"Where have all the liberals gone?"

[sailaway21]

An interesting article. RealClearPolitics - Articles - Where Have All the Liberals Gone?

[Sailormann]

"Where have all the liberals gone?"

We're over in China messing with your medications

[artbyjody]

Originally Posted by Sailormann

We're over in China messing with your medications

But I can only afford dog food... gawd what did I do!

[tdw]

Lisbon, Portugal. The civilised part of the world. No barbarians. Well, other than me Alex and Luis but we are all liberal barbarians an proud of it. mm. actually Luis may be more of an anarchist than a liberal.

Hi Sway, you old reactionary you.

[LarryandSusanMacDonald]

We're all just sittin' here, sippin' on the bock of the day, waiting for global warming to flood Washington, D.C. under several feet of water.

I'd love to sail my boat over and tie up to the Washington monument.

Tee, hee, hee.

[SailorMitch]

Maybe the correct question is where have all the conservatives gone? Seems to be more moderates around than ever, although it does depend on one's definition of liberal or conservative. Conservatives in general do adhere to a strict code of beliefs espoused daily on the airwaves by Rush et al. If you don't believe in even one element of the code, you're automatically a liberal. For example, I have been against the Iraq war from day one, so ipso facto I am a liberal at least to those conservatives here on Sailnet. Trust me that is hardly the case, but it does make for good name calling by those at the extremes. McCain at heart is a moderate and probably would do much better in Nov. if he was true to his beliefs rather than veering to the "right", which will only serve to alienate many moderates who are looking for a good candidate not at one extreme or the other.

Very sad that the pundits (both in the media and here on Sailnet) divide the body politic into just 2 camps. That is hardly the case anymore.

Besides, conservatives these days are in full flight for the hills. Their day came to an end with the mid-term elections in 2006. Republican congressmen are retiring in large numbers. The Dems will have an even stronger hold on both houses no matter what happens with the White House. The Republicans had their chance and blew it. It's now time for the Dems to do the same thing! Yes, history does repeat itself.

[Valiente]

[QUOTE=tdw;298100]Lisbon, Portugal. The civilised part of the world. No barbarians. Well, other than me Alex and Luis but we are all liberal barbarians an proud of it. mm. actually Luis may be more of an anarchist than a liberal. [QUOTE]

I see you've met the Estoril Terror. Try not to flinch when he tackles you just below the knee. Did Alex and Giu show you the chip in the floor where he brought the table and contents onto his head yet?

He's the only one that understands my Portuguese, however, so he's in my good books.

[sailaway21]

Mitch's prediction of the demise of the liberals may come sooner than even he thinks. Given the fecklessness of the Democrat congress of the last year and a half there will probably be more than a couple of voters wondering why they voted for the do-nothing Dems.

The article does make much of the liberals inability to accomplish much or even stand up for their core beliefs. Most voters are wise enough to know that we're not going to cut and run from Iraq even if a Dem is elected. At least the Dems better hope they're wise enough to know where the Dem's are just posturing. As on NAFTA, etc...

The conservative movement is not the Republican party. The Republican party is made up three commonly acknowledged wings; social conservatives, economic conservatives, and national defense conservatives. The term conservative itself generally implies one who is a member of all three groups. There are many "moderates" who vote Republican because of strong beliefs in one the three facets of Republicanism. That you'd be labeled a liberal for not being a member of all three, or agreeing with Rush et al, is the usual poppycock we've come to expect from Mitch's analyses. By that standard, the conservatives would be calling Charles Krauthammer a liberal. But then the libs always are the "issue" or identity party; it's just that there are so many categories on their dance card that must be punched to qualify. Unfortunately not everyone can be born a black female pro-choice school teaching member of Greenpeace in favor of higher taxes and no military. It's understandable how those who do qualify are single moms who want the government to raise their kids; they just don't have time to do it themselves. (a facetious comment!) (g)

Since the Gingrich Revolution in the House of Reps the Dems can no longer assume, as they had for over forty years, that they will control the House and the Congress. Today they are much more focused on retaining power than they are on implementing the liberal agenda. Much of their fear is well grounded in fact and history. After all, we've seen the liberal agenda in action and the vast majority of the country has pronounced it spinach. Since the new liberal ideas are the same as the old liberal ideas, the best course is inaction. Reminds one of Clinton, no?

Republicans that succeed will be the conservative Republicans Mitch finds distasteful. That is because the real conservatives are the one's with ideas, new ideas. From school choice and vouchers, to drug legalization, and health savings accounts the trogolodyte conservatives are the one's with new ideas. Moderate Republican's are of little use to the congress or the voter. Why would a rational voter elect a moderate Republican, which is the same as saying a Democrat-but less so, when he could vote for a real Democrat?

The liberal hypocrisy is especially poignant this year as we witness the battle of the feminists versus the racialists. Each feels it's "their time". To the extent that McCain runs as a conservative he can portray the disparate and acrimonious groups that make up the liberal party as just a collection of special interest voters. If he markets himself as Dem-lite, he's done before he's begun.

I sit astounded at Mitch's revelation of conservative beliefs. Having never read what can be reasonably described as a conservative position by him on any issue I wait anxiously for the Conservative Manifesto by Mitch. Should be good reading.

[byrondv]

Originally Posted by RealClearPolitics

Classic liberals, after all, would support free markets, internationalism and the universal desire for constitutional government, while downplaying racial affinity.

Oh! God forbid! I am not living up to the definition of a classic liberal! Whatever shall I dooooooooo? They won't let me in the meetings anymore!

If anyone defines themselves that narrowly without the willingness to consider other points... well... doesn't matter if they are conservative or liberal or right in the freaking middle. They are a dumbass.

[sailaway21]

Gee, I read that definition of classical liberalism and the word "narrow" never entered my mind. How can internationalism, for instance, be considered narrow except for the disallowing of consideration for the extraterrestial? (g)