Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: aft_lizard

Those that label themselves "moderate" are actually liberals, so that changes the dynamics considerably. For instance, right now Hillary is calling herself a "moderate" as does Clinton. Right!


5 posted on 05/23/2004 8:04:02 PM PDT by ladyinred (Torture is what happened to Nick Berg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ladyinred
A moderate is someone UNSURE of what they believe at any given time.

10 posted on 05/23/2004 8:14:46 PM PDT by Wolverine (A Concerned Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: ladyinred
Exactly.

They can call themselves "moderate" but a moderate what?

The answer is they are moderate Socialists.

11 posted on 05/23/2004 8:17:59 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: ladyinred

A lot of liberals do that, to try and make conservatives look like "extremists".

Chuck Schumer calls himself a moderate all the time. And we all know how leftist he is.


13 posted on 05/23/2004 8:26:33 PM PDT by I still care
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: ladyinred

Well, I suspect that journalists completing a private survey are less inclined to be dishonest about their beliefs than liberal politicians who are democratically accountable. So the survey may be less skewed than you think.

The other factor to consider is that journalism is a for-profit enterprise, like any other. Senationalism sells. If that means to focus on the downside of the war in Iraq, that's what journalists will do. If, on the other hand, it means talking about Monica Lewinsky 24/7, they'll do that, too. So regardless of how many journalists actually voted for Clinton, they still gave big coverage to his scandals and helped make him ineffective (which, I'd say, is a good thing) for the last two years of his presidency.

I would also say that, on economic issues at least, Clinton was very much a moderate -- considerably to my left, to be sure, but then again, I'm a conservative. Other than his health care plan, he had no big liberal ideas. The minimum wage increase was modest compared to what the unions were requesting, and his domestic agenda hardly got more ambitious than the Family Medical Leave Act (overwhelmingly popular), expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (Reagan-approved), and the almost-irrelevant anti-gun laws (stupid as they were, also very popular). He rightly refused to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, and indeed, Clinton was downright conservative on free trade, corporate mergers, the death penalty, the war on drugs, and arguably, depending on whether you think his motives were cynical or sincere, welfare reform.

Now I still voted against Clinton and thought he was too liberal. But compared to the general electorate, calling him a moderate makes some sense.

On abortion, of course, Clinton was a nutcase -- just like almost every other elected representative in his party, all indebted to the pro-abortion lobby. And at heart, I'm sure he was no moderate on gay rights either, even though his only concrete policy (the "don't ask don't tell" compromise on gays in the military) turned out that way. But we shouldn't confuse him with an across-the-board liberal like Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, or Ted Kennedy.


18 posted on 05/23/2004 8:38:39 PM PDT by BackInBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson