This Guest Voice column is by Patrick , an attorney who is a registered Republican but concerned over the influence of the hard right on his party and the influence of the hard left on the Democratic party. He is assistant editor of the centrist blog Central Sanity. This is the SECDON of two parts. Guest Voice columns do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Moderate Voice or its writers. Part One is HERE.

WHAT IS A MODERATE TO DO: PART TWO

By Patrick Edaburn

In my last post I discussed my views of the Republican candidates for President, in this one I will take a look at the Democrats.

As a moderate I have given this considerable thought and have come to some rather depressing conclusions regarding the options available to those of us in the political center.

(I’d like to begin this post by apologizing for the delay in the posting of the second part of this essay. I had hoped to have it up last week but my car decided to die and accordingly I have been spending my time dealing with those issues.)

Just to review what I wrote in the Part One, whenever I am trying to decide who to vote for in a primary, particularly in a Presidential contest, I consider several factors. The most important of course is ideology, which candidate or candidates best match a centrist viewpoint.

Also important is the character of the candidates. Do they seem reasonably honest and trustworthy? I realize that some people don’t put this as a key factor but if you are basing your vote on what the candidates views are you need to know if they can be trusted to stick with what they say.

A final factor to take into account is viability. While it is most important to look at the views of each candidate, it does little good to back a contender who has no chance of winning. It might feel good for a while but often it can lead to a reasonably good candidate who might be your second choice losing to a really bad one.

So now on to the Democrats

DEMOCRATS

One of the nice things about the delay in my posting is that it has allowed some of the weaker candidates to withdraw. I was actually a bit disappointed to see Bill Richardson drop out as he seemed to offer some pretty compelling factors in terms of experience and moderate viewpoints.

But I can only deal with those contenders still in the race (though expect Bill to be near the top of the VP list for whoever wins the top nod).

I assume it goes without saying that both Kucinich and Gravel are not viable so I won’t waste your time discussing why. If you do think they are viable candidates please feel free to post your thoughts.

Senator Edwards is a former VP nominee with a lot of money and an appealing public image, which in theory should make him a major contender for the nomination. But he is caught between the ‘first woman’ and ‘first minority’ buzz saw and I don’t think he will be able to make it out.

It is possible that either Clinton or Obama will make a mistake and be forced out, and in that case Edwards could emerge as the alternative. But for now I think it is simply a matter of time before he gets out.

Even with Edwards in the race, he’s not really good for the moderate voter. His campaign is divisive, very much set on setting one side against the other. He is very liberal, and I am not sure there is very much between those ears.

So this leaves us with (in alphabetic order): Clinton and Obama

Hilary Clinton

Starting from the beginning HRC was seen as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. That aura has faded somewhat over the past few months but with her ‘comeback’ in New Hampshire she remains a top candidate

While I have admittedly had problems with the Senator from New York, she has compiled some moderate points during her tenure in the Senate. She has avoided taking too hard a line on social issues and has proposed some strong positions on national security issues.

Her views on Iraq seem balanced, supporting a change but not doing so without taking into account the realities of the situation.

This is not to say she is a centrist. If you look at the ratings from the various interest groups her record has been in the liberal sphere, but not too far outside of the political mainstream.

According to the Almanac of American Politics, her votes from 2003 through 2006 were as follows: Economic = 75 liberal, 23 conservative; Social = 83 liberal, 6 conservative; Foreign = 66 liberal, 30 conservative. Average = 75 liberal, 20 conservative.

I don’t agree with her on everything but she is not the wild eyed radical some would want you to think

She also seems to be reasonably qualified for the job. While I wouldn’t say that simply being First Lady gave her the job, she has also spent 8 years as a Senator and had a long career in the public and private sector before that.

One issue I do have with Senator Clinton is the same I had with President Clinton, the issue of honesty and trust. While I do not expect my politicians to be as pure as the driven snow, I do like them to be quasi honest.

In Senator Clinton’s case, the fact that she has tried to act the moderate after a lifetime of fairly liberal politics makes me think twice. On the other hand, this duplicity could work to the moderate advantage. She is going to want to get re-elected so she is likely to tack to the center during her first term.

Her viability is an issue to consider as she has strong critics on both the right and the left, which could cause a division in party ranks. Then again, I suspect that whoever the Democrats nominate will win, so that may be a moot point.

On a scale of 1 to 10, she rates on fairly well on ideology but less so on integrity and viability issues. Overall, I would give her a 5-6, making her one of the better options among the Democrats.

Barack Obama

Certainly Obama is a political wonder. He has emerged from being an obscure state legislator to a major Presidential contender in the space of a few years. His campaign is probably the most positive and uplifting since Reagan or Clinton.

I suspect that he is also fairly sincere about his views. He hasn’t been that specific of course, but I don’t think he is the type to say one thing when he means another. His background is not a concern to me (I don’t think he is some deep cover terrorist sneaking in the back door).

But there are some serious flaws from a moderate point of view.

One of the biggest is ideology. As I’ve said, I don’t think he is one to lie about his positions, but at the same time he hasn’t been very specific about his views. His campaign has been largely sound bites about uniting and bringing people together. While this is nice, we need to look deeper.

On domestic policy he comes down as hard liberal, advocating things like nationalized health care, major social programs, expansion of federal role in education and so on.

Obviously most of these issues do require solutions, but I am not sure that I support the idea of everything being resolved by the government. As a moderate I look to a combination of government and the private sector in solving problems.

On national security I am also concerned by Senator Obama. His opposition to the war in Iraq and support of a withdrawal is a good idea, but he simply wants to pull out right away without any consideration of the long term impact.

His suggestion that he would talk to rogue nations like Iran and North Korea with no expectation that they will adopt more reasonable views on things is not encouraging.

Indeed I wonder if he is a bit naïve on things. He hasn’t quite come out and said that if we just talk nice to people they will leave us alone, but I do start to wonder.

Overall I would give Obama high marks for inspiration but fairly low ones after looking a little deeper. Perhaps a 3 or 4 overall, but perhaps with potential for the future.

Looking at both parts 1 and two, we find we have 3 candidates (Clinton, Giuliani and Romney) who are pretty good on the issues but have trust and viability issues. A fourth candidate is pretty good on trust and some issues but has a serious flaw on Iraq (McCain).

Finally we have a fifth who is inspiring on the stump and says some good things but does not have the experience or moderate views we need (Obama).

The rest of the candidates are too far to the left or to the right to even be serious contenders.

As a moderate I find it hard to get excited about any of these candidates and a few of them really scare me.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Our earlier headline had wrongly said this was Part I and the intro was from the first part. We have made the corrections. The Moderate Voice regrets the error.