I think it always makes more sense to have someone in the highest office be moderate, genuinely, not just politically. When you have two parties that each have plausible solutions to the nation's problems, even though each also have members and constituencies on the fringes that have extreme views and approaches, someone who share in the beliefs and approaches of each party would serve the nation well because ideally speaking they would be more willing to compromise and make rational, reasonable decisions that would promote a less polorized nation, if that is even possible.

It is socially unhealthy, and in my opinion, contradictory to a democratically-based society to have such a large mass of citizens who feel completely ignored and/or disenfranchised in terms of their views or approaches to solving the problems of the country which is what you get when you have someone in office who only relates to or represents citizens whose political views lie more on the fringe of the spectrum than toward the more logical, rational, or reasonable middle.

(edited)

I honestly don't think there is. The Democratic Party tried to do this, but lost their way - that's when they lost me! For years, I've been saying that we truly need a third party, but I don't see any one as being particularly viable at this time.

But I do agree with you.

I really agree with you here.

I disagree with labeling the middle as more logical, rational, and reasonable. They may be more tolerant, but I think that true liberals and conservatives view themselves as quite logical, rational, and reasonable.

Yes and his voting record proves it. Lieberman is also very liberal and his voting record proves that.

A media spin can make anyone look like something he isn't.

-Rudey

Abortion is the tip of the iceberg.

To say he is a liberal or moderate is making a claim. I could definitely write on why he is a solid conservative, but why? I'll let those that made the claim say why.

The New Republic had a great writeup on it - much more eloquent with words than my GC posts - in case anyone is interested.

A google search brings up quite a bit more, including this from Johns Hopkins:
"In many ways, in fact, he is more conservative than the current president. While Bush believes in granting more power to the federal government, McCain believes in taking some away. While Bush has let spending increase to record levels, McCain has reprimanded excessive spending whenever possible. While Bush supported expanding Medicare, subsidizing hybrid cars and instituting steels tariffs, McCain opposed all three. And, despite his depiction in the media, McCain is pro-life, a strong supporter of the Iraq war and a key advocate of reforming Social Security through personal accounts."

And for those that prefer pictures to words: http://www.thetalentshow.org/archives/001850.html

-Rudey

WOW, Insight!

Which is the Better President. Martin Sheen or Gina Davis?

Tom, I'm going to let you in on a secret. They aren't really presidents.

-Rudey

If it was Condi V. Hillary (AKA Broomstick 1 rumored to be her helicopter call sign when she visited Iraqi) I would have to do a write in for someone else. I don't want either one to be my Commander in Chief. And that is how I make choice.

Huh?

I see them both in the White House every week on TV!

Poll: Thumbs Down on Prez Hillary Clinton
NewsMax.com

By a margin of three to one, Americans say they would "definitely" vote against Hillary Clinton for president, a CNN/Gallup poll released Tuesday has found. ...

i will vote for oprah. she might give us a free car and some favorite things for christmas.

The latest: Cindy is going to run for Senator Boxer's seat from CA (she'll definitely decide by mid. Feb.).

Boxer has not joined the Alito filibuster, and all the other radical leftist things Cindy and moveOn.org wants, so she's the target.

Senate in '06, and a run for President in '08.

Should be fun.