Moderation for the sake of moderation is not good, but moderation for the sake of getting things done that need to be done is necessary.

How about the politician that tries to find common ground, which is what it sounds like the goal of bring up “centrist” issues seems to be? The job of a politician is supposed to be representing the people, and since people will always disagree then a big part of that job becomes finding middle ground that both sides can agree on.

An example of this that I’ve always liked, even though it is outside of the political arena, is the grassbanking relationship the Nature Conservancy has developed with ranchers. For years environmentalists have tried to pass laws that ranchers said hurt their ability to make a living. As a result, two sides that shared a lot in common became enemies. The concept of “grassbanking” was an attempt to find compromise. The idea began when the Nature Conservancy purchased a 60,000 acre ranch in Montana, and then allowed neighboring ranchers to graze cattle on the ranch for reduced grazing fees provided the ranchers agreed to follow certain conservation practices on their own ranches. The result was a new option for ranchers, resulting in economic benefits for ranchers and the protection of vastly more than just 60,000 acres for environmentalists. Both sides won, and both sides are working together now to improve the relationship.

To me, solutions like this one should be the goal of a professional politician. People are always going to disagree, but a politician’s job should be looking for solutions that work for both sides whenever possible. Unfortunately the model of the past several years has been to ram your own ideas through, forgetting that a significant percentage of the country disagrees. Hopefully with the pledge to promote “centrist” policies with bipartisan support we can begin the process of returning to politics as compromise.

Chuut, I’m going along with the idea that the Jane Harmon issue is more of a personal one rather than a calculated political move. Not saying it is a good decision, but that it’s not directly related to the direction she wants the dems to take on the whole.

Kevin, I think you hit it right on. As with the Murtha thing, this seems to be about supporting a personal friend. It seems that the Dems as a whole, notwithstanding a few individuals of course, seem to be taking a pragmatic approach to the issues possibly keeping in mind what will help them garner votes two years from now.

Of course, when Bush does things like this with personnel choices, those on the right call it honorable loyalty and those on the left call it cronyism. I have a hunch we’re going to see both sides flip-flop if Pelosi shows the same trait for much longer.

Personally, my take is no matter who does it, it’s cronyism. No matter who is making the choices, they should be made based on merit, not on who your best buddy is.

No. Voting on issues, one way or the other, seems like a far more sensible way to choose a candidate, rather than picking the person that panders to both sides for the sake of moderation.

I agree. The type of moderation that should be encouraged is not moderation to be moderate in order to get votes. The type that should be encouraged is what I consider to be a type of pragmatic moderation, where one is moderate simply because one is thinking for oneself about each individual issue and is voting based on what he or she feels is in the best interest of his or her constituents. This isn’t moderation to be moderate. At times, it may lead to a very hard line approach and even an approach that some would consider far right or far left. However, it is not the hyper-partisan behavior we have been seeing recently because each issue is weighed on its own merits and a decision is made not based on what the party line is but what the individual feels will best serve those who he or she serves.

DADT is a bad policy that doesn’t even do much to prevent gays from serving, it just makes their lives more miserable, but priority must be given to things that are going to a-help the most people and b- actually can be implemented/passed.

Is anyone else thinking this way?

No. Voting on issues, one way or the other, seems like a far more sensible way to choose a candidate, rather than picking the person that panders to both sides for the sake of moderation.

There is a way we can help. Recruiting candidates for the 08 congressional elections is already beginning. It would be helpful to share what we are hearing about Centrist Candidates so we can steer early money to them.

Is anyone else thinking this way?