- Believe people should be able to own guns but not bazookas.
- Pray for the folks who waste their time worrying about prayer in school.
- Are concerned about how trade with China will affect the price of bottle rockets.
- Are troubled by abortion and by attempts to totally ban it.
- Believe the government should keep its hands off the Internet, unless it’s cracking down on kiddie porn, terrorists or pop-up ads.
- Believe some welfare payments should be in the form of kicks in the pants.
- Are hoping for another Ross Perot, but one with a bit more hair, a bit more height, and a lot more sanity.
- Are too busy working on your marriage to worry about gay marriage.
- Don’t care much about reforming Social Security because you won’t see the money anyway.
- Believe global warming is real and the result of emmissions from Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore and other crackpots.
- Wear your religion in your heart, not on your sleeve.
- Hate everything about Sunday-morning news programs except the Cialis ads.
- Would rather take a knee to the groin than give money to a political campaign.
- Wouldn’t think of burning the flag, unless a politician was wrapped inside.
- Believe that evolution created us and that God created evolution.
The above appears in today’s Virginian-Pilot and is a reprint of an article by John Campanelli, a reporter for The Plain Dealer of Cleveland. The article raises several important points about a rather large group of voters who consider themselves socially moderate, yet fiscally conservative. According to the author, both parties and the media ignore this group, whose numbers approach those of each party’s loyalists.
A lot of the author’s argument is based on the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, which has been taken by some 7 million people since 1995 and which shows that 66 percent of the quiz takers are centrist or libertarian. (I took the quiz and was scored as a centrist.) Others have come to the same conclusion.
Is it because most people fall in the middle that voter turnout continues to plummet? If the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton and the Republicans nominate George Allen, will this third party emerge, find a candidate who more closely represents their views and make a difference?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Ver funny. I agreed with all those things until 2004. At that point I came to believe I’d rather give to campaigns than get a kick in the…… I could go back to agreeing 100%, but not with the current brand of GOP piloting the country into such turbulent waters.
The truly sad thing is that if someone said those talking points they would be crsuhed in the primary season
Additionally, a third party must be entirely self-financed so the only canidates are bizzilonaires
I will continue to try and change the party from within
thegools – I deleted your duplicate post.
novamiddleman – I hear you. Neither of the parties would accept a candidate with such a centrist position, so such a voice is unlikely to be heard.
This “Levelhead” piece was most amusing. I have copied it into an email and it’s now circulating through the American San Juans and gulf islands in Canada too. I think you’d be surpised to find how many of your country men and women claim the poltical middle ground and how sick and tired they are of right wing extremism in politics. At least that’s what they tell us when they vacation here so perhaps they will soon be ready to put their financing where their mouths are and become a force for hope – a force for change. (BTW your blog is beautifully designed.)
timetheif: glad to have you visit! And it’s always good to know what other people hear. Glad you like the site.