<p>didnt see ya, Hindo, Upping the count.</p>
<p>STUDENTS
Liberal - 2
Centrist -
Conservative -1</p>
<p>PARENTS
Liberal - 3
Centrist - 3
Conservative - 4</p>
<p>pmrlcomm:</p>
<p>My problem with the labels is that one can arrive at the same behavior via very different routes.
In the NYT today, there is a fascinating article about energy conservation in a British town whereby people look at their energy meter and try to reduce their energy consumption. Some do so because they are “green;” others because they are thrifty. It they were to respond to this survey, how would they label themselves? I might consider the “green” a liberal, and the thrifty person a conservative(probably believes in lower taxes, less government, and all sorts of old-fashioned virtues). But does it matter? Their behavior as far as energy consumption is exactly the same.</p>
<p>So what is a centrist exactly? and over what? Can one oppose the war in Irag and advocate the repeal of Roe v. Wade or support prayer in school? Is a single label capable of capturing all beliefs and behaviors of an individual?</p>
<p>First of ALL I see Centrist as Independents</p>
<p>Second Hindoo,DO NOT MISTAKE UNDERSTANDING AS AMBIVALENCE! Marite is right the world is not made up of left or right, there are some of us who prefer to vote on issues and not platforms, thus we are the middle of the road.</p>
<p>I am voting for McCain b/c he fits my idea of accepting both sides. I like the fact that he is considered a hawk, but when the war wasn’t going right it was him who went against is party and screamed fire Rummy! He was the force behind the surge. I like the fact that he has created many bills with dems and has voted against his own party when it did not support the views of his constituents.</p>
<p>McCAin has always been seen as an outsider in the republican party for his siding with the dems. Look at RPAC they were not thrilled that McCain won the nom, they wanted Huckabee or Romney. I would have held my nose and voted for Obama if that was the case!</p>
<p>Now look at Obama, he won the nom b/c of his liberal ties and Hillary was to Centrist. After winning the nom he is moving from the left to the middle.</p>
<p>Give me 1 scenario you can think of that a liberal and a conservative would meet in the middle. Taxes, Abortion, Gun Control, Health Care(remember nationalized health will effect both abortion and taxes). sep. of church and state, FISA, Border Security, NAFTA? Now use a Centrist they might agree with the Republicans Taxes and Border Security, but totally disagree on Gun Control and Abortion. At that point they have to delve deeper on how to make their decision. This is the person we call INDEPENDENT</p>
<p>Yourworld:</p>
<p>I don’t like NCLB because it’s too much government intervention. How’s that? I don’t like the incredible deficit we’ve run. I don’t like the fact that the Chrysler building was sold to some ME company; that the PRC could pull the rug from underneath our already faltering economy. What does that make me? a liberal? a centrist? a conservative?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’ll be a challenge, but I’m sure we’ll manage. 
By the way, your #17 post was a good one. However, I’m not sure about your point on Iraq. We did, indeed, break it, but I’m not sure it’s within our power to ever clean up the mess we’ve made. (It’s kind of like a bull rampaging through a china shop, then attempting to clean up the resulting chaos. Probably not possible.) Even the Iraqis are now saying they want us out, the sooner the better.</p>
<p>I’m with Marite:
</p>
<p>Now look at Obama, he won the nom b/c of his liberal ties and Hillary was to Centrist. After winning the nom he is moving from the left to the middle.</p>
<p>I actually thought of Hillary as more liberal than Obama on the one issue where there was a real difference: health care. And that was the basis of my support for him, having seen what happens in my own state.
Her hawkishness on Iraq was neocon rather than truly conservative. Neocons are actually old style liberal interventionists. Labels have a way of changing meaning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How did I mistake understanding for ambivalence, bulletandpima? All I did was put myself down in the “liberal” category, then respond to something pmrlcomm said. When you talk to me in capital letters with bold type, it hurts my delicate feelings. :(</p>
<p>BTW forgot to address abortion</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Being a liberal on abortion means the mother in any scenario trumps the unborn, including late term abortion.
Being a conservative means that life began it conception…no abortions unless the safety of the mother is at risk!</p>
<p>By picking and choosing the scenario you have proven the point of mine. I am pro-life, but if my daughter decided to terminate her pregnancy it is her right, the law says she has the right. End of subject, period, dot! The only thing I would oppose is a late term abortion, but than again that is against the law. If you recall, liberals weren’t too pleased that it became illegal, but the conservatives loved it! Look at SD right now, they have voted on making all abortions illegal, conservatives are happy, libs not so much.</p>
<p>Finally remember Roe V Wade was also about publicly funding abortion, not if it is morally right or wrong, but who was going to pay for it!</p>
<p>Sorry to hurt your feelings, and here is how I took it meaning ambivalence. Anyone not voting is ambivalent.
</p>
<p>STUDENTS
Liberal - 2
Centrist - 1
Conservative -1</p>
<p>PARENTS
Liberal - 3
Centrist - 3
Conservative - 4</p>
<p>I’m a centrist, not because I am indecisive, but because my agreement with someone on one issue has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with their stance on some other, unrelated issue. I could honestly vote either way (Republican or Democrat) depending on who agrees with more of what I support, and it truly is not always someone from one of those parties over another for me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Labels can’t conveivably be comprehensive enough but we always feel the need to put things into categories. Seems to be our nature.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see what you are saying but can’t quite agree. Even though I consider myself a centrist/moderate I am an avowed Republican. Some issues override others. I view the military and economy as being far more important than any other issues and the Democratic view is not even close to what I envision. I think you would find most moderates still side with a party and don’t consider themselves independent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m convinced that the Dems and Repubs disagree on a number of these issues out or principle. If one side comes out on the pro- side then the other HAS to be anti- whatever it is so they can’t appear to be remotely similar in stance. That’s the whole problem. I’m still convinced that John Kerry wasn’t nearly as pro-choice (being a devout Catholic) as he claims he is. He never could have gotten the Dem nomination had he come out and said “I don’t believe in abortion personally but I can see where others might disagree…”. His party would have burned him at the stake.</p>
<p>Counts were messed up along the chain, here’s latest:</p>
<p>STUDENTS
Liberal - 2
Centrist -
Conservative -1</p>
<p>PARENTS
Liberal - 4
Centrist - 3
Conservative - 4</p>
<p>Marite, there is no confusion about the labels.</p>
<p>Fundamentally, liberals believes in government hand-outs, left unchecked they will turn the country into giant welfare state and perpetuates an indigent population of under-motivated dependents and some just plain old schemers who siphon from the system. Since that does not solve any problem, the liberals blame corporate creed, and the republican party, and ask for more aids, the cycle goes on. </p>
<p>Conservatives believe in self-sufficiency and personal responsibilities. No unwarranted handouts. You are what you make of yourself. No blame game.
Dont talk about the disadvantaged’s. The table have turned such most people support the first sign of seeing disadvantaged folks trying to overcome barriers, we welcome them with opened arms.</p>
<p>Nice skewed worldview, yourworld. A person on the other side might say, “Conservatives believe in corporate handouts, helping the rich get richer on the backs of the poor, allowing industries to go largely unregulated as they rip off the consumer, and letting people die if they can’t afford health insurance.” </p>
<p>But that would be every bit as skewed and biased as your post.</p>
<p>Bravo, lunitari! Well said!</p>
<p>No, Yourworld, I added myself (a student) as a centrist. You took me off in your latest count.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually heard him say something along these lines at the Compassion forum (did no one else than I actually watch it?). He got applause from the assorted religious leaders in the audience. Basically, he affirmed a woman’s right to choose (which should be a conservative stance–limited government) but making abortion both safe and rare. What got him the applause was the rejection of extremes at either end and the willingness to discuss how to bridge the gap that remains in the middle.</p>
<p>My concern with labels is that conservative now often means both social and fiscal conservatives and limited government; but in order to achieve socially conservative ends, one often has to endorse more government and thus more spending. Many commentators have noted the unraveling of this coalition–which is why I am trying to get a grip on what people mean by conservative. In which area?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with you that most independents do lean on a whole, but I think they also vote for what the candidate proposes before saying I would never vote for that candidate b/c they are Republican or Dem. </p>
<p>I will admit, had Bill Richardson won the dem and McCain won the repub. It would be a hard choice for me. I think Bill Richardson has what it takes to be a great President from a Centrist point. I also respect Joe Lieberman (caveat his stock value wet down for me when he played the political game as a VP). I have stated I like McCain on many of his platforms, there are some I don’t care for and that is why I support him over Obama. Had Huckabee won the nom, he would have too far off from my views and I could not support or vote for him. </p>
<p>Yourworld…I have to say you are right on the mark, except you forgot to say Centrists believe a little bit of both, and some centrists won’t see eye to eye, as pmrlcom stated, they will most likely lean to their party.</p>
<p>I think “conservative” anymore means religious and intolerant…if you ask the liberals. I view conservative as leaning towards conservative fiscal policies… Then again I’m sure everyone has their opinions of it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually social conservatives would spend less money, since they do not believe in abortion, stem cell research, welfare (to an extent), affirmative action. Thus, federal funding to all of these areas would be cut off. </p>
<p>For example, stem cell research was an issue inpart due to the federal funding of it. Once those lines are gone, that funding will disappear, it may reappear in adult stem cell funding, but there is no guarantee. Also, if Roe V Wade was overturned than the govt would not have to cover the cost of abortions in certain situations. Affirmative Action than the one dept in the federal govt would cease to exist to be the oversight for AA. This would also follow down into the state, county and city levels. All of them would shrink in size</p>
<p>Again I am with you pmrlcomm. Conservatives now are labeled to be anti-abortion, gay hating, war-mongering racists! Just as many conservatives will label liberals as tree-hugging, anti-religion, atheists!</p>
<p>Neither of these views portray the majority of either party, both of the parties have been taken over by the extremes</p>