Comments on: A Centrist’s Election Criteria

By: Pat_Patterson

Pat_Patterson — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 04:08:37 +0000

I might agree that ideally it would be important to have politicians that were open minded and pragmatic but the foibles of human behaviour would constantly indicate just the opposite. As to claiming the Constitution endorses collaboration that simply ignores that its essence is inertia at its most benign and gridlock as the norm. If the desire was for collaborative governanace then we would have a parliament which is certainly more amenable to one party thus more efficient rule.

We have checks and balances to limit the effects of collaboration so as to protect the peoples rights to solve some of those problems that seem to demand big solutions at the local or state level. On a more immediate level when someone decries the lack of collaboration or cooperation at any level of government then that simply means our Constitution is still working as written.

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 03:54:24 +0000

Anyone who think Obama won't become "polarizing" if he wins the nomination has forgotten two things:

1) What the party of Swift-boating did to the war hero the Democrats nominated in 2004.

2) That Obama's middle name is Hussein.

By: Election » Blog Archive » A Centrist’s Election Criteria

Election » Blog Archive » A Centrist’s Election Criteria — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:26:20 +0000

[...] Paul Silver wrote an interesting post today on A Centristâ??s Election CriteriaHere’s a quick excerptMy criteria for voting is, which of the viable candidates are most inclined to champion process reforms such as public finance of campaigns at all levels of government, redistricting to promote competitive elections, open primaries to … [...]

By: Don Quijote

Don Quijote — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:15:33 +0000

Obama strikes me as a nice guy, but he doesn't seem to have any idea of what he's walking into, the Republican machine will make minced meat out of him before he can figure out where his office is. Mrs Rodham Clinton on the other hand has been trough the grinder, she knows what's coming.

Just thinking of all those Republican heads exploding is good enough reason to vote for Mrs Rodham Clinton, not to mention that she strikes me as a nasty vindictive *itch who will have no problems going after Republicans and getting her pound of flesh, and it's about time we started seeing some Republican heads rolling.

By: Idiosyncrat

Idiosyncrat — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:05:34 +0000

pjpundit, it would seem that there are a good number of people who know very well that Hillary is polarizing. But they either don't really care or see it as a positive. Why? Because they want to stick it to the Republican Party and are taking great joy in the idea that Hillary in the White House will short circuit the brains of Republicans everywhere.

I might not agree, but I can certainly understand the sentiment that would come out of the frustration of being a hardened Democrat during 8 years of W (even if the party has been impotent as Congressional leader). This is what happens in a two party adversarial system that has some pretty different ideas on how the country should be run…

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:07:42 +0000

Paul, I hear your argument, however, given the Paul Silver candidate and the Daily Kos candidate are one and the same, permit me the thought that one of you are bound to get disappointed.

By: thePajamaPundit

thePajamaPundit — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:12:02 +0000

Indeed. I have the same fears about McCain. I too scratched Hillary off of my perfect ticket long ago. However, I fear that life-long Democrats – or better yet life-long Clinton supporters – will find it difficult to see the truth about their candidate: she is as polarizing (if not MORE) than George W. Bush. There are conservatives who strongly dislike her (that's putting it mildly), BUT there are also progressives who want someone new to represent their party.

Tomorrow will be very interesting.