daveparks wrote:
> On Feb 5, 4:18 pm, Mickey <mickey_and_ed...@sbcnomorephishglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> daveparks wrote:
>>> On Feb 5, 3:45 pm, Mickey <mickey_and_ed...@sbcnomorephishglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> daveparks wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 5, 1:27 pm, Mickey <mickey_and_ed...@sbcnomorephishglobal.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> daveparks wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 5, 12:54 pm, "Cure_Ewan" <karrde_smuggl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Aaron" <aaron...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:270747f5-f09c-4dcb-8152-d74cab678b9d@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22943524
>>>>>>>>> Article about how many Republicans are coming to accept that it's
>>>>>>>>> McCain or a Democrat in 2008, and becoming less critical of him over
>>>>>>>>> time. It also features a counter to Rush's statement that McCain would
>>>>>>>>> destroy the Republican Party that I enjoyed, though it was just a
>>>>>>>>> short comeback.
>>>>>>>>> I especially hope that TC reads this and finds a way to accept this
>>>>>>>>> reality with more grace than he has in the past.
>>>>>>>> Those who know where I stand politically may be shocked to hear this, but I
>>>>>>>> would never, ever, ever vote for McCain. I would throw my vote to the
>>>>>>>> Libertarian candidate and hand the election over to Obama or Clinton. The
>>>>>>>> way I see it, McCain is a carbon copy of either of the Democratic
>>>>>>>> candidates. When the country goes down in flames over the next five years
>>>>>>>> as it undoubtedly will under McClintbama, I know who I want to get the
>>>>>>>> blame.
>>>>>>> I'm guessing there are going to be a lot of "Let's Have Some Drinks &
>>>>>>> *Not* Vote for McCain" parties come election day. No, really.
>>>>>> My advice. Keep your powder dry. Once the internecine warfare is over
>>>>>> and more realistic comparisons are made of Whoever and Whatever, some
>>>>>> folk might want to rethink their commitments to go in the corner and sulk.
>>>>>> The Other Mickey
>>>>> I don't know Mickey - a LOT of the Pugs with whom I've spoken aren't
>>>>> or haven't been all that thrilled with what Bush has (or hasn't) done
>>>>> lately; what with the southern border, spending, not to mention the
>>>>> Iraq mess - seems to me that many are just getting tired of holding
>>>>> their noses.
>>>> Hey, I'm not crazy about the Southern border situation, I'm not crazy
>>>> about the budget bloat, and the Middle East was a problem before Bush
>>>> and will be for the foreseeable future. None of this persuades me to
>>>> ignore the other issues that are still in play.
>>>> I just voted and, as has been too frequently the case, I voted against
>>>> someone, i.e., voted the lesser evil. I will continue to do so as often
>>>> as necessary, waiting for one of those rare occasions when I feel I am
>>>> voting for someone. It is my civic duty. Think of it as providing a
>>>> delaying action while the forces of civilization prepare for a counter
>>>> attack.
>>>> The Other Mickey
>>> Good take, and one with which I pretty much agree - especially now
>>> when we still have a choice; but as former Democrat, Ronald Reagan
>>> stated, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. It left me."
>>> With all the "voting for the lesser of two evils" and "holding my nose
>>> while I vote" comments I've been hearing, I can see the same thing
>>> happening with Pug conservatives.
>> They don't really have anywhere to run and it's doubtful that all that
>> many will persist in their "my way or the highway" notions once the real
>> choice is revealed. Pick your issue and the choice is really pretty
>> clear. The thing that is pissing off the wingnuts is that the election
>> this cycle is about the "middle," which is where it belongs.
>>
>> I heard some radio nut job today talk about traditional Republicans,
>> when it was abundantly clear she was talking about the right wing of the
>> party. Barry Goldwater would have had about as much use for them as he
>> did for Al Gore.
>>
>> The Other Mickey
>
> I see your point - and while we've seen McCain's idea of working
> "with" the Dems to center the party, in what ways are the Dems doing
> the same?
>
Other than the gang of 14 participants, we haven't seen any. The
leadership of the Democratic party in Congress are from the left end of
the spectrum. The centrist Democrats need to take back their party every
bit as much as the Republican middle did (and does). (During the last 12
years a lot of moderates from both sides lost their seats, to more
extreme candidates from the other party, thus increasing the polarization.)
In Congress, the solution is to resolve the splinter issues, disempower
the extremist constituents of both parties, and get to real work. While
splinter or wedge issues, like abortion rights, could be resolved to the
satisfaction of most folk, there is no reason for the leadership of the
two parties to come to such an accommodation, since it would immediately
disempower them.
To encourage, blackmail, or flog Congress toward such activities, it
would be useful to have a President who isn't worrying about a second
term, who is willing to play dirty with Congress and honest with the
public, and who is not beholding to the leadership of his own party. I'd
happily settle for two out of three.
The Other Mickey
