Centerfield

I think McCain is betting Iran and Iraq as well as NK will continue to push the world towards conflict or unacceptable appeasement. McCain and Biden, Clinton and others are well aware of the limits of retaliation. Iran's weapon industry is designed to wipe the fingerprints off its exports. read this

McCain has been more vocal about Russian and Chinese activities than most Democrats have. He also knows immigration will be revisited. I think his advantage among Republicans is his military credential (at least the perception). Eventually, Democrats will have to deal with the fact Iran could care less about countries seeking justice for their sponsorship of terror. It may not seem a top priority just after the elections, but certainly, America's strategic policy will be debated. Events will require it.

The Democrats must be very careful that investigations and Iraq will cloud the bigger picture. Once again, the Don Corleone School of Massive Retaliation depends on identifying the origin of an attack. Dean wants to fight Al Qaeda, but they ARE in Iraq declaring their desire to create an Islamic State. Will we be forced to accept Iranian hegemony in Shiite areas having spent 400 billion to remove Iran's archenemy Saddam? Was this what our planners had in mind back in 2003?

For the record: THIS is what Iran thinks of the world's right to seek justice against those who commit terror (this time using those freedom fighters called Hizb"Allah). Does anyone doubt that Iran seeks to kill JEWS as opposed to Israeli (if that isn't bad enough)? What kind of UN will ignore this?

McCain's stand on Iraq and his recent nose rubbing with further right wing elements have not endeared him with the middle he needs to win. I do think McCain anticipates the landscape approaching 2008 to be dominated by terror, oil and obstructionism. If he is right and more strident conservatives loom behind him, his fortunes may increase as well as Hillary's. We all we see soon what Democrats are planning in order to deal with a global situation getting worse.

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 11, 2006 05:13 PM

McCain announces... This is news?

Max;

his recent nose rubbing with further right wing elements have not endeared him with the middle he needs to win.

I'd suggest the "nose rubbing" has not endeared him to the right. Just as in '04 we saw the left wing of the Democratic Party denigrate the center; we now see the right wing of the Republican Party denigrate the (perceived) center (McCain) and proclaim that the Republican party needs to get back to its true conservative roots.

My conclusion: as a centrist I have to accept that I will never be accepted in either party and that I have to lower my expectations about what party's and their "left/right" view of the world allows them to do.

Posted by: c3 at November 12, 2006 10:03 AM

My conclusion: as a centrist I have to accept that I will never be accepted in either party and that I have to lower my expectations about what party's and their "left/right" view of the world allows them to do.

Why in a country where an overwhelming majority of the populous considers themselves to be moderate, rather than liberal or conservative, must we accept that?

Posted by: Mathew at November 12, 2006 12:06 PM

Why in a country where an overwhelming majority of the populous considers themselves to be moderate, rather than liberal or conservative, must we accept that?

Because the majority of people who vote consider themselves to be moderates of one stripe or another. As Pat and I explained months ago, back when "Unity 08" was in vogue, a centrist party becomes untenable the instant that it starts to formulate concrete policy positions. Of course, the Dems have just proven that you can prevail in an election without actually formulating policy, but prevailing is not winning, insofar as one can prevail either by winning or staying out of the way while one's opponents win, and in any event, I'm not sure that's a laudable model to emulate. Posted by: Simon at November 12, 2006 06:15 PM

Doesn't matter whether you are a centrist or a partisan, it still makes sense to lower your expectations. The only difference is that centrists actually do it, and the more partisan you go, the less likely you'll find compromisers.

I think most of us centrists accept that each party's prospective standard bearers have to sail towards the wing to get the nomination. But "how far" is a function of each election's dynamics. In 2004, the conventional wisdom was that base turnout was going to tell the tale. But is that always true?

Probably not if each base has high turnout. Each party's choice enables or disables the other party's choice. Perhaps Gore affords the GOP the luxury of a Romney, or Romney affords the democrats the luxury of a Gore.

It's just my gut, but I think the 2008 election is going to turn on what the middle thinks. The pendulum has swung. Of course, what the middle lacks is a vocal rabble-rousing faction, so there's a problem of generating volume during the blah-blah-blah stage we're in right now. What makes sense is for us to strongly counsel those dissatisfied with both parties to be ready to vote in the primary of their choice, and indeed to help people find out what they have to do in order to make that choice.

Moderates show up. They do vote. Remember when Dean was pratically being granted the 2004 nomination, and then they actually did a vote, the choice ended up being John "I can win" Kerry. IMO, right now the people in true charge of both parties are going to push hard for candiates who can win, not ideological purity. They may do so quietly, but they're doing so. The blue dogs are solid evidence of that on the democratic side. Don't think the GOP was not taking notes.

And FYI for those who've missed me saying it before, Mitt Romney is formidable in his ability to sound moderate without actually being very moderate. He says, nice, conciliatory sounding things, and he's cool, which feels far more presidential than a John McCain, who feels hot. That gets him press, but it may cost him votes come nomination time.

Posted by: bk at November 13, 2006 10:31 AM

Because the majority of people who vote consider themselves to be moderates of one stripe or another.

And as I said, in poll after poll numbers have shown that this country is about 1/3 R, 1/3 D, and 1/3 I.... The problem is that the last third don't have a viable organization encouraging them to vote. .

Posted by: Mathew at November 13, 2006 03:42 PM

Good points Brian and C3. I still think events in the world will drive the next election. Why else would McCain annoy both Democrats and many conservatives with his push for MORE troops? Why will Hillary not denounce her vote for the Iraq invasion? Certainly, McCain's voting for immigration reform will not please most Republicans. Maybe this sheds some light. Who does not think Al Qaeda and Shiite extremists supported by Iran are not teaming up and preparing to hit Lebanon and Israel? Who thinks Africa is not going to get worse? Who thinks Chavez cares about election law in his coming attempt to seize control of his county's democracy? Who thinks North Korea is stopping wmd production?

The Iraq Study group may suggest talking with Iran and Syria, but who really thinks this will result in anything? McCain probably fears Democrats are quite willing to blame the future events in Iraq on Republicans as well as Iran getting the bomb. What Democratic leader denounced Al Qaeda's declaration to hit the White House? Some pundits bet that moderates who are strong hawks will be leading the charge in 2008 after everyone blames Democrats and isolationist Republicans for everything about to unfold?

Until a real discussion gegins in earnest and elected centrists flex some moderation, foresight and principle, all we have now is blah blah blah while global events actually have increased their threatening trends, taking Bush's loss as a sign of their strength.

Dean, Murtha, Biden, Clinton, Hagel, Clarke, Warner, Lugar, what say you now?

We do need centrists to stay focused and keep to the central issues of security and energy. Labels mean nothing while Liberal Democracy remains in free fall.

Just a recurrent thought.......

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 13, 2006 03:43 PM