Liberals talk, Conservatives act

[PBzeer]

Cam - maybe we could get Tom Coburn, Jeff Flake, Mike Pence and Jim Deminit, to name a few, and start a new party.

[Cruisingdad]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Well CD, if the moderates aren't bought off, why should they support anything? EG: Pelosi will not allow a vote on drilling, the moderates went along and allowed her to end the Congressional session, AND THEN, she told them can support drilling all they want, since there will be no vote on it. No drilling is the hard-line stance, which the moderates went along with, in spite of their support for drilling, as they were then allowed to show their support (if they felt it necessary for re-election).

Nothing wrong with changing your mind when facts make it necessary. That is unlikely though, for any well thought out position, as it is inherent in reaching your opinion, that you have taken into account the relevant facts. What we see today though, are changes of policy, due to polls, not facts. The example here, would be Bush and the Surge. He didn't change his stand on the war, but he did change his policy on how it was pursued. In other words, he adapted not to the polls, but to the circumstances, while maintaining his belief that he was pursuing the right course.

As Limbaugh is the first to state that he is not objective, why should he be concerned with opposing viewpoints? He isn't on the air to present opposing viewpoints. He is on the air to present his viewpoints. Viewpoints which validate the views of his audience. He is under no obligation to do any more than that.

NO NO NO!

I am not going down that drilling thing again. NO!!! I will not and you cannot make me!

[cardiacpaul]

"All of us moderators can be bought off!"

Well,
I'm not a Mod, and I can't be bought...
rented only, by the hour.

[sailaway21]

When the word moderate is used to describe a political position I'm reminded of the words of Will Rogers in describing the mind-set. "Broad-minded is just another way of saying a fellow is too lazy to form an opinion."

Moderates, giving little thought to politics eleven months a year, are often guilty of seeing the two parties as monolithic. The current Republican party can hardly be considered conservative as a whole based upon the recent evidence. While I'm a bit suspicious of Cam's liberal tendencies, we conservatives find the Republican party a matter of convenience. Many is the day when the Libertarian party more closely echoes our sentiments. But then, actually voting Libertarian is to waste one's vote, and we conservatives are not inclined to wastefulness.

Name one "moderate" position that accomplished anything successful and lasting. "Moderate positions" are the types of things that give you social security without having to fund it. A moderate position on the military would include women in all branches but not combat roles. That once war breaks out all roles become combat roles is an unpleasant fact that makes the moderate's slicing of the infant less than Solomonic. Women should have access to combat and promotion but they should not be killed-that's a moderate position, and it makes an effective discussion of an actually credible policy impossible.

The country may be sick of conservatives but, the country is no less conservative than it has been in the recent past. Libs, and other flora and fauna, have trouble believing the Bzeer's point, a correct point, Rush Limbaugh echoes the American ethos, he does not form it. And that's why AirAmerica failed. The American people were not confused by, nor did they misunderstand, the liberal position. It wasn't that the broadcaster's were inadequate to the task. It was simply the liberals' worst nightmare; the American people heard and understood what was being said and they turned the dial over to Rush.

Independents are honorable but they rarely get anything done as they have no structure nor support for their particular positions. You need a party and to have control of that party to get something done.

CD and Mitch do have a third party- and Cynthia McKinney is their candidate!

[PBzeer]

When the media, rather than one's actions, is allowed to label a candidates philosophical leanings, one starts out with a skewed characterization. And when the media has a demonstrable bias, as they do, then the labels become even more skewed.

Words do not define a person's point of view, nor political philosophy. Actions do. If one speaks as a conservative, but acts as a liberal, then one is a liberal, and vice-a-versa. Also, being a Democrat does not make one a liberal, nor does being a Republican make one a conservative. Even though both parties lean to those philosophies.

In the current election cycle, the choice is not so much between right and left, but between left and not as left. McCain is not, and will never be a conservative, but merely not as left as a liberal. A moderate, a centerist, or to put it more bluntly, a man of malleable convictions. That is what his actions say.

Obama on the other hand, speaks as a moderate, while his actions are those of a liberal. The media though, portray the race as conservative (McCain) against moderate (Obama), because that is how they feel they can best influence the outcome.

[camaraderie]

No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive. Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought.
Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It's
up to our leader to convince them. That's why we call the leader 'Commander in Chief.'
George W.'s war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it. Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The Commander in Chief had to lobby for legislative approval.
Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral suasion he could muster to rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was
morally justified, winnable and affordable. Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.
George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support. But in the end only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its hands
and watched.
After a few quick victories, things started to go bad. There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount. It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort.
Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander in Chief of misleading them. Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and
even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.
As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties. George W.'s popularity plummeted. Yet through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle.
Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat.
At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes. More troops were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed.
Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned.
Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.'s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts.
Then, in the unlikeliest of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated. After six long years of war, the Commander in Chief basked in a
most hard-fought victory.
So on that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown , a satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the Revolutionary War.

What? Were you thinking of someone else?

[wind_magic]

I disagree with Sway's view of moderates.

Being a moderate means that you don't have to have such a divergent opinion on every single issue that you are forced to take every argument to Def Con 5 in order to hold your reality together.

Moderates, for example, can believe that there is a position on abortion that allows for abortion in some situations, without using abortion as birth control, and without eliminating it altogether.

Moderates can believe that social security needs to be reformed, but that it does actually serve a useful function and doesn't have to be completely done away with on philosophical principle.

Moderates can live in a world where more and more people drive hybrids without having to go off the deep end and require every single driver on the road to drive hybrids.

Etc, etc ...

Moderate, to me, means the opposite of crazy.

[PBzeer]

So windy, one shouldn't come to an intellectual position, based on one's beliefs, morals, and values, but on a nuanced, half and half position, based on nothing is wrong, as long as we meet in the middle?

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

So windy, one shouldn't come to an intellectual position, based on one's beliefs, morals, and values, but on a nuanced, half and half position, based on nothing is wrong, as long as we meet in the middle?

No. It is you guys who are defining being moderate as being a compromise position. You would have everyone think that the only thing moderates are interested in is everyone getting along, coming to some kind of consensus, finding the middle road, not caring enough to hold a perspective worth fighting for, etc, and that isn't what being moderate is about.

Being moderate is simply being realistic and having moderation, in many cases. The world isn't a perfect place, and is often no place for idealists. There is a such thing as reality that we have to live in.

To give an example - I lean more to the libertarian side of politics. I believe people should look out for themselves, take personal responsibility, own up to their mistakes, shouldn't rely on the government to do things for them, and all the rest. I would have us get rid of a lot of laws that burden individuals, laws that allow government to stick it's nose in where it isn't wanted, etc. And that's great for me, I'm a healthy relatively young person and I can take care of myself. But not everybody in this world is capable of being so independent. There are people who are physically disabled, there are people who have learning disabilities, etc, or are too old to take care of themselves anymore. So I realize despite my own philosophy that I do have to be realistic, that there does have to be a more moderate position - I realize we as a society do have to look out for people who can't look out for themselves, for example. It's just reality. In a way I guess you could call it a compromise, but it isn't a compromise between idealogical points of view, it's just a compromise with the human condition, with the practical limits of the human species. It's an understanding that I can't have it my way just because that's the way I think it should be, that there are a lot of people in this world and I haven't walked in all of their shoes.

To me a moderate position is simply trying to inject some amount of simple prudence into what tend to be extremists idealogical positions. So many political arguments sound great until you try to explain them to your grandmother, then they start to sound kind of silly.

[PBzeer]

How then, do you equate "we as a society", with government? How do you make the human condition political, rather than societal? And lastly, how do you arrive at the supposition that helping those who can't help themselves is somehow a moderate position? (I'm afraid you picked a bad example )