Do you consider yourself a moderate?

[Joe Republic]

Shockingly, yes I do.

[Joe Republic]

I take positions on issues, so no

I take positions on issues too.  As do most of the other people who voted 'yes', I expect.

[Joe Republic]

I take positions on issues, so no

I take positions on issues too.  As do most of the other people who voted 'yes', I expect.

There you go

What's that supposed to mean?  I doubt many of the people who voted 'yes' think "Hmm...I really don't have any position on this issue at all".  I have positions on most issues - they just happen to take more of a compromising and conciliatory tone than most of the partisan, crackpot ideas that get floated on this forum.

[Joe Republic]

A moderate is very wishy washy, not confident in their views.  I'm certainly not very wishy washy.

Moderate is code word for "lacking balls".

Did either of you consider that perhaps being moderate also means that you're prepared to breach the partisan divide, take the POVs of both sides in hand, and try and come up with the best compromise to whatever issue it is that caused the divide in the first place?  Surely that's a more ideal form of politics than arguing all the time?

[Joe Republic]

A camel is a horse built by committee.  Compromise is overrated.

So you favor the current system of bitching whenever the other side does something you disagree with, and not even attempting to reach a suitable solution that most people can agree on?  Is politics all about beating the 'other guys' to you?

[Joe Republic]

It's little wonder this country is so divided, sometimes.

[Joe Republic]

The breakdown is similar to the one in the whole electorate. A Democrat who is as liberal as a Republican is conservative is more likely to consider themselves moderate, after realizing that liberal is a word with a negative connotation to the American public.

Or.... they realize that they aren't actually liberal at all?  Or conservative either for that matter.  Neither are terms that I would be particularly proud to call myself.  Embarrassed, more likely.

The same goes for the word "Independent". "Independents" are not politically independent--they are weakly partisan Democrats who refuse to associate themselves with the hard-left Democratic Party of today.

Why the partisanship?  Why can't Independents be "weakly partisan" Republicans who refuse to associate themselves with the hard-right Republican Party of today?  Both are as bad as each other, and both are helping break this country clean in two.

[Joe Republic]

Except that, according to most surveys, "Independents" are well to the left of most Republicans on social factors, and only slightly to the right of the Democrats. Economically, they favor Democrat positions more strongly--usually much strongly--than the Republicans'. As a whole, they even dislike the idea of cutting taxes. So, my assessment of "Independents" as lapsed Democrats is not mere partisanship.

I don't fit those categories.  I guess you could say I'm 'independent of the Independents'.

In any case, it's hardly appropriate to categorize a group that by definition ought not to be categorized.  For example, look at Ross Perot and Ralph Nader.  You could hardly dump them in the same category, other than 'Independent', obviously.