Incorrect. Either as a direct question or as an implication (ie, it’s impossible to say someone is not in the mainstream without defining something in the mainstream from which they deviate), at least three posters (not counting myself) asked you for this. Neurotik, Boret, and the other ‘newby’ to whom I believe you were referring.
Point of order, while I’m at it: ‘newby’ is a rather inane slur. First, it says nothing about the person’s argument, and second, they may have been reading the board (and maybe even your posts) for years. Hint, hint.
I don’t care what you “think” is necessary. It’s obviously a debateable position, as evidenced by the fact that someone who is an extreme leftist would hardly be expected to garner nearly 50% of a national vote. This is self-evident, and your “argument” is a handwave. You made exactly two cites: an NRA study and the National Journal article. WRT the NRA bit: this active hunter and marksman and former NRA member joins Bricker in questioning the honesty, methodology, and results of such. WRT the National Journal piece: they state outright in the introductions to their “key vote” definitions and ranking that it “grossly oversimplifies the legislative process” and is simply a crude guide, to be used towards further investigation. It also, I will note, does not address the actual issue at hand; officials are ranked based on comparison to each other, not in terms of the “mainstream” of the populace. So you first need to justify why its even apropos (not that the case can’t be made, but you certainly haven’t done so) before one even gets into the other problems with it.
False. You have not mentioned a single position held by anyone, iirc, other than Kerry’s gun positions which were highly distorted. Other posters, by comparison, have cited (for example), Santorum’s linking of homosexual acts to man-on-dog sex and posited that such is opposed to the mainstream position that homosexuality has nothing to do with fucking dogs. They have defined one bit of the “center” via specific position held by an elected official.
You have not done so. You lose.
One position at a time, starting with the more important ones hopefully. See above.
Inane. You were not accused of hiding your positions. You were accused of:
- Not illustrating how Kerry, et al, are outside the mainstream;
- Making explicit your conception of the “mainstream”, give that most of the positions you said you hold are exactly those held by an alleged raving madman (Dean). Only a handwave was offered in response. “We all KNOW Dean is crazy! Get with the program!”
“Lie” goes to intent. I may have been guilty of hyperbole. Let me rephrase more accurately:
-
You have offered only two cites to back up your claims of certain people being far outside the mainstream, both of which have been deemed unreliable by people on your own side of the ideological spectrum–one of which didn’t even offer specifics on any actual positions.
-
Again: You have steadfastly refused to outline but one actual policy position held by an elected official which is allegedly outside the mainstream (Kerry/NRA), and have also steadfastly refused to explain how you holding almost across-the-board “liberal” positions in self-cited issues makes you a sensible centrist while it makes others raving lunatics. That is the true central issue here. You seem to be bashing for no reason other than a label, as you have not submitted for examination much in the way of actual, documented differences between not only “liberals” and the “mainstream” but “liberals” and yourself.
Incorrect. If you follow politics at all, and being a regular reader and contributor to this board, you must already be familiar with at least his more extreme positions (which I daresay are also all you know about Pelosi, and you consider it sufficient for judgement in her case). What did you know about him, pray tell, before your recent “research”, and why was it not enough for you to already believe that he was as extreme as her; and what makes her so extreme that you needed to know so much about Santorum before relating the two? You still haven’t said anything other than what amounts to “She’s from san fran, she must be a looney!” Please.
Incorrect. Your obvious implication had nothing to do with strictly being the chair of the national party or not; it went to the issue of place of influence in the party, generally. If your statement really was meant to be so limited, feel free to say so; it makes it a totally inane tautology. Not much better.
A high-ranking Senator, I think nearly everyone would agree, has far more impact on both policy and (more arguably) its day-to-day presentation to the public than does the party chairman.