If that's the case, knife, then I hope to see more of it. I was about to say that the reason that extremists seem to be increasing in numbers is because voter turnout is low, and the only people who bother are the ones with extreme views. The silent majority are apathetic, especially during primaries, and the result is sharp division among our leaders in Washington. However, I can't concieve how Connecticut's nominaiton of Lamont could possibly be considered moderation on the part of Democrats there. They nominated a man who is more liberal than Leiberman, not less, and what happened there was preciesly the opposite of what happened in Georgia.
Populism and moderation are not necessarily the same thing. The promotion of stem cell research and the banning of ID curriculua in public schools are examples of popular opinions, but you ought to understand that many people still consider those policies to be extreme measures. (I myself think science should be left to the scientists and politicians shouldn't be allowed to interfere. If people want to teach ID in their own school districts, let them. If the corpses of unborn babies have already been harvested for stem cells, let scientists use them.) Don't pretend to be a moderate just because in the past year a majority of Americans have begun to agree with your opposition to the war. The war isn't the only issue people care about, and you're still far left of the majority of Americans on most issues.
|