HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH A MODERATE OR CENTRIST POLITICIAN FROM AN OPPORTUNIST?

I think you judge people across time. Olympia Snowe has been a moderate throughout her political career. Like her or not, she has been consistent.

A good example of a self-seeking opportunist is Mitt Romney. He ran for office; was elected; and governed in MA as a moderate. Then, when he decided to run for President, all of a sudden he was a conservative.

Snowe might be seen as a consistent opportunist.

Mitt's game is plainly opportunistic. The worst and most revealing example is his shift on abortion. There's a case to be made for liberty and one to be made for sanctity of life. When a politician shifts from right to life to right to choice (e.g., Kucinich) or from right to choice to right to life (e.g., Romney) according to his constituency we must assume he subordinates both principles to his ambitions.

I agree with you about abortion. Unless someone has a religious conversion that changes their perspective, I don't see how one changes their view.

One should note that when Snowe came of age, there were lots of people like her in the GOP.

I don't see Peter Mills as an opportunist. I think he holds his views honestly. He's just wrong, IMO.

Most real people hold views that fall across the political spectrum. It is our political system, and political parties in particurlar, that leads to a demand for ideological consistency in politicians that doesn't exist in real life.

At the local level, you will find lots of elected officials that are consistently inconsistent, i.e., fiscal conservatives who are NIMBies; fiscal conservatives who always give in to big spending for schools or the fire department.

In my own case, though I am certainly right of center and am a loyal Republican, I hold lots of views that would be seen as liberal. I am pro-choice and against the death penalty. I am a free speech extremist (i.e., you can have all the porn you can afford to buy). Due to my distrust of government, I don't accept the law-and-order positions pushed by many conservatives. I don't worry about illegal immigration like many in my party.

Snowe may or may not be an opportunist. As I said, it's hard to find reliable criteria to make the distinction.

I agree about Mills. He's far too complicated to be classified as a mere shifty opportunist. I think of him as the last New England progressive Republican, a throwback from the the beginning of the last century who thinks it's his duty to make government a great engine for social improvement.

As to the run-of-the-mill politician, they usually mix personal pragmatism (getting elected), with political pragmatism (getting the job done, whatever it is) and principle. The mix is different in each individual.

As for immigration, I see the problem as one of assimilation primarily.

My support for freedom of speech is pragmatically absolutist.

Lincoln was temperamentally moderate, no one more than he, and a pragmatic politician who knew the arts of compromise. But we know that his pragmatism was rooted in recognizable principle---above all preservation of the Union. If he knew ahead of time what the butcher's bill was gong to be for the civil war I think he would still have gone ahead with it. He may have been the only unionist politician prepared to be so ruthless. Yet there is ample evidence of his humane sentiments. He knew the cost of duty.

Hmmmm. Our founding fathers began on the premise of us being a centrist nation, centrist then however is not what centrist now is considered. Had our founders envisioned the bastardization of the Constitution and the powers designated to Congress by individuals seeking their own expansion of power, I think they would have worded things better. I don't think that the founders could have envisioned the state of affairs we have today where 50% plus one can impose upon that minority the extraction of their wealth to finance unconstitutional ventures of which our legislature thinks up. Think about the president and congress telling companies to violate contracts already agreed upon like pay for executives or contracts for autos etc. Article 1 sec 10 states clearly that no sate shall enter into any treaty,, alliance, confederation...yada yada impairing the obligation of contracts. I think the problem is that the individuals that take the sworn oath don't have a clue what it says so they don't know even know if they are doing the right or wrong thing when they find themselves reviewing the legislation before them.

So perhaps, the best way to ensure that individuals are principled and not opportunists we re-establish the right that we the people have to remove them from office if they violate heir oath. The Continental Congress in another thread is a start.

Ii is a shame, but I have seen more than one individual get elected and heard them preach what a cesspool Washington is and how they will clean it up and within a short time they think it is a hot tub and will say anything to stay in.

I believe, BETH, that we have reached the point where a majority of congressmammals in both parties have come to believe that fidelity to the Constitution is seen as "ideological" and lacking in pragmatism.

It does, after all, contain numerous provisions which restrict the government's power for "getting things done."

Really, what does the word "oath" mean to anyone any more?

If that is the case, Flammenwerfer, then we need to toss the bums out. The less things the government gets done in my opinion, the better. They have engaged in activities that they have no business engaging in and have continued to diminish the fundamental principles of liberty. This is evidently not healthy for a peaceful and prosperous future for America.

An oath made by me is a promise...like our founders pledged their lives, their liberty and their SACRED HONOR. These men gave us the greatest legal code ever written derived from taking the best of previous forms of government from history such as the governing's of Cicero and Hammurabi. When we elect representatives we should question their knowledge of the Constitution and the application there of...if they are clueless, they shouldn't get our vote.

Perhaps I have on rose colored glasses and live in an ideological world, but I prefer that than the world of the majority of todays elected officials where they believe there is honor among thieves and that they in their elitist misguided view believe that their position is one of power and authority and they neglect we the people forgetting that it is we the people who are the boss, not them...they are our servants and I for one will keep trying to ram that fact down their throats and so be it if they choke on it.

I'm all for a massacre of incumbents. There is no guarantee that their replacements will be more respectful of the Constitution, but there is a high probability that they will learn to fear the voters. This may be the most we can hope for, but it can only be beneficial.

I agree with you Flammenwerfer that the best we can hope for is for the representatives to fear the voters, but I question the actual results of elections now a days and wonder if those to are manipulated. I am also skeptical of the voters. The last election while about town I came to the conclusion after multiple conversations that many individuals would vote, but they had no comprehension of what they were voting for or why...they were sold hook, line and sinker by television. He who spends the most money will win.

Olympia's dalliance with George Soros cannot be explained as moderate. She is a political opportunist who is appeasing and enabling the left, all the while engaging in stealth culture war on their behalf.

John....can you please update me on that one; I don't recall the details.

Thanks..

For many of our public servants, the oath of office is simply an excuse to get dressed up.

A moderate might be someone who has strong principals across the spectrum - not quantifiable as Right or Left. Scoop Jackson was strongly for an aggressive defense posture, and strongly in favor of stronger unions. Gov Casey of PA was pro-life and pro government expansion. Proxmire was death on government spending, but strongly opposed to Star Wars.

In the current Senate, Lieberman is strongly for the Iraq War and the War on Terror, has flirted with support for school vouchers and social security reform, but is a prime sponsor of Cap and Trade, and I believe is for Card Check. He has just announced he will help fillibuster any Public Option in the Health Scam bill. These are not the actions of a wimp. He's a true moderate.

ON THE OTHER HAND there is this by our own Roger Ek:

I knew a guide from Belgrade some 65 years ago. When he had a low opinion of someone he described that person as "kinda moderate". Over time I came to learn that somebody who was "kinda moderate" was slow, lazy, bereft of any initiative, dim witted, shiftless, shifty, untrustworthy, unreliable, unprincipled and of questionable character. I think the word 'unprincipled' covers much of it.

Exactly right, Mike, and they get to wear boutonnieres, something otherwise largely restricted to grooms and eccentrics.

Thrasybulus provides a suitable roster of identifiable moderates. The criteria seems to come to this: they are prepared to take positions across the ideological divide if they are in accord with some closely held principle. Interestingly, these principles are commonly called "extreme" by people who are on their side on a majority of issues.

Mind you, this does not exclude some degree of the cunning pragmatism that promotes their election or re-election. We must not expect too much.