open.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 17, 2006 02:57 PM

"Fiscally Responsible" I'm all for that. So riddle me this, Batman..

How has Senator McCain voted on the various tax cut bills that have passed through Congress over the past few years? And how did he vote on raising the debt ceiling. I may be right and I may be wrong, but that will tell me how serious he is about 'Fiscal Responsibility'.

I believe he voted for all of the cuts, but I do not know. I am not trying to lob a grenade into the discussion, just asking the question, since the Senator brought the subject up.

Posted by: scott at August 17, 2006 04:02 PM

BTW - I wanted to vote McCain/Powell in 2000 (and 2004, actually) just so I don't come across as being totally anti-McCain.

Posted by: scott at August 17, 2006 04:03 PM

How has Senator McCain voted on the various tax cut bills that have passed through Congress over the past few years? And how did he vote on raising the debt ceiling. I may be right and I may be wrong, but that will tell me how serious he is about 'Fiscal Responsibility'.

Scott,

McCain voted against all of the initial tax cut bills offered by the Bush administraion. He also, on numerous occasions, offered a "no tax cut, without spending cut" amendment, with other centrist Senators and Russ Feingold, that was defeated. He recently voted to renew the Bush tax cuts that he previously voted against, a highly controversial stand. He argued that by voting against renewal, he would be in fact voting to raise taxes, an action he believed to be bad for the economy. I agree. He also added that he had never in his career voted for a tax increase. It seems consistent to me.

Posted by: Mathew at August 17, 2006 04:22 PM

Scott,

Does that mean you'd count McCain out for 2008?

If he vetoed enough spending, your question would be superfluous.

I wouldn't put it past him.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 17, 2006 04:27 PM

The worst mistake McCain could make is to run the 2008 election as if he was the incumbent instead of the Maverick he is. 2008 has the virtue, for him, of not being 2000. Assuming people don't find Giuliani more aggressive than McCain on the War he should have the NeoCon vote pretty solidly and that's half the Bush vote McCain didn't get in 2000 and THEN some.

But if he loses the maverick AND Religious votes he's likely to get beat or face a 3rd party challenge in November.

I'd agree with Mathew's sentiments regarding the consistency of McCain's position, but economic benefit of selective tax cuts is questionable and passing that debt on to the youngsters is immoral. Tax increases are never in order, but the idea of, "Starving the Beast," has proven ineffectual.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 17, 2006 04:47 PM

McCain might very well end up an Independent before the next two-year slugfest is over. I wonder what McCain thinks about this.

Iran, Hizb'Allah, NSA, energy, tax cuts, abortion.....hhmmmm. I will be interested to hear McCain's recent views on these topics. We know where he stands on Iraq. That becomes a 60% point disadvantage. Attacks have doubled in one year and Turkey and Iran are already shelling positions in northern Iraq. Lebanon has broken the ceasefire by refusing to disarm Hizb'Allah or closing the border to Assad. France rout Hizb’Allah? LOL

McCain will have to lay out the strategy, but like Clinton he is still vague.. I think this is a mistake if the center breaks. I can say the same for Clinton's recent tepid remarks. No, the London plotters were not linked to Iraq other than being part of a network of extremists actively seeking to attack the US, destroy Israel and replace Western influence with global fundamentalism as interpreted by a religious elite.

A good commander would see how to fracture the Sunnis from the Shiites, cut one arm from another. Deploy and prepare in a way that increases the chance for swift victory should it get to that. Does McCain have reforms that will work and can he pass immigration reform, stem cell research, intelligence oversight, penalties for Russian and Chinese violations without getting booted? Or will he use stealth and double talk when it comes to social conservatism?

Posted by: Maxtrue at August 17, 2006 06:17 PM

OK, he was agianst the tax cuts before he was for them. I can see, and even appreciate, his logic on that. Not sure I agree. Definately see why there's controversy.

As for wether I'd count him out for 2K8 is a different matter. He's get a better chance of getitng my vote than Rudy or Newt. I know nothing about Huckabee, and we'll have to see how Romney's healthcare plan works out.

He'd better sew up the Bush backers quick, though. Those folks are naturally Newt's kind of conservative, and they may well go with Newt regardless of what the establishment wants. Newt is going to get a big chunk of the neocon vote with his 'third world war' talk.

Posted by: scott at August 17, 2006 07:53 PM

Because of the war I think their are enough of the NeoCons to balance out the Social Cons. That is, if he can keep them from voting for Giuliani. I've heard that Giuliani gets most of his votes from people to the Right of McCain. We'll see.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 17, 2006 08:05 PM

Given what can only be described as a vacuum on the Right of the spectrum, you may be right about Newt, Scott.

Don't know if I'd call Bush's Neocon base Newt's people, though. After all it was Newt's failure as Speaker in the elections of 1998 that helped propel Bush's Presidential ambitions to the forefront to save the GOP House majority from going under in 2000.

But Newt certainly is angling for their votes with the Armageddon talk.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 17, 2006 08:11 PM

Oh and, Max, McCain has said repeatedly he'll NEVER break up the Right by going Independent.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 17, 2006 08:20 PM

He'd better sew up the Bush backers quick, though. Those folks are naturally Newt's kind of conservative, and they may well go with Newt regardless of what the establishment wants. Newt is going to get a big chunk of the neocon vote with his 'third world war' talk.

I think you're either misunderstanding what the neocons believe, or you're using the term generically for "Bush Republicans." I'm neither, but I've gotta tell you, going into primary season, with the folks likely to run, my vote's probably Newt's to lose at this point. My main concern is whether he can be electable not whether he'd be good at the job; if I were king, I'd appoint Scalia as President, but if he were unavailable for some reason, I'd appoint Gingrich. He's a complete bastard, of course, but he's a great thinker, and he has the same sort of bluff plainspokenness about him as does McCain. Posted by: Simon at August 17, 2006 09:52 PM

Is there anyone on this blog anymore that is not a conservative Republican? Is there anyone that thinks the country needs a different approach than 8 more years of free market dogma? Is there anyone here (other than me) that would even consider voting for a Democrat for president? For a blog that labels itself "centrist", what I see is pretty much a conservative/libertarian lovefest. I wonder about the perspective of people that are more concerned that McCain/Feingold somehow subverts the First Amendment than about the government easedropping on our telephone calls.

People obviously have the right to support whomever they want. But I have become increasingly disappointed that this so-called centrist blog is dominated by an increasingly narrow part of the political spectrum. And when centrism is so defined so that John McCain is a liberal, something is wrong.

Posted by: Marc at August 18, 2006 11:52 AM

Marc, what's stopping you from posting your own views?

I'd welcome a strong Democrat somewhere to put forth some real arguments in favor of something, rather than just Bush-bashing. I just haven't seen a lot of it.

[snark]Now, if the Dems can't find any decent candidatse who can think up reasonable thoughts on their own, that's their problem, not Republicans' or moderates'[/snark]

Posted by: PatHMV at August 18, 2006 12:06 PM

Is there anyone on this blog anymore that is not a conservative Republican?

Yes: everyone except me and Pat! Unless, that is, by "conservative Republican" you mean people who (a) do not presume their government acts in bad faith, (b) don't oppose the war in Iraq, vs. the particular way in which it is being conducted, and (c) are not brutally hostile to the present administration, the clear majority here do not meet that description.

I wonder about the perspective of people that are more concerned that McCain/Feingold somehow subverts the First Amendment than about the government easedropping on our telephone calls.

Again, that's mainly me and Pat, and on first amendment issues, sometimes Mathew.

Is there anyone that thinks the country needs a different approach than 8 more years of free market dogma?

Is that a tacit concession that the left rejects the free market?

And when centrism is so defined so that John McCain is a liberal, something is wrong.

He is a moderate if not a centrist, but who here has suggested he is a liberal, and where? Posted by: Simon at August 18, 2006 01:05 PM

Is there anyone on this blog anymore that is not a conservative Republican?

Yes: everyone except me and Pat! Unless, that is, by "conservative Republican" you mean people who (a) do not presume their government acts in bad faith, (b) don't oppose the war in Iraq, vs. the particular way in which it is being conducted, and (c) are not brutally hostile to the present administration, the clear majority here do not meet that description.

I wonder about the perspective of people that are more concerned that McCain/Feingold somehow subverts the First Amendment than about the government easedropping on our telephone calls.

Again, that's mainly me and Pat, and on first amendment issues, sometimes Mathew.

Is there anyone that thinks the country needs a different approach than 8 more years of free market dogma?

Is that a tacit concession that the left rejects the free market?

And when centrism is so defined so that John McCain is a liberal, something is wrong.

He is a moderate if not a centrist, but who here has suggested he is a liberal, and where? Posted by: Simon at August 18, 2006 01:12 PM

Is there anyone on this blog anymore that is not a conservative Republican?

Yes: everyone except me and Pat! Unless, that is, by "conservative Republican" you mean people who (a) do not presume their government acts in bad faith, (b) don't oppose the war in Iraq, vs. the particular way in which it is being conducted, and (c) are not brutally hostile to the present administration, the clear majority here do not meet that description.

I wonder about the perspective of people that are more concerned that McCain/Feingold somehow subverts the First Amendment than about the government easedropping on our telephone calls.

Again, that's mainly me and Pat, and on first amendment issues, sometimes Mathew.

Is there anyone that thinks the country needs a different approach than 8 more years of free market dogma?

Is that a tacit concession that the left rejects the free market?

And when centrism is so defined so that John McCain is a liberal, something is wrong.

He is a moderate if not a centrist, but who here has suggested he is a liberal, and where? Posted by: Simon at August 18, 2006 01:18 PM

Yikes, sorry for the multiple posting, folks.

Posted by: Simon at August 18, 2006 01:26 PM

Marc,

Yeah, Me. I'm a centrist. I'd consider voting for a democrat. Not Kerry. Not Gore. Not Dean. Probably not the governor of New Mexico, whatsisname, because he said something that really PO'd me recently. But I'd vote for Lieberman, and very possibly for Barack Obama, and I'd consider Hillary. if she runs against George Allen, she has my vote. Very possibly she'd have it against Giuliani too, who I find somehow untrustworthy. Against Romney or McCain I'd have to see. That'd be close.

Good enough for ya?

Posted by: bk at August 18, 2006 01:49 PM

Marc,

While I understand your frustration, there have always been left-of-center commenters at Centerfield: Marcus, Blue Jean, and Bob Young come to mind. Why they don't blog so much anymore is beyond my knowledge, but I don't know if that's something that can be easily corrected. I guess there's really a couple of options to achieve a greater balance.

First, we could designate "pseudo-liberals" from the regular crowd who could argue not what they really believe, but some generic left-of-center position in order to achieve the more balanced dialogue you seek. That would make us appear more centrist, even though in reality we would just be sharpening some of our acting skills... at the risk of encouraging multiple personality disorder.

The second is that we could actually promote an outreach and bring in left-of-center bloggers and commenters who would want to post on a regular basis in order to shape the debate. There the problem is going to be the selection-- one thing Centerfield has very little of is the visceral, usually profanity-laden, and uncritical dialogue (really, just a whole bunch of monologues since no one is every really talking/listening to each other) that one generally sees on other blogs, whether right or left. Recruiting the wrong kind of blogger is very likely to destroy the civility this blog enjoys, and thereby chase away the established cadre.

Posted by: Bobby at August 18, 2006 01:58 PM

Amen, Bobby.

Posted by: PatHMV at August 18, 2006 02:36 PM

Either re-label the blog as center-right field or else recruit some actual active lefties. Obsidian Wings did something similar recently by inviting Andrew Olmstead to post there to make up for the absence of several of their conservative voices.

As it stands not, there is little centrist about 'centerfield.'

Posted by: Chris P at August 18, 2006 09:29 PM

Just as a point of clarification, here is, in order, a list of the authors of all the front-page posts currently appearing on Centerfield:

Tully (open thread)
Mathew
Mathew
Brian Keegan
Mathew
Jon Kay
Brian Keegan
Brian Keegan
c3
Mathew
Scott Smith
Simon
Jon Kay
Brian Keegan
Brian Keegan
Brian Keegan
Brian Keegan
Simon
Mathew
Simon
Mathew
Mathew

That totals to:

Brian Keegan - 7
Mathew - 7
Simon - 3
Jon Kay - 2
Tully - 1 open thread
PatHMV - 0

If there's a conservative tilt to this blog, it's not because of me, Simon, or Tully. Check the entire month of July if you want... you'll find the same trend.

I haven't the time to add up the comments, but the character of a blog is most defined by the front page posters, not the commenters. One doesn't "recruit" people to become commenters, but to become front page posters. There's nothing stopping more liberal folks from coming by here to comment.

Posted by: PatHMV at August 18, 2006 10:11 PM

Cavalier,

I'd rather lose one or two elections (that's ALL it would take, truly) sacrificing a regular-business-type Republican to wolves and discipline the GOP in to being what it's supposed to be, than vote like a machine for people who don't view the world the way I do.

I suppose a different strain of conservatism, but I don't think we can afford to simply win elections. We can't afford any more new Medicare Drug Plans, No-Child Left Behind, or other big government non-sense come out of a Republican Presidency and/or Congress. They've got to start being Conservative.

The first problem is that the Republicans were never chartered with being your brand of conservative. I understand that it's what you want them to be, but it's not what they're necessarily supposed to be.

The second problem is that if Republicans have to "start being Conservative," and Democrats (presumably) should then "be Liberal," what about the vast majority of us in the middle? Are we completely eliminated from the political process because of competing definitions of what constitutes "Conservative" and "Liberal"? Or do you want Republicans to be "Conservatives" and let the Democrats have everyone else...? If that's your plan, say hello to Permanent Minority, and you can understand precisely why no mainstream politician is willing to follow you off the cliff.

This is the same kind of thinking that may very well have led the Connecticut Democrats to eject their incumbent Senator for someone who may not even be able to win a three-way race because what CT Democrats believe is "mainstream," in fact may turn out to be no such thing.

Posted by: Bobby at August 19, 2006 01:07 AM

Cavalier,

You wrote,

"but I think the GOP needs someone who will work to make the GOP a Conservative instrument so that when he leaves the White House everything doesn't go BACK to the way it was."

The demise of the Republican Party as I see presently occuring is that there is a discrepancy throughout the GOP as to what a "conservative" is, anymore. By "conservative Republican", are we speaking of how the general populace today likens "conservative Republican" to be aligned with and ye, a puppet of the Religious Right, as I believe it is, or are we to deem a "conservative Republican" what Mr. Conservative, Barry Goldwater, was lo these many moons ago?

Should the GOP continue its present course of being a tool of Falwell, Dobson, Reed, et al, then the party is sure to spiral so out of the picture that it's unrepairable or do we finally support Republicans who are mantras of the true ideology of the party as it was founded on fiscal responsibility and social independance ie, John McCain, Alan Simpson, Robert Dole, Bob Michels, Jack Kemp, etc. and tell the Religious Right to put a cork in it and give us our party back?

Posted by: RealRepublican1854 at August 19, 2006 06:28 AM

BK wrote...
"I'd say heres a pretty good chance of that, actually. But it depends on what you call minutiae, don't it? Suppose for example Bush had allowed himself to "get bogged down in the minutiae" of deeply and seriously challenging the quality of our intelligence about Iraq.

The fact is it's a balance between not micromanaging and not managing at all. Seems to me there's plenty of room between those extremes. Between the following coupla stereotypes, how many people think GWB is more of

1)a shrewd, patient, listener with a solid gold BS detector who's a very good and highly intelligent generalist

and how many think he's more of

2)an impatient C-student quality intellect who never had much patience for deep thinking and details, and woi is therefor prone to convincing himself its OK not to sweat the details

I don't wanna call Bush a knucklehead, but I think it's an easy call as to which way he tends. While we're at it, let's not assume that everything that's generally a good tendency for a garden variety manager is also good for the President. Charismatic hands-off management might be fantabulous for a 200-person firm that makes hammers and paperweights, but is it every bit as good for a 10,000 person software company or a 280 million person global superpower? Hmm..."

Ya know, they used to say the same thing about President Reagan and as I understand it from reading and listening to damn near every leading historian this side of Mars (right, left and in-between), he ended up doing just fine.

George W. Bush is the posterchild for "beyond expectations". Just when you think he's pinned, he worms his way out and gets back on top.

For us "bloggers", who grant ourselves "holier than thou" and "smarter than the average American", we must remember this...we aren't. We don't matter. What matters is that this man whom you all deride as an imbicile is laughing all the way to the end of his second term as President of the United States. Only 16 men out of 43 can say that...he's one of them.

Without coming across as "elitist" and insulting middle America, explain it.

Posted by: RealRepublican1854 at August 19, 2006 06:49 AM

A few comments:

I wanted to vote McCain/Powell in 2000 (and 2004, actually) just so I don't come across as being totally anti-McCain.

Hmmm, I voted in both of those elections and I must've missed them on the ballot!

Marc;

People obviously have the right to support whomever they want. But I have become increasingly disappointed that this so-called centrist blog is dominated by an increasingly narrow part of the political spectrum. And when centrism is so defined so that John McCain is a liberal, something is wrong.

Come on down from the "moral high ground" and discuss.

To all (that might be listening);
As a periodic poster I guess I can add my two cents worth regarding the blogs "position on the political scale"
1) Centrist isn't a single point on the scale but a region
2) The scale is not linear/one dimensional (and therefore its difficult to find the "center")
3)As posters vary the percentage of left of center vs right of center posts varies. I remember thinking a year or so ago when Rick Heller was posting a lot that we had a tendency to be more left of center (though certainly not liberal) than right of center.
If you've been here a while you can really see the "three dimensionality" (is that a real word) of centrists. For example, I think I can say that John Kay is a bit left of center but his posts comes from all angles. (Frankly, sometimes I ask myself "Where the hell did that come from?")
To follow up on what Pat said, the key mark of this blog is an overall tone of open, open-minded and rational discussion. If you want a "straight line" you won't like it here. If you like a varied course but one that stays nears the center and is always thoughtful, then this is your place. And if you think its gotten "off course" then post something and stay in the "mix"

Posted by: c3 at August 19, 2006 01:32 PM

LOL.....I am certainly not a Republican conservative. I have never voted for one. I am left of the line on; Stem Cell research, immigration reform, environmental protection and conservation, taxation to fund federal programs (like military, education, etc.) and to spur emergency policies such as alternative energy, infrastructure rebuilding etc., judicial review of intelligence programs, strong wall between public institutions and religion, evolutionary theory, defense of human rights in and outside the US, healthcare net for the uninsured, minimum wage and strong labor laws, campaign reform, better public schools, closing loopholes on corporations, pro choice, gun control (to a degree), some kind of equality of "married" gays in the civil justice system, decriminalization of marijuana, free expression of ideas (short of sedition and incitement to violence). This is hardly Republican conservative. In fact, my pro action sentiment on this blog goes against the grain of many conservatives who before Bush, disliked "wars" and tended to be isolationists.

I see smart people here willing to discuss the issues mentioned above pragmatically, while agreeing in general with what many think is the central issue facing America: the rise of a dangerous Islamic hegemony armed with terror and technology. Right behind that must be our economic future, which requires after security, alternative energy and rebuilding to continue our lead of the global community into the 21st century. Remember, Liberal Democracy was invited in because it worked and led to prosperity. I think the defense of this Western hegemony, even by military force and assistance dollars is classic centrist and not neo-conservatism. Grouping pro action into neo-conservative claptrap is another great media myth. The Democratic Party uses this stupid filter all the time.

With the US heading towards action against Iran, I can't think of any other issue so influencing the balance of political power in the US and the future of the Western world. It might sound apocalyptic, but failure by BOTH parties to extinguish the growing radical fire will result in greater terrorism and economic havoc far worse than 9/11. The Mullahs haven’t deployed their seal teams yet. To stress this issue and expect the highest priority placed on sound strategic adaption to resolve this conflict in the best possible scenario for Americans and the Free world is not conservative. Before Viet Nam this was a Democratic mission all the way back to Wilson. The inability of Democrats to see this is exactly why they will probably lose the next Presidential election if not the November one (lose relative to how much Democrats say they will win).

Perhaps the Left has become so extreme it now believes pro-action = neo-conservatism and proof positive one is a Republican conservative. LOL.

Perhaps also, the Right has become so extreme it believes “fiascos without accountability or greater strategic goals” have no political consequence.

Posted by: Maxtrue at August 19, 2006 06:37 PM

Again, I post these updates on this thread because McCain and other more moderate representatives have a big crisis forming. I do not think this focus is a conservative or even a Republican fixation. It forms the backbone however of Rove's strategy to paint Democrats as planless in the face of growing extremist hegemony emanating from the Gulf. We can expect the same tactics of Hizb'Allah and JEM in Africa and Asia. I suggest ne calculates the effect of just one dirty bomb in LA or Washington D.C. This is the power of asymmetrical terror that hides behind the populations and supportive governments that give it cover.

Why this is a Democratic concern is that successful attacks here and in allied countries will produce a reactionary effect and further entrench the Right Wingers. This spiral of domestic polarization will lead to increased escalation, disunity and anything but peaceful solutions.

It is as though an Iranian spy sends the following message:

ALBERT: TOM TRICKS ARETHA'S CUDDLY KITTY. ANSWER TODAY: DO ANOTHER WIGGLE NOW. MARTHA'S OVARIES NOT DANCING, ARE YOU?

The Democrats say it is a harmless message and the Republicans say it is proof positive this week will be a doozie.

What do you think?

Anyway, more items on McCain's list:

Oprah takes on the Mullahs

Iraq Shiites take on the Mullahs

non classified reports on the state of our homeland security given the export of weapons from Iran, Russia, Syria and North Korea

DOD discloses gaps in defense

Homeland Security does not like such disclosures. Why? Our adversaries don't know what's up or the American public?

Timing and coordination between Kimmie and the Mullahs?

These pressing issues govern the landscape all the way to 2008. Don't centrists give utmost importance to security and economy? Are not Islamic extremists with help from Russia and China and an energy strategy that supports a renewed infrastructure and material science R&D, represent the two most important fronts for centrists?

Posted by: Maxtrue at August 20, 2006 11:48 AM

repost of corrected link about the state of our homeland aviation defenses

Posted by: Maxtrue at August 20, 2006 11:53 AM

Bloomberg on the political extremes

Posted by: Maxtrue at August 20, 2006 12:01 PM

Bobby/RR1854,

"The first problem is that the Republicans were never chartered with being your brand of conservative. I understand that it's what you want them to be, but it's not what they're necessarily supposed to be."

The most successful Republican in modern times was Ronald Reagan, Bobby. Two Presidental landslides and a 3rd for H.W. off of Reagan's M.O.. The first Senate majority in a quarter century and a House majority won in '94 by people running as Reagan revolutionaries.

And Reagan was made possible by the candidacy of Barry Goldewater. If you mean by, "chartered," Bobby, that the GOP was chartered in the 19th century to be something else, then I think you have even LESS claim to indicate what the party is today than I do. And I admit that my brand is out of power.

But if we want to talk about charters, 1964 is certainly still a part of political history. So to say the GOP was NEVER chartered to be what I believe it should be... I'm not sure I get why you would say that.

And yes, it should be understood that I am a Goldwater Conservative, if only because what troubles so many moderates about the GOP today is its fealty to the Religous Right, which I do NOT consider to be the defining conservative trait.

Today, the GOP is a mixture of different elements. Whether small governent conservatives are any more a serious faction within the GOP remains to be seen in 2008. I dislike the Religious Right because they claim to be what they explicitly are NOT: descendents of Goldwater, i.e. conservatives. I'd like to think that gives me SOME credentials with moderates, but, like most non-conservatives, I think sometimes they lump all of them together. Perhaps my belief in limited government puts me there, perhaps it leaves me out.

It is popular among both some moderates as well as some of the harder-edged Republicans to kick a good, "man," (idea) while it's down. Today we consider people who are the ideological equivalent of Richard Nixon to be conservative simply because they're rhetorically nasty and fight elections with personal attacks. That's really the politics of LBJ and Nixon, not Goldwater and Reagan.

I think it's worth noting, however, that since the GOP gave up on shrinking government in early 1996 the Democrats have won 49% of the Presidential vote three times in a row now, EVEN during a time of War. By comparison the Reagan-Bush-41 margins were nine, eighteen, and seven percent, respectively.

As for the vast majority in the middle, I'd have to say it is defined far more by what it ISN'T than ever it is defined by what it IS.

I don't want to cut moderates out of the equation at all, Bobby. Numerically, it's obvious that no national election can be won without them. But if we're going to consider each other opponents can we at least discuss what makes us so? Am I your opponent simply because I take on the lable conservative? What separates me from you that makes you think I automatically count you out?

For the record I think moderates SHOULD be a MAJOR part of any genuine conservative party. You can't hold the NorthEast at all without them, for one. They're invaluable temporizers for another.

But let's please not count each other out over a mere lable.

Right now, the GOP is the Bush coalition of foreign policy hawks and the Religious Right. But that coalition seems almost certain to break up in the primaries as the strongest Hawks in the running are McCain and Giuliani who are anathema to RelRight.

I don't know that the Religous Right can be removed from the Party but I think certainly it can be taken from it's pole position to a place of coalition instead of dominance. Especially if it puts its chips on a candidate like Brownback, Huckabee, or even Frist. They can't win the nomination.

The GOP is hardly a giant at present. If it weren't for 9-11 and the Iraq War Bush would never have been re-elected in 2004. And as I mention above, the political track record of the Party has been somewhat stagnant since 1994 with the party winning but not by much since 2000.

As for CT, Bobby, it's hardly a real 3-way race with Schlesinger at 4% and we STILL don't know if Lieberman can pull it off. Remember CT voted for Kerry in 2004 pretty decisively on a less than Neo-Con foreign policy.

But does that answer your question, RR1854? Is there room for respect here, reserving discretion for cooperation at a later date?

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 21, 2006 01:05 PM

Cavalier,

My point isn't that we're enemies. My point is that you flatly stated that you want the Republicans to represent more Conservative interests, and you're willing to sacrifice elections now in order to have the Party re-orient along those lines. But if you want a party to win elections, whether now or in the future, it has to be representative of a broad-base of factions and interests, not simply what you perceive to be the proper legacy (say, Reagan over Nixon or Eisenhower) of the Republicans. The moderates aren't going to come onboard simply because you say you want to appeal to them, even while you roll back (for example) the environmental protection regulations or the middle class welfare programs that they care about so much. They're going to vote for the party that best represents their interests, and in that instance, it would become the Democrats.

I'm not saying you don't have a right to have your interests represented in the Republican Party. I am saying that you can't expect others not to maintain the same fight for their interests, especially if they think that the agenda you endorse-- Goldwater in 1964-- was so out of the mainstream that it led to a landsline victory for the other side.

Posted by: Bobby at August 21, 2006 05:55 PM

I don't expect moderates to come on board simply because I ask them to, but moderates have typically been in favor of responsible government. I would think a good number of them support spending cuts of at least some kind and perhaps the closing of tax loopholes in order to reduce the deficit, for instance.

I don't know. But what I do know is that certainly the Reagan-Goldwater faction of the party has brought it to its greatest triumphs in recent times and now the party is always teetering on the brink of defeat. I think the country may be ready for someone to get tough on spending. It could be McCain. It could be someone else.

The Goldwater faction lost big in 1964, then won big only 16 years later. Everyone else was mooching off of Reagan's success, Religious Right included. A success responsible in no small part for the GOP victories of 1994.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 21, 2006 07:28 PM

Sure, Cav, but others may not see it that way. I do support limited government and spending cuts, and I have much more in common with the Republicans than I do with the Democrats: on defense issues and foreign policy-- especially; on economic issues-- generally; and on social issues-- somewhat. That said, there are some Democrats with whom I agree more on defense, foreign policy, economics, and social issues when compared to some Republicans. Like most voters, I look at the ballot and the candidates I'm being offered, determine which candidates best represent my views and/or whom I think are best for the position (sometimes, admittedly, those two aren't the same things), and I make my decision accordingly.

But, again, this isn't about me. Any government tailoring its message to Bobby Bran is likely to do extremely well with "single, 30-year old, graduate school educated, Latino voters who date Canadian broadcasters, consistently volunteer for overseas tours in hostile countries, view the War on Terror as the epochal struggle of our generation, are dissatisfied with the performance of the political, diplomatic, and military leaders in those conflicts, and (most importantly) love the Dodgers"-- outside of that rather narrow demographic group, they'd get very little support.

If Republicans want to win, they have to craft a message that appeals to more voters than the Democrats. That's how you win in a bipolar electoral system-- you have to be more popular than the other guy. Taking positions that are unpopular with the majority-- including spending cuts on middle class welfare programs that Americans feel they are entitled to-- isn't going to win you elections, despite what your ideology tells you. I'd say it's more likely to give way to the demagogues on the other sides, who will exploit your vulnerability to sweep themselves into power (much as Republican strategists used the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to break the Democratic-lock on the southern states, the end-state of which contributed to the Reagan Revolution that you speak of).

So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't necessarily agree that Republicans always win elections when they run on more limited government platforms than their opponents(Goldwater), or that Reagan represents an anti-spending politicial legacy in practice (although he certainly did rhetorically). And, even if I believed that Reagan and Goldwater represented the same faction (which, again, I don't believe they did in practice, although in rhetoric the two are much closer), I don't necessarily agree that the "Reagan-Goldwater faction of the party has brought it to its greatest triumphs in recent times and now the party is always teetering on the brink of defeat."

Republicans have had control of the House now for six straight Congresses, and the Senate for ten of the last twelve years. If that's teetering on the brink of defeat, what does that mean for the Democrats?

Posted by: Bobby at August 21, 2006 09:54 PM

I don't know that every election run under the Reagan banner was a campaign for smaller government, but 1980 was. 1994 was. And the others, at the very least, were fought under a banner of not letting the spending grow. And given the degree to which Republican congressman seem to WORSHIP at the feet of their Presidents, doing as they instruct, we can imagine that, at the very least, had Reagan had a GOP Congress, the spending would have risen less than the rate of the growth of the economy.

Additionally, it is a FACT that the entitlement programs are running on a weak financial basis and will run out of money before too long. I think there are at least a few moderates who see this as a problem of overspending, not undertaxing. An issue of Americans NOT saving for their retirement as they should and that steps should be taken to spur them to do so.

You mention the trick is for Republicans to get more votes than the Democrats. What I object to is the fact that Republican always undersell their own ideas to the American public. Conservatives are 1/3 of the country. Liberals are less than 1/5. The GOP doesn't have to go as far in moderating than the Dems do to win an election. And I object to the fact that they do so to play it safe.

You'd say they're required to. I look at the political landscape and say they're NOT, except that they're all a bunch of cowards who are perpetually risk-averse.

I am perfectly sensitive to the argument that Republicans sometimes view policies through the eyes of the top 5 percent of earners. I don't like that either. BUT that doesn't mean the middle class isn't responsible for their own futures, instead of the government.

And I think America is more conservative since 1994 than it was before 1994. I think Americans would accept the conservative case, if someone was willing to make it. It's a matter of doing what is right for this country instead of always playing to America's basest instincts.

One election win by the liberals, giving them the power to spend would send the country swarming back into the arms of a conservative party. Always fighting it out for the most do-nothing voter isn't, I think, always the secret to victory.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 22, 2006 12:11 PM

And, perhaps you're right that the GOP isn't quite on the brink. But carrying the welfare state for the liberals for the next 40 years until they can take it over due to demographics doesn't strike me as a good investment in either time or money. It's a defensive strategy that will eventually lead to a liberal majority.

Republicans should fight from strength, while they still can.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 22, 2006 12:26 PM

Conservatives are 1/3 of the country. Liberals are less than 1/5.

This is an interesting claim. What's it based on? Is it a self-identification poll, or something more substantive?

I think it's safe to say that the GOP has fairly successfully demonized the term liberal, so I bet a fair number of people have moved away from such a self-identifier.

But if you leave aside labels, do wqe have good evidence that peoples values and priorities have concurrently shifted? I tend to assume that people enduringly will vote based on (wahtever passes for) enlightened self-interest, and that such conceptualizations may not have changed all that much over the past several decades.

We all of us have a tendency to want to have our cake and eat it too if we can get away with it. The wide variety of federal social welfare programs classed as entitlements may indeed lack long-term solvency. But that surely doesn't mean that the hand that holds the axe won't get slapped. It's awful easy for principled partisans to say that their representatives in congress are cowards. The people saying that aren't the ones who have to run for re-election. They also usually not the ones responsible fot making sure their party retains a majority.

So Cav, I guess I'm suggesting that what you see as cowardice feels like a successful majority retension policy to the party leaders.Which is basically what Bobby said, I think. They feel like 2 sides of a coin to me.

Posted by: bk at August 22, 2006 12:34 PM

Sure, BK.

And one of us is right and the other isn't.

Perhaps, for the good of the country, it's time the hand with the axe start chopping off a few of those slapping hands.

We are at a point where either there WILL be a conservative party in this country or there will cease to be one in this country.

The Democrats are a bunch of panderers and enablers. It's alway easy buy people off with someone else's money. You can even buy a few elections with this approach. But don't call it noble. The GOP can play that game or, in a time of Democratic weakness, they can stand apart. Don't expect conservatives to stand by and watch the current mess continue.

I know it gives you guys the willies, but every now and then people take stands on principle.

We're DUE.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 22, 2006 02:27 PM

Sorry Cav, but I think that if I see one side of the coin and say it's heads, and you see the other side and say its tails, then we are BOTH right.

Of course, if you are right, then maybe the GOP is due to get dragged back into the minority wilderness for purification by the true believers. Sounds like a fun pageant to watch as long as you're not in it.

I'm in favor of government solvency, of spending within the same scope as we collect. I just don't expect that whoever enforces such discipline should be foolish enough to think a hero's welcome is guaranteed.

Posted by: bk at August 22, 2006 02:48 PM

I think I know a thing or two about standing on principle, thank you very much, and believe me, Mercedes and my family would greatly prefer that I did a lot less of that and a whole lot more of looking out for my own interests.

Now believe me, I'm all for politicians standing on principle, but we all have different principles-- yours are not mine, mine are not yours, and neither of ours can be pre-supposed as encompassing all Americans. What you might see as a big government entitlement program (Social Security), many other Americans believe is an important social net that feeds our elderly and ensures that people who worked all their lives can retire with dignity. What you might see as a big government entitlement program (No Child Left Behind and the expanded college-funding proposed by the Democrats), others believe is critical to ensuring that our country maintains a margin of "education superiority" over other nations-- something that is critical to our continued existence as the world's leading country. What you might see as a big government entitlement program (Medicare Drug Programs), others believe is important to ensuring that our elderly don't have to choose between medicine and food.

Now don't get me wrong, in each of those cases, I don't completely agree with the starter or the counter argument-- I tend to support some privatization of Social Security in order to extend its viability. I tend to think that students should be expected to complete some form of service (public, military, diplomatic, even volunteer) in return for their federal educational funding, instead of just demanding that it be given to them (I think they will value their college education more highly and get a better sense of how the citizen fits into society). I think that reforming prescription drugs for seniors, when the entire health care system needs to be re-examined, isn't going to solve anything at all.

But it does no good to stand on those principles if you can't get a majority of Americans to stand with you-- one has to engage the population and explain to them why these structural reforms are necessary and indeed preferable to maintaining the status quo. Otherwise, any reforms will quickly be reversed when the other side demagogues the issue and sweeps into power. I don't see anyone-- not the President nor any of the conservative Presidential aspirants-- making the case for these reforms, and in that absence, the other side will continue to control the debate.

If you want your conservative revolution, you're going to have to undertake a massive public education campaign. Without it, not only is any such revolution unlikely, it will certainly be unenduring.

Posted by: Bobby at August 22, 2006 03:06 PM

No hero's welcome is required, BK.

You're under the misimpression this country is going to be around in 40 years even if nothing changes.

Either I'm wrong and Americans can't be troubled to part with what they believe they are, "entitled to," in which case none of this matters and the next 40 years will see the collapse of civilization itself.

Or, the GOP can offer a choice, and the deluge can be avoided.

In either case, it would be better to take a stand than admit defeat.

Doesn't feel like the same nickle to me, BK.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 22, 2006 03:14 PM

Before I get into the rest, let me say what a beautiful name your wife has. Reminds me of a character from, "The Count of Monte Cristo."

Now Bobby, there is at least one thing there that I REALLY agree with you on.

Some form of public service would be an absolute god-send in this thoroughly self-serving country.

But not as a return for subsidized or free education. Such things should NOT be automatic but the result of academics. And not based on means-testing either, but ability.

I have to say this. It is NOT a principle, no matter how generous of spirit you think you are, to give away someone else's money. This becomes no more noble when you are able to call youself a Senator or a Congressman.

I think the main problem we face is that we devalue everything so much in this country. The result is that hard work doesn't go as far as it used to. That's the problem that needs solving. Simply using government to steal from one end to give to the other doesn't address this, but creates additional problems that need fixing.

On top of which, you'll notice that the guys at the top have a funny way of getting out of paying which leaves the burden to the middle class. It's what they get away with.

But the thing that always gets me around this site is the degree of pessimism (fake or real, I don't know). Posters here will usually talk about something they wish would happen, but can't because the people won't go for it, or the system is too resistant.

And it's like NOTHING in the world will seperate a moderate from his pessimism. "Can't happen." "Won't happen." Perhaps it's part of human nature, I don't know.

You're right that a campaign has to be waged in order for change to be enacted. I just think this country hasn't been asked lately.

We obviously have a different assumption regarding the balance of power. You believe the government is constituted as it is because it represents the American people. I say it is composed so because it doesn't.

And I think it could.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 22, 2006 03:44 PM

Cavalier,

You're under the misimpression this country is going to be around in 40 years even if nothing changes.

Either I'm wrong and Americans can't be troubled to part with what they believe they are, "entitled to," in which case none of this matters and the next 40 years will see the collapse of civilization itself.

Even for me, this sounds like Chicken Little. Isn't it possible that structural reforms could bring down the costs of those entitlements (like we did with, say, welfare in the 90's)? Isn't it also possible that, faced with ballooning deficits for entitlement programs that Americans want, we might just raise taxes closer to the European model? I'm not saying the latter is a great idea, as it would decrease our competitiveness... But America not around in 40 years because of the rapidly increasing costs of popular entitlement programs? Come on now...

Posted by: Bobby at August 22, 2006 03:46 PM

You're under the misimpression this country is going to be around in 40 years even if nothing changes.

I wish there were a way to place some dough on that. I DO expect that we'll still be muddling along 40 years from now. Somewhat different, but more the same than different. I TRY to see the glass as half full, you sound convinced its 7/8 empty.

If people stop lining up at our borders and risking their lives just to get in, many even illegally, then maybe I'll start worrying that we're on the brink of collapse.

I don't seriously doubt that many of our policies, (especially expensive social welfare programs) are unsustainable without adjustments. Some such adjustments may be only tweaks, and others might involve wholesale reform. I expect us to get around to making such adjustments eventually, although not in an especially timely fashion. As far as "a stitch in time goes" we usually push the envelope. That's America.

I guess my point is that you seem to be under the misapprehension that I don't think things will change. Far from it. Things continually change, and we'll make changes, and we'll keep doddering along. I expect many things that you think are inadvisable will endure in some form. Even more, it's probably the case that many things that you think are bugs I am convinced are features. :-)

Oh, and what Bobby said.

Posted by: bk at August 22, 2006 03:55 PM

The cost isn't the root problem, Bobby. It's the entitlement mentality that is. And it's only getting worse. Unless one of the parties nips it in the bud.

And how is lost competitiveness ever a decent trade-off??? I hope you'd fight that tooth and nail.

As for the vacancy of the glass, BK, I just think we have work to do to keep it full, that's all. Eventually the Left is going to grab hold of this country. Either the entitlement mentality will tear the country apart (in more than one way) or it will be nipped in the bud and people will realize they can succeed on their merits and NOT JUST through identity politics.

I think it's the politics you're avoiding. Either Conservatism will win out or Liberalism, because Liberalism is just going to keep pushing the envelope. This is why I think moderates and conservatives should be such good allies.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 22, 2006 04:39 PM

Well, it's obvious that I just don't see the world in the same black and white colors that you do; my world is a little more nuanced and a little more gray.

And how is lost competitiveness ever a decent trade-off??? I hope you'd fight that tooth and nail.

There's always been a trade-off between maximizing competitiveness and regulations that protect and enhance the work force. I'm not a libertarian, so I don't have a problem with things like environmental protections, occupational safety restrictions, and mandatory pensions-- all of which costs us some degree of competitiveness in the global economy, and none of which I "fought tooth and nail." Of course, those regulations can be taken to the extreme-- but so can the laissez faire philosophy that we saw during the Gilded Age. The trick is finding that balance that maintains our global edge while protecting all members of society. Again, it's a particular shade of gray, not the black and white that you see.

I think it's the politics you're avoiding. Either Conservatism will win out or Liberalism, because Liberalism is just going to keep pushing the envelope. This is why I think moderates and conservatives should be such good allies.

Again, I just don't see this as cleanly as you do. Conservatism and Liberalism have changed immensely over the years, and I don't think that one is necessarily going to win over the other. We're likely to see the ideologies duelling long after we die, and I suspect that our grandchildren's grandchildren will, too. I just don't think it's as clean cut or decisive as you do. Maybe that's because I'm a moderate, not an ideologue. Maybe it's because my advanced degree in history has taught me to put things in perspective. Maybe it's because I'm wrong.

But I just don't think you're going to get many moderates who will join your crusade to roll back Social Security, Medicare, public education, college grants and subsidized loans, etc. etc., just because you think if they don't, that we'll step (or have already stepped) on a slippery-slope that will eventually drop us into a Socialist Wasteland. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe you're right, but I just don't agree with your assumptions. Sorry.

Posted by: Bobby at August 22, 2006 08:56 PM

Bobby, in regards to your suggestion that we rolled back welfare spending, you may find Jesse Walkers piece over at reason to be of interest.

While I agree with you on the broad strokes you've sketched here, the following, if true, does give one cause to pause:

I'm not going to go through every item in the budget. I'll just note that even by the narrowest definition of welfare spending—programs aimed at fighting poverty—the figure has gone up 39 percent during the Bush presidency. There isn't any ambiguity here. The government is spending more money on welfare—and with the coming explosion in entitlements, you can expect it to spend even more in the future.

I have no idea what he's including there, and if he includes SS and/or various healthcare subsidies, there that's a giant part of the cost explosion right there. Still, Walker suggests that welfare reform was in large part shell game....while AFDC went down, other allied programs grew quite a bit.

Tully, I hate to ask you to be the one to bring the data, but you're so good at it. What do you say to on the question of where federal welfare spending has gone, if we constrain ourselves to the idea of government support for non-working adults (and their families) when the adults are healthy, and of working age? The "dole" in other words. Have we really cut down on such spending, or is this more impression than truth?

Posted by: bk at August 23, 2006 11:05 AM

Thank you for your post, Bobby.

You are correct, I overstate my case on competiveness. At the time, you were mentioning this in the context of a European-style tax system. You may not even agree with me on THAT but having said what you said, I recognize I should have confined myself to that particular.

In terms of regulation I've always been a moderate, which is to say, I think there is room for reform but I don't think Corporations can police themselves. Regulation is at the heart of government's role.

As for Social Security, I believe every person who has contributed to the program should get EVERY last penny of what they put in. But this program was always been billed as a retirement program when in fact it steals from the young to subsidize the Senior. I wouldn't get rid of the program but I think this country needs to focus on how to keep the elderly active and contributing to society after retirement. At the very least the program should be means-tested to establish when a person has received all they've put in and is entitled to no more.

If you're a student of history, Bobby, it doesn't seem that you go back that far. Have you not heard of the Dark Ages? One problem with the Progressive mentality is that it assumes everything is a straight line into a benevolent future. That we can't even IMAGINE that human failing can undo civilization as it did not SOOO long ago.

I think it goes without saying that if you have a system whereby the Left pushes and the Right keeps giving them half a loaf, so to speak, eventually you're going to end up with a completely Liberal system. Perhaps you see Liberalism as generous. I see it as synonymous with Enabling bad behavior.

I don't know if you are among them, but many people see Conservatism as simply a reaction to a "principled," Liberalism. That people are just greedy and don't want to share or care about anyone else, and it's every man for himself. I agree there are too many people who think this way, but that has never been my understanding of Conservatism.

As I understand it, Conservatism recognized what I do which is that life is about learning a healthy self-reliance and that there is significant-enough wickedness in politics feeding off people's weaknesses (self-absorbedness, if you will) that you get a co-dependent relationship that corrupts democracy and leads to worse problems.

The world has rarely handled diversity well, Bobby. Even in THIS country we've had our ups and downs. I think we CAN do it, but we have establish our common commitment in this country. Everything these days is about Rights but no Responsibilities. Not even the GOP asserts this. And I think herein lies the problem. It's hard enough dealing with this problem when you have ONE party that panders on this basis, it's something entirely unacceptable when BOTH parties do so.

I just want ONE of them back. A fair fight. JFK vs. Goldwater. Something like that.

We disagree and that's fine. But I don't think ALL moderates do.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 23, 2006 01:22 PM

Well, don't get me wrong here-- I'll almost always back the "Goldwater" Republican over the social conservative Republican when I get a chance (which, where I'm registered to vote, plays out most frequently at the City Council, County Board of Supervisors, State Assembly, and State Senate level, mainly because we have term limits in California and there's a high degree of rotation of office).

And you're preaching to the choir about needing to reform Social Security to maintain its solvency or that Americans need to emphasize Responsibilities over Rights-- I completely agree with you there.

All I'm saying is that I don't believe the "End is nigh" for Western Civilization (well, actually I think it might be, but not because of Liberalism/Conservatism, but rather because the Europeans have made little effort to integrate their Muslim populations-- leaving them hostile and opposed to the West-- and changing demographic trends indicates that those anti-Western Muslims will soon become the majorities in Europe, where they can use "one man, one vote, one time" to overthrow Western-style democracy, but that's a subject for another day). I think wanting a "clear choice" between the Parties is what everyone says they want, but when they get LBJ v. Goldwater (1964) or McGovern v. Nixon (1972), it's rather clear how the outcome turns out. Given that dynamic, Presidential races become a "race to the middle" of sorts and one can see why they don't want to run to the extreme just so that their opponent can lock-up the middle and win the election.

Posted by: Bobby at August 23, 2006 02:32 PM

Fair enough, Bobby.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 23, 2006 04:01 PM

blackjacks

Posted by: blackjacks at August 31, 2006 12:02 PM