Ronald Reagan has become an icon in the Republican party, and among many independents.

This is in part because Reagan had the courage to stand against Communist totalitarianism, and to take action that bankrupted the Soviets.  Reagan famously said that, "the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people."

In 2008, I believe that the central force of totalitarianism is not "Islamofascism".  They don't have the money or the military might.  The world will stand against them, and if we keep our eye on the ball, we'll get energy independence and stop funneling tens of billions to Muslim extremists with oil wells.

The 218th vote for a Democrat as speaker of the house is very important. How important is the 237th vote, or the 275th vote, or the 335th vote?

There will be Democrats who will be right of party center because they have to represent their constituency.  This discussion is NOT about them.

I'm talking generally about two classes of candidates: those who are much further right than the district demands, Al Wynn, and those who delight in kicking the Democratic Party, and those who support it, in the teeth like Melissa Bean and Chris Carney.

There is a whole bunch of false macho out there among the Blue Dog’s.  How many of them is it reasonable to take out in the general in order the get them to STFU?

The Republicans keep their moderates in line, so folks like Wayne Gilchrest and Chris Shays know that on important votes, when it's close, they vote the party line.

Joe Lieberman's victory over Lowell Weicker in 1988 was engineered in part by Republicans who thought that it was better to lose the seat in order to keep their moderates in line.

Where is the line for Democrats?
[on edit]
A clarification: I'm asking when putting the fear of god into Blue Dogs is worth a seat or two.

I was talking to someone the other day who was telling me all sorts of terrible things that could happen if Obama is the next President, and it struck me that this has become the mantra of what remains of the "right," ideologically.  They can no longer make compelling arguments for anything they want to do, such as end Social Security or give more tax cuts to billionaires.  Instead, as they did with the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, they must resort to trying to make people consider worst case scenarios.  Few people, at least in the "mainstream," "liberal" media, of course, point out that the worst that could have happened in Iraq has happened.  At this point, however, I'll turn to what the future holds.  Thus, we are now being told that the most powerful nation in the world is not capable of intervening before the worst imaginable situation happens in Iraq.

"Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fuckin' fool, OK? Everybody! No, no, no... Everybody's so busy trying to be down with a gang. 'I'm a conservative.' 'I'm a liberal.' It's bullshit. Be a fuckin' person. Listen. Let it swirl around in your head, then form an opinion. No normal, decent person is one thing. I've got some shit I'm conservative about, and I got some shit I'm liberal about. Crime? I'm conservative. Prostitution? I'm liberal!" --- Chris Rock

Just something to think about before we get started here. This is going to be a pretty thick diary, and you might not want to wade through it unless you're ready to do some thinking.

The Right Wing Republican playbook requires that you categorize everybody who is center-right, liberal, or progressive as "far left" or "socialist" in a Machiavellian attempt to create the image that conservatives are closer to the center than they really are.  In reality, conservatism is a fringe philosophy that should never be a governing philosophy nor a major 2nd party opposition philosophy.  

While the Right wing nutcases will falsely label Obama as far left, marxist, communist, or socialist, none of these labels are true.  In fact Obama's views are clearly in the center, perhaps even slightly to the right of center while my views are slightly left of center.  

In my case, there are tens of millions of Americans to my left.  In Barack Obama's case, there may be 100 million Americans to his left with me being just one of them.  And that is the point of this diary, that Obama is too conservative on many issues as compared to where the American people stand.

This diary is in response to a number of diaries and comments speculating about why Democrats "always lose," are "spineless," don't "run to their base," and the like.

I don't consider these people purity trolls.

They have a legitimate complaint, albeit one grounded in too small an historical sample.  I'm old enough to remember when GOP voters made these same complaints, back when Democrats had legislative majorities and a progressive Supreme Court, and racked up a stunning series of policy victories: the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, Court decisions like Miranda, Gideon v. Wainwright and the Pentagon Papers case, Watergate, the War Powers Act, and Carter-era Congressional hearings, legislation, and executive orders that reined in the FBI and CIA.

But I suspect most Kossaks aren't old enough to remember those times, and in the nearly 40 years since, progressives have indeed been on the losing side of almost every major political fight.  If that's all you've known, all you've seen in your adult lifetime, it's easy to get cynical.

Still, come with me over the fold, please, for why I think we should not make the 2008 elections into a progressive referendum.

As much as I'd like to cut loose and seek some comfort by writing a fun, apolitical diary full of cats, rainbows and unicorn farts, I just can't do it today. I'd like to see if I can do my part in alleviating some of the tension on this site as some of its users are in full-on panic mode and are consequently saying some very foolish things.

There's quite a few things wrong with the now commonly held assumption that Obama is "moving to the center." Some people say he's doing the politically expedient thing and selling we lefties down the river. Still others insist he was never that progressive to begin with, and has always been a centrist Democrat.

First of all, a person's political ideology is hard to identify in the first place because it's so very subjective. One person's center is another person's far-left.

Second, how is it that we Kossacks, who are normally so sharp when it comes to detecting a manufactured media outrage story, are suddenly so credulous? Are we now listening to the very serious people who are telling us that our nominee is moving to the center?

And finally, even as we ask ourselves whether Obama is moving to the center, he is continuing to fight for progressive ideas -- even though we may not notice it in our current state of limp-noodle mumbling and hem-hawing.

After Senator Obama's decision to forego public financing came the FISA mess, then the Supreme Court decisions on the death penalty and handguns, then his comments on General Clark's criticism of Senator McCain, and now his statement to evangelicals that he will not only preserve but expand the Faith-Based Initiatives program instituted by President Bush.

Each of these positions has upset many progressives, who see these acts as proof that Senator Obama is "just another politician," "betraying his base," "caving in to Republicans," "Republican-Lite," and the like.  Most of Senator Obama's defenders, echoing the prevailing media narrative, say Senator Obama is following the usual general election strategy of "moving to the center."

While I disagree with some of the positions Senator Obama has taken in the past few weeks, I also disagree with both his detractors and many of his defenders.  Please follow me over the fold for an explanation of why Senator Obama is not, in fact, "moving to the center."

Global warming must be a lie because, if it were not, it would take large scale government action to deal with it, and big government and the loss of our freedom is the greatest danger that we all face.

As I have argued elsewhere understanding that bit of nonsense is fundamental to understanding how Climaticide denialists think and why they care so little about science.

I have defined four principle categories of denialists.

1. Plutocrats

2. Shills

3. Literate conservative/libertarian ideologues

4. The right-wing booboisie

Today I propose to illustrate my earlier argument with a selection of denialist quotations from these four categories.  You can find these quotes all over the web. For the most part I present the quotations in no particular order. I trust you will have no trouble either identifying the common elements in each of the quotes nor in linking the quote to the appropriate category of denialist.

Still, for what it's worth, I will give you my take on how the categories relate to each other just below the fold.

Of course you don't remember McGovern.  Why?  Because he didn't get elected.

The old lady will try one last time...

Following this election over the past year has made me more aware of many problems we have in this country.  

But the most worrisome part of this whole campaign was how identity politics came back to bite us in the bum.

The bogus worldview of economists is embedded so deeply in our political culture that most people don't even perceive it.  Journalists, politicians, and most thoughtful, well-educated people think it's reality, not ideology.  Economics professors fill the heads of college freshmen with pure garbage and nobody tries to stop them.  Most offensive of all, to me, are the economists I keep hearing on NPR and reading in the NYT claiming that there's is the only really scientific social science, a claim based as far as I can tell on their extensive use of mathematics, whereas the precise opposite is true.  Garbage in, garbage out.  (And by the way, sociologists use math almost as much. Just sayin'.) I will take on just one of the most pernicious falsehoods of the so-called "discipline" below the fold.

There was always something slightly insane about No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the ambitious education law often described as the Bush Administration's signature domestic achievement.

   That is the opening sentence of a piece in the current issue of Time.   Written by Claudia Wallis, the piece is entitled as it this diary, and it is very much worth your going to this link and taking the time to read it.  It is especially interesting as we now have on record a key insider in the Bush Department of Education acknowledging the arguments of critics that for some in the Department

No Child Left Behind was nothing more than a cynical plan to destroy American faith in public education and open the way to vouchers and school choice.

It is a piece that has been widely discussed on some of the educational lists in which I participate, and I thought it might be worthwhile for me to examine it and  offer some commentary here.  

After hearing oceans of words, and acres of anger over this nomination contest, I have something to say. The question, the only question, the question that we all have, that means more than all the others. The question we should be asking, not just aspirants for the Presidency, but every one in every race for ever level of government, without apology and without exception.

How long?

OK, I'm not a philosopher. However, I do get into many intellectual discussions with friends, particularly when it comes to contemporary politics.

Recently a friend of mine argued that, when it comes to how politicians actually function, there is ultimately little difference between Democrats and Republicans. He got a bit excited and extended the argument to Progressives & Conservatives, and Leftists & Rightists. They all say they will do what they seldom end-up doing or may even do the opposite. They make promises that could get them elected to office but, once in office, routinely break their promises. He proceeded to say that based on this conclusion, people ought to vote on the basis of what their gut feeling is about the likelihood of truthfulness of the candidate, rather than the issues.

After the fold, I share my response to him, and I have tabulated 22 areas  where we differed, and basically set up two columns. Which column do you think you identify with?

Edit: With the all the brouhaha resulting from Hillary's atrocious remarks, I decided to post this now because I really needed a distraction from all that depressing stuff. I have always supported Obama, but to see Clinton fall the way she has was simply sad!

There's a lot of controversy about Democrats like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean going on Fox News. A lot of people are saying we're foolish to try to reach out to conservatives and people whose beliefs are center-right.

I am here to say that we must reach out. Not just on television, but in our everyday lives as well.

There's a time and a place for ripping Fox News a new one for their shoddy reporting and irresponsible rhetoric. Many of you have called for Obama, Clinton, Dean and others to go on Fox News and tell them how horrible they are.

Do you ever listen to Sean Hannity and other right-wing radio hosts? I do. As often as I can, in fact.

Did you know that Sean Hannity has a "Hate Hannity Hotline" for liberals to call and curse at him? If you listen to the show, you'll quickly notice that the only liberals who are ever allowed on the air are furious. They yell and scream and spout talking points at Hannity as he laughs and points, saying, "This is your typical liberal. This is how they all are."

I'm tired of the GOP and its diehard supporters.  You know the ones I'm talking about, right?  The ones who can't see the quickly eroding forests on this planet because they're too busy chopping down trees, but who will tell people to not squander their resources and end up dependent on the government's tax dollars for a bailout.  (As we all know, those bailouts are reserved for corporations and more 'deserving' individuals...lol)

This Reverend Hagee debacle with Senator McCain is not just another political scandal in an already scandal-ridden world; it is indicative of the GOP's unspoken assertion that (a) the rules don't apply to them and (b) that they live and practice the politics of 'do as I say, not as I do'.

It's this mentality that is ruining the world.

I've tried to avoid writing a candidate diary.  This is my first and, it's really less about my preferred candidate than about The Ideology Trap.  Some things in this diary will, almost certainly, offend someone.  I ask you to please look beyond your initial response to the main point I'm making:

I don't care why you support Barack Obama ... just please support Barack Obama!

Details after the jump.