Doctor Fate wrote:

Minister X wrote:(I just googled "X in name only" and got 33,600 hits for the Dems versus 162,000 for "Republican in...")

Try "blue dog" Democrat.

This suggestion is a perfect illustration of what I'm talking about. Many Dems self-identify as being blue dog and the official Congressional Blue Dog Caucus has its own PAC. Any such thing on the right with RINO? Any RINO-PAC or proud RINOs? RINO is a perjortative; "blue dog" is not. Yet Steve sees RINO and Blue Dog as somewhat synonymous and they are: they are the centrists. So why is it that Dem centrists are included in the party, able to raise money, and willing to call themselves what far left Dems call them, while on the right the centrists are vilified, called by an exclusionary name, and are subject to a concerted effort to purge them from the party?

I'll try another google experiment...
"centrist democrat" = 139,000 hits
"centrist republican" = 11,700 hits

Steve: do you really want to argue that the GOP embraces centrists as much as the Dems?

Minister X wrote:Steve: do you really want to argue that the GOP embraces centrists as much as the Dems?

Quite the contrary: I want to argue that the Democrats have purged many of their centrists. That's why the bill of fare for the last two years was decidedly left-of-center. It left many centrist Democrats with no political cover.

After the election, did the Democrats move to the center? Nope, they reelected Pelosi as their leader.

I don't really think we are in an age where centrists are welcome, period. Read the liberal blogs. They want the party purged and moved leftward.

Underlining added for emphasis:

Minister X wrote:Steve: do you really want to argue that the GOP embraces centrists as much as the Dems?

Or rejects them less - a comparative question.

Minister X wrote:Underlining added for emphasis:

Minister X wrote:Steve: do you really want to argue that the GOP embraces centrists as much as the Dems?

Or rejects them less - a comparative question.

The answer is still "yes." Look at all the centrist Democratic Senators bailing. It's not an accident.

I think Steve is correct, I'm thinking X is falling for the Conservative talk radio and TV idiots, they have a louder voice than their counterparts on the left (Blogs mostly). The right is more "in your face" thanks to the popularity of these media outlets but both parties are equally polar in their positions and both pressure the centrists amongst themselves.

Minister X wrote:This suggestion is a perfect illustration of what I'm talking about. Many Dems self-identify as being blue dog and the official Congressional Blue Dog Caucus has its own PAC. Any such thing on the right...

Actually yes. There are about 10 "RINO" PACs. Such as Republican Main Street Partnership, The WISH List, The Republican Leadership Council.

As an example of the Democratic purge of the centrist one would really only need to look to the recent failure of the Democratic Leadership Council.

Log Cabin Republicans, for another...

I just Googled Centrist Republicans and found most of the hits on the first page displayed were not negative in the least. There are groups of such people that have no problem being so
Because we have a Google hit means exactly what????

Why are we supposed to infer Google hits mean ...anything?

Oy. Now I have to re-hash because none of you morons can follow a chain of thought for more than three posts - and who can blame you when all the posts are so boring. This began with me posting this quote from Mach...

Minister X wrote:

Machiavelli wrote:...the Dems have nothing but contempt for... ...unless they toe the party line.

Steve said "Blue Dog" was equivalent to RINO, but BLue Dog is not a pejorative, as evidenced by the fact that Blue Dogs call themselves Blue Dogs. RINOs don't call themselves RINOs.

Nope, they call themselves Centrists, middle of the road, Log Cabin Republicans, etc
Or maybe they simply accept all positions including the middle meaning there is no such reason for such labels?

Minister X wrote:Oy. Now I have to re-hash because none of you morons can follow a chain of thought for more than three posts - and who can blame you when all the posts are so boring. This began with me posting this quote from Mach...

Minister X wrote:

Machiavelli wrote:...the Dems have nothing but contempt for... ...unless they toe the party line.

Steve said "Blue Dog" was equivalent to RINO, but BLue Dog is not a pejorative, as evidenced by the fact that Blue Dogs call themselves Blue Dogs. RINOs don't call themselves RINOs.

I just believe your premise is incorrect. Here is a recent plea for tolerance from a liberal to fellow liberals.

I would encourage you to read it. By changing the names and party names, it would be virtually indistinguishable from a plea written by a pragmatic Republican in defense of RINO's. The "netroots" are generally opposed to moderation on the Left and hold considerable sway in the DNC.

"Moron" certainly crosses a line to me ... I think the pushback has been very intelligent. Of course, I am a bit of a moron myself, so what do I know.

Thinking more about the topic, MX is trying to paint us a picture that centrists Democrats are more embraced by their party than are centrist Republicans. While I don't believe this to be factual in the least bit, it got me to wondering why he would think this way. One rather big reason is he may be falling for the right wing radio/tv loudmouths who have a large niche market. That got me to further thinking, Most Americans label themselves as more Conservative than Liberal. Liberal is still a bad word in politics in America. That being the case, of course Dems would want to distance themselves from that label. Obama insists he is not a liberal, the Dems run from the word while they embrace the phiosophy so it is only natural that they try to paint themselves as more centrist. And Republicans who understand the Conservative nature of most Americans want to avoid being labeled as in the center, they all want some degree of Conservative. So it makes sense in an odd way, even though the statement makes little sense, both parties are as polar as can be and both ostracize those who are too far from their core values (Dems to the left, Republicans to the right)

If we're putting in our bets on the next POTUS... Hillary in 2016.

You heard it here first...

SLOTerp wrote:If we're putting in our bets on the next POTUS... Hillary in 2016.

You heard it here first...

Sorry, she'll be coming up on 70. I think that's a pretty tall obstacle for anyone, but especially a woman. That's just the way the world is.

And, I don't think her mush-mouthed pronouncements about "violence" in Libya have distinguished her much. I'm still waiting for a condemnation of Gaddafi (your spelling may vary).