This is just a good example of conservatives attempting to control the argument by controlling the frame.

Exactly.

It's why the conservative/liberal dichotomy itself appears to be another suspicious frame that disguises the truer perspective, corportism/populism. See my post addressed to aburkett.

Obama is the compassionate conservative that Bush strived to be but failed to become.

This piece gives insight as to why Obama is governing from the center. Salon styled liberals are probably 20% of the population. I have heard figures from 17% to 25% tops, so it is reasonably accurate. Salonistas have to come to terms that their political positions are in a definite minority.

When are you going to run an anonymous column written by a left-wing idiot? Your further desecration of journalism by this stunt is infuriating. Whoever this coward is won't change his/her mind because of this phony 'dialogue', and all Salon is doing is giving the right-wing echo chamber another outlet to repeat talking points and bullshit.

HEY, SALON. DECIDE WHICH SIDE OF THE FENCE YOU'RE ON. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST, FINE. BUT LET US KNOW WHO IT IS BY USING HIS/HER REAL NAME.

Salon styled liberals are probably 20% of the population. I have heard figures from 17% to 25% tops, so it is reasonably accurate.

You talk to yourself a lot, don't you?

Salonistas have to come to terms that their political positions are in a definite minority.

The facts say that "liberal" positions are definitely more popular. Do you have any facts?

Obama is the compassionate conservative that Bush strived to be but failed to become.

There is no such thing as a "compassionate conservative" because conservatives, almost by definition, lack compassion. That's why Bush couldn't become one. Quite the contrary, "conservatives", being corporatists, have overtly militated against compassion. The term is a deliberate deception.

Conservatism lives by deception and could hardly exist without it. Obama himself is a neocon pretending to be a reasonable person, and so far getting away with it.

For once, I don't believe this article had any ridiculous strawmen/non sequiturs. It was backed up by numbers, and it took a neutral tone. Huzzah!

I look forward to more like this in the future.

It's interesting how much of the argument is built on misunderstanding of what is conservative and what is liberal. When a conservative defines a liberal, a liberal disagrees with that definition. Same thing with the reverse.

What would be telling would be a comprehensive poll on specific hot-button issues with which we could qualify liberal or conservative stances and then we could get a better idea of where this country stands.

Personally, I identify myself as conservative in the way I live my life, but I am certainly a liberal.

Karl Rove/David Frum/Dana Perino/whatever asks "But consider "family." Is it conservatives or liberals who are engaged in an effort to expand or even rewrite the definition of what constitutes a family?"

Yes, liberals favor expanding the definition of "family" to be more inclusive. Conservatives favor excluding some people.

Therefore liberals are more in favor of family values.

That one's a slam dunk.

I'm not even sure why this matters to most people. It is mostly conservatives who feel the need to characterize the country as "conservative", "center-right", or "Christian". Even if these labels were valid, what do they mean, and what are the political implications? I think that their nod to the idea of democracy: "we are the majority, so we should get to rule as we wish".

They're not true, for this reason if none other: people are too complicated for that kind of characterization to make any sense. I would guess that the majority of Americans are not very ideological. Most people agree with the Democrats sometimes, and the Republicans sometimes, when they are paying attention (which is seldom). They vote for the candidate they like most, if they vote at all.

You can write a survey to make people look liberal or conservative, if that is your goal. Traditional American values include both liberal and conservative ideas. Squabbling over ideological labels is really kind of pointless. Unfortunately, that's the bread and butter of TV pundits: pointless arguments that just get people worked up.

"Conservatives, despite the results of the last two national elections, outnumber liberals by 2-to-1."

"at least not "liberal" in the Barack Obama/Nancy Pelosi sense of the word."

"Two-in-three actual voters in 2008 would prefer that the president nominate judges and justices who believe that their roles as judges 'is solely to evaluate whether a law or lower court ruling is in line with the constitution' rather than those who believe that 'their roles as judges is not simply to review the law as it is written and not take into account their own viewpoints and experiences,'" the firm found.

That is a stupid, and of course, loaded way to pose the question. Not very grammatical, either

This concept comes up in discussions I have with fundamentalist family members about the Bible. Some will make the argument that their version of what it says isn't their interpretation it's just what it says. I, and most others, know that my interpretation of something like a scripture is just my interpretation. However, I am willing to discuss with you why it is better, and mych more elegantly reasoned than yours. While the constitution isn't quite so ancient, and we have more information about the thoughts of the people behind it, it still needs balancing what is on that page with the real situations presented. And people bring their education, experience, and VIEWPOINTS to that task. What part of the concept "judge" have people forgotten (or trashed)?

An honest poll question would be: "Do you favor judges who try to decide cases based on what the writers of the constitution originally intended, or do you favor judges who try to decide cases based on today's society?

I will say that of all of the Wingnut pieces, this is the one time that he attempts to actually use data to help support his argument. Maybe everyone calling for Lord Karth or TheOtherBob to take over the piece has made Wingnut try a little harder. He still has a way to go, but kudos for actually trying this time.

I remain apalled at the insinuation that hard work, family, etc. are attributes that belong to any political affiliation or spectrum. I find those to be (dare I say) American ideals shared by all decent hard working Americans be they straight, gay, bleeding heart, bible thumping, left, right whatever. No one has a monopoly on being hard working or family oriented; it is something most of us strive for.

One thing I do agree is that this is a center right country. Being someone who has had to travel to many parts of America, throughout the states many of you consider "flyover states", I can say that in my interaction with people, I found many to fit that description. My personal experience along with many polls that I have read lead me to that conclusion. Many of you can agree or disagree with me, but I am going by my experiences and the things that I have read. I consider myself a centrist with some liberal viewpoints and some conservative viewpoints, and would no describe my self as center left or center right.

Maybe someone should come up with a questionairre and your answers determine whether you are a liberal, conservative, center left, ceneter right, or right down the middle. Be interesting to add to the US Census.