Yes, each of these are clearly moderate positions reflective of the center of our electorate. Starting a war based on cooked intel. Unprecedented tax cuts for the rich, during a time of war. Record spending. Record deficits. Opposition to health care for uninsured children and stem cell research. Support for torture. Installment of Supreme Court justices that have clearly indicated a desire to overturn Roe. Illegal, warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. Claiming unprecedented powers for the executive branch, resulting in the biggest, most powerful government in our nation's history. Yeah, those are really moderate positions. (And I didn't even mention the environment/global warming, education, social security, etc.) Oh, except the majority of the country opposes every single one of them. You might have a case that a party that falls out of favor with its base is a moderate party if it hadn't also fallen out of favor with extreme majorities of the opposition party and independents. There has never been a more radical administration than Bush's and there has never been an administration more willfully disdainful of the will of the people. This administration has the least support from the American people of any administration since such things were measured. And you call them moderates? That is freaking hilarious.
Perhaps you misunderstood my point. I believe that says how far the RNC has drifted from the mainstream. Believe me if the DNC was taken over by Dennis Kucinich you would see a lot of criticism within the DNC about how far they had drifted. In fact it wasn't that long ago that most of the criticism in the DNC was directed at the old school liberals.
And if a radical liberal Democrat was elected, instituted extreme policies out of touch with mainstream America and as a result starting bleeding support not only from the GOP and independents but even from Democrats that would hardly be proof that that administration was "moderate." CaseyH's position here is seriously the funniest thing I've read on the D&D in a year.
looks like this is just SOP for Hill: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/12/clintons-planted-questio_n_72294.html [rquoter]Clinton's Planted Question...In 1999 November 12, 2007 06:01 PM Three days after Hillary Clinton's campaign was forced to admit it had planted a question at an Iowa campaign event, an eagle-eyed tipster noted that this wasn't the first time the former First Lady's camp arranged for a friendly voice to lob a softball question. In announcing her Senate run in 1999, MSNBC reported that "responding to a planted question at a Teachers Union event [Clinton] made it clear she is in the race for the US Senate." Clinton's aides reacted to the news of the most recent rigged question by saying "this is not standard policy and will not be repeated again." Below is the transcript from the 1999 broadcast: [rquoter]ANNOUNCER: From NBC News, this is THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS. WILLIAMS: Good evening. We have a lot to tell you about tonight, beginning with what had become a whisper campaign of late, and it went like this: After what turned into a somewhat disastrous trip to the Middle East and with polls showing she should not run, Hillary Rodham Clinton just might pull out of the race for Senate from New York. Well, today, the first lady, responding to a planted question at a Teachers Union event made it clear she is in the race for the US Senate. The aggressive Yale-educated lawyer is most certainly in for the fight of her life. But today was about looking ahead to all that she says she plans to do for New York and its residents. Part of today's announcement, however, was somewhat overlooked and that is, the first lady will soon begin living apart from the president. The White House will be without a first lady, while the president's wife moves to New York and runs for office. She does so without the blessing of some New York Democrats. We'll hear from one in just a moment. First here tonight, NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell on the woman who says she's in it to win it. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC CORRESPONDENT (on-camera): Brian, today's events were as carefully choreographed as the New York City Ballet. (voice-over): Under pressure to either get in or get out, Hillary Clinton finally makes it official by answering a prearranged question from a friendly union leader. QUESTION: So, is it yes, or is it no? HILLARY CLINTON, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: I believe that if we work together, we really can make a difference for the children and families of New York. So the answer is yes, I intend to run. -MSNBC, November 23, 1999, THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS[/rquoter] [/rquoter]
How to get a horrible democrat elected- Get a horrible republican elected. We are slaves to the two corrupt political parties. Bow down and kiss your candidate next Nov. Just thought I'd chime in before I fully wake up and think coherently.
No. We are slaves to the media. The media has pushed Clinton and Giuliani to the forefront. It is because everyone annoints those two as the leaders that influences the public. It is because of the media you have people saying "he has no chance" or "I don't want to waste my vote on him because hes not top tier".
basso, why are you making such a big stink about this? bush has been doing the same thing for years and you love it. if you like bush you are going to live clinton when she is the next president!
Sounds like Team Clinton is guilty of many of the things that most libs around here complain about on a regular basis. Can't wait for her to get the nomination and watch you guys suddenly start supporting her. Sounds to me like she's about to put you in the TESTICULAR LOCKBOX.
It sure is an embarrassment to Clinton. However - if I supported here, this wouldn't change my mind. I'm sure this stuff goes beyond candidate and party lines.
I don't think the voters are quite the slaves to the media as you think and front runners have certainly cost themselves the lead. 4 years ago Kerry was in 6th place in many polls and Dean had as powerful a lead as Hillary. Dean was getting a vast amount of publicity and Kerry was considered almost dead. When voters finally got a say things turned the other way.
Yes, sure it does...Hillary Clinton is the best choice for the Democrats for so many reasons... The verocity is directed when it isn't on your side of the yard...Hillary is NOT my ilk, but if I had to choose a DLC type candidate or a more liberalized/"progressive" type...The DLC type is a better way forward...It almost reminds me of the Truman type of democrats...(which I respected much more). Keep in mind, I would oppose Hillary based on my own beliefs against a good Republican...
team clinton is guilty of many of the things and advocates for many of the policies that people like you support bush for.
Haven't watched much news lately. IMO, the race doesn't begin until Jan. 1 of the election year. Was there not a story lately about how FEMA held a press conference with fake reporters? Just curious. Seems like that would be worse.
It's not a matter of being worse or not. Of course the Republican version is worse. It's that her campaign should not stoop to that level. And really, for such an innocuous question. It wasn't even set up to deliver some grand message, like Mission Accomplished. Still, it's a slippery slope and she shouldn't even be there.
Keep in mind the schedule is accelerated this year. The Iowa caucus is Jan 3rd. If Hillary dominates that, it could be close to the end of the Dem primary barring a turnaround in New Hampshire a week or two later. If Iowa is close, that opens the door for a longer campaign there. The GOP primary looks like it could go longer regardless of the how the first few states come out.
I think the GOP could run out Peres, Putin, and Musharraf And the Dems could run out Jintao, Sarkozy and Calderon And each political party would find someone to like.
