Center-Right?
Delaware Politics now has a tag line calling itself “Delaware’s Center-Right Voice.”
Stop laughing, they are right about the right part, meaning that they are wrong, er ah, conservative. But the “center” part? That is what we call an attempt at branding. But there is nothing “center” about the politics of our friends on the right. They hate the center. Indeed, whenever a fellow Republican attempts to appeal to the center, or holds centrist policies, they blacklist him or her. Burris et al will try to deny it, but if it wasn’t true, then the Club for Growth or the term “RINO” would not exist. Further, there is nothing “centrist” about social conservatism.
Further, arguing that conservatives lost the election because they were not conservative enough or true to their principles, and then arguing that you are the “center-right” voice of Delaware, is mutually exclusive.
So nice try at branding. But that is all it is.
“Delaware’s Center-Wrong voice” would be more accurate. Or “Center-NOT!”
If by center they mean the center of their decaying universe, then they could be right.
brazenly lying is what they do.
Some here would disagree, but I’d classify Dave and Smitty as center-right. The rest of them have proved the flat-earth theory applies to the political spectrum by sailing right off the right-hand edge of the planet.
Smitty, yes. Dave Anderson, no. Burris, I have seen him go both ways (no, not that, DV).
There is far more dissent and disagreement on DP than there ever was or ever will be here. I’ll take it. Smitty is dead center and Knotts is far-right. Everyone else falls somewhere between: myself, Feroce, DA, etc.
I also remember allowing Jud Bennett a weekly column on the site. He’s definitely centrist.
Really, DD, all you’ve accomplished here is to point out the shortcomings you have right here.
In fact, you should thank God every day for Cassandra, Pandora & Geek.
Sorry, Dave, but from where I stand, Anderson is pretty far right and Feroce is simply a more articulate version of Knotts: Always wrong, never in doubt.
And now that I think of it, I’ve been using a tagline with “center-right” in it basically since I was on blogger in 2006.
Al – We definitely have the “right,” but as you stated above, we have the “center,” too.
As always, Republicans define the center as whatever unpopular nonsense they currently believe. Then they point to the ultra-crazies on the right like Rush and Hannity and say, “See, compared to those guys, I’m a moderate! So that means everything I believe in must be the political center.”
“Center-Right” is also code for “Conservative but reasonably practical”. As in, “Well, I’m conservative, but I do like winning elections sometimes.”
When the exit polls show 78% of the country self-identify as conservative or moderate, it’s a center-right country, folks. Sorry.
Bwah ha ha ha ha.
Moderate at 44%, Conservative at 34% and Liberal at 22%. Just tell the story you want to.
That is funny — it is 78% of conservatives who voted for McCain. Obama got most of the liberals, most of the moderates and apparently 20% of conservatives to vote for him.
Not exactly a center-right country, sorry.
Conservatives and moderates DID vote for Obama, but that doesn’t change their views. Plus, Obama is already taking pains to govern from the center.
Nemski — 44 + 34 = 78.
Obama got those votes by promising tax cuts for everyone and sprinting to the center after locking up the nomination.
The same calculation could be done with Moderate Liberals — 44+22=66. Not too much of a difference.
Except, of course, that it’s a smaller number.
Margin of error makes it an even smaller difference, I’m sure.
You’re assuming the error would be in that direction.
Also, it’s a much larger difference than the margin between Obama and McCain.
Let’s talk about real numbers: 53-46.
“Let’s talk about real numbers: 53-46.”
Yes, let’s. In a race that by all accounts should have been a blowout, the extremely well-funded Democrat wins by seven points.
Yeah, didn’t most of America just vote for two of the most liberal, gun grabbing, socialistic candidates in the history of liberalism? That’s what Sarah Palin told me.
No, they voted for a guy not named George Bush who’s going to give everybody a tax cut.
I think with Missouri finally in, the winning spread is 54 – 44, so an extremely well-funded Democrat won by a great spread than GWB managed to do for either of his elections.
I’d love to see a link on that.
Dang. I’d like to thank the academy for all this recognition.
… the term “RINO” would not exist
I’ve finally accepted that it does. Sure, they can call me one, but if they try to cage me or block me, guess where my rhino horn is going. Crazy thing is, the things I believe in that are used to call me a RINO are the things the party was truly founded on, the things that can truly be used to call it the party of Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, etc. Not the crap of today.
One very important question. Why would anyone respond to Dave Burris?
He is the most irrelevant person in the GOP in Delaware. No matter what the facts are he has a crybaby answer.
I thought it was so funny that Atkins won and made Burris look stupid again.
Protack — You appear to be looking in the mirror again, quitter. Can’t wait for the next round.
Mike Matthews:
First Duminique and now Leo? At least your writing was funny. Then I figured you and Duminique must be dating. But Leo? O.M.G. What a religious bigot. How much worse can it get?
Get over it. Learn to enjoy diverse opinions. Of all people, you could certainly use it.
I don’t enjoy bigotry and condemnation of other human beings for who they love. Maybe you think it is fine to spread hate and call it “diversity”. Grow up, Mike. Hate speech does not equal diversity.
If you haven’t, perhaps you should read Newt Gingrich’s sister’s letter to her brother:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/candace-gingrich/a-letter-to-my-brother-ne_b_145739.html
Stop being part of the haters, Mike.
I enjoyed Candace Gingrich’s letter. I read it yesterday afternoon and agreed with all of it. Still doesn’t change the fact that those with dissenting, even disgusting opinions, have a right to say what they do.
It’s what makes the debate so much fun, you arrogant ass. It’s only “hate speech” to you because your narrow mind can’t possibly stop your inner-rage from festering and believing that there can be people who have intelligent conversation who just so happen to disagree with you.
You’re like a broken record. But at least we can get a discernible melody from a broken record. You’re nothing more than a bitter, obnoxious left-wing anonymous thug.
Promoting prejudice against people for the love that they carry in their hearts is just as bad as promoting prejudice against people for the color of their skin.
There is no “intelligent conversation” to have around bigotry – bigotry is rooted in ignorance. And religion is not an excuse – the bible was used for centuries to justify slavery.
So call me arrogant and narrow minded because I think bigotry is vile and doesn’t deserve a platform. I don’t care. That you think giving a platform to a religious bigot like Leo speaks volumes about which side you are on in the long struggle for equal rights for all Americans regardless of race, religion, gender or who they love.
People in America who fight for civil rights have often been called “thugs”. Funny how you picked up on that.
No, I’m only calling you a thug. Because your feigned moral superiority is just that — feigned. Your false sense of outrage when you hide behind an anonymous moniker makes you a parody of your pathetic self.
Let’s face it. You and I agree on probably 95% of any political subjects. Whereas I have an open mind that absolutely CRAVES diverse, dissenting opinions so that I can further my understanding of others and advance my worldview, you, on the other hand, are the complete opposite of “liberal.” You possess a narrow mind that can’t possibly accept that there are those around you who simply disagree. Simply put, you’re intolerant of intolerance. In my world, two negatives don’t make a positive. I tolerate intolerant people by smiling and asking them antagonistic questions and making them look like asses. I did this two years ago when the God Hates Fags people came to Seaford. I even have a video on YouTube featuring my interview. Rather than protesting the idiocy of these people, I went up to them and asked questions. I find that’s much more fun and, dare I say, “progressive” than the shit you preach here on a regular basis.
And you do it all behind the convenience of anonymity.
Who are you? What do you do? Give us something to work with here. Perhaps then I’ll understand where you’re coming from.
It doesn’t matter what I do or who I am. I give you my words. Work with that.
My sense of outrage is not false – I am outraged. Do I feel morally superior to bigots – yes. Do I need to revisit the question of whether or not bigotry is right or wrong in order to demonstrate that I have an open mind? No, no, no.
Yes, I am intolerant of intolerance.
Perhaps, Mike, I am a person who is deeply in love with my spouse and I feel anguish that my gay and lesbian friends in equally committed relationships can’t enjoy the same benefits that I do. Perhaps I am a gay or lesbian person that is being denied the same rights as heterosexuals because of bigots like Leo. Perhaps a member of my family is gay or lesbian and has been a victim of a hate crime or prejudice.
You see, it doesn’t matter who I am. Expressions of bigotry hurt many people. A civil right denied to one group of people hurts all of us. Prejudice hurts all of us.
I don’t know how small or large your world is, but I would hope that maybe somebody that you like and respect can explain to you why giving a platform for someone like Leo to spout his religious bigotry is hurtful to many many people. And why it isn’t “fun”.
Sure, he has a right to say whatever hateful words he wants – but you don’t have to give him a platform to do it on. And whether anybody agrees with him or not, the prejudice of people like Leo shouldn’t serve as a basis for denying people equal rights under the law.
Poor anonymous anonone just doesn’t get it. That’s OK. He likely never will.
No, Mike, you don’t “get it”.
Interviewing Fred Phelps and his bigots as a form satiric journalism is one thing. Publishing bigoted hate talk on your web site as if it is legitimate, intelligent and “diverse” opinion is despicable.
“Down With Absolutes” has become just another hate site. Don’t be a hater, Mike.
Again, your feigned moral superiority and attempt to dictate to me what is hate speech when it clearly is not is simply ridiculous. Again I defer: You don’t get it and you never will because you’re comfortable in your ivory tower waving your judgmental wand in the same way Leo is judging people whose lifestyle with which he disagrees.
Do you ever look in a mirror, anonymous boy?
Mike,
I am not trying to deny anybody their civil rights like the haters you endorse on your blog are. I believe for equal rights for all people.
If you can’t distinguish the difference between “disagreeing with somebody’s lifestyle” and taking away people’s civil rights because of bigotry, then you have a long way to go.
If you don’t think that equality under the law is a superior moral position than bigotry and discrimination, then you have a long way to go.
If you don’t think that the type of hate you endorse on your blog leads to Matthew Wayne Shepards, then you have along way to go.
Don’t be a hater, Mike.
Your hyperbole re: my site leading to more Matthew Shepherds is ridiculous and it minimizes the tragicness of those awful crimes.
While we’re at it, where do you stand on hate crimes legislation? I’m against it because it criminalizes thought. If you kill someone because they’re gay, why should it matter? You killed the person. Murder was the crime. Whether your gay or not should make no difference. Seeing how hate crimes laws are used somewhat arbitrarily in some states, I am against them. The problem is intent is the hardest thing to measure. Did the straight guy kill the gay guy because he’s gay? Or because he wanted cash? Prosecutors will work up the hate crimes laws even if there’s no evidence to prove the motivation behind the crime was hate-induced.
Hate crimes laws are not good. They’re nice, pretty piece of legislation wrapped up with a bow, but they’re one step closer to Orwell than I’d like. If you murder someone, go rot in jail. That’s all that matters. Whether you murder someone who’s gay, black, straight, or white should make no difference.
Hate crimes laws are, in essence, “special rights” because it prioritizes and places a high premium on those victims who were allegedly murdered/attacked because of some minority status.
And the only hater here is you, because you’re acting like a two-year old who can’t differentiate between rational debate and “hate speech.” Leave the ad hominems for when you’ve really been backed into a corner and can’t offer up a sane defense.
Mike,
There is no rationale debate to have around bigotry. And I do hate bigotry.
By the way, since you hate my anonymity so much, where are the names and personal information of all the anonymous pseudonym bloggers that you publish on your hate site?
Leo isn’t anonymous. Dominique isn’t anonymous. Justin isn’t anonymous. Mat Marshall isn’t anonymous. Discourse is anonymous, but he doesn’t engage in the frequent ad hominems that you do. It’s not the anonymity that bothers me. It’s the license you use in taking it too far to attack people for dumb shit . (“Oh, I would NEVER let Sarah Palin teach one of my children!” “Mike Matthews is an awful, offensive teacher for using dirty words!!”)