I disagree. Not that moderate democrats don’t perpetually disappoint liberals, but that over the long term, the liberals tend to carry the day on every issue eventually, and it doesn’t ever get rolled back.

“My kind of conservatism is simply based on a conservative foreign policy, a libertarian type social policy”

This is basically Washington’s elite consensus, traceable from Eisenhower through Clinton: aggressive foreign policy, socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

The problem is that you also decribed yourselve as libertarian, which I assume includes cutting the government. You and the Washington Post and the Economist may like that idea, but no group of voters actually agrees with that part of the formula beyond any abstract sense. So you get plenty of tax cuts but no spending cuts. And you’re left with something even less fiscally responsible than what you would have otherwise, not to mention being incredibly leveraged by the Chinese.

You can only judge an ideology by how it is practiced, Pedro. That’s what realism teaches us, allegedly a product of conservatism itself. And what it teaches us is that again and again, conservatism fucks over America on our basic interests. If conservatism’s constituents and representatives can’t be of any good to us in the real world, then throw it back in the garbage.

Both democrats and republicans have to play to their activist base. That is why presidential elections are so hosed up.

In the primary, you have activate your liberal/conservative party base to get the nomination. Then come the general election, you have to swing to the middle to gather in the independent/swing voter. Ollie has pointed it out too, and he is right…the republicans pander to the conservative/religious right, and then rarely come through on their big issues. The democrats pander to the hard liberal/minority and don’t come through on THEIR issues.

My kind of conservatism is simply based on a conservative foreign policy, a libertarian type social policy (not to the extreme of not wanting SOME poverty/safety net programs). Show me that politician and I think you can find a winner for ’08. Hell, the democrats have even figured that out…look at Ford and Webb!

So many wrong points here. A) It’s clearly a repudiation of Bush’s Iraq policy, regardless of your labels.

B) Are you pro-Birch? I guarantee you that Ford will vote for national health insurance, should he win. He will vote to draw down from Iraq. He will vote to return the tax code to Clinton-levels. What exactly do you think progressive priorities are that he will deny us? Gay marriage? Department of Peace? Impeachment? Your caricature of liberals has confused you worse even than usual, Dugger.

Nevertheless. Those winning (and the inpower party tardiitonally loses midterm of second term in power) for the Dems are those that atlk and act conservative. A Reaganite in Va.; Ford in Tenn., one of the first to call Kerry on his military bashing. OW says its reds winning in Red States and Blues in Blue States – pretending that Joe Blue State Lieberman, officially excommunicated by the extremists, doesn’t exist.

Hey I do concede Democrats are likely to be the bigger winners Tuesday (wish it weren’t so), but I do not concede and I have seen no one be able to make the point that this is a victory for the hater wing of the party. Hell, Harold Ford is practically in the John Birch Society.

“Republicans will lose because they weren’t REALLY Republicans…”

“Democrats will win with conservative values…”

“Democrats will win but Republicans REALLLY win because we will get back in 2008″.

Spin away my little chickadees.

LoL! You’ve been forced — over months — to change your point of view with every Republican fuck up. In January, your point of view was disdainful and dismissive of Democrats and the mid-term elections compared to your point of view today.

S read some of my earlier posts. I have been calling for the R’s to lose the house for weeks, and not grudgingly, I see it as a plus in ’08

Tee hee hee …. ya, we better listen to Dugger and dr pedro … LoL!

Remember Dugger and dr pedro being on the verbal warpath with anyone discussing soldiers demonstrating anything other than soldier-like behaviour in Iraq?

We heard little from them when evidence was revealed and soldiers were punished.

We heard nothing from them when Brian Doyle was arrested.

I LOVE their silence at every Republican fuck up and inch by inch grudging concession about potential Democratic achievements on Tuesday (with accompanying rationalization how it will ultimately benefit the Republicans).

I agree that conservatives do a lot better as the minority party, going negative 365 days a year. I know Rush likes it better that way. Hatred of liberals and Democrats is all that conservatism really has, anyway. Glad to see you so candid about it, Pedro.

If the democrats win one or both houses, the republicans now have a scapegoat for anything they want in 2008. They will have a Speaker Pelosi, an impeached Alcee Hastings etc to hold up as examples to rile up the base.

If they don’t win, well, it will be a complete repudiation of all the “progressive” ideals. This is a mid-term election for a second term president who poll numbers are about as low as you can go.

But don’t ignore Dugger’s point either, or do so at your peril. The spoilers for the republicans are all very moderate democrats, and that does say something about the “progressive” agenda.