Has anyone realised that what we are all looking for are moderates?

[napi21]

I realise there are degrees on each side, but both sides are now depending on their moderates to do the rational thing in the Senate.

Isn't this why people like BC say the dems need to stay centrist?

I admit, on some issues I'm very liberal, and on some, I'm moderately conservative. I really do believe that's where the majority of people are.

I hate the hugh deficit, I detest the fact that Shrub lied to take our Country to war!

But, I also detest the hugh deficit we are running now. Way too much $$ is being spent on DOD. Not the military, but dumb stuff like ariel sirvelience satelites!

We need to look at the most expensive parts of our costs. It's DOD now. We need to curb it without harming our service people. That should be an easy task. Cancel the program for air superiority in space!

[Clark2008]

1. I told someone today at my new job that I used to be a moderate,

but that the Republicans had gone so far right, that now I was a liberal.
He laughed and said he used to be a conservative, but that the Republicans had gone so far to the right that - well, they weren't conservative anymore. :7

Just an observation.

[napi21]

3. Good point! That's my feeling too.

I realy do believe that the majority in America don't want a theocrac, but they also don't want totally free gay marriage or abortion on demand.

Most people are will to bend a little, and say they don't agree with abortion, but woun't impose thier opinion on others. They don't agree with gay mariage but agree with gay unions.

[Tigress DEM]

4. That funny, but sad too, and very true.

[Ladyhawk]

6. Very true. Neocons are NOT conservative.

I believe in balancing the budget. Once the Cold War was over, we should have been able to cut the defense budget to make sure every citizen had health insurance and a living wage. The defense budget was overblown as it was. It could be halved and we could still defend ourselves from an attack by another nation. We could spend the whole budget on defense and still not protect ourselves from a terrorist attack.

Declaring a war on terrorism is like declaring a war on flanking maneuvers. You can't engage the enemy that way because he is always hiding. Only an increase in proper intelligence and small, surgical strikes can remove terrorist threats. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have accomplished nothing. We don't have Osama--even if he was the guy who pulled off 9-11--and we've pissed off an entire generation of Arabs and Muslims. As many have said, we're making enemies faster than we can kill them. Sigh.

Also, I know that a change in foreign policy would help prevent the creation of terrorists. They don't hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we've treated them like shit.

[Tigress DEM]

8. You got that right!

....Also, I know that a change in foreign policy would help prevent the creation of terrorists. They don't hate us for our freedoms. >>>>>>>>>They hate us because we've treated them like shit.<<<<<<<<


However, as a country that is so rich in resources and wastes so much and is so casually cruel in regards to how we have let this government get away from us..... in a way it is our "freedom" to be "irresponsible" and treat them like shit by letting the lies live on and the people die.

But not specifically for our freedoms, you are right.

[JDPriestly]

9. How right you are!

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you
would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a
tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

----President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952-----

I was a moderate under Eisenhower. I'm a liberal today.

In fact,, when I first started voting long ago, I sometimes voted for Republicans because they sometimes had good candidates. That would be unthinkable today. Republicans have become so extreme today what with their union bashing, privatization, and anti social security agenda.

[G_j]

2. so what is the "rational thing"? n/t

[Tigress DEM]

5. Vote Bi-Partisan on things that the US needs in order to...

remain viable.

EX: Rationally, or with some basic common sense, moderates on either side of the fence realize that going against the Geneva Convention was NOT a good idea.

Left Moderates - People who think those who are not like us are still human and deserve fair and just treatment even during wartime will obviously always support the Geneva Convention, but aren't going to be as upset with soldiers as they are at policy makers and the top down orders to allow torture in our name.

Right Moderates - Those who support the troops, know the fact that torture was done in America's name puts them in more danger of being tortured - even Colin Powell expressed that concern.

EX: Rationally, Bolton is unfit for the position. Find someone else.

Moderates on both sides have said that.

Rationally and with what is called detante in foreign policy, there is a careful balancing done with what points can be agreed upon and using those to bring each side closer and closer to accord.

[Tigress DEM]

7. Still lovin' that stamp BTW!!

Also rationally, we don't persecute people for telling the truth in America. We burn the asses of the liars and crooks.

Moderates have a sense of right and wrong and tend to see both sides of the issue. They usually have strong convictions to do things in a respectful manner.

I think the NEED for moderates is somewhat uniquely American because of our whole melting pot and celebrate diversity national experience, there is a sense that we get along better with others if we try to understand them instead of just demanding that the others do what WE know is right.

Other countries have always been diverse and they just deal with it differently.

[TahitiNut]

10. Just WHO are you talking about when you say "moderates"??

Perhaps a reveiw of the Pew Research Report "Beyond Red vs. Blue" might help identify this obscure pool of voters. (I've never seen them, quite frankly.)

See http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=949

Here are the Typology Groups:
ENTERPRISERS - 9% OF ADULT POPULATION (98% Republican/Lean Republican)
SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES - 11% OF ADULT POPULATION (97% Republican/Lean Republican)
PRO-GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES - 9% OF ADULT POPULATION (86% Republican/Lean Republican)
UPBEATS - 11% OF ADULT POPULATION (73% Republican/Lean Republican)

DISAFFECTEDS - 9% OF ADULT POPULATION (60% Republican/Lean Republican)

LIBERALS - 17% OF GENERAL POPULATION (92% Democrat/Lean Democrat)
CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS - 14% OF ADULT POPULATION (98% Democrat/Lean Democrat)
DISADVANTAGED DEMOCRATS - 10% OF GENERAL POPULATION (99% Democrat/Lean Democrat)

BYSTANDERS - 10% OF ADULT POPULATION (the 96% non-voting drop-outs)


The "Disaffecteds"?? How do you propose to reach them? "Disaffecteds have little interest in current events and pay little attention to the news. No single medium or network stands out as a main source." And since they don't pay any attention to the policy directions, just what the f*ck would convince them to vote Democrat? They've got absolutely no comprehension whatsoever about the "trivial" difference between "moderate" and "left." It's NOT the 'moderation' that disaffects them. The color-blind don't even notice the difference between blue and blue-with-a-slight-tint-of-red.

The "Bystanders"? These are people who've pretty much lost any faith whatsoever in our political process. I sure as hell wouldn't call them "moderates" ... more like left-of-Nader liberals who see BOTH parties as owned and operated by "the man." So, offering these people something that's "in the middle" is sure as hell not going to motivate them to vote.

In my opinion, the Democrats have been moving right ever since LBJ. While some view Jimmy Carter as a liberal, they're basing that almost solely on his activities in retirement, and the degree to which we've LURCHED to the right in the last 25 years.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a better result.

Most of what I see in calls for "moderation" is mere appeasement and timidity.
("Adolph is killing too many Jews. Our guy will kill fewer.")
("We spend more than the rest of the world combined on the military but, gee, we shouldn't reduce it because we'd be called 'soft on defense.')
("We have more of our people in prison than any other country in the world but we shouldn't stop imprisoning them since we'd be called 'soft on crime'.")

Riiiight. :eyes:

Let's not get called names ... like "liberal." Heaven forbid! :puke: