I always figure that in our screwed up politics, if you manage to piss off both extremes of the political spectrum, you must be doing something right. For anyone who doubts Obama is a moderate — watch this:
-
‹ Home
Info
-
Subscribe
-
Users
Links
- All Hat No Cattle
- Andy Borowitz
- Axios
- Barry Deutsch
- Bearman Cartoons
- Beau of the Fifth Column
- Capitol Steps
- Cook Political Report
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos Comics
- Daily Show
- David Horsey
- Derf City
- Digby
- Eclectablog
- Electoral Vote
- Fair and Unbalanced
- Fark Politics
- Five Thirty Eight Politics
- Funny or Die
- Funny Times
- Go Comics
- Hackwhackers
- Heather Cox Richardson
- HuffPost Comedy
- John Fugelsang
- Kung Foo Monkey
- Last Week Tonight
- Margaret and Helen
- Mark Fiore
- Matt Davies
- Matt Wuerker
- McClatchy Cartoons
- News of the Weird
- O'Carl's Law
- Politicususa
- PolitiFact
- Propaganda Professor
- Raging Pencils
- Randy Rainbow
- RCP Cartoons
- Saturday Night Live
- Slowpoke
- Stonekettle Station
- Ted Rall
- The Nib
- The Onion
- Tom the Dancing Bug
- Tom Toles
- USN Political Cartoons
- What Now Toons
-
Tags
Abortion Bush Campaign Finance Cheney Climate Clinton Congress Conservatives Corporations Corruption Deficits Democrats Drugs Economy Education Election Elections Energy Environment Fox News Gays Guns Health Immigration Lies McCain Media Middle East Obama Palin Protests Racism Religion Republicans Romney Spying Supreme Court Taxes Tea Party Terrorism Terrorists Torture Trump Unemployment War
-
Archives
You are Visitor #
11 Comments
What makes you think that moderates aren’t pissed off too?
You’re right, of course. But I just figured that if the right was pissed off because it was too fast a withdrawal, and the left was pissed off because it wasn’t fast enough, then there should be someone in the middle. But of course, I’m not sure there is a middle in our politics any more.
I call myself a radical centrist as a joke, but also because I kind of am. As a moderate, I was simply unimpressed. Then again, I kind of feel like that’s the only way to get things done in our system: slowly, and one step at a time. Try to move too fast and too hard and you’ll be met with swift rebuttal from the opposition. Hell, just look at how hard the talking heads are able to come down on this when it’s clearly nothing substantial. Then again, they’re paid to react like a fucking immune system to literally anything that breathes in Washington.
I agree with CGE that this is probably the best we can expect out of the current process. Dividing the baby is the only “compromise” that current political parties will accept, and the fact it usually kills the baby doesn’t seem to matter.
The rsult of this process is that we can only enact mediocre results. And as one my ex CEO’s used to say, “Mediocre means we’re the best of the worst, and the worst of the best – we’re the cream of the crap!”
I thought our whole government was set up to go slowly. For instance, we are supposed to not be able to have a fake war jammed down out throat. Happens that we have a president who didn’t believe the lies of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/and Rove and who voted against going into Iraq. My guess is that he’d be very happy to get out of Libya under the guise that the House won’t fund our drones. I think he is using public opinion to get out of Pakistan and stop the aid to Pakistan. We hear report after report about how Pakistan is aiding the militants, plus our money is going to fight India on the border. If you read “obama’s Wars” you find he is very slow in decision and wants to hear all sides which is what he did before he decided on the 300K increase in troops.
I think that this newspost is an example of “moderate bias.”
”
As anyone following health reform knows, centrism is a political position too. And you see moderate bias — i.e., a preference for centrism — whenever a news outlet assumes that the truth must be “somewhere in the middle.” You see it whenever an organization decides that “balance” requires equal weight for an opposing position, however specious: “Some, however, believe global warming is a myth.” (Moderate bias would also require me to find a countervailing liberal position and pretend that it is equivalent to global-warming denial. Sorry.)”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1934550,00.html#ixzz1QHeKNqRh
Didn’t the Republican Presidential hopefuls come out for ending the wars? Why is it that Republicans are thought strong on Defense and Dems weak? It was Democrats that passed the new GI Bill; Republicans opposed it because they felt it would hurt retention. Ever heard of “Stop Loss?” I almost got caught in that little web during the Clinton years. I’m pretty sure the practice in full swing now, it’s like having a draft, sign up for 4 years, you can’t get out as long as you’re still needed. Don’t forget, supporting our troops involves more than putting a Chinese made magnet on your car.
Cute article on “moderate bias” and I agree with much (but not all) of what it says. However, I disagree with your claim that this post suffers from “moderate bias”. (I also have a problem with you calling this a “newspost” — when it was a ironic comment on a video from a comedy show!).
As the article points out, actual moderate bias is akin to false equivalencies — giving equal weight to an opposing view, even if it is specious. For example, claiming that both creationism / intelligent design should be taught in schools alongside the theory of evolution. That would be taking the moderate position that the truth is in the middle, when the real issue is whether religious doctrine should be taught in public schools, which is clearly wrong. It can be “moderate” but not “bias”, when the middle does contain some truth.
In the case of this post, there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue (on how fast to pull troops out of Afghanistan). If you look at history, America has gone through both isolationist periods, and periods where it had its nose in everyone’s business. Both failed, while historically a position somewhere in the middle has worked out best.
Now, even though I just said that, my personal opinion is that we should get the hell out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. I remember well all the arguments that we couldn’t cut and run from Vietnam. That if we did, the commies would take over the world (remember the “domino theory”?). And yet, cut and run is what we did, and Vietnam did ok without us. Unless we have significant strategic interests in some conflict, and can make a positive difference on the outcome, we should stay out of it. I believe that Afghanistan fails this test.
On the other hand, I’m not sure how I feel about Libya. So far, I’m ok with what we are doing there. If we are still fighting in 6 months, then I will probably be unhappy and want us to get out.
I also agree with Jason’s point that sometimes splitting the difference and dividing the baby is not a good solution. A potential example of this is whether we should stimulate our economy out of a recession. There are valid arguments on both sides (that a stimulus is required, and that deficits are a bad thing). But if you split the difference and do a half-assed stimulus, then you may be running up the deficit while not doing enough to actually get the economy going again. You face the risk of the too-small stimulus money being wasted.
The video is not working in either IE or Foxfire; and the site locks up.
It is working fine for me. Unless other people are having the same problem you might check your computer. Sometimes, Comedy Central blocks their videos from playing in other countries — are you in the US?