October 19, 2003
ANGRY MODERATES....One of the things that mainstream pundits
have missed in the great "Why Do Democrats Hate Bush?" debate is the
nature of so many of the Democrats who hate Bush: they're moderates.
Angry liberal writers Paul Krugman and Al Franken? Much closer to
Bill Clinton and the DLC than to the left wing of the party. Angry
liberal candidate Howard Dean? As many commentators have pointed out,
his policy positions are pretty centrist. Angry liberal bloggers Atrios
and, um, me? In both cases, rhetoric aside, our underlying positions
are not wildly liberal.
If the only people who loathed Bush were fringe Greens like Ralph
Nader, it would be easy to dismiss them. But shouldn't serious
conservatives be asking themselves why longtime moderates feel such
antipathy toward George Bush and what he's doing? That maybe there's a
little more to it than just an emotional reaction to his personality?
The answer is pretty simple: personalities aside, it has become
obvious since he took office that, far from being a "uniter not a
divider," George Bush is in fact (a) radically conservative and (b) does
everything he can to hide the fact.
For more on this, moderate environmentalist Rick Bass explains Bush's environmental program and center-leftist Jack O'Toole explains the difference between substance and sleight of hand to Howard Kurtz. They both speak for me as well.
Posted by Kevin Drum at October 19, 2003 11:32 AM
I often wonder what constitutes a moderate. On the really tough
issues, it seems hard to define a "middle" ground. What's the "moderate
position" on abortion or the death penalty, say? I'd gladly repeal the
Bush Tax cuts in return for a real means testing on SS and Medicare. Is
that a "moderate position?" I think the environment should be respected,
but not worshipped, is that "moderate?"
I haven't the foggiest idea what "moderates" think are the central
ideas worthy of defending or the policy priorities of of moderates might
I'm genuinely interested in the "moderate agenda," can anyone explain it to me? (Lack of snark would be appreciated)
You must remember one fact. A California Moderate is a Georgia Liberal. Don't forget flyover country.
George Bush is in fact (a) radically conservative and (b) does everything he can to hide the fact.
radical? most certainly.
conservative? maybe in word, but in no way do his actions reflect those of a conservative.
I freely confess to being an extremist when it comes to civil
liberties. On other issues, including economic, environmental, foreign
policy issues and so on, I'm a moderate. I can get along just fine with a
Gerald Ford conservative or even a George H. W. Bush conservative.
With the current crowd, though, I have nothing in common. They are so
far off the charts to the right that there is literally no connection
between us. It's ideology above all with that crowd, even when their
policies are leading us off a cliff. In just the last two years, I've
become far more angry and far more radicalized than at any other time
under any other leader.
I thought Reagan was bad, but these guys are simply beyond belief. I
look forward to the day that they are booted out. And the sooner that
day arrives, the better it will be for our country.
I'll take that bait....
I think that a moderate wants the following:
A budget where revenues are within shouting distance of expenditures,
and that there is a creditable plan to bring them together at some
An environmemntal policy that recognizes that the public lands do not
exist for the sole purposes of mining, drilling, and logging, and that
grazing, tourism, and preservation should have a seat at the table when
these things are discussed.
A foriegn policy in which our goals are achievable with the means at our disposal.
An economic policy that is widely believed by competent eggheads to be likely to foster economic growth.
Judges who are not known as ideologues, but as jurists.
I'm sure there is more, but I think that is a good starting point.
Until the election of 2002 I considered myself a "moderate"
democrate. I was socially liberal and fiscally conservative. (Leaning,
but not far out on the scale.)
Over the last year I find myself looking more and more for the
"liberal" view, whatever that is. I think part of that is just a
violent reaction to Bush. I can't believe how angry I am.
I gues I am one of those "angry moderates". I would vote for about
anybody, if it meant getting rid of Bush. But my preference is Clark. I
guess that shows my still moderate leanings.
What a mess.
spc67: some issues are pretty polarizing. But even abortion, for
example, has a moderate liberal position: abortion is basically OK, but
you're fine with parental notification and banning third term abortion.
You can support affirmative action programs, while still recognizing
that AA has real problems and can't be taken too far. You can support
free trade and globalization, while recognizing that it also hurts a lot
of people and that programs to ameliorate that pain is appropriate.
Etc. You've read my stuff for a while, and it's pretty obvious that
I'm no socialist and I'm no conspiracy theorist. But what I see in
people like Bush and DeLay is a desire for very radical reactionary
change, and the only thing that's stopping them is political reality.
All I'm saying is that you can either decide that I've suddenly gone
crazy in the past year or two, despite a lifetime of moderation, or else
there really is something highly reactionary about Bush. I think it's
the latter, and I just think that people who are basically sympathetic
to Bush's direction have a hard time seeing it.
Many of the real lefties never expected much from Bush anyway, so for
them, the Bush admin is indeed conservative. After all, the Bush admin
is proudly continuing the American ruling class traditions of racism,
stealing from the poor, and invading 3rd world countries. Moderates
believe in the system and are therefore shocked when it becomes apparent
that the system is used to screw people -- or worse. Are moderates
naive? Sure. That's why most people are not moderates.
"abortion is basically OK, but you're fine with parental notification and banning third term abortion"
I would say that's closer to a liberal stand on abortion.
My definition of a moderate view is that abortion is basically wrong
except in life or death situations, but legislation or intimdation
tactics don't work and utlimately will do more harm than good, which
leaves individual choice. I think this is also called the
Re Kurtz's article, it starts off by talking about Jon Chait's TNR
cover story about why he hates Bush. Chait, let's remember, wrote an
article last fall about why liberals should support Bush on the Iraq
war. He's certainly not a Naderite wacko.
I try to distinguish between a "moderate" and a "centrist" -- a
centrist thinks the optimal answers are always to be found in the center
of the political spectrum, just as a "pure" liberal or conservative
finds all solutions on the left or right end, respectively. A moderate,
on the other hand, has political opinions rather than beliefs and might
locate the best answer to any given issue on the left, right, or
So for me, there is no "moderate" platform, because moderates can
come to different conclusions. The point is that they're actively and
open-mindedly looking for the optimal answer, rather than deciding ahead
of time that they've already found it and that anyone who disagrees is a
blinkered idiot. A moderate liberal is one whose conclusions tend to
the left, a moderate conservative tends to the right, but these two
people will usually get along better with each other than with the
wingers on either side.
I agree with Kevin -- the current administration is made up primarily
of radicals with pre-formed, unchallengeable beliefs, and that scares
the heck out of me. Reagan was probably just as bad, but fortunately he
had to contend with a Democratic congress, so he didn't have as much of
a free hand.
Following etc's lead, I think you can summarize an American moderate as:
1) fundamentally small "d" democratic, meaning someone who
doesn't think only their views are correct, and so are willing to listen
to and accept minority opinions before arriving at a moderated solution
2) fundamentally capitalist but with a human face, meaning someone who believes in the free market, but also the fair market
I think this definition of an America moderate is true for both sides of the aisle.
As always, I'm willing to be wrong. Which makes me a moderate.
Surely the Bass article describes a longstanding, bipartisan tendency
(Baucus, Feinstein, etc) towards allowing some logging, as opposed to a
crazy new radical Bush plan forced upon helpless Democrats.
a centrist thinks the optimal answers are always to be found in the center of the political spectrum
You're defining it incorrectly. Being a "centrist" is not entirely up
to you. It has to do with how far away from you the crazy extremists on
your left and right are. But the political spectrum doesn't have stable
I haven't really changed my attitude on much in the past few years. I
used to be right of center. Now I'm left of center. I didn't move- the
center did! Because the right wing has stretched so far into lala land.
Ten years ago Bush 41 was right wing. Now in retrospect he almost looks
like a centrist. The same thing happened with Nixon. Nixon has become
much more centrist since he died. (Can you imagine these current WH
fools visiting China? They'd prefer to stay home and moralize about how
"evil" it is.)
That is not to say that the center is where all the reasonable
opinions live. It's merely the midpoint between volatile extremes.
Moderates are basically live & let live on the individual level,
but aren't full-blown libertarians because we have no great faith in the
unfettered invisible hand being a force of progress.
Sure, Kevin, from a policy perspective you're a moderate. But do you
really think that what Bush represents has anything to do with policy or
even conservative ideals such as limited government or judicial
restraint? What he stands for is simply aesthetic. It's hard to fathom
this. I'm not sure if I understand it myself. And certainly the people
who vote for him, and who consider themselves shrewd arbitrers of
politics and the world, will deny to it to the end.
I mean, most of us have followed the past three years pretty closely
and everything Bush has touched has been deprived of any external logic,
aside from agreeing a priori with the convictions of Bush. Everything.
There hasn't been one action he has taken (aside from Afghanistan) that
has ended up making sense. It's because Bush's ideology makes no
distinction between utility and ideal, or wish and reality. We think
that this is simply a means to an end. What if the end was not invading
Iraq, though? What if it was simply sustaining the illusion that his
policy has some reality within it?
Maybe this is why, for instance, debating his economic policies has
proved so fruitless. Taxes are simply bad, ergo they must be
economically destructive, although even those who don't think taxes are
morally or constitutionally allowable admit that the utility of taxation
has its positives. Do you see that happening now? How many people for
the tax cuts even remotely seem to bother tallying up the consequences,
or the results of the cuts in spending needed to finance them? Yet we
have been told endlessly by these same people how experienced and
concerned our average American is with financial matters, and how common
sense and pragmatic business-types are quick to draw against waste and
folly, especially against dread wasteful liberals. This has become one
side of the debate.
What are we to conclude? That these people are clueless and dumb?
That they are hopelessly naive and believe in nonsensical prefabricated
ideas directly against their best interests? Or that their best
interests actually resides in only believing that goverment equals waste
and taxes are automatically bad and that the consequences of these
ideas are irrelevant?
It's taken me some time to come to this conclusion. It still sounds
pretty out-there to me, but I really don't see any other explanations
that exist. The bottom line is that I think that all of the supposed
ideals generated by the post-60s conservative movement (of which Bush is
simply the figurehead, since he seems to have no original thoughts or
expierences of his own) are interchangeable and are useful only in so
much as they give the right wing a reason to exist.
There's something to the idea that Bush is not radically conservative.
A conservative would not over-extend us abroad and balloon our deficit
at home by raising taxes on our descendants and driving up pork
He is radically something, though. I think the description of
moderate above is good: reasonable, open to the evidence, basically
involved in a collaborative, cooperative project with fellow citizens.
Bush is the opposite of that. He is utterly set in his
conclusions prior to, and independent of, all evidence, and he has total
contempt for the democratic process. "Public opinion" is merely a poll
number to be moved by literally any manipulation necessary.
I often wonder what constitutes a moderate.
Focusing on defining terms isn't terribly relevant to this
discussion. If you are taking a clear-eyed and long view of the
direction of this country you can then have a more practical,
results-based perspective of the Bush Administration's accomplishments,
regardless of your political orientation.
Thanks everybody for your insights. After reading the thread thus
far, it seems that "moderate" has no consistent meaning in today's
If open-mindedness and "critical-realist" type resort to facts,
results and Occam's Razor are the characteristics of a moderate, I'm
going to have to stop labelling myself a conservative!
My mother walked into the kitchen a couple of days ago when we were
home and said that she had thought George Bush would be similar to the
Republican Presidents she has followed since Eisenhower. Bush however
is different, she said. Bush is not a conservative but a radical. We
agree. I thought we were moderately conservative before this
Administration, now all I care about is defeating this radical
Administration and the Republican leadership in Congress. From the
environment to employment protections, we are shocked and appalled by
"But even abortion, for example, has a moderate liberal position:
abortion is basically OK, but you're fine with parental notification and
banning third term abortion."
If this were truly a "moderate liberal position", there would never
even be a debate of partial birth abortion. And what Democratic
candidate actually would support banning third term abortions?
The fact is, on the national scale, it is the Democratic party that
is extremist when it comes to abortion. Why? Because there is only one
viable position for a Democrat running for high office...full,
unfettered access to abortion. There are those who have had to change
their position to meet the litmus test. Certainly can't expect any
support from NOW if you're going to restrict abortions in any way. The
Republican party, however, while predominately pro-life, does have
people of varying opinions regarding restrictions, even a few who are
pro-choice...Colin Powell and Christie Whitman, to name two. There is
actually debate within the party. Do you think a Democratic president
would ever appoint a pro-life SecState? Do you think the Democrats
would ever give someone who is pro-life a prime time speech at a
Democratic convention. Not in our lifetimes.
Will someone please explain what happens on the first day of the
seventh month that makes this fetus suddenly become a person who should
have constitutional rights, when it previously was not? Did it get a
heart on that day? A brain? The capacity to feel pain? Nope. Become
viable outside the womb? Probably not...here's the record:
Why is Al Franken a moderate? Nothing against him, but wasn't he a Nader supporter? Isn't that pretty left-of-center?
In my view, a moderate is one who acknowledges that certain
institutions are vital to the national interest, cannot be trusted to
the profit driven private sector, and thus are best controlled by the
elected power. National defence, trade law, judicial system, to name a
few. Some social institutions , such as health care, would not be in the
private sector if only people would realize that a healthy population
is a national asset , really part of the infrastructure. Besides, the
universal system is more cost effective. I live in a country where
carrying a revolver is a right, and healthcare is an economic burden. I
am not arguing for extreme gun control, but really, how stupid is that?
The greatest crime of the neocons, is that they have made palatable the
notion that individualism always trumps the common good. Even if they
get what they want, total deconstruction of this country's institutions,
they lose too.
Why is Al Franken a moderate? He is a moderate because he can be
persuaded; his views can be moderated by fact and debate and reality.
Little clues give him away: he is on the record as being supportive,
if not a supporter, of John McCain. He had a very funny and collegial
political series on Comedy Central with then-arch conservative Arriana
Huffington. His books do not espouse fire-breathing leftist position.
I think under most circumstance he would be considered moderate-left.
Except that he's now an angry moderate and so seems extreme to those
like David Brooks, who are shocked shocked that the left is so angry
with this President.
Bush radical? I think any fair comparison of Bush to say, Ronald
Reagan, would show that Bush is more middle of the road than Reagan was,
and certainly no more to the right than Reagan was. But then Reagan
was deeply hated too, wasn't he?
The hatred of Bush is all way way too familiar to those of us who
witnessed the hatred of Ronald Reagan. In fact many of the very same
criticisms are leveled, "idiot", "cowboy", "hypocrite", "puppet of the
Nothing new folks. nothing new to see, just the same hyperventilating
of the left-wing and partisan Democrats over another Republican
president who can't be bullied or cowed by thier sniping.
There are some differences Brad. Reagan in the end had to moderate
his views to pass legislation through a Democratic congress. Because
Bush doesn't have to, he doesn't. So even if they are alike, Bush's
ability to push certain extremes of the right's agenda makes him
increasingly alien to the moderate mushy middle. The result is that Bush
is undoing Reagan's real legacy at the ballot box, that strange hybrid
creature known as the Reagan Democrat.
The RDs gave Reagan his 49 state win. And contrary to your
generalization, the RDs limited the sniping that partisan Dems could
level at Reagan. Bush is now losing that kind of support and inviting
the attacks he's getting and is going to get. In the long run, he's
marginalizing the Republican party by pushing moderates away. Reagan did
just the opposite. If this trend continues, I wouldn't be surprised if
in the next few months leading up to the election, the most vicious
sniping at Bush comes from within his own party.
You are holding the binoculars backwards, and cannot see what is
plainly in front of you. Turn your binoculars around, and you will no
longer be blinded to reality. Thank you.
Kevin, I refer you to your interview of Krugman and your remarks
following that noted the Kissinger quote. The Bush Junta does not
represent anything that can be expressed or judged along a
liberal-conservative or left-right line. It represents a radical
transformation of our political system. One that is no less radical
than the New Deal. If it were described more honestly, it would be
quickly rejected by Americans. However, as long as we diddle around
with empty words like liberal, conservative and moderate, we add to the
obfuscation that this radical transformation depends on.
Reagan was pretty radical, I will freely admit. But at least his
administration occasionally bowed to reality. The Bush administration
shows no signs of doing so. A comparison of Reagan vs. Bush would show
that they are both fairly far out in the right wing, with Bush pushing
that wing further out than Reagan did.
Brad: In my opinion, Bush isn't that radical in all areas except one. The War. And that's too enormous a subject, so I'll skip it.
As far as cutting taxes, his cuts are less than Reagan's (but rates
were higher to start with then). The deficit is historic, but the debt
is manageable, for now (taxes will have to be raised to reverse the
situation though, so it could be said that he is persuing a short-term,
It's either "trickle down" or crony capitalism, but either way, he
believes that making life easier on the capitalist class is the highest
priority, in times of deficits or surplus (dividend tax cuts, capital
depreciation accelleration, estate tax cuts, etc.) I don't think this is
extreme for a Republican.
Environment? Since Reagan's time, "regulations" of any kind are the
enemy, and should be eliminated. So, what's new here? Bush is a moderate
Republican here too.
Heh, I like your list of "moderates". If Krugman Atrios and Franken aren't lefties who the hell is? Castro?
Anyway, the Bush haters may have some "moderate" opinions, but they
are all political junkies who root fervently for their team the
democrats. In this sense they aren't moderates at all, but democratic
It is obvious then why they hate Bush. Mushy moderates who don't pay
attention to politics and don't have strong views aren't the ones making
up the core of the Bush haters.
"But shouldn't serious conservatives be asking themselves why longtime moderates feel such antipathy toward George Bush"
Heh, did serious liberals ask themselves why longtime moderates such
as Hitchens and Sullivan had such antipathy toward Clinton? (Or using
your definition of moderate, such moderates as Rush Limbaugh, George
Will, and Bill Oreilley, who are certainly no farther to the right than
Franken Atrios and Krugman are to the left)
Part of the anger we moderates feel comes from the failure of the
"Well, at least we'll get X" that most moderates have when the
opposition party is in power. I'm a liberal who is strongly free trade
but Bush has cynically sold out this very important issue where, I
thought, conservatives are more in line with my thinking.
Reg, you ignorant slut. Krugman is not liberal. He strongly and
aggressively supported Clinton's free trade proposals, as did Kevin and
Brad Delong. Clinton was only able to get these passed with the help of
most of the Republicans in Congress; most of the Democrats, especially
the liberals, opposed these proposals.
The things you have to know when you to try to decide whether someone
is a liberal or a moderate is **what the liberal positions are** and
also **what the moderate positions are**. You just revealed that you
don't know these things. Does this help you understand why some of us
fail to appreciate your contributions? It's not solely because you're a
conservative. It's also because you frequently haven't got the least
clue about whatever it is you're talking about, and don't seem to care
about that in the slightest.
Fewer and better-informed posts would do wonders to improve your standing around here, Reg.
I can't really buy into the urban legend of Howard Dean being a
moderate. On the spectrum of positions that are even remotely
politically viable, he's taken the furthest-left position on the war,
the furthest-left position on taxes, the furthest-left position on
numerous social issues. He supported far-Left legislation in Vermont on
entitlements, school funding, and campaign finance, legislation you
couldn't get passed almost anywhere else. Yes, I know he's a genuine
moderate on the gun issue, where his position is nearly
indistinguishable from Bush's. And I'm aware that his fiscal policies
in Vermont are known as moderate, although that owes a lot to booming
tax revenues in the 90s and to the fact that Vermont has about 600,000
people - just about three times the size of Manhattan's largest police
precinct. So yes, you can find bits and pieces of moderation in Dean's
record, but that's true of most anybody who's been an executive. Even
as far south as I live (Queens), you wouldn't call Dean a moderate.
Well, thinking it's a bad idea to run up structural deficits has
suddenly become a liberal position. So Paul Krugman is a "liberal"- a
notion that would have been laughable several years ago. It used to be
that fiscal responsibility was the realm of the "fiscal conservative",
but they've all run off to the land of privatization utopia to worship
the "invisible hand". We've been scooping up the good positions on all
sorts of issues since they left.
Actually that's one way of looking at it. Another is that suddenly
anyone who isn't an ideological space cadet is being stamped as a
"liberal". I wasn't always a liberal, but I always thought the
government should balance its checkbook, and suddenly it became
unfashionable to think that.
I was reading Paul Krugman's book recently (The Great Unraveling-
pick a copy up today!) and somewhere he says that someone called him
"Crazy Cassandra" for his dark economic predictions. He said that was a
good label for him. Because not only did nobody believe Crazy Cassandra,
her predictions always turned out to be right.
A moderate is someone who doesn't pay much attention to politics
except at election time but who thinks things are going along pretty
well as long as he has a steady job, his taxes don't go up and whoever's
President looks believable on tv.
Certian truths about America.
1)Everybody thinks they're middle class.
2)Everybody thinks they work hard.
3)Everybody thinks they're a moderate.
If you ask Eric Alterman, he'll tell you that he's Center-Left. As
will Barney Frank. And these are people who Democrats feel are in the
So, I'm asked to believe that because an admitted liberal (Kevin) thinks
that he and all the liberals who hate Bush are Moderate, that it's
Bush's fault that he's hated. OK. I heard the exact same argument from
"moderate conservatives" who hated Clinton.
I've adoped a personal rule. I don't listen to anyone who hates. On either side.
Almost liberal of me, don't you think?
Seriously, I like reading this blog because Kevin is sensible on issues
on which I disagree with him. And there are people on the comments that
are also rational. And sometimes they make me think that I could be
wrong, which I feel is healthy.
But there seems to be something about Bush that makes his opponents
despise him, very similar to Reagan and Clinton. I remember huge amount
of inflammatory rhetoric towards Ronnie and Bill, which I found
interesting, because their administrations didn't really accomplish that
much to advance the Conservative or Liberal agendas, respectively.
Reagan didn't really affect abortion, and gov't spending exploded in his
term. This meant huge deficits, but people don't lather up in hatred
over deficit spending. Clinton, in retrospect, could easily have been
described as a moderate conservative. But that didn't stop right-wingers
from loathing him.
I wonder if the problem is that someone who you really disagree with is popular and in power.
Remember the early 1990s: People do lather up in hatred over deficit
spending. Or, at least, they can get emotionally exercised about the
subject. That was Ross Perot's main issue, and Perot was at the time
considered the standard-bearer of a cranky and dyspeptic political
revolt. The "Contract with America" Republicans of 1994 claimed to be
anti-deficit-spending too, and the "Balanced Budget Amendment"-- the
notion of actually making a federal deficit unconstitutional-- was a
regular applause line for Republicans at the time. They were upset when
Clinton managed to portray himself as a deficit-fighter; he was
"stealing their issues".
I second rhinoman's comment.
Your perception of where you are on the political spectrum colors
what you see. Kevin look pretty far left to me, I assume I look pretty
far right to Kevin.
I'm not sure what a moderate is, but I'm pretty sure they don't get involved in online discussions.
For your reading pleasure, a couple of links concerning the similarities between presidents and between their supporters.
Speaking as a Clinton hater, (And it's not something I'm particularly
proud of, I can usually keep my cool.) it must have been something in
his body language, because I hated him long before he gave me any policy
reasons to do so. My BS meter pegged itself and blew out in a shower of
sparks the first time I saw him speak, and that was that.
I suppose you could consider Clinton a moderate, if you ignore his
enthusiasm for gun control, and attempt to nationalize the health care
industry. I tend to find the term "moderate" useless, as it tells you
virtually nothing about where somebody stands on any given issue.
I'd third rhinoman's point. It's true that Bush and Reagan are/were
both hated for their policies, and it's equally true that Clinton and
Nixon - people I would regard as genuine moderates - were hated just as
much for their dishonesty. By contrast, no such animus was wasted on
Carter, Bush I or Ford.
(Of course, if you are looking to get re-elected, which group would you rather be in?)
Nonetheless, the idea that Bush is some radical on domestic policy is
also one that eludes me. Besides tax cuts, Bush has hardly expended
one iota of political capital on conservative policies at home. He
hasn't fought for his judges besides a few whistle stops in the South in
the 2002 campaign; he hasn't even proposed legislation on Social
Security reform; he signed McCain-Feingold; he signed an education bill
that was closer to Ted Kennedy's than his own; he hasn't put up a fight
to avoid a massive new prescription drug entitlement; he hasn't lanched a
Gingrich-style campaign to slash spending on federal programs; he
certainly hasn't staked out a radically pro-free-trade position. On
most domestic issues, Bush has been content with the status quo, quite
to the consternation of people like me. Yet, somehow he's seen as a
'radical,' which may be an apt description of aspects of his foreign
policy but seems tremendously overheated in view of the Administration's
modest efforts at home.
To expand on what Kevin says, there is another thing that should have
any dispassionate observer of Bush's administration quite concerned:
they are incompetent at everything they touch.
If I were a conservative, I'd be cutting ties to the Bushites. They
make the poorest possible case for conservative ideas and values.
For the record, I am a liberal but hardly a radical. I have zero
interest in achieving "structural" changes in American society. In fact
the very thought terrifies me, as someone who lived throught the
revolutions of the 60's, the Reagan revolution, and now Bush.
I believe that all the important liberal goals can easily be achieved
within the American democratic tradition, including a truly just
society with truly equal opportunity. I can think of nothing worse than a
"radical" solution to our problems (Bush is example #1) and will not
accept what has clearly been a centrist/liberal political philosophy
being relabeled as "far left." That is as corrupt a use of language as
labelling General Boykin a "Christian" instead of borderline nuts.
And Crank? Anyone who appoints Ashcroft and who nominates Pickering,
Pryor, etc. and declares Scalia is favoritie Supreme epitomizes right
My BS meter pegged itself and blew out in a shower of sparks the first time I saw him speak, and that was that.
Funny things, these BS meters. Sometimes Clinton sent mine
a-ringing, but often I found him to be a really quite capable liar, such
that I could actually listen to a speech of his for more than a few
seconds. Both Bush Jr and Gore set mine off pretty much immediately.
I'm still amazed that so many people saw Bush as a straight-shooter --
maybe it's because he's so awkward and uncomfortable at the podium,
people contrasted that with Clinton's slickness and took incompentence
I accept that you do not like Bush's judicial nominations. I am
interested in why; we have laws, and judges work with those laws. My
opinion is that liberal judges tend to "change" the law to reflect
liberal positions. Why do you dislike conservative judges?
Other than the judicial nominations (and I don't think Bush is
fighting nearly hard enough for his nominees), the only truly
conservative things I have seen Bush do is reduce taxes and actively
(but poorly) pursue the war on terrorism.
I believe (and I am serious) that Clinton was a better conservative on domestic issues than Bush.
I'm not a great Bush fan because he isn't nearly conservative enough,
so making the claim that Bush is a radical doesn't explain to me why
the left hates Bush.
One of the things we all need to make clear is something Molly Ivins
pointed out: "there is a difference between hatred and anger." We are
not conspiracy theorists fantasizing about the president raping women or
having his opponents murdered, manufacturing scandals about haircuts or
state troopers or trailer-trash women.
We are outraged at what he has done to our country and to the world.
Whether we "hate" Bush personally or not, keep hatred and anger
separate; they are different things, and what is far more important
right now is our justified anger.
People don't necessarily hate Bush because he's conservative. Bush's
tax, fiscal, and economic politicies are bad by all liberal and most
conservative standards. His military strategy might be coonservative,
but it's adventurist. Not all conservatives support it, and some
bitterly oppose it. Ashcroft and the judges are certainly signs of
strong conservatism. Besides conservativism, there's a peculiar streak
in Bush which is either incompetence or else some sly plan he isn't
telling us about. So there are plenty of reasons to hate Bush.
Three people have bought the idea that the problem is Haters and that
Bush-haters are just like Clinton-haters. This is, in fact, the
Republican spin -- don't act as if you're shrewd independent thinkers,
because basically you just got taken for a ride. The creepy thing is
that the slime merchants who gave us the anti-Clinton campaign are now
using the revulsion people feel against them because of that campaign as
a weapon in the fight to protect the man they helped put in power --
George W. Bush. A clever trick indeed.
The problem with Bush has nothing to do with a conservative agenda. I
simply think that he doesn't have an idea about what America is about.
Secret Detentions, classifying Americans as "enemy combatants",
indefinite imprisonment at getmo without lawyer or trial, the whole
"Bush" doctrine, with the idea that it is acceptable to attack an enemy
if they might become a threat to the US in the future. I am not a lefty,
but I do think that Bush is steering this country over a cliff. I don't
hate him, but I do find myself yelling at the TV, which I never did
under Nixon, Reagan, Clinton...
Brett Bellmore wrote:
I suppose you could consider Clinton a moderate, if you ignore his
enthusiasm for gun control, and attempt to nationalize the health care
industry. I tend to find the term "moderate" useless, as it tells you
virtually nothing about where somebody stands on any given issue.
I agree, it?s a term used more as a self-serving bludgeon with no
real meaning as Kevin Drum?s initial post demonstrates. Don?t like your
opponent or their positions? Call them an ?extremist.? Don?t want to
have to defend your positions on its merits? Simply define the
?moderate? or ?centrist? position as whatever position you happen to
The idea that Bush is somehow ?radical? or is pushing an ?extremist?
agenda is almost as silly as the poster who tried to claim that Newt
Gingrich was slashing spending on federal social welfare programs merely
because they did not increase by as much as the poster may have liked.
It?s amazing the utter lack of content in the posts claiming that Bush
is somehow a ?radical? who rarely actually cite a position supported by
or an actual policy of the Bush administration and have to resort to
some dishonest strawman argument.
Keep it up guys. Forget about having to actually advance and ideas
or policies and revel in your hatred of Bush (because it does so much to
persuade others as to the rightness of your cause) and 2004 will make
2002 look like a cakewalk.
Moderates don't hate Bush.
If anything, Bush can win in 2004 because the democrats are poisoning their own well.
I know they're doing stuff that the right wing 'volunteers' did that
brought business to the republican party (starting with Reagan). And,
when it's immitated by the democrats it just looks like a cargo cult.
The republicans have grown. AND, they've absorbed factions into their
tent. Meanwhile, the democrats are left with a left wing that doesn't
seem to encompass much of the old guard. (Those people that would have
supported FDR, Truman, and JFK, on their war efforts.)
PLUS, in some ironic freak show, the anti-war activists from Vietnam
only managed to elect Nixon to office. Sure, we pulled out of Vietnam.
But it didn't leave the democratic party strong. It began this
unravelling, that a party that held all the reins of government into the
mid-1960's, (Executive, Legislative, & Judicial, on the Federal
level), by the time 1992 rolled around ... had 'leveled the playing
Perhaps, it still looks equal. But which side is facing attrition? The republicans, ahead? Or the democrats?
I know democrats think they're entitled to toss Bush from office in
2004. (And, for a time this summer, it looked like a real possibility.
Given that after Iraq, Americans, by and large, weren't embracing the
'roadmap' ... and the feeling that Bush wouldn't hurt his Saudi
But there's been a shift. Even without Bush shifting!
And, should Bush pull off victory in 2004, that gives the republicans the White House until 2008.
Success is usually dependent on momentum.
Meanwhile, the democrats may just lose, again, as they veer away from
the average American. There's gotta be some other agenda besides name
calling. (Or it's like watching collapsing arguments.)
Diehard democrats remain faithful? You bet.
But the few against the many doesn't help when you want to win
elections. And, when you get bragging rights that you've chosen a path
that works for most Americans. (Not just your base supporters.)
The right is full of volunteers. Not so the left. Most of the
stories are coming from the chattering class. The pundits. And, the
talking heads. Whose audiences reduce over time.
Now, here's a test. Rush's voice has been silenced by his addiction.
What if he never again comes out as the steamroller he was? A vacuum?
Or the space still gets filled by right wing noise-makers? (And,
that's the worst case scenario I can think of.)
I remember that Mario Cuomo dreamt of taking on Rush. But what ever happened?
Drudge, so far, stays the most balanced; in that he puts up the news
willy-nilly. He certainly wasn't backing Schwartzenegger! And, he
didn't matter to the outcome.
I accept that you do not like Bush's judicial nominations. I am
interested in why; we have laws, and judges work with those laws. My
opinion is that liberal judges tend to "change" the law to reflect
liberal positions. Why do you dislike conservative judges?
I think you?re starting from the mistaken premise that there is some
principled or legitimate opposition to Bush?s judicial nominees.
Originally Senate Democrats whined when Bush (wisely) decided that the
left-wing ABA would no longer be consulted for judicial nominees. Then
when Bush sent nominees which in additional to having lower-than-average
reversal rates (the ?gold standard?) who had also earned the ABA
highest rating of ?well qualified? they were suddenly ?right wing
ideologues? ? at least according to the left-wing ideologues who think
that judges are supposed to be de facto legislatures without the nasty
business of having to stand for election or having other branches of
government able to balance their power.
It?s actually a familiar pattern of the Bush-haters that repeated
itself on Iraq. The critics demanded a vote on the authorization of the
use of force and then balked when they had to vote on it. They
demanded a debate and had one and many of them voted to authorize the
use of force and were shocked when force was used after months of
waiting and preparing.
The same is true on the environment. The Senate voted 96-0 against
ratifying a treaty like Kyoto and then Senate Democrats were apoplectic
that Bush withdrew from the Kyoto accords (even though only one nation
had ratified it and it?s clear it was never going to go anywhere). They
lamented the fictional divide between the Republicans of Theodore
Roosevelt and those of George W Bush even though on the environment both
adopted a similar ?multiple use? policy (how radical). Gregg
Easterbrook (another ?moderate? who does not revel in Bush hatred)
actually pointed out how phony the criticism of Bush?s environmental
policies when he decried the "Democrats' entanglement with the doomsday
viewpoint and with the sort of scare-mongering--of which the ANWR fight
is an example--having more to do with fundraising and interest-group
appeasement than with environmental protection."
Sound familiar? It should, because it?s exactly the sort of nonsense
we?re seeing here on this forum. It may play well in the echo-chamber
of the Democratic primary and left-wing blogs but it won?t play well in
the general election.
I'll fourth rhinoman's point. I think I've voted for exactly one
Republican in my life (not GWBush); other than that it's been Democrats
all the way. I can't see any circumstances (at the moment) that would
cause me to vote for Bush next year.
That said, I just don't get it - I don't see the 'extremism' and
'radicalism' that people keep talking about. I disagree with most
things this administration has done, but they're pretty much what I'd
expect from a Republican administration, not significantly different
than the last two Republican administrations. I don't like the
administration, but I'm not angry about it.
the Angry Bear summed it up nicely in this Jack O'Toole thread (on a different matter):
I'd call myself "slightly left": free trade, not too
concerned with gun laws, ambivalent on unions, think the retirement age
will have to go up, preferred Clinton's rate of government growth (slow)
to Bush's or Reagan's (fast), opposed to structural deficits and the
tax cuts that cause them, pro-civil and reproductive rights, against
regulation except when there are clear market failures (e.g.,
externalitities like pollution). The list could go on.
Here's my point: I'm virtually a communist when you put my views
next to Norquist's or even next to the policies Bush actually enacts,
which are markedly different than the ones he talks about.
I am truly curious as to why someone would think Bush is an
"extremist". Presumably, the term "extremist" when applied to someone
implies that such person holds views that are outside the accepted
mainstream. Yet, the American public does not seem to think that Bush's
views are outside the mainstream. Unless, I am mistaken (and I may
be) Bush's poll ratings are currently above 50%, so if he is extreme,
then a majority of Americans are as well.
Admittedly, polling often presents a temporary and fickle view and
the questions asked can skew the results. So lets disregard the poll
numbers. Now, I am quite sure the most recent Congressional elections
returned a majority of Republicans to both houses of Congress. My
recollection is that most of the Republicans running in the elections
ran on a Pro-Bush platform. Again, I would think this serves as
evidence that Bush's views are (or were at the time of the elections)
representative, rather than atypical, of the views of most Americans.
True, Bush was not running in the 2002 elections, so maybe its not
fair to use that as an example of the widespread acceptance of his
positions. I guess it would be better to look at the 2000 elections that
Bush lost at the popular vote level. Yet even there, the difference
between Bush's vote totals and Gore's vote totals was insignificant.
Clearly, Bush's views in 2000 were accepted by a significant portion of
the American electorate. Its hard to make the case that he is an
extremist, at least relative to the American public.
Finally, I suppose an argument could be made that his views are
extreme relative to past Presidents. But such an argument would not
hold water. While Bush has approved fairly large tax cuts, he has also
approved fairly large budgets (he is not exactly starving government).
Bush has been aggressive to say the least in foreign policy. However,
his predecessor did not exactly shy away from the use of force. Clinton
backed the use of American force in Somalia and the Balkans just to
give two examples. Like Bush's use of force in Iraq, Clinton did not
have UN approval to use force in the Balkans. I would even venture to
say that were Clinton President during and after 9/11, his responses
would not have been much different than Bush's. Clinton, if nothing
else, had an amazing sense of the public pulse, and certainly would have
attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan. As to Iraq, maybe Clinton would
not have moved more aggressively there given the political capital that
would have been necessary to expend, but remember Clinton had used force
against Hussein before.
I apologize for being long-winded, but my point is that declaring
Bush to be extreme is a pretty tough argument to make. Bush seems to be
in line with the American public (at least right now) and his positions
are not greatly different from the positions of his predecessors. In
fact, I would make a larger (if somewhat unoriginal) point that in our
system it is very difficult to elect an "extremist" to the Presidency. I
would love to hear an argument that we have had an extremist President
in the last century. After all the history books don't speak of
Presidents Huey Long, Wallace (Henry or George) or McCarthy (Joe or
Certainly, we have had Presidents that have done what no Presidents
have done before (T. Roosevelt--the Panama canal; F. Roosevelt--the
Great Society; LBJ--the Civil Rights Initiatives). Yet the actions of
those Presidents reflected, at the time, what most Americans wanted
(now, a good argument can be made that in some cases the American people
changed their mind later or did not think through their choices, but
thats a different argument than the extremist argument).
Today democrats have no one to blame but themselves.
Gray Davis, tossed from office, just signed a sweet deal with the
Indian tribes. Are you surprised? They get to build yet another casino
in Needles. And, all they have to give California is 5%. (Where
Connecticut gets a 25% share of the cut.)
Gray Davis is going to be one of those gifts that just keep on giving to the republican party.
Sure, the republicans can kill themselves with right wing
functionaries. But they keep losing at the polls. While moderates get
I hear that Dennis Miller is going to run against Barbara Boxer whose senate seat is up in 2004.
Pelosi has to run every two years. (Since she's in the HOuse.) And,
in the House, she's minority leader ... because the House has 3 more
republicans, NOW, than it has democrats.
Who keeps pushing this Koolaid?
Democrats think that if they hoot it up (like raving maniacs, that
once only appeared in the 'right' sky), they're going to rebuild their
I think it's on par with a cargo cult.
But it's going to take a crushing defeat for democrats to figure this
out. THere's much too much entertainment value in Schwartzenegger to
think there's handwriting on the wall ...
But the democrats your grandparents knew (who voted for FDR, Truman,
and JFK), are not the people who are tight into this club right now.
Sure, it's nice to have a Hollywood following. But, doesn't some of
this peel away if Schwartzenegger won as a republican. ANd, 'ditto,'
Dennis Miller also considers himself one?
Parties change. And, to be vibrant it's nice to win legislative seats.
Gray Davis' behaviors are so out of touch with reality that no one on
the democratic side can even see the ads ahead. You won't need Willy
Horton to knock out a 'contendah.' You'll get the gift that keeps on
giving ... Gray Davis will be responsible for single handedly handing
this state over to Karl Rove's excellent machine.
NC nailed it on the head.
However the definition of ?extreme? as used by Calpundit and his
follower travelers here is ?any policy I do not like or any policy
advocated by a person or party I do not like? whereas ?moderate? is
defined as ?any policy I do like or any policy advocated by a person or
party I like.? It has nothing to do with whether or not a particular
policy is in or out of the ?mainstream? of American thought.
Calling Bush an ?extremist? while trying to label someone like
Howard ?I Nearly Tripled State Spending in Eleven Years? Dean as a
?moderate? is simply a spin job by the Democrats because they frankly
have no real issues they can win with in 2004.
The economy is getting better and will probably be roaring by next
November, real progress has been made on the War on Terror including in
Iraq, and the budget deficit is because Democrats got most of the
spending increases they wanted. Add to that expected GOP gains in the
House and the Senate and the upset in California and it is no wonder
that they are so desperate.
Barring any major calamity, the GOP will probably increase their
(virtually unprecedented) 2002 gains in 2004 and we will finally be able
to deal with the entitlement mess created by Democrats who have
demonstrated zero interest in fixing or mitigating the damage done by
their favorite Ponzai schemes.
Lileks has an exellent post today (10/23), where he points out how
marginalized the democrats are becoming with their anti-war stance.
Daschle is doing Bush more favors than you can imagine.
Bush isn't doing anything at all and his numbers are bouncing upwards (again).
If the fault for this lays in the way the democrats handle the ball,
the best favor you can do for the democrats is to advise them that
they're losing the game. (Some people have already walked out of the
stands and gone home.)
Will politics change soon? IF the money factor means there's one
side spending bucket-fulls of money and losing ANYWAY ... And, then you
see creeps like Gray Davis signing away California's future in deals
with the Indians (who can now build yet another casino, and give the
State a measily 5%) ... you've got to wonder what are the democratic
leaders realling thinking?
You've got the 3 grandmas, Pelosi, Boxer and Feinstein, no longer
proving they know how to shove a tampon in ... meaning they couldn't
find their brains now, with both hands free ...
And, you talk about Bush as if the republicans have done anything except CAPITALIZE on the stupidities of democratic clowns?
Oh, well, it never really mattered to the stoners 'what was happening, man' ... and now you're collecting this inheritance.
WHY CAN'T THE DEMOCRATS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MORE VIABLE PARTY
EMERGE (before it gets to crash again) ... why can't the PEOPLE inform
the idiots ... just the way some candidates are now 'informing' Iowan's
... Heck, the party may be over? You think?
http://www.massagelondon.info http://www.massagelondon.org London
Massage Therapist http://www.massagelondon.biz massage therapy West
London UK http://www.massagelondon.me.uk London chair Massage UK
http://www.health-resources.co.uk Medical Alternative Medicine resources
in London England UK http://www.mobilephonesites.co.uk Nokia Free
Mobile Phones Sites London England UK http://www.massagelondon.org.uk
London Alternative Medicine UK http://www.backrub.me.uk massage tables
couches chairs UK http://www.backrub.org.uk Massage Warehouse Shop
Showroom http://www.bodywork.me.uk therapeutic bodywork England UK
http://www.getmassage.co.uk Massage Table Couch Chair UK
http://www.getmassage.me.uk massage beauty couch UK
http://www.getmassage.org.uk South London chair massage UK
http://www.holisticpage.co.uk East London holistic sports massage page
UK http://www.holisticweb.co.uk North West London holistic massage web
UK http://www.imassage.biz South West London massage products
http://www.imassage.me.uk South East London massage beds UK
http://www.imassage.org.uk Acton home massage treatment UK
http://www.iwantmassage.co.uk Chiswick massage service UK
http://www.iwantmassage.me.uk Ealing healing massage UK
http://www.iwantmassage.org.uk London Hammersmith massage UK
http://www.londonmassage.biz Central London massage treatment Fulham
UK http://www.londonmassage.me.uk London Shepperds Bush massage UK
http://www.londonmassage.org London W3 Bayswater massage UK
http://www.londonmassage.org.uk London w9 massage
UKhttp://www.londontherapy.biz London W2 Nothing Hill massage therapy UK
http://www.londontherapy.co.uk Complementary health London therapy UK
http://www.londontherapy.me.uk London Holland Park massage therapy UK
http://www.massagelondon-home.co.uk London home visits massage UK
http://www.massagelondononline.co.uk Massage Therapist London Online UK
http://www.massagelondon-online.co.uk London massage w9 online UK
http://www.massagelondonpage.co.uk Greater London massage page UK
http://www.massagelondon-page.co.uk w1 massage London UK page
http://www.massagelondonshop.co.uk London Massage Therapist Supplies
shop UK http://www.massagelondon-shop.co.uk portable massage couches
London UK http://www.massagelondon-site.co.uk therapy tables London UK
http://www.massagelondonweb.co.uk w4 North London massage clinic UK
http://www.massagelondon-web.co.uk w5 massage therapy London UK
http://www.massageme.biz w6 holistic massage practice
http://www.massageme.info massage products http://www.massageme.me.uk w7
massage beds UK http://www.massageme.org.uk w8 massage therapy
organisation UK http://www.massagenow.co.uk w10 alternative treatments
massage UK http://www.massagenow.me.uk w11complementary medicine massage
UK http://www.massagenow.org.uk w12 swedish massage UK
http://www.massagenow-home.co.uk w13 home massage UK
http://www.massagenow-site.co.uk w14 on site massage therapy UK
http://www.massageonline.me.uk sw1 massage clinic online UK
http://www.massageonline.org.uk massage therapists online
UKhttp://www.massagethai.co.uk sw3 traditional thai massage London UK
http://www.massagetherapy.me.uk massage therapy clinic UK London
http://www.myalternative.co.uk sw2 massage alternative health UK
http://www.mybodywork.co.uk sw4 massage & therapeutic bodywork
London http://www.mydrug.co.uk sw5 healthy massage no drugs
http://www.mylondonmassage.co.uk sw6 massage in London UK
http://www.mymassage.co.uk sw7 massage therapy practitioner London UK
http://www.mymassage.me.uk sw8 massage for health relaxation London UK
http://www.mymassage.org.uk sw9 Hawaiian massage rocking holistic
pulsing London UK http://www.my-massagelondon.co.uk indian head massage
London UK sw10 http://www.mymassagelondon.co.uk indonesian massage
london UK sw11 http://www.mymassagelondon.me.uk sw12 Manual Lymphatic
Drainage London UK massage http://www.mymassagelondon.org.uk massage
centre London UK http://www.mymassagenow.co.uk sw13 Kahuna bodywork
massage London UK http://www.my-massagenow.co.uk sw14 holistic bodywork
massage London UK http://www.mymedicine.me.uk sw15 alternative medicine
massage London UK http://www.myrub.co.uk sw 16 massage for pain &
tension London UK http://www.mythaimassage.co.uk nw1 holistic Thai
massage London UK http://www.mythaimassage.org.uk nw2 massage therapy
Wat Pho Bangkok practitioner http://www.mytherapy.me.uk nw3 massage
therapy for body & mind London UK http://www.mytherapylondon.co.uk
nw4 relaxation massage London UK http://www.mytherapylondon.me.uk nw5
massage therapy London UK http://www.mytherapylondon.org.uk nw6 healing
massage London UK http://www.my-website.org.uk nw7 website optimisation
promotion UK http://www.oilmassage.co.uk nw 8 oil massage London UK
http://www.pumper.me.uk http://www.pumper.org.uk nw9 deep tissue massage
London UK http://www.rub.org.uk holistic swedish massage rub London UK
http://www.rubdown.me.uk nw10 home massage service London UK
http://www.rubdown.org.uk nw11 London City massage UK
http://www.thaimassage.org.uk thai massage clinic in London UK
http://www.therapeuticmassage.me.uk therapeutic Massage in London
England UK http://www.therapistonline.co.uk massage therapist online
qualified London UK http://www.therapylondon.org.uk massage therapy
organisation London UK http://www.treatment.me.uk lomi lomi body &
mind treatment London UK http://www.tuina.org.uk chinese massage tui na
Tuina Tui-Na London UK http://www.uk-biz.com web design web development
web designer web site design web hosting web promotion web marketing
http://www.aamerica.biz america business Alternative medicine London UK
http://www.aamerica.info america usa info London health complementary
http://www.aamerica.org american organisation London complementary
therapies http://www.allamerica.co.uk holistic London therapy UK
http://www.allamerica.me.uk healing massage London UK
http://www.allamerica.org.uk London England massage therapy UK
http://www.americadrag.co.uk clothes, clothing, car, motorcar,
automobile, race UK America http://www.americadrag.com therapeutic
massage London UK http://www.americadrug.co.uk american drugs medicines
UK http://www.americahome.co.uk homes america UK sale usa
http://www.america-home.co.uk american homes realtors estate agents UK
http://www.americanow.biz america thai massage London UK
http://www.americanow.co.uk america chinese massage London UK
http://www.americanow.info america craniosacral therapy London UK
http://www.americanow.me.uk america London UK hawaiian massage
http://www.americanow.org.uk American massage lomi lomi London UK
http://www.americaok.co.uk Oklahoma State usa uk ok London
http://www.americaok.org American organisation manual lymphatic drainage
London UK http://www.americapage.co.uk American page magazine newspaper
website UK lymphatic massage London http://www.america-page.co.uk
american books comics UK massage pulsing London
http://www.america-page.com American on site chair massage website
London http://www.america-shop.co.uk american shop UK office massage
London http://www.america-site.com American website London massage table
UK http://www.americauk.com American UK London massage couch
http://www.americaweb.co.uk American web promotion in UK massage couch
London beauty bed http://www.america-web.co.uk American website massage
supplies warehouse London UK http://www.bamerica.info American info
massage chair uk http://www.bamerica.net american massage table covers
London UK http://www.bamerican.biz American massage table store london
UK http://www.bamerican.co.uk American portable massage tables London UK
http://www.bamerican.info American massage tables UK London
http://www.bamerican.org American in london thai massage UK
http://www.camerica.biz US California State American business USA UK
London http://www.camerica.info complementary alternative medicine
America London http://www.damerica.biz American alternative cancer
treatment London UK http://www.damerica.info American dame occupational
therapy London http://www.damerica.org america dame therapy equipment
london http://www.deamerica.co.uk Delavare USA america indian head
shoulder massage london UK http://www.dragamerica.co.uk clothes,
clothing, car, motorcar, automobile, race UK sale America USA
http://www.dragamerica.com craniosacral therapy London UK from america
http://www.famerica.net http://www.famerica.org famous celebrities in
America http://www.f*ckamerica.org http://www.gamerica.biz Americas
game, sport, athletic contests, the equipment for a game, wild animals
or birds hunted for sport or food, gamble http://www.gamerica.info
information on american games football rugby http://www.gamerica.net
http://www.getamerica.co.uk get american aromatherapy massage london UK
http://www.hamerica.biz American Ham US http://www.hamerica.info Hawaii
American State, the Hawaiian Islands, calling attention, expressing joy
http://www.hiamerica.net American Hawaiian Kahuna Massage Bodywork
London UK http://www.hitamerica.co.uk encounter American, arrive at
America, successful pop record, stroke of good luck
http://www.hitamerica.com http://www.hitusa.co.uk massage techniquefrom
USA London UK http://www.iamerica.co.uk american massage service London
UK http://www.iamerica.me.uk america London holistic medicine
http://www.iamerica.org.uk american sports massage UK London
http://www.idamerica.biz US Idaho State, American Identity
Identification Card http://www.idamerica.biz http://www.idamerica.info
http://www.idamerica.org information ID america massage central London
UK http://www.iloveamerica.biz american business sale generic domain
names http://www.iloveamerica.co.uk search engine promotion England
London UK http://www.iloveamerica.me.uk search engine optimisation
american domain names commerce shop UK http://www.iloveamerica.org.uk
web design love america domains UK http://www.iwantamerica.co.uk
american massage products London UK http://www.jamerica.co.uk American
Jam, Jamaican American UK http://www.kamerica.net kamagra generic viagra
domain name for sale London UK massage http://www.LAmerica.info Latin
America, Los Angeles, US Louisiana State information
http://www.Lamerica.org La America organisation alternative health
London UK http://www.loveamerica.co.uk american shop deep tissue massage
london UK http://www.loveamerica.info web development UK domain names
rent lease information UK america massage therapy
http://www.loveamerica.me.uk web designer UK american customers
http://www.loveamerica.org.uk web site design clients love massage
america http://www.mamerica.biz American mam mama mother domain name
business http://www.mamerica.info http://www.mamerica.net US
Massachusetts Statehttp://www.mamerica.org American domain name sale
shop warehouse massage tables UK London http://www.meamerica.net US
Maine, ME Myalgic Encephalomyelitis USA http://www.my-america.co.uk web
promotion UK domain names London business http://www.namerica.biz North
America, name, new http://www.namerica.co.uk http://www.namerica.info
http://www.noamerica.co.uk manual lymph drainage London UK fight
american international capitalismhttp://www.nousa.co.uk web marketing UK
boycott american politics sucks organisation UK London
http://www.nousa.org.uk http://www.oamerica.org http://www.ohamerica.org
US Ohio Statehttp://www.okamerica.biz US Oklahoma State
http://www.okamerica.info http://www.okamerica.org OK america massage
London UK England domains sale massage http://www.okusa.biz US Oklahoma
State http://www.okusa.info USA america UK London massage
http://www.pamerica.biz US Pennsylvania State http://www.pamerica.info
http://www.pamerica.net america domain names for sale massage network
London http://www.qamerica.org queen america organisation USA top-level
websites for sale London http://www.ramerica.biz
http://www.samerica.biz South America Uncle Sam Salvation Army Sex
Appeal American same America U SA business domain brokers
http://www.shitamerica.com commercial domains hate american politics?
http://www.theamerica.biz lease domain american web pages design
promotion UK http://www.theamerica.co.uk website names for sale massage
therapy london http://www.theamerica.me.uk internet websites for
clinics spas UK practitioners http://www.theamerica.org business domain
name america massage http://www.theamerica.org.uk ebusiness domains
america London UK therapy http://www.theusa.co.uk generic domain names
UK USA http://www.the-usa.co.uk top-level domain names
http://www.theusa.me.uk medical domain names http://www.the-usa.me.uk
medical domains http://www.theusa.org.uk professional massage therapist
USA domain nameshttp://www.the-usa.org.uk professional domain names
therapeutic massage London UK http://www.theyankees.co.uk domain name
sellers yankees UK .co http://www.uamerica.info America international
domain names information UK massage therapy http://www.usa-home.co.uk
rent sale houses USA domestic domain names UK http://www.usahome.me.uk
website home addresses property mortgage massage therapy London
http://www.usahome.org.uk how to buy a domain name? usa homes therapist
London UK http://www.usaok.biz US Oklahoma State http://www.usaok.org
political domain names USA Oklahoma business sale London UK massage
treatment http://www.usaonline.co.uk web names online USA London UK
massage http://www.usapage.co.uk website names Lodon therapists UK
massage http://www.usa-page.co.uk business web pages USA UK therapeutic
massage http://www.usa-page.com business websites page design .com
domain name holistic massage London http://www.usa-shop.co.uk buy
shopping domains massage equipment shop UK Lodon USA
http://www.usa-sie.co.uk buying domain names health London
http://www.usa-site.co.uk buying domain sites USA UK London massage
http://www.usa-web.biz commercial domain names USA business UK Europe
London massage http://www.usa web.co.uk http://www.usa-web.co.uk
commercial websites USA swedish massage treatment London UK
http://www.vamerica.biz US Virginia State, Veterans Administration,
Vicar Apostolic, Vice Admiral http://www.vamerica.org
http://www.wamerica.biz http://www.wamerica.info US Washington State,
West Americahttp://www.wamerica.info http://www.wamerica.net
http://www.wamerica.net http://www.wamerica.org America organisation web
page London UK massage http://www.xamerica.biz kiss America, vote
America, films classified as suitable for adults only
http://www.xamerica.info http://www.yamerica.biz YMCA, YWCA, American
Sweet Potato http://www.yamerica.info web page names sale America info
.uk London http://www.yank.org.uk web page sales yank UK London
therapeutic massage http://www.yankee.me.uk web pages for sale.uk yankee
UK London massage http://www.yankee.org.uk website domains america UK
London therapist http://www.zamerica.net http://www.zamerica.org website
name drugs UK http://www.alldrugs.co.uk medicines website names London
UK holistic therapy http://www.alldrugs online.co.uk pharmacy online
website sale UK London http://www.bgates.co.uk microsoft dead bill gates
swine web sites for sale UK London http://www.billgates.org.uk websites
software for sale the Gates Bill UK London massage
http://www.drag.me.uk clothes, clothing, car, motorcar, automobile, race
UK London massage http://www.drag-online.co.uk
http://www.dragshop.co.uk http://www.dragweb.co.uk Domain Names-For Sale
medicine complementary health London massage http://www.gbush.me.uk
STUPID CAPITALIST POLITICIAN UK Tony Blair SOB London UK massage
http://www.georgebush.me.uk George Bush dead now international
terrorist murderer UK London massage aol subscription
http://www.getaol.co.uk http://www.getgoogle.co.uk google search engine
UK London massage gogle http://www.g-mail.me.uk email account from
google free massage London UK http://www.g-mail.org.uk business on
google box search London UK therapists http://www.google inc.biz google
Incorporation info domain business http://www.googleinc.info google UK
searching London engines http://www.googleinc.me.uk google website UK
network London http://www.googleinc.net google corporation UK searches
London http://www.googleinc.org google UK organisation ranked domains
London massage http://www.googleinc.org.uk google personal computer
sale London UK massage http://www.googlepc.biz buy google personal
computer browser pc united kingdom London http://www.googlepc.co.uk
computer sales uk server London domain http://www.googlepc.info computer
information uk shopping personal computer http://www.googlepc.me.uk
http://www.googlepc.org.uk selling London computers office home domain
names UK massage http://www.googles.me.uk googles domain name UK London
massage http://www.googles.org.uk http://www.gooogle.me.uk love google
London massage uk http://www.ilove.org.uk love shoppping uk London
massage http://www.iloveshop.co.uk website designing promotion Lodon
shops UK http://www.iloveweb.co.uk web sell domains search yahoo uk
http://www.iyahoo.co.uk subscribe aol London search UK
http://www.loveaol.co.uk yahoo uk searching engine London aol massage
http://www.loveyahoo.co.uk love yahoos UK London massage
http://www.loveyahoo.com microsoft .com uk software
http://www.macrosoft.me.uk msn London English seach uk
http://www.msn.me.uk love England London massage uk
http://www.nolove.co.uk no love UK .co London massage
http://www.nolove.me.uk http://www.nolove.org.uk no love UK domain names
organisation http://www.nosex.me.uk no sex UK London massage therapy
http://www.nosex.org.uk uk London ok http://www.okok.me.uk business in
the uk London generic names http://www.okuk.biz http://www.okuk.info
information about uk London info http://www.okuk.org the united kingdom
England organisation uk http://www.orkut.me.uk private social networking
website http://www.orkut.org.uk http://www.pcgoogle.biz
http://www.pcgoogle.co.uk PC GOOGLE London SALE UK
http://www.sexless.me.uk the bill gates London metal wooden iron uk
http://www.thebillgates.co.uk http://www.thebillgates.me.uk bills gates
money robber UK London massage http://www.thegoogle.co.uk the google
London search engine uk http://www.theuk.biz anarchy massage uk business
London http://www.theuk.me.uk http://www.theyahoo.co.uk the yahoo
search engine . uk London massage http://www.ukok.biz business
information uk domain names sale bussines http://www.ukok.info aol ISP
London uk http://www.weaol.co.uk google uk search London Massage net
http://www.wegoogle.co.uk love . uk London massage
http://www.welove.co.uk information London love uk
http://www.welove.info massage therapy London UK http://www.welove.me.uk
http://www.welove.org.uk http://www.weloveweb.co.uk web promotion yahoo
Lodon search uk http://www.weyahoo.co.uk sailing yacht London massage
uk http://www.yachtie.co.uk http://www.yahooo.me.uk
http://www.yahoos.biz google positioning London massage uk
http://www.001.me.uk 1000 domain names London massage sale uk
http://www.1000.me.uk http://www.1111.me.uk http://www.11111.me.uk
http://www.11111.org.uk http://www.11a.co.uk UK London massage therapy
one two three http://www.123.me.uk http://www.12345.org.uk
http://www.222.me.uk http://www.222.org.uk http://www.33.org.uk
http://www.3a.me.uk http://www.44.me.uk http://www.444.me.uk
http://www.4444.org.uk http://www.4a.me.uk http://www.55.me.uk
http://www.55.org.uk http://www.5a.me.uk http://www.5a.org.uk
http://www.6666.me.uk http://www.6666.org.uk http://www.6a.me.uk
http://www.77.me.uk http://www.7a.me.uk http://www.88.me.uk
http://www.8a.me.uk http://www.8a.org.uk http://www.99.me.uk
http://www.a3.org.uk http://www.a4.org.uk http://www.a6.me.uk
http://www.a6.org.uk http://www.a7.me.uk http://www.a7.org.uk
http://www.a8.me.uk http://www.a8.org.uk search engine amazon London uk
http://www.a9.me.uk http://www.aaaa.org.uk http://www.b11.me.uk
http://www.b11.org.uk http://www.b12.me.uk http://www.b12.org.uk
http://www.b2.org.uk http://www.b4.me.uk http://www.b4.org.uk cameras
http://www.x10.me.uk http://www.x10.org.uk http://www.x11.me.uk
http://www.x11.org.uk http://www.x12.me.uk http://www.x12.org.uk
http://www.x4.me.uk http://www.x6.me.uk http://www.x7.me.uk
http://www.x8.me.uk http://www.x9.me.uk http://www.z14.co.uk
http://www.z15.co.uk http://www.z2.me.uk htttp://www.z3.me.uk
http://www.z4.me.uk http://www.z9.me.uk buy sell mobile phone uk nokia
http://www.mobilephonesites.co.uk free digital mobile phones
salehttp://www.health-resources.co.uk health resources London therapists
uk http://www.worldsocialism.org revolutionary socialism uk
http://www.worldsocialism.com socialist organisation London UK
http://www.worldsocialism.tv spgb socialist party of great britain mass
media http://www.worldsocialistmovement.org anticapitalism uk
http://www.worldsocialistmovement.com anticapitalist organisation uk
London http://www.spgb.org future socialist society
http://www.worldsocialistparty.org marxism uk London
http://www.worldsocialistparty.net socialist party
http://www.worldsocialism.info world socialist movement socialist party
of great britain domain names for sale www.thesocialistparty.co.uk the
socialist party spgb www.thesocialists.org.uk socialists organisation
England Welsh Ireland Scotland UK international www.worldsocialist.org
world socialist organisation spgb www.worldsocialism.org.uk socialism UK
international spgb www.worldsocialism.co.uk socialist party UK
www.worldsocialist.org.uk world socialist party organisation in the UK
www.worldsocialist.co.uk marxist political party UK
www.thesocialistparty.org.uk anti leninist anti trotskyist socialist
party UK www.worldsocialists.co.uk international communist socialist
democratic organisation England UK www.worldsocialists.org.uk
www.thespgb.co.uk spgb clapham high street www.socialistmovement.org.uk
international socialist movement UK organisation .org
www.socialiststandard.co.uk the socialist standard monthly publication
journal spgb socialist party of great britain
www.socialiststandard.org.uk socialist standard online website free
subscription www.thespgb.org.uk the spgb England socialist political
party www.socialiststudies.org.uk socialist publication England UK
www.worldsocialistmovement.org.uk world socialist movement europe
america usa africa australiaHttp://www.3d360view.com http://www.3duk.biz
http://www.bizcart.co.uk http://www.buzybiz.co.uk http://www.cabra.co.uk
ttp://www.capweb.co.uk http://www.carbiz.co.uk http://www.childcare.biz
http://www.jjsg.co.uk http://www.landuk.co.uk http://www.londonbiz.co.uk
http://www.ukbiz.org http://www.uk-biz.com http://www.uk-biz.co.uk