Where's the Beef

by publius

I was going to write about Harold Ford and Martin O'Malley's odd op-ed calling for a centrist agenda while saying virtually nothing about what they mean, or what exactly is so "centrist" about it. But Steve Benen says everything I was going to say and more. As Steve writes, "If there’s a point to their piece, it’s hiding well." I will, however, contribute to the discussion by posting the old Wendy's "Where's the Beef" commercial of my childhood days.

Comments

[Alan]

I wonder what ever happened to Clara Peller?

[dmbeaster]

Fortunately, the internet has given us perfect shorthand for categorizing and ignoring these people.

Concern trolls.

Nothing to offer and insincere about what they purport to offer.

[Dantheman]

Alan,

"I wonder what ever happened to Clara Peller?"

Dead almost exactly 20 years. And who says Wikipedia focuses on trivial minutiae?

[Dan Miller]

I wouldn't call it a focus, per se. More of a free add-on.

[norbizness]

As Snoop Dogg once presciently rapped: "So much trouble in the DLC."

[Jay Jerome]

A wonderful old commercial -- But the question isn't "Where's the Beef" -- the question is "What's the Beef?" Meaning your beef, publius, and Benen's beef? At worst, the Op-Ed was a harmless cautionary reminder, admittedly wrapped in platitudes, not to screw up the advantage Democrats now have to build a governing majority, and toss it away.

Of course, given the Left's propensity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, I'm sure you'll find a way to make what should be a walk-away victory into a photo finish.

[The Left]

Dude, that never happened.

[alphie]

Even if the Democrats win big in 2008 and pull our troops outta Iraq...there will be China, far up ahead of us...and pulling away.

Will the Demos have the courage to say we aren't the world's policeman anymore, so we can focus on being #1 in the global race again?

I don't think so.

[Free Lunch]

I generally regard myself as a moderate (slightly left, slightly libertarian), but one of the real problems with many American centrists, is that their first goal appears to make everyone happy, something that most adults realize cannot be a direct goal, but an outcome of real goals strongly supported and achieved with sense.

It strikes me that anyone who wants to call himself centrist or liberal needs, at a minimum, to support a worthwhile social safety net, one that includes health care coverage for all. How to meet that goal is a reasonable concern, one that is validly up for discussion. If you oppose such a goal, I'm not at all clear how you count yourself as centrist.

The renewal of SCHIP is a great example of where centrists have to stand up against conservatives or reactionaries. We know it is working well, but could also use more funding. There is no reason, morally or by the count, to compromise on the expanded SCHIP. If Bush wants to cut off funding for poor children, fine, make him do it. Maybe the Republicans will have a hundred seats in Congress next year if he does that. Another example of careless centrists is the FISA extension and gift to an untrustworthy administration.

Being a centrist does not mean that you have to compromise on everything. It means that you are trying to make a sensible balance of conflicting needs in society, not just conflicting desires inside the Beltway. Centrists can control the agenda, if they stand up for themselves and explain why things need to be done or not done. If not, they are useless, cheerfully selling out poor children or civil liberties for the illusion of compromise.

There are times when we shouldn't all get along. Centrists need to know those times.

[Hartmut]

It's interesting to hear that the whole SCHIP scheme is all a devious ploy by the pro-abortionists and also the first step towards euthanasia...
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/08/rightwing_coali.html>link