Saturday, April 02, 2005's over
I have moderated in my politics not because I am becoming conservative, as much as that I have grown to be bothered by the current state of far-left politics, and the interaction of it with moderately liberal politics. This blog has been slowing down for quite some time, and it's been more than just a result of my increased workload - it's also been a result of my increased detachment from the vast majority of liberals. This isn't because I don't agree with them; in many cases, I agree with everything they say. It is my opinion, however, that the modern liberal dialogue is unable to sustain itself.

The modern Democratic Party has for a while now consisted of two wings - the more centrist New Democrats, and the more liberal Democrats of the 1970s. This is, in my eyes, a battle between the more politically rational moderates and the more idealistic left. That the New Democrats are really that centrist is questionable - Bill Clinton and Al Gore being considered liberals after running for 8 years on a center-left platform at best demonstrates this. The New Democrats were the savior of the Democratic Party, as the 1970s resulted in a dilemma that the idealists brought about - shortly after their support for the Great Society, they opposed the Vietnam War. September 11th ignited the left in ways that only Vietnam has before - while most Democrats and liberals stand firm with the majority of people in wanting to strike back and defend America from terror, some liberals made it clear that they believed these reactionary wars were unjust. The opposing of the Iraq war was on many levels a rational choice - however, seeing millions of liberals holding up signs about blood for oil and the horrors of battle struck a nerve with me. These liberals had two issues with the war - A. they didn't trust Bush to do anything (rightfully so) and B. they don't like war. Neither of these sentiments resonating with the American public, and neither holds much water with it today. That liberals have very viable ideas is undeniable. However, that the fringe left often dominates the discussion is undeniable. How does Michael Moore get so much attention when absurd Constitution Party conservatives are pushed under the table? The right has shown a capability to settle that the left has not - an unwillingless to realize that the Democratic Party is the only hope of the left (and center, and center-left) has left us with a GOP-controlled nation. Howard Dean's DNC position has shown that Democrats are entirely misguided - why choose a man who couldn't defeat John Kerry? Dean's liberalism is almost a non-issue compared to his quirks - the ones that had GOP strategists salivating at the prospect of his nomination.

9/11 struck a chord with the average American, and it's one that the average liberal just can't play. To admit that America needs aggressive foreign policy is against the nature of the Vietnam liberals. But the time has come for that to change. Without foreign policy, without the idea that Democrats are weak, the GOP has to rely on positions no one favors - Social Security, the environment, medical coverage. Dems in Congress have done, for the most part, a fine job politically. The idealistic left, however, has made sure that no one feels entirely safe with Democrats. I've had liberals admit to me that they feel that America should not have responded to 9/11, and should have instead pulled out of all but a few countries. This is not what the left needs. That America is, for the forseeable future, the world's only superpower, is undeniable. That America needs to use it's power is undeniable. What consistently surprises me is that people believe the status quo in the world is something to be left alone. That imposing American ideals on Afghanistan is somehow worse than the Taliban imposing theirs. The rift within the Democratic Party has been present for years. It's ironic that the event that should have brought the left to the center, has actually made them stand stronger. Idealism is a great thing in many situations - however, it is not good politics.

I feel as if I had a very clear thought process before I wrote this, and then it collapsed limply onto paper. However, I must say that I vastly enjoyed my blogging experience - I always told myself I'd stop when it wasn't fun. Between my inner political dialogue and my schoolwork, I've grown overwhelmed. I'd like to thank everyone that's given me advice - certainly the entire Liberal Coalition for getting me off the ground, every big blogger who linked to me, and certainly BuzzFlash for giving me two days of over one thousand hits each. May you all fare well

Sunday, March 27, 2005

Easter II
Check out what happens upon visiting

Here we go....
Jon's recent post will be his last (of his own will, of course, no hands are being forced). While it was a blast for a while, certain factors have played into me ending this blog. More this week, and my final statement on the state of the party, and liberalism as a whole.

Friday, March 25, 2005

Happy Easter
And if you fear your children might be going to hell this season, this church is offering an added incentive if they accept Christ as their savior.

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Hungry Like The Wolf
It seems as if Paul Wolfowitz is the leading candidate to become president of the World Bank, replacing James Wolfensohn.

The nomination of Mr Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of the Iraq war and a former US ambassador to Indonesia, would likely be highly controversial, and could raise new questions about the process by which the World Bank chief is selected. One administration official said his nomination “would have enormous repercussions within the development community”.

Wolfensohn to Wolfowitz? I don't think I even need to ask which CNN anchor would be reporting on this one...

Saturday, February 26, 2005

Thoughts on Dean
This is interesting:

"There's no gut-check required for Dean. Dean just needs to be Dean," said Dal LaMagna, founder of the Progressive Government Institute. "He's the kind of person who's a collaborator, a facilitator. He's not someone who has a clique or who will only talk to people in his clique."

Yeah, Dean definitely doesn't have a core group of supporters that are oblivious to the outside world and the future of the party. Definitely not. No clique here.