It is with great, great sadness that I say, yes, I would have to agree with that.

HOWEVER, to have a moderate of either party be an anathema is, in reality, a horrific misappropriation of an identity that those of us who hold different positions on different issues, as opposed to being monolithic and one dimensional in support of all things “lefty” or all things “progressive” (or fill in the blank from wherever on the political spectrum) really dislike.

I am constantly urging people to take back that word, because it does have meaning. And it’s the people who personify being moderate that need to re-assert that meaning and not allow others to hijack it for the purposes of polarization.

Can you tell you hit a real note with me?

Thanks for reading and commenting. The bright line distinctions people on either end of the spectrum seek fails to mirror how many people really feel and behave. To try and force people into a stereotype, to me, is practically a sin.

Here’s my take.

Many conservatives believe that “moderate” is a synonym for someone who’ll go whichever way the wind is blowing. Because moderates are assumed to lack guiding principles (other than going along to get along), many conservatives believe they’ll be sold out by moderates whenever the going gets rough.

I also think you’ll see some of the same sort of thinking on the other side of the political spectrum. Would you agree that many Democrats who are “moderate” (say, on Iraq) are anathema to many on the Left?

So – seriously – does what happened with Blackwell and how Ohio ended up with a Dem. gov. have any meaning in VA? I supported Strickland easily over Blackwell, but I had a chance to meet Jim Petro and I still can’t really grasp the alleged principle stand for Blackwell by the right when Petro would have been a tough win for Strickland.

What am I missing in figuring out the equation? What are others missing? Is it just bullheadedness or dementia? (sorry just trying to be cute)

Thanks again.

Seriously.