What is a Political Moderate?

I agree with your definition of a "moderate" as far as US politics is concerned.I'm not sure about the ballgame, national anthem, flyby thing... but I assume the point you are trying to make is that one can feel patriotic sometimes without then having to shudder and spit. I agree with that idea.But to that I'd have to add a basic pragmatism which allows one the ability to criticize, and I mean openly criticize, things which are not working without feeling like one is betraying one's country.Although I thought Giuliani was not a good mayor except during 9-11 (he showed fantastic leadership during that crisis), I agree with your assessment of Republican moderates.I don't agree with your list of Democratic moderates, especially Lieberman. I thought Bob Graham was pretty good, and I don't think Kerry strayed from the mark either.Indeed if we want to look at presidential candidates and how close they came to "moderate", both Bush and Kerry were: While only Kerry was... I mean both men were against gay marriage and late term abortions (which was in keeping with majority of Americans feelings), yet Bush was for rewriting the constitution and putting the breaks on stem cell research (neither of which are in keeping with a majority of American sentiment), as well as turning government functions over to churches and religious groups (to the extent that they could even refuse to hire nonxians yet have our tax dollars).Certainly Bush does not fit easily into the list of: Giuliani, McCain, and Schwarzenneger. I find very little difference between the actual positions of Kerry and Arnold... can you?This message has been edited by holmes, 11-06-2004 11:50 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Absolutely, and... I agree not to debate that topic here since that is policy/policy and not the nature of moderate. The point I was trying to make is that both men fell within the moderate position of strong defense, even if there were differences on what consituted a strong defense policy. I must note that McCain up until the campaign was firmly against many of Bush's military policies. Thus Kerry was not out of the loop on that, merely out of the party. I think this is where the irony comes in. You say Michael Moore and David Duke. But the real parallel would be between Moore and O'Reilly. They are both simply reactionary infotainers.The Democrats were selective that they isolated people left enough to consider Nader or the green party.The Republicans reached beyond right to hit the hardcore Falwell, Robertson, and beyond fringe Xian fundamentalist movement. I have no idea who David Duke sided with, but it may very well have been Bush.I think you are trying to dismiss the obvious here. Yes, Moore was critical of Bush, but if you listened to him he was also critical of Kerry (he endorsed Clark, but never Kerry). Yet Kerry and his supporters (and critics of Bush) got painted with being Moore types. This just is not accurate (again I have already mentioned Clancy, Buchanan, Clarke, and I could keep adding people like Zinni).Yet Bush clearly pandered to ultra Xian fundies. Can you deny this, or that it was the ultra right fundies which was necessary to make the percentage difference in this election?I can point out that Kerry did not pander to, nor did he get, the extreme left vote.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You know I just realized that you have this real huge problem with Moore. This last thing has really thrown me. How does Moore even come close to equating with David Duke? I mean that. If you are posing moderate as a center between Moore and Duke then your definition does not seem to match its applied results.It also seems to be that you requirement for being able to be voted on is that Moore would not like it. That is all style and no substance.I know he isn't pretty, and can grate people the wrong way, but is he seriously that big a scare crow to conservatives that they would rather vote for poor choices than a good one Moore might like? Again no substance. and not very moderate.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

With that statement it is now patently obvious you never watched the debates, or did not listen to what Kerry said. That's what Kerry said. That's like exactly what he said. Where were you? That might be an interesting point if not for the fact that this is wholly beside the point.The question of this thread is what was a moderate. My point was that your definition was correct, but according to your own definition then, the Republicans were actually the one's who reached out beyond the moderate section of America, to garner votes based on far right leanings.The Dems may have made assumptions that certain groups were for them, but that is not the same thing as reaching out to radical left elements which is what you accuse them of doing. Your only evidence continues to be that Michael Moore said not to vote for Bush (never mentioning he did not endorse Kerry, and if anything was Kerry negative until that was the only choice he had left). Yawn.Were promises (or suggestions of promises) made by the Republican Party to the religious right, including promises which you just said were unaccaptable to you, in order to get their vote which was necessary to add to the base vote? Yes or No?I think we both know what the answer is. If not, maybe you should look into what the moral majority is saying and what their turn out meant. Jerry Falwell does a lot of talk shows and there is plenty of tape.I am also curious what you will do when the MM gets its payback?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I just want to get this straight, after whining that the Democrats are bad because they aren't centrist, your solution is that they reach out to evangelicals who are patently not centrist?Oh that's right you claim there is a difference between PFs and Evangelicals. You of course do not know that I grew up in a religious conservative community, right near the Billy Graham Center in fact, went to college at a religious affiliated university, and then spent several years among a highly evangelical community.Bush is an evangelical, and it is that wing of evangelicals (the falwells and roberts) which are being appealled to. That was the numbers that were being courted.Evengelicals are against abortion to a degree which is not mainstream. They are against stem cell research in a way which is not mainstream. They are against gay marriages that can vacillate between the moderate and not. They are also totally for faith based programs (especially education) which is wholly noncentrist.You seem to keep thinking I am Michael Moore. I am not. I had quite a conservative background, and am conservative fiscally to some degree and definitely in military matters.The problem in this election was not the Democrats choosing the wrong crowd to sell out to. It was the Republicans selling out their traditional values and courting far right votes just to secure an election win.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-06-2004 06:49 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You are incorrect. It is quite clear that abortion, even publically funded, is acceptable to the mainstream. The main question appears to be to what trimester.Kerry in the debates clearly stated the same personal position that you did on abortion, he then said that while he held this stronger view of abortion he could not legislate it and so supported a centrist view of abortion.About the only difference is that Kerry was willing to allow third trimester abortions for sake of the mothers health, or in cases of rape and incest. That is actually not out of step with the mainstream either, but made a clear definition between himself and Bush who said he would not allow it under any circumstances. You are correct that is my vice. I do not mind if you indulge in it as well. My only concern is a consistency in argument and sticking to facts. His appointments, policies, and other statements not on the campaign trail completely reveal the nontruth of those statements.That he might have fooled you once, shame on him. After four years of solid records on how he wishes to treat the nonreligious, that you would be fooled again... shame on you.I mean at the very least didn't you see the public declarations of Ashcroft regarding how anyone that is nonreligious and/or nonmonotheistic (of Abraham's descent) were barbarians that had to be stopped? Did you not see Bush say that was okay? That is exactly what I have been suggesting, and why I think your ripping into Democrats is so misplaced. The Reps were the party that actually sold out and the next four years will have to be a fight between centrist and far right elements that were welcomed in with promises.Remember I didn't say I was worried, just saddened. This election showed the triumph of partisanship and fanaticism over pragmatic decision making. I still trust the system will work, but Reps will be the ones that pay as they will only have themselves to blame.If Dems take your advice and try to go right then they will deserve to lose all over again.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)