The Death of Triangulation?

Captain Numbnuts' reign - and, finally, I've settled somewhere in between liberal Democrat and centrist Democrat.

Edit: Spelling and style.

I believe that the taxes WE pay to the government should be plowed back into our country, and NOT into global corporations, and not in bribes to foreign governments.

I believe that government should be responsible for the HEALTH, EDUCATION, SAFETY and well-being of the maximum possible number of its citizens. I am in favor of STRONGLY controlled capitalism, a social democracy, if you will. And I believe that the military should be strong; but I also believe that war profiteering should be considered treason, and that CEO's of ALL corporations should be held personally liable for corruption, or crimes against THE PEOPLE, and the environment.

I believe in collective bargaining, and I believe that ALL education for American citizens be paid for, through all levels (including college, medical school, trade school, etc.. ) .

I also believe that there should be extreme and severe penalties for ANY type of election gerrymandering, and that there should be NO "proprietary" (i.e., privatized) election systems.

And....I believe the war on drugs should be declared dead & over, and that marijuana should be legalized, and all those prisoners in our penitentiaries who are guilty of victimless crimes should be immediately released.

:kick::kick::kick:

9/11 took me as far right as I will probably ever go and Bush's reign took me as far left as I will probably ever go. Those two events set the outer bounds of my ideology and I'm happy somewhere in between.

It's possible for someone to take a liberal position on some issues and a conservative stance on others, but an individual is never conservative and liberal on a single issue:

Pro choice vs sort of pro choice
For embrionic stem cell research vs sort of for embrionic stem cell research
Anti death penalty vs sort of anti death penalty

But somewhere between the two? Perhaps. Such as with the death penalty. I use a balancing test and weigh the benefits of the execution versus the costs. The vast majority of the time, the costs outweigh the benefits. However, I do not foreclose the possibility that the opposite may very well be the case.

Unless, of course, you define conservative as anything but X...

liberals weigh positions on the issues too, such as in the case of abortions. That's not being in the middle, it's called thinking.

I define individuals as liberal or conservative based on what principles they hold as immutable, i.e., not open to a balancing test. I try not to have any such principles.

We agree! You can be liberal on some issues and conservative on others. You cannot be both on a single issue, and as I said, the rest is called thinking.

Sounds good. I guess I'm not liberal on anything then:(

and a lot of the time are used by one side or another when someone from another side agrees with them on a position or doesn't disagree strongly. Make any sense?

I have no idea whether or not I'm more liberal than MJDuncan1982. The discussion was about whether it is possible to be conservative and liberal on a single issue.

But, I do hope they make 1/10 of the effort they did when triangulating the conservatives.

I agreed with Clinton. The DLC argues that only Republicans can win. I think the DLC has been riding too long by twisting what Clinton succeeded at into Republicanism.

If the DLC folds, will moderates no longer be called DLC? I hope so.

Or is it that they hope to take the DLC's place in defining an hawkish, right wing policy?

But he made the right choice.

I'm actually heartened by the fact that none of the current candidates are giving the DLC the time of day.

Things are looking up.

Tomorrow. That doesn't ring a few bells?

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=85&subid=108&contentid=254400

Not what I thought it was....

By jeopardy, I'm talking as a people. The party has been in jeopardy. You cannot fight from a position of retreat. You cannot fight from a position of assimilation into major ideas of your opposition. There is no middle. There is only doing the right things based on preponderance of facts brought before you.