http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/edit...65490.html

I believe they haven't endorsed the democrat candidate for President since LBJ.

Until this year, Chicago Tribune hasn't endorsed a D since -- well ever. But then again Obama is the home team.

Now Colin Powell has endorsed Obama. The election is over. That will drag enough undecideds into the Obama camp to make this moot, if it weren't already.

My only question is this. Is there any way that the US can be a country worth living in, once the Obama changes take hold? I simply don't see how it is possible, but perhaps someone can help me on this one.

Well I think you should give him the benefit of the doubt to see if he perhaps tries to reunite the country before you pack your bags to the Caribbean or New Zealand or wherever you want to go. First of all, it's not over until it's over but if Obama does win, I hope he tells Pelosi and Reid that they're not running the country, he is. And that the direction he leads the country in is down the middle and not to the left. I know a lot of people don't think that's possible but I do.

Fort Bend Owl Wrote:Well I think you should give him the benefit of the doubt to see if he perhaps tries to reunite the country before you pack your bags to the Caribbean or New Zealand or wherever you want to go. First of all, it's not over until it's over but if Obama does win, I hope he tells Pelosi and Reid that they're not running the country, he is. And that the direction he leads the country in is down the middle and not to the left. I know a lot of people don't think that's possible but I do.

I don't.

If he does that, firmly and clearly, and shows that he'll going to back that up, then I'll give him more of a chance. I don't see it happening. His history and voting record don't suggest that he's inclined to lean that way, and his lack of accomplishments don't suggest that he can get them to go along if he does.

I think he's going to be the same sort of extremist that Bush was, only in a different direction, and I think Pelosi and Reid are going to be the Tom DeLay and Trent Lott of the Obama regime. We need leadership from the center, to reflect what 60%+ of our population wants (including probably you and me both) but we seem to be able to put only extremists in power.

I guess that's the first problem

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:We need leadership from the center

Which politicians do you consider to be in the center?

Well, from here in Virginia, I'd say the Warner "brothers" (okay, they're not brothers, but one is going to take over the senatorial seat for the other - Mark for John) and Tom Davis (who was essentially forced from his congressional seat by the the leftward swing of his northern Virginia district, plus the rightward swing of the Republican party, negating a potential run at the Senate seat John Warner is leaving, which killed his ability to fundraise and court delegates in a nominating convention). Each were effective (and IMO bipartisan) leaders in their own way.

OwlSD Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:We need leadership from the center

Which politicians do you consider to be in the center?

I used to think McCain was, until he pandered to the right to get the republican nomination. I don't know where I'd put him now, and I'm not sure he knows. My "dream ticket" was McCain-Lieberman, and I'm quite unhappy that the far right killed that.

Bill Clinton is obviously a centrist. Unfortunately he's not eligible for another presidential term. I favored Hillary over Obama, although I don't think she is particularly centrist herself, but I thought Bill might have some influence over a Hillary presidency.

The DLC gained stature as a home for centrist democrats when Clinton was involved as governor of Arkansas. Harold Ford Jr. is currently heading that group up, and he is someone I could support. I really disliked the hatchet job that the republicans did on him in the 2006 (?) Tennessee senatorial race. I think a guy like TN governor Phil Bredesen (best known in Houston for luring the Oilers away, and I thank him for that) might be a good choice. Most of the Blue Dog democrats would fit there, although there are some issues where I disagree significantly with some of them. Southern democrat governors (Clinton, Bredesen, etc.) seem to be largely of the centrist nature, although I'm not familiar enough with Beebe of AR or Easley of NC or Kaine of VA to have an opinion on them.

On the republican side, Christine Todd Whitman is one of my favorites. She was my personal choice for Bush's VP nomination, and if he'd gone with her instead of Cheney I think (1) we wouldn't have had to wait for Florida, and (2) the Bush administration would have gone a lot better. I thought of Schwarzenegger as a centrist, but I'm not sure any more, and of course he isn't a presidential possibility under current law. Rudy Giuliani is probably more of a centrist than most republicans. The religious right has such a hold on the party that I don't think a centrist has a chance to be the presidential nominee. Huckabee is more of a mix of right-wing and leftist postions on individual issues than a true centrist. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone in the current Bush administration or republican congressional leadership that I would consider a centrist.

I think Colin Powell is generally a centrist. I don't agree with his endorsement of Obama, but I think it would have been very difficult for him not to do so at the end of the day.

Fort Bend Owl Wrote:Well I think you should give him the benefit of the doubt to see if he perhaps tries to reunite the country before you pack your bags to the Caribbean or New Zealand or wherever you want to go. First of all, it's not over until it's over but if Obama does win, I hope he tells Pelosi and Reid that they're not running the country, he is. And that the direction he leads the country in is down the middle and not to the left. I know a lot of people don't think that's possible but I do.

I'm not headed anywhere before summer 2009 because I've got commitments here that I'm not going to abandon. Between now and then, I'm going to do two things:
1. Watch Obama to see whether he will move to the center.
2. Put plans in place to get out if he doesn't.

I don't believe he will. If I thought he would, I'd be much less inclined to move. I'm willing to give him a chance, might as well since I do need to hang around for a while, but I'm not optimistic. I just don't see anything in his past or present to suggest that he will, and he is going to face some significant pressure from people like Reid and Pelosi not to. I guess I'm one of those who doesn't believe it's possible.

For the record, if something bizarre happens and it's McCain, I'm still going to look hard at moving. If I move it will be because I'm very worried about where this country is headed. While I believe that Obama will make things worse, I'm certainly unconvinced that McCain will make things any better. And I don't care to stick around for more of the last eight years.

Oh, and for now it's Brasil.

On the Republican side, Lincoln Chafee was probably the most centrist Senator, although of course all that got him was unemployment in the election two years ago. (I certainly think the Republicans deserved to lose Congress, but I'm saddened that it had to happen at the expense of the most moderate ones, leaving the caucus without their influence.)

The Maine senators (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe) also are pretty centrist, along with Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania. Even Kay Bailey Hutchison is pretty sensible most of the time.

I'm also a big fan of Whitman's. I liked her book, and Chafee's is high on my list to read soon.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

OwlSD Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:We need leadership from the center

Which politicians do you consider to be in the center?

I used to think McCain was, until he pandered to the right to get the republican nomination. I don't know where I'd put him now, and I'm not sure he knows. My "dream ticket" was McCain-Lieberman, and I'm quite unhappy that the far right killed that.

Bill Clinton is obviously a centrist. Unfortunately he's not eligible for another presidential term. I favored Hillary over Obama, although I don't think she is particularly centrist herself, but I thought Bill might have some influence over a Hillary presidency.

The DLC gained stature as a home for centrist democrats when Clinton was involved as governor of Arkansas. Harold Ford Jr. is currently heading that group up, and he is someone I could support. I really disliked the hatchet job that the republicans did on him in the 2006 (?) Tennessee senatorial race. I think a guy like TN governor Phil Bredesen (best known in Houston for luring the Oilers away, and I thank him for that) might be a good choice. Most of the Blue Dog democrats would fit there, although there are some issues where I disagree significantly with some of them. Southern democrat governors (Clinton, Bredesen, etc.) seem to be largely of the centrist nature, although I'm not familiar enough with Beebe of AR or Easley of NC or Kaine of VA to have an opinion on them.

On the republican side, Christine Todd Whitman is one of my favorites. She was my personal choice for Bush's VP nomination, and if he'd gone with her instead of Cheney I think (1) we wouldn't have had to wait for Florida, and (2) the Bush administration would have gone a lot better. I thought of Schwarzenegger as a centrist, but I'm not sure any more, and of course he isn't a presidential possibility under current law. Rudy Giuliani is probably more of a centrist than most republicans. The religious right has such a hold on the party that I don't think a centrist has a chance to be the presidential nominee. Huckabee is more of a mix of right-wing and leftist postions on individual issues than a true centrist. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone in the current Bush administration or republican congressional leadership that I would consider a centrist.

I think Colin Powell is generally a centrist. I don't agree with his endorsement of Obama, but I think it would have been very difficult for him not to do so at the end of the day.

A lot of those people can win locally, but have trouble in national elections because of the, shall we say, non-centrist influences within each party. Sometimes they have trouble in statewide elections as well. Schwarzenegger belongs on your list, and he could never have been elected governor if he had to first run in a California GOP primary. His only way to the governor's office was through the free-for-all of the 2005 recall election in which everyone could vote.

"Huckabee is more of a mix of right-wing and leftist postions on individual issues than a true centrist." -- I agree, but that also applies to Lieberman, who is kind of like a fusion of Obama's domestic policy with Cheney's foreign policy.

amber34 Wrote:On the Republican side, Lincoln Chafee was probably the most centrist Senator, although of course all that got him was unemployment in the election two years ago. (I certainly think the Republicans deserved to lose Congress, but I'm saddened that it had to happen at the expense of the most moderate ones, leaving the caucus without their influence.)
The Maine senators (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe) also are pretty centrist, along with Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania. Even Kay Bailey Hutchison is pretty sensible most of the time.
I'm also a big fan of Whitman's. I liked her book, and Chafee's is high on my list to read soon.

I might actually describe Chaffee as left of center, almost certainly the most liberal republican.

For many seats that changed parties in 2006, a centrist democrat replaced a centrist republican. Probably more of a change in brand than a change in substance. I'm hoping that they will unite with centrist republicans at least part of the time to protect us from the worst extremes, but I'm not sure they will be able to stand up to the pressure they're going to get from Reid and Pelosi, and I'm not sure there are enough centrist republicans left to unite with for it to make any difference.

It's been percolating in the back of my mind, but if Obama proves not to be the centrist he campaigns as (and links up with the liberal tendencies of the current congressional majority leadership), and the Republicans continue a righward track in the types of candidates they nominate (which is what I seem to see at the state level in many places across the US), we may be seeing an opening for a third party to come in and try to establish itself.

I see two critical challenges to establish long-term viability for such a national-level party. The biggest challenge I see is fundraising, to compete with what the Democrats and Republicans currently are able to do. This could be the biggest limiting factor. The second challenge is - just what would the party stand for? You can split the middle ground in a lot of different ways, and what could potentially happen here is a balkanization of the middle support and no real coalesence around a single core party/platform. (And I'm sure the two main parties would encourage it.)

But for those of us frustrated with the current leadership of the two parties, it's something to consider.

While we're on the subject of endorsements... For the revisionists in the forum, here's a quote from Powell's discussion of his support for Obama on yesterday's "Meet the Press."

Quote:Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don't think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it's the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.

Full transcript here.

erice Wrote:as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way

Fort Bend Owl Wrote:if Obama does win, I hope he tells Pelosi and Reid that they're not running the country, he is. And that the direction he leads the country in is down the middle and not to the left. I know a lot of people don't think that's possible but I do.

Hope.

So many people, including many of his supporters, not only hope but expect that he won't keep his campaign promises, won't put his plans into practice, and won't keep acting and thinking in the same he has up to now, even as he keeps running running ads that say his plans are unchanged. They are counting on him being a liar, I guess.

I would rather vote for a candidate that I hope will do what he says, rather than one one that I hope won't.

I think the New Three Stooges, Harry, Curly, and BO, are going to do exactly as they wish, and that is not good. I don't think it matters a lot who is in charge as they are all on the same page.

gsloth Wrote:It's been percolating in the back of my mind, but if Obama proves not to be the centrist he campaigns as (and links up with the liberal tendencies of the current congressional majority leadership), and the Republicans continue a righward track in the types of candidates they nominate (which is what I seem to see at the state level in many places across the US), we may be seeing an opening for a third party to come in and try to establish itself.

I see two critical challenges to establish long-term viability for such a national-level party. The biggest challenge I see is fundraising, to compete with what the Democrats and Republicans currently are able to do. This could be the biggest limiting factor. The second challenge is - just what would the party stand for? You can split the middle ground in a lot of different ways, and what could potentially happen here is a balkanization of the middle support and no real coalesence around a single core party/platform. (And I'm sure the two main parties would encourage it.)

But for those of us frustrated with the current leadership of the two parties, it's something to consider.

I share both your hope that something like this could happen and your two concerns about the challenges.

Obviously, my idea of the center is fiscal conservative, social liberal. But a fiscal liberal, social conservative neocon might also argue that his or her position is in the center. I could see us both considering ourselves to be in "the center" but agreeing on virtually nothing.

I do agree that both established parties would see this as a major threat, something to be quashed if at all possible, and I think they'd be correct in that assumption. I'm guessing it would take some sort of charismatic figure with centrist beliefs to lead the charge.

I think that many believe that somebody is going to be Mr. Obama. I think they're going to be rudely and unhappily surprised.

In my youth, the democrats were the party of a diverse group of focused special interests. They were famous for their infighting, but usually found a way to pull together come election time.

Against that opposition, republicans usually prevailed when they successfully portrayed themselves as the party of the center (Eisenhower, Nixon the second time around) and failed when they did not (Dewey, Nixon the first time around, and especially Goldwater).

Reagan managed to bring to the republican side of the house one major special interest group--religious conservatives. He did it without actually bowing to them on the issues. For example, he was himself divorced and remarried, and as governor of California he signed into law what was at the time (and may still be) the most liberal abortion law in the country. I think he was able to do it because that is a demographic that also tends toward extreme patriotism, and Reagan was extremely adept at using the symbols of patriotism. Reagan was certainly a better politician than any republican since.

His successors at the head of the party--GHWB, Dole, W, McCain--have managed to get themselves so beholden to the religious right that they can't appeal to the 60% of us in the middle. The specter of John McCain kowtowing to John Hagee, and having to do so to gain the republican nomination, is particularly galling to me.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:So many people, including many of his supporters, not only hope but expect that he won't keep his campaign promises, won't put his plans into practice, and won't keep acting and thinking in the same he has up to now, even as he keeps running running ads that say his plans are unchanged. They are counting on him being a liar, I guess.

Well, one thing in their favor, he is clearly a liar.

Unfortunately, I lack the audacity to hope that he is lying about this.

Colin Powell Wrote:as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way

I noticed that too. Very poor choice of words. Powell hasn't previously struck me as CYA type.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:So many people, including many of his supporters, not only hope but expect that he won't keep his campaign promises

This is nearly par for the course. Presidential candidates from both major parties (and most of the others) tend to promise a lot of things they can't deliver. McCain is doing it too.