You're a Moderate If...

You're a Moderate If...

you believe that good things have been done under both the Clinton and Bush administrations

when you think of the history of oil and presidents you think of Jimmy Carter and the Bushes

you dislike elements of the Patriot Act but like elements of it as well

you believe that there are smart people who voted for Bush and smart people who voted for Clinton

you believe in limited government but in big libraries

you believe that bi-partisan isn't always best, that seem real diehard people have helped this country

you believe that it is reasonable to ignore third parties because they don't and won't have any power in the modern era

you believe that some flame-bait has an element of truth to it

Anything I forgot?

Comments

Your post

is excellent. But then I voted for Clinton and for Carter and for Bush, so I guess I see myself.

Put me down as a moderate too,

Thanks for a great post!Latest good thing done by the Bush Adminstration is to stand up to Uzbekistan on human rights, even though it means losing an air base. That's a good example of putting support for liberty over expediency. Hopefully we'll see more examples of this.

I'll got with some of it...

But I see a tension, in fact almost a contradiction spelled out between these two:


you believe that bi-partisan isn't always best, that seem real diehard people have helped this country


you believe that it is reasonable to ignore third parties because they don't and won't have any power in the modern era


While at the presidential-race level, the most recent third-party candidates have seemed to be spoil sports (Nader robbing votes from Dems, Perot robbing votes from Repubs), they at least have had the effect of keeping important topics on the table. But below that, in the broad sea of federal and state legislatures, third party and independent politicos are much more viable candidates. And the times when the do get the job, they are often more able to tackle specific issues by effectively side-stepping knee-jerk partisanism. Of course, the flip-side is a lack of automatic partisan support, and the most freqent defeats for them are dealt through procedural maneuvers by the majority party's committee controls.

Didn't read fine print - 3rd Parties have value

Whoops! I didn't read all the fine print:

you believe that it is reasonable to ignore third parties because they don't and won't have any power in the modern era

I'm with Porch Geese on 3rd parties, except I believe that 3rd party President challenges can serve a good purpose too. They can sometimes (Perot in 92, Nader in '96) force the Republicrat primary candidates off their focus-group programmed talking points onto the real issues. If Perot hadn't wigged out in 1992 and then took dictatorial control of his Reform party, we might have had an even better national discussion.Overall, I think that 3rd parties can best work one locality and state at a time. Which is why I wish the Free State Project well, as well as the various Green Party city councils around the country.

Re:Didn't read fine print - 3rd Parties have value

Don't ignore them early on, but don't pull the lever in Nov. Steve Forbes flat tax was a good idea, although not a 3rd party, the primaries often bring out those candidates you know won't win but can contribute to the conversation.

Perot supporters elected Clinton.

Syndicate content