He, I took both tests. The first one put me closest to Obama  (83%) and furthest away from Huckabee, which sounds about right. The other poll puts me closest to Clinton, with 68%. Obama is next with 58% and Huckabee is again dead last with 15%.

Of course my problem with Clinton isn’t the issues, it’s the cutthroat, I Will Destroy You For I am the HEIR, to hell with unity attitude she has.

My results (of which I was aware):
1. Ron Paul
2. Rudy Giuliani
3. Mitt Romney AND John McCain
4. Huckabee
5 and so on the Democrats

The other test:
1. John McCain
2. Mike Huckabee (HA!)
3. Ron Paul
4. Mitt Romney
5. Barack Obama  

I was closest to Ron Paul and Barak Obama was my idealogical opposite.

I think that is because being so middle of the road I tend to think the government should keep hands off most things and most of those questions were about government interference in our lives.

Pat:
As I recall, Reagan’s great plan was to cut taxes for rich people and spend a lot of money on weapons.  Gives me chills to remember.

Snark aside, I think you’re missing what Obama is doing.  Our problem in Reagan’s day was (arguably) overregulation and taxation.  Our problem today is (arguably) politics so polarized it has led to paralysis.

Obama is very directly addressing that issue.

Of course we don’t know for certain whether Obama would translate his unifying rhetoric into actual administration. We also don’t know whether Hillary Clinton would translate her opportunistic centrist positions into actual administration.

The best we can do is evaluate the candidates in terms of their behavior during the campaign. And Obama shows a far less hateful style of dealing with dissent than we have seen from the Borg-like Clinton machine. 

And for me, that’s enough. I can cope with a candidate that I disagree with on issues as long as I believe that s/he is not closed to new information and is not invested in demonizing and marginalizing everyone that disagrees with them. Clinton’s style (more to the point, that of their functionaries, advisers, and surrogates) is that of a ruthless rhetorical steamroller and it has been since the first Clinton administration in the 90s. There is zero reason to believe that will change, given the behavior they have shown in the current campaign.

Pat, Michael Van:

The American people are centrist.  A small portion favor abortion in all cases, a small portion want it outlawed, the bulk of people are in the middle.  Ditto gun control.  Ditto Iraq.  Ditto economic measures.   So on and on.

Will Obama please the far right?  No.  Of course not.  But he also won’t please the far left.  There’s no reason to believe that Obama is a pacifist, a socialist, an obsessive regulator. 

In fact he’s not far on most issues from where the American people are, and he’s signaling that when he’s in office he’ll reach out to the middle rather than playing Bush-Clinton games of divide-and-rule. 

He won’t have 60 Dems in the Senate so he’ll have no choice but to compromise if he wants to pass legislation, and he’s signaling very clearly that’s his intention. 

One point: when reps control congress and it’ll be obama vs. them I think that his style will indeed be different than that of HRC, in so far that I think that he’ll be less aggressive in his approach. Will the outcome, though, be more centrist than HRC? If you look at her record and the type of administration her husband ran I’d say: unlikely.

So, the style may be different, the tone, but will the end result be different? Will Obama be more centrist policy-wise? I highly doubt it, especially because his record, his legislative record is more liberal than hillary’s.

And now, off to bed. Have a good night y’all. Thanks for the debate, as usual

Abrisaham:

The proof that Obama is not a pacifist?  Directly from the Obama web site:

We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

That Obama is not a socialist?

I believe that America’s free market has been the engine of America’s great progress. It’s created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It’s led to a standard of living unmatched in history.

I’ve played around in the world of "centrism" long enough to know the word is practically meaningless. If you want, it can mean the average of all positions. Or it can mean a radical third way. Or it can mean a pansy ass who can’t make up his or her mind.

Whatever. My support of Obama has nothing to do with him being or not being a centrist. I don’t happen to think he is a centrist, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be something unifying in his presidency. As much as we want it to be, politics is not linear. Obama I think is a great example of a man who just doesn’t fit on our usual scale.

Do I hear the theme from the twilight zone? I must have entered another dimension.

Are you practicing your multitasking skills on me? You take me to task for suggesting that you implyed Obama is a centrist. Then you go on to, once again, impy Obama is a …… centrist. Lastly, you demand proof that Obama is not a …..centrist. My head’s all awhirl.

I suppose we could start with the fact that Obama currently has the most liberal lifetime voting record in the Senate. Or look at his record in Illinois:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18967

You know, little ole things like that.

I don’t happen to think he is a centrist, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be something unifying in his presidency.

That’s true.

Michael and Tap: He has a liberal rating of 86%. Against HRC’s 79% I believe.

Michael R- I’ll give you one example; in Illinois, he voted against a bill which would have required that medical care be given to infants who survived abortions. That’s not ‘within reach’ of the centrist position on abortion- that’s about as far to the left on the issue as you can possibly be.

Now, one could argue that he took positions farther to the left in Illinois than those he might take as president, but I’m not sure how one could prove that. His record is all we have to go on.

Pfft. Ask that vast majority of American voters who are centrists on abortion if they agree with you on that.

And note that if you’re the guy who says you’re a new kind of politician because you’ll take your opponents seriously and debate them in good faith to find common ground, you’ve given up the option of then saying "I don’t take that concern seriously."

Man I really am at a loss as to how far people will go to support an unknown simply because he says purdy things.

I for one am getting a little tired of how so many Obama opponents presume to know the secret reasons for those who support Obama. Michael says that it is all emotions, you say it is all about "talking purdy" and Obsidian Wings claims it is "Clinton Derangement Syndrome". It seems that none of Obama’s opponents (at least around here) can conceive of even the possibility that we just disagree.

I wonder if you all know (or care) that you are being grossly insulting to people who otherwise you often claim to respect just because you disagree with their opinion about a candidate. It’s not like Obama’s supporters here have been behaving badly (like the supporters of some other candidates have). Why is it that Obama’s supporters are the subject of so much outright contempt?

I’ve criticized Hillary Clinton’s behavior, but I don’t recall ever arguing that all her supporters are just a bunch of morons or suckers. I’ve disagreed with McCain and Romney on various issues, but I don’t think I have ever posted that all their supporters are motivated by war hero worship or Captain America good looks.

Maybe if Obama is such an empty suit, it shouldn’t be necessary to constantly attack the motives of his supporters to criticize him, as so many of the people around here seem to like to do.

Other areas where I see Obama adopting a tone/stance (and I do not agree with Michael’s claim that tone is meaningless) that attempts to reach out to those who disagree with his base position:

Iraq:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Tax simplification:

The tax code has become too complicated. Too many Americans have to pay for expert advice to fill out long forms and comply with complex requirements. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimated in 2004 that it took more than 28 hours for an individual to complete his/her tax filing, and that half of the taxpayers filing the “easy” forms ended up paying a tax preparer to do it for them. Barack Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than 5 minutes. Currently, the IRS receives Americans’ financial information directly from employers and banks. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses this information to give taxpayers the option of a pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return to the IRS or online. This will eliminate the need for Americans to hire expensive tax preparers and to gather information that the federal government already has on file.

Free trade versus protectionism:

The process of globalization is bringing millions of people into the global economy, increasing the efficiency of resource allocation through stronger capital markets, raising productivity by putting new technologies to work, and exploiting efficiencies of integrated supply networks. But globalization also leaves some Americans behind as patterns of production change, jobs relocate, and wage pressures intensify. Barack Obama supports trade agreements that lower prices for American consumers while also opening up fair and competitive markets for the sale of American-made goods and services abroad.

Iran:

Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.

I also think Obama’s proposal to increase the ground forces is a remarkably centrist position that does not deserve the contempt ladled on to it above. Hardly anyone else is talking about force structure details relevant to the global war against al-Qaeda, why should Obama be criticized for engaging an issue that everyone else is ignoring and by doing so in a way that can appeal to both liberals and conservatives?

Do I agree with every single one of Obama’s issue positions? Of course not. As a moderate conservative, I find his positions on education particularly problematic and I think it is a key area where he could extend the outreach method he uses on many other issues (though the dominance of the NEA in Democratic Party politics might make this impossible). I respect those who disagree with Obama on the basis of substantive disagreement with his issue positions. But I am losing patience for those who make nasty comments towards those who support Obama and/or find Obama’s moderate tone to be very important.

Actually, my position right now is that a Obama/McCain or Obama/Romney matchup would be fantastic, as for the first time I would have to choose between candidates on both sides that give me genuinely positive overall impressions.

Perhaps, however, our politics has become cynicism-based in this country and it is “uncool” to like multiple candidates at the same time. Perhaps the only tolerable way to support a candidate these days is one at a time. Perhaps the requirement of support for one candidate is to go overboard bashing all the others (and their supporters) non-stop.

Perhaps. But if that is the game required, I won’t be posting much on these topics. Perhaps I am overly sensitive, but I don’t enjoy posting only to get insulted and/or ignored. And thus far, that appears to be the vast majority of the discussions regarding the 2008 elections.

I have to agree with Michael- very little of that is compromising at all, unless you consider it a compromise if someone says that he won’t be a complete idiot in pursuit of a liberal agenda, that he’ll actually allow logic to prevent him from going too far.

And that’s the whole crux of it for a conservative (or right leaning centrist) to compare Hillary and Obama. Do you prefer to have someone that is pushing liberal policies by fighting for them, in which case you fight back (and on balance, the GOP is better at those tactics) or do you prefer someone who says that he’ll compromise but really offers very little meaningful compromise positions? Because the latter actually puts you at a disadvantage- you look like the bad guy if you argue against someone who’s pretending to be conciliatory, and politically you end up losing those battles. I think a GOP Congress (or even GOP minority that is big enough to prevent Dem overrides) would be far better able to hold back progressive agenda of a H. Clinton administration than an Obama one.

But I’d appreciate less incoming comments that claim that my position is just "emotional" (your word, Michael) or just because of "talking purdy" (above) or just "Clinton hatred" (seen several times in recent days).  It is, quite simply, NOT a "straw man" to point out that many if not most of the anti-Obama posts and comments recently have been condescending at best towards Obama’s supporters.

The majority of the people here are supporting Obama and many of those who oppose him think highly of him (I’m not one of them), so you’re just making things up.

Now, if people want to disagree with my claim that the moderateness of style will actually attenuate the liberal positions enough to matter, that is legitimately arguable.

Your arguments are weak with regards to Obama. You argue style style style, style will influence policies, etc. but if that’s the case, why does he have such a liberal record?

As someone who identifies myself as "moderately conservative" I don’t accept the premise that mostly liberal positions precludes
identification as a moderate.  ALL political positions get modified in the process of implementation.  That means that the WAY in which they are presented tends to indicate the nature of the PROCESS by which they are CHANGED during enactment.

That’s just empty pseudo-arguments. If someone advocates liberal policies that person is per definition not a moderate. you can say that the outcome of his style, his views, and then opposition may be moderate policies, but we have no way of checking that: that’s more hope than anything else. In any case you’ll have to get rid of the "he’s a moderate" label.

We should not define a moderate position as one that requires using bombs.

We should also not define a moderate position as one that says that bombs will never be used, but only diplomatical and economical ‘weapons.’ That’s not moderate, that’s anti-war.

Obama is the only one proposing a solid carrot-AND-stick strategy regarding Iran

Yes, and what a stick!

Perhaps that problem here is that your definition of what constitutes a "centrist" or "moderate" is not the only possible definition of those words, Michael.

As I used to include in a series of posts on my now-defunct personal blog, I tend to define moderation in terms of pragmatism. In other words, one way of defining “moderate” is “I won’t be a complete idiot in pursuing ideology”. Moderate politics does not require someone have no ideological convictions. It requires only that the person pursue those convictions pragmatically and with a willingness to grant concessions to the other side when it is justified by the incoming information. Purists (the opposite of moderates) ARE “complete idiots” in pursuing their ideology. Look at Dennis Kucinich’s platform for an example. Do you really think it is accurate to lump his positions in with Obama’s under the label “liberal”?

Obama’s “moderate style” is therefore the very definition of moderate politics as I see it. It stands in sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton’s style of taking mostly the same “liberal” issue positions but doing so in a manner that is completely hostile to all disagreement or dissent and which is prone to demonizing anyone who walks in the door with a different perspective or with contrary information. That kind of intellectual intolerance is the REAL source of the opposite of moderate-ness — extremism.

Center of what, Michael? The left/right spectrum which has already been conceded not to reflect anything meaningful on a whole range of issues?

The "liberal with a moderate style" moniker seems to me just another way to impose the false dichotomy between substance and style. I’m claiming that the "moderate style" has real policy implications that are substantial enough that the “liberal” label is then misleading.

Also, the “liberal” label carries a lot of baggage with it these days, sort of like “neocon”. Requiring its use by Obama supporters is the equivalent of requiring them to wear a scarlet letter in some circles. It implies all kinds of things that they may not in reality support.

Lets just say we disagree and will never agree on this Jason. I read your comment and think to myself "he’s repeating the same quasi arguments." I’m sure you think the same of me

Clinton ruled like quite a centrist.

On trade, yes. On social and fiscal issues, he was divisive and demonizing except when faced by superior numbers. Contrary to the popular impression, his recent pattern of demonization and histrionics on the campaign trail are not recent aberrations.

Also, let’s remember that Hillary Clinton was even more divisive and demonizing than her husband. Remember, all opposition to her was part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" (her exact words) and the Clinton White House featured a "war room" (their own term) for intractable, uncompromising political combat. And I for one will never forget the Clinton White House leading the charge to label everyone who disagreed with them as mean, vicious people who literally wanted old people to starve to death. Does this really sound like someone more open to compromise than Obama’s stated desire for consensus building?

There is literally no evidence that I can think of that Hillary Clinton is ever open to hearing from those who disagree with her about anything.

I think his record is clear that he would prefer the less purist, more consensual bill.

I think his rhetoric says that, but I don’t see it in his record. Can you elaborate?

I think, I hope. Well, if that’s enough for you, fine.

You act as if anyone else has something more than "I think" and "I hope".  No one does.  There is no basis to treat Obama supporters with special condescension in this area.

Right.  I keep forgetting that the best indicator of what someone truly will do is whatever liberal bloggers say.

Jason, you’re comment #45 is an example of what you’re complaining about in #46 though. I explained that if a person is known to have an ideology but claims to be moderate and pragmatic in seeking consensus with people of other ideologies, that the burden of proof is on him. You answered by saying you prefer to believe even without proof. It’s not true to say that no one else has anything other than that belief to go on (for example, moderates and centrists can see a clear record in McCain’s case that he’s worked effectively with leaders from the other party and compromised- risking his popularity with his base.)

In Obama’s case, it’s too early in his career to have much evidence one way or the other, that’s true. It’s also why I can’t support him at this time (though I like him and hope he matures into the type of politician that you believe him to be.)

In Obama’s case, it’s too early in his career to have much evidence one way or the other, that’s true. It’s also why I can’t support him at this time (though I like him and hope he matures into the type of politician that you believe him to be.)

That’s what I hope for as well. In fact, I think that he if becomes the politician he seems to indicate he’ll be once, I think he would be a great candidate eight or even four years from now (also after he has more experience).

If he puts words into action, it’s definitely someone I could support in a couple of years. Trouble is, you don’t know what he’ll do and I "believe" in God and that’s it. In politics I tend to be an "unbeliever."

FWIW, Jason, I’ve been angered at times with Michael’s tone when discussing candidates he doesn’t like.
If I remember correctly, you’ve also had your issues with other people. Point is; snark feeds snark.

(for what it’s worth, I tried to reach out in comment #40 Then again, we can be blunt with each other can’t we? Especially considering the fact that many on this blog know each other for years and have been talking politics with each other for years as well. In a way it’s a sign that the blog and bloggers and commenters have grown: we can disagree very strongly with each other, yet we respect each other. That’s one of the things that makes this blog different from other blogs where only people comment who agree with the post and leave a "YAY!" comment).

By the way: if you think this little debate was something: you should listen to how my girlfriend and I debate on, say, Palestine – Israel once.

Ha!

This ain’t nothing. She’s even more stubborn than me (for instance: she refuses to accept that the Palestinians are a bunch of terrorists who deserved to be crused )!

Christine, you may not have noticed that I am not comparing Obama to McCain at this time. During the primaries, I am only comparing Obama to Clinton. And from my perspective, the only Democratic candidate with ANY propensity to lead to moderate/centrist policy outcomes is Obama.

It is also not true that I am completely without empirical evidence here. Clinton’s record of divisiveness and demonization runs back 15 years. Obama’s record of seeking consensus has been consistent, though brief. So sure, there is some "belief" going on here, but as I said before, Clinton supporters cannot claim superiority there because they have to be embracing some "belief" that Clinton’s current centrism is real and her earlier ideological extremism is really gone.

And, unfortunately, the "wait and see" option is probably not available to us. If Obama loses to Clinton, he’ll be toast in Democratic party politics. As they have shown with an extremely vindictive streak in the past, the Clintons will ensure that he is properly punished for having opposed them at all. This is not a faction that has a good record for reaching out to former opponents. They tend to get trapped in their own demonizing rhetoric.

Christine, you may not have noticed that I am not comparing Obama to McCain at this time.

I do note that, but was responding to your "no one has anything more than that to go on," which I thought was more generalizing. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

I’m not so sure that I agree that Obama won’t have another chance. The Clinton brand seems to be losing its luster with the Dem establishment and they may not be able to put down their opposition in the future.

Well, we’ll just have to see how it plays out. I for one have been surprised at the willingness of people at all levels in the Dem party to cross the Clintons and publicly rebuke Bill, for example. I think there’s a lot of fear that they’re going too far this time, particularly because they’re touching flashpoints on race which could undermine the party’s reliable base of black supporters.

So to me, she’s either still going to win but without the strong political capital that she would have been expected to have had (in other words, facing opposition from within her own party instead of having their loyalty), or perhaps she’ll lose. Either way I don’t see her having the kind of power that Bill commanded.

"That’s one of the things that makes this blog different from other blogs where only people comment who agree with the post and leave a "YAY!" comment."

That’s what makes this blog great, Michael. So many people are afraid to have to defend their ideas and opinions. But a blog that consists of nothing but consensus opinions is a boring, unenlightening blog. No fun at all.

Michael did, however, embrace Mullen’s technique of sending a "get the f*ck out of my thread!" email, so that was a nice flashback to the TMV days.

Hahahaha. Yeah – you liked that one? I thought it would bring back fond memories (you should point out that the e-mail was a joke though).

But that’s different than saying "how can you be such a dupe to believe that he’ll do that??" LOL

I didn’t say that. That’s the interpretation. Well your interpretation (and that of Jason seemingly). I said that you’re free to "believe" in politics but that I believe that you shouldn’t "believe" and that you have to, for a major part, rely on a person’s record as an indicator of what he or she would do once in power.

That’s how I see it, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.

As an aside, I get a bit tired of the twisting of words. No where did I say that Obama supporters are suckers: my only point is that he’s not a centrist and that people who support him should come out and say so. They can support him because of other reasons (style, whatever), but don’t make something up.

And yes, the debate is heated; but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. As long as one doesn’t cross the line, and I don’t think anyone here crossed it.

For the most part I agree with that, Michael, but I also think that there’s sort of a need to be ‘edgy’ on blogs so that the way posts are written tends to be insulting to people who favor a candidate that the blogger opposes. The blogger (esp with headlines, or tag lines in articles) doesn’t just usually write that the candidate did or said such and such, which I disagree with for this or that reason. Instead it’s framed in order to put it in the most ludicrous light so that no one with a grain of sense could possibly support that candidate, according to the blogger (this is one reason I wouldn’t be a good blogger- I’d probably bore everyone to tears!)

Turn it around and I think you’ll see what I mean, Michael- there have been posts where you take the position that the Clintons aren’t playing the race card. People have disagreed with you, but so far I don’t remember Jason or anyone else saying "You’re free to believe that, but it shows that you are incredibly naive" or anything even like that. Instead, people have commented on past behaviors that make us believe differently than you do.

And that’s all it comes down to with any opinion; they’re based on facts (hopefully at least!) but can vary depending on how you connect the dots. When you argue too forcefully by straying from presenting the facts and connections as you see them and instead start acting as though the other person is deluded in the way he connects the dots, then you’re not respectfully disagreeing anymore.

And when there’s room to say, "I just don’t see what I said you’re objecting to, " the best thing to do is allow that perhaps you don’t see it but it still is there. Because it’s always much harder to see how these offenses occur when you’re the offender than when you’re on the receiving end.

Hope this one last one is allowed because I’m not disagreeing with you:

LMAO. Seriously. Check the threads ("you are naive… You don’t live here you don’t understand… It’s glaringly obvious… You’re a racist!")

If so, than this actually proves my point; I don’t remember it that way, and I differ with your opinion on that issue- so it shows that the perception of the tone of the criticisms will differ depending on which side of the debate you are on. And I do know that I’m as guilty of that as the next person.

I have never called those who disagree with Obama racists, as Michael claims above.

Who said that you said that? Christine said that none of my opponents said anything, etc. I cited examples of when they most certainly did.

At the point where it seems impossible to discuss certain issues without provoking insulting and demeaning reactions and/or lies about what I said at all, my personal inclination is to avoid them altogether in what I choose to post about (or not post about).

Jason: who’s lying here? Where did – perhaps except for Tap’s comment – anyone say that you did this or that, where did they lie about what you said? Aside from that, where have you been insulted? I just reread the comments for the 3rd time, and I don’t see it. As said though, this debate is over. And I mean it this time.

<blockquote>We could use a man capable of transcending the hollow, nasty, pessimistic politics of the last twenty years and pushing our government and other leaders towards a more civil, more earnestly optimistic future.</blockquote>Quite. Call me when one shows up.

Michael Reynolds wrote…
<blockquote>Pat, As I recall, Reagan’s great plan was to cut taxes for rich people and spend a lot of money on weapons.  Gives me chills to remember.</blockquote>Yeah, and all we got to show for it was an economy that worked again and the end of the cold war. That kooky Reagan!