Tom, you can boil down shinerbock's definitions pretty easily:

Conservative - Good
Moderate - Bad
Liberal - Worse

Not sure where I fit in, though. I love to eat animals and I love religion, SUVs, trucks, but I also love women. Hmmm.

But seriously, it would take a lot more than can be accomplished in this thread to explain these terms. "Conservative" and "liberal" just have too many meanings, and everything depends on context and who is using them. And then there's "moderate," which really only means "somewhere between conservative and liberal."

For example, "conserative" can mean, among other things, "fiscal conservative" or "social conservative." A person can be a fiscal conservative but libertarian (meaning the government should stay out of it) or even liberal on social issues. Some say that is the problem Giuliani will have.

Or to use the example of this thread, Bush has shown himself to be socially conservative but not fiscally conservative.

Actually, my descriptions fit more into

Conservatives- heartless but with backbone

Liberals- Spineless but intelligent

Moderates- All around pathetic

^^^ LOL! I stand corrected and enlightened.

Thanks I think.:(

Never mind!:eek:

I've run two different campaigns, and have volunteered/consulted on others - after what I've seen can happen even in a state house race to family members, threats, etc....

I'd never run for office in all likelihood. Not that I wouldn't mind serving my country (again), but...not sure I'd put my family through the wringer to make it happen.

Current take on WH bids: Look for Obama and Hillary to engage in a true epic, knock-down drag-out bloodbath for the nomination - it could get so bad that the rest of the country is turned off by the eventual winner. GOP - I have a suspicion that Fred Thompson (yes, that guy from Law and Order) will run and give Rudy or Mitt a run for their money...and I like Thompson a lot - so/so on Mitt and Rudy right now....

I think a lot of conservatives are intrigued by Thompson. I'm still in the Romney camp right now, but it'll be interesting to see if Fred gets in. I've always liked him, but I'll need to see him start campaigning before I'd make a switch.

Thompson's the guy who played the DA on Law and Order all those years,* right?

As solid a President as Ronald Reagan was, it's just a little to Post-Modern for me to think of an actor famous for playing a character concerned with politics getting elected president today. (he's clearly been elected to other offices plenty.)

It'd be sort of like Martin Sheen running for the Democratic nomination after the West Wing.

It's certainly not that I think Thompson is unelectable or unqualified. It just messes with my head.

*well a few years anyway.

Well there is the obvious difference that Martin Sheen is an ignorant moron, and Thompson is a former US Senator. But yeah, i understand what you're saying.

I'm not as sure that ignorant moron and former US Senator are as mutually exclusive as you seemed to be, but I take your point.

Well, I'm sure they're not, however, Martin Sheen is a pretty big moron.

http://www.celebrityhypocrites.com/msheen_tape.jpg

Granted, I did like the west wing.

I remember thinking during the 2000 election that I found the West Wing so much more engaging than I did any of the real candidates.

I'm kind of embarrassed about that but, alas, it was true. But 2004, I think I was over it.

Martin Sheen is in a category of people that I have a complex mix of emotion about it. I feel a varying blend of pity, confusion, admiration, and embarrassment.

Some people come by their political zaniness more authentically than others, and I think Martin Sheen’s is an outgrowth of taking social justice Catholic teaching very much to heart. Other celebrities pretty deliberately seem to turn political advocacy into public relations currency, but I don’t think that’s where it’s at with Sheen.