Centrist = Mind-Numblingly Boring!

[JazzManJim]

I've been sitting here getting my political fix from the TV and I happened across a little interview with Bob Novak. He mentioned that in an interview yesterday on his show, a quesion was asked of Louisiana Senator John Breaux about who he thought LA-ians might support for President in 2004. He said, without a blink of hesitation: John Lieberman.

His rationale? Lieberman is the most centrist candidate the Democrats could put out there.

So that got me to thinking. There's been a huge movement of late (or at least an overt move) to have candidates be as centrist as possible. I suppose I can understand that the more to the center a candidate is, the more votes they'll get. But I find centrist candidates as boring as watching paint dry! I mean, they take no certain stands on anything, lest they lose votes one way or the other. They take no controversial stands on anything, for the same reason. They take great are not to offend in word or deed and are as bland to me as stale white bread and warm water. What do they stand for? Hell..no one *really* knows what they stand for, but they'll find the most popular issues and take a measured and studied neutral stance.

What the hell happened to politics? What happened to the days of spirited debates? Where are the people you hated because their views seemed so very outrageous and the people you loved because they held that hot-button issue right out there like a Holy symbol? There aren't many of those folks out there anymore and I think it sucks. I want some controversy in my politics. I want a debate about something more exciting than 2 percent in a budget. I hate watching C-SPAN and thinking I'm watching the Accounting Network. I realize that this stuff is important, but it's not *that* important, is it? Aren't there issues we haen't resolved yet that really mean something? Where's the rancor and disagreement and heated debate?

Shit, I long for the old days of politics when politicians called each other nasty names, and slung mud, and actually took stands, whether I liked them or not! This gentility and desire to stand firmly in the center of every position is boring my brain right out of my skull. I hate James Carville, but when he talks, I listen, because it's so obvious that he's passionate about what he believes and thinks that if you don't think like him, you're not thinking clearly. I like that. I want more of that. Is that so wrong of me?

 

[perks]

you long for extreme views, so you won't be bored?

I'm bored with extremists. I think they hate with no reason. I would rather be bored with a candidate that supports the right to bear arms and is pro choice than a candidate that supports segregation and the like extremes.

be opinionated, be bored, but support tolerance.

perky

 

[JazzManJim]

you long for extreme views, so you won't be bored?

I'm bored with extremists. I think they hate with no reason. I would rather be bored with a candidate that supports the right to bear arms and is pro choice than a candidate that supports segregation and the like extremes.

be opinionated, be bored, but support tolerance.

perky

No..I don't long for extreme views. I long for politicians who have views they fervently believe and are willing to defend, in strong language, if necessary. I long to hear a politician say that his opponent is a sheer idiot, when his opponent has a view that is sheer idiocy.

And as for tolerance. I'm a tolerant man, wthin reason, but there's an awful lot I don't tolerate. I'll tolerate anyone having any view they want, but I won't necessarily be nice about it. I want politicians to do the same. James Carville isn't an extremist, but he is passionate and clearly-spoken. That's what I want.

On the other hand, I think that tolerance, as an issue all to itself, is vastly overrated. A vital and dynamic society can not support tolerance as much as we seem to want these days. There are some things that you just shouldn't tolerate, IMO. And there's an awful lot I won't tolerate.

I'm tired of mealy-mouthed, vote by the polls politicians who just seem to be empty vessels into which handlers pour the latest hip issue. That is, I suppose, what I'm lamenting today.

 

[perks]

mmmm... hmmmmm...

I so wanted to argue with you, but I agree.

The on the fence answers that I watched closely in the last presidential debates were quite irritating.

I believe they think they're being political by walking the fine line. Instead they look wishywashy, and unable to say what we all know they mean, or want to say.

So, I concur. Just one guy to stand up and yell what he believes, to answer a question in a straightforward manner. Methinks we're looking for honest inspiration in politics. Do you really think it exists, anymore?

perks

 

[WriterDom]

I agree. Run a leftest like Hillary Clinton or Al Sharpton. Or better yet, a Clinton/Sharpton ticket.

 

[Texan]

hello JazzMan.... you need to rename this thread the "How to be Passionate but Loose an Election" thread. Or maybe you could name it the "Why Carville doesn't run for office" thread.

Just kidding.... kinda. Of course I love it when someone screams their ideas with passion.... so long as they agree with ME. When someone who disagrees with me shouts their views with convincing passion, I wish they would shut up before some "undecided" voter actually believes them.

Problem is, nearly half the people in this country don't agree with me on everything.

Local elections will still be won by people who are somewhat more extreme than the national average, but still reflect their constituancy. National elections will be won by centrists.

 

[p_p_man]

National elections will be won by centrists.

And that's why America always seems to have a President with no real mandate.

People want choice. They want to be able to look at each candidate knowing there was a clear distinction between them. Otherwise you get the situation where a President is elected not because he is considered the best man for the job, but because he is the best of the worst.

Unless you're Bush of course and then it's a simple matter of vote fiddling.

 

[PHANTOM5875]

And that's why America always seems to have a President with no real mandate.

People want choice. They want to be able to look at each candidate knowing there was a clear distinction between them. Otherwise you get the situation where a President is elected not because he is considered the best man for the job, but because he is the best of the worst......

I don't know about the "always seem" part but I do have to agree with you that Bush, at least at the time of the election truly seemed to be the best of the worst. I don't think I have ever struggled as much over an election as this last one.

I really didn't like any of the candidates in this election. I would have voted for McCain if he had won his party's nomination and/or Lieberman had he won such. This election was really a toughie.

Now, as far as "no mandate"? I think both parties got the message loud and clear that the American public wasn't very pleased with any of the candidates presented.

As awful as it may sound, I think the best thing that could have happened to Bush, Jr. is the current tragic events as it allowed to country to unify behind their elected leader with a common objective, that being destroying Bin Laden and his pack of rabid dogs. Let's just hope the American economy can hold up over the long haul as this effort we are engaged in is going to cost big!

Just my $0.02 worth.

 

[Texan]

p_p man..... are you my troll??

If I post a message, you are right there behind me, to try to pick my post apart. Maybe you do this to everyone and I'm just being paranoid.

p_p man... you are obviously intelligent. You could be so much fun to banter with if you would just lighten up and occasionally post about something you LIKE, and not always about things you dislike.

You obviously don't like the United States. You don't like conservatives or Republicans. That's fine. I have a tremendous respect for some of the liberals here. I work for a european company and some of my coworkers don't like a lot of America's policies. We still manage to respect each other and get along very well.

In the past, I have really let you get to me. Back in August, I left the board for awhile. One (and only one) of the reasons I left was that I didn't like the way a few members were able to agitate me. You were definately one of those members. I am determined not to become anoyed with anyone again. I can either ignore you, or you and I can come to an understanding.

Never in my life did I expect to quote Rodney King, but "Can't we all just get along"? We don't have to agree, but can't we do it without tearing each other apart?

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by p_p_man
. . Unless you're Bush of course and then it's a simple matter of vote fiddling.

Don't get out much do you? The press corps finally finished their recount of the Florida ballots almost a year ago. They actually published their findings albeit very quietly and with absolutely no fanfare in order that they not draw any attention to the fact that even they couldn't get the count to come ou in Gore's favor.

Keep up if you want to use facts. But keep on if they don't matter to you.

 

[Azwed]

Don't get out much do you? The press corps finally finished their recount of the Florida ballots almost a year ago. They actually published their findings albeit very quietly and with absolutely no fanfare in order that they not draw any attention to the fact that even they couldn't get the count to come ou in Gore's favor.

Keep up if you want to use facts. But keep on if they don't matter to you.

Hmhh thats not what I read. Everything I have seen said that depending on the standards they used the got a Gore win or a Bush win. Either way it was still incredibly close and was only a difference of a couple hundred votes I think.

How could they have finished almost a year a go??

I mean the election was not even straight up settled until mid december.

The press corps could not start there unofficial-lets-see-what would-happen-if-count untill that was over.

I read that over the summer sometime, if you want to dispute it I will try and track down the source.

Look I did not even insult you with my post.

 

[Azwed]

Ahh here it is found by a helpful soul for me.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-111201recount.story

and it is the LA times a paper that is, at least in my opinion, a little more neutral then the washington or New York times.

 

[JazzManJim]

Problem is, nearly half the people in this country don't agree with me on everything.

Local elections will still be won by people who are somewhat more extreme than the national average, but still reflect their constituancy. National elections will be won by centrists.

I'll agree with you on everything, except to say one thing.

Your last statement wasn't true until perhaps 20 years ago.

There have been a lot of Presidents throughout history who weren't Centrists. In fact, most of them were not Centrists. No one could fairly argue that Reagan was a Centrist, nor was Carter, nor Kennedy. Even mild-mannered Presidents like Coolidge and Wilson weren't Centrist overall.

Now it seemed more important that a candidate be a Centrist inside their own party, but not to the nation overall.

Those Presidents won because they took a couple compelling issues and staked out a bold and strong position, then held to it. They didn't waffle and they didn't equivocate. That's what I want to see out of the candidates of both parties, whether I agree with them or not. There's no way that a President can please everyone on every issue.

I'll use Bill Clinton as an example (especially because I'm a conservative and don't want to seem too idealistic by using, say, Reagan). His domestic policies appealed to the social liberals while his fiscal policies, for the most part, appealed to the social conservatives. Now, he understood that he could stake those grounds out well within his own party, but the voters of the other party, and the undecided voters, would be harder. Yet, his platform included things that enough of those voters could support - abortion rights, federal welfare programs, deficit spending, to name a few. He didn't win by a lot, but he won - because he staked out his territory and held onto it passionately and fervently.

*That* is how you get elected, IMO.

 

[Problem Child]

Jazzman, not to nitpick, but it's Joseph Lieberman.

 

[Mensa]

I hate James Carville, but when he talks, I listen, because it's so obvious that he's passionate about what he believes and thinks that if you don't think like him, you're not thinking clearly. I like that. I want more of that. Is that so wrong of me?

Mary Matalan is cuter!

 

[Guest]

 

[WriterDom]

I'll agree with you on everything, except to say one thing.

Your last statement wasn't true until perhaps 20 years ago.

There have been a lot of Presidents throughout history who weren't Centrists. In fact, most of them were not Centrists. No one could fairly argue that Reagan was a Centrist, nor was Carter, nor Kennedy. Even mild-mannered Presidents like Coolidge and Wilson weren't Centrist overall.

Now it seemed more important that a candidate be a Centrist inside their own party, but not to the nation overall.

Those Presidents won because they took a couple compelling issues and staked out a bold and strong position, then held to it. They didn't waffle and they didn't equivocate. That's what I want to see out of the candidates of both parties, whether I agree with them or not. There's no way that a President can please everyone on every issue.

I don't know. Was it necessary for Jimmy Carter to run as a centralist after 8 years of Nixon/Ford? Or for Reagan to run as a centralist after failed presidency of Jimmy Carter? I might agree with Kennedy, but there is no way he would had the chance to steal the election without the ushering in of the TV debate era.

 

[JazzManJim]

I don't know. Was it necessary for Jimmy Carter to run as a centralist after 8 years of Nixon/Ford? Or for Reagan to run as a centralist after failed presidency of Jimmy Carter? I might agree with Kennedy, but there is no way he would had the chance to steal the election without the ushering in of the TV debate era.

That's kind of my point.

There's no need for a politician to run as a centrist. The same disparities between parties exist today as they did then. The political climate has changed, and it changed at the behest of the politicians, and not the voters. We haven't demanded centrist candidates. I think the recent Presidential election showed that pretty aptly.

Oh and foxinsox? Could I have my own private showing? Please???

 

[JazzManJim]

Jazzman, not to nitpick, but it's Joseph Lieberman.

D'oh! You know, the whole time I was typing that, I was thinking Joe. But then I was going to make a point about John McCain, and decided not to. By then, I guess the names just blended together in my head.

Oh, and as a point of trivia. Did you know that the word "D'oh" never actually appears in Simpsons scripts or episodes and such? When the word is used, it appears as [Annoyed Grunt]. Cool, huh?