Sorry about that....a weekend ensued and I got caught up with the young'un. I thought that Clinton was a centrist, or at least I did until the GOP attack machine turned him into the most liberal man in history. That being said, I am not a fan of universal health care. Bama, despite his frothing at the mouth, has one good point on this issue, namely that the one thing that government does well is waste money. I just think we can find a less obtrusive and wasteful mechanism for reducing healthcare costs than adopting a system like what Canada has. I think Clinton thinned out the military a bit too much, as evidenced by the fact that we are now having to rotate people BACK to Iraq because we don't have enough fresh bodies to keep up two occupations. I believe that education should be a local and state issue and that the federal government should limit itself to finding outstanding programs and providing plans to replicate said programs to the states. But honestly, my biggest problem with Clinton is not philosophical, but personal. He looked me in the face and lied to me and, though it didn't deserve the attention that the GOP gave it, it was enough for me to look at Clinton very differently. I know that this is only a couple of issues, but these are indicative of my positions wrt the Democratic party.
andy: I suspected your problem with Clinton was personal, because he's the most centrist president we've had in a long, long time. He was obsessed with such, which is why I was so disappointed in him. I know from his history that wasn't where his heart lied and that his politics as president were cynically motivated. That's why I thought your 'I was centrist during Clinton' statement was silly. Any true centrist would have loved him. The policy stuff you cited was a serious reach. He gave lip service to national health care and dropped it at the first hint of opposition -- early in his first term -- although Truman promised it way back when and Clinton himself promised it during the 92 primaries. The military cutbacks were a result of the end of the Cold War and were never a problem until Bush overextended us into an unnecessary war, and those same cutbacks were backed by prominent Republicans. And I don't even know what you're talking about WRT education. Bush has suggested imposing national standards (while refusing to fund them -- one of his various unfunded mandates). Clinton supported national funding while leaving standards to the states. I get your deal about wanting to be a centrist, but Clinton actually was one and that puts the lie to your cause. He (and the DLC) moved the party to the right significantly to make any call for centrism synonymous with a call to return to Clinton. If you ever needed more proof, no serious Republican candidate for president ever would have suggested Clinton's welfare reform for fear of being perceived as incredibly cruel. I generally regard calls for a move to the middle as silly, considering that the parties are constantly moving according to the middle, but your statement that opposition to Clinton (of all people) made you a centrist was too funny. I'm not surprised your main issue was personal, cause if you're actually a 'centrist' (whatever the hell that means today - and it will surely be different tomorrow), there's no way you could have had issue with his policies.
No, actually I said that if I had been posting here during Clinton, you (not you, really, but basso, etc) would see me as a centrist since I don't have any problem criticising people who need it. There were times in Clinton's presidency that he needed it and I gave it to him. There have just been more criticism-worthy issues with Bush. Sorry, I have slept a thousand or so times since Clinton was in office. I tried to Google a list of Clinton's policies to comment on, but was forced to pull a couple out of memory. I agree that some of the military cutbacks were good and necessary with the end of the Cold War just as I agree that our military would be fine if we weren't occupying two countries. As far as education goes, I wouldn't have the federal government fund anything, just act as a clearing house for good ideas. The states should fund their own educational systems to reduce waste, IMO. Again, I made that statement to point out that I am not one sided when it comes to criticising elected officials, it is just that Bush and co. have been worse than any crew I have ever seen in Washington and as such, have drawn a lot of fire from me. Clinton did too, as did Bush Sr. and Reagan. Nobody is immune. I don't think the PARTIES should move to the middle, I just think we need to have another party that represents the middle. 30% are Reps, 30% are Dems, and I would venture a guess to say that at least 30% are between the two in one of the gray layers (leaving 5% each for the far left and far right). If those 30% in the middle banded together, it would take a consensus between 2 of the 3 parties to get things done, increasing cooperation, reducing partisanship, and mitigating massive problems caused when one or the other major party is fully in control.
