"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." All three make up the content of this week's waste-of-space from Wingnut.

Here's a thought: How do conservative voters feel about a 72-hour work week? You may thank the unions for the fact that your father ever saw you during your childhood. Is that a family value? It's certainly a far-left idea--in 1932.

Jabberwocky. Lies, damned lies and statistics. As has already been pointed out elswhere the beef a lot of us have with you, Wingnut, is your Orwellian use of the language and now statistics to try and support your view of those of us not goosestepping along to the neo-conservative line as being a bunch of perverts and welfare cheats.

Here's what it is: neither Obama nor even Pelosi are liberals in the pre-Limbaugh sense of the word. Obama is a Clintonista- a centrist big business Democrat. It may be true that many voted for him assuming he's liberal because 1)he's a Democrat and according to Neo-con Newspeak all democrats are liberal, and 2)he's black so he must be liberal. Even if Obama were liberal he is politically astute enough to understand the L word is an epithet now, and he certainly did not run as one.

Being "pro-life" doesn't automatically make one anti-choice. I'm willing to say that most American's find abortion aesthetically unpalatable at best, but hew to the old-school conservative value that it is not up to us to make our neighbors' choices for them. I've always hated the term "pro-life" because it implies that those of us who believe that it is not government's job to restrict our or our neighbor's right to choose are pro-death.

The trouble with you and neo-cons in general is that you overplayed your hand by forgetting that most of us do subscribe to what you call conservative values. We work, we believe in family and community, we like to balance our own personal budgets and we'd just as soon live and let live as much as having a civil society allows. We believe that which governs least governs best- but that government does have legitmate functions and it must be paid for. You on the other hand think our private lives are the government's business and want to paint everyone who does not subscribe to your neo-conservatism as a bunch of un-American lowlifes. You want cops, laws and soldiers and think you can cut taxes to pay for it. To you government is both a whipping boy and a sugar daddy for corporate socialism. It took you driving this country into the ground to make the US electorate recognize you people for the liars and bullies that you are.

When broadly polled, American do certainly espouse conservative values. This has always been the case with the country at large. Thankfully, we have hypocrisy more than evil, and the voting populace is quick to throw out anyone who gives off vibes of being cynical or hypocritical. Bush, in the eyes of all but the most devoted righties, lied, misled, showed up unprepared, etc. In Obama, Americans see a reasonable guy who's not going to use his position to implement social policies that are radically in opposition to their own beliefs. Say what you will about Obama's policies--in him most people see a smart, hard-working, self-deprecating, and willing leader. Given Bush's 8 years, they'll take that.

The left's focus should be on changing American values and mindsets from the ground up--not winning elections narrowly in hopes that the mere presence of liberals in office will change core values. Some change is "automatic: due to demographic and geographic shifts--and some is caused by people communicating with each other and changing minds. Would love to see more compelling discussion than in-group, out-group standoffishness.

The notion of a "center-right" country (or "center-left," for that matter) only makes sense if our values somehow lined up on a one-dimensional left-right spectrum.

They don't.

In fact, two or even three dimensions aren't nearly enough. Rather, values represent an n-dimensional "space" where n turns out to be a pretty large number.

I suspect that any one of us would have a hard time mapping where he or she fits in values-space; mapping us all is a fool's errand.

Of the Wingnut columns, this is by far the most interesting. But as fascinating as it would be to try to map values-space and plot our position within it, the real issue here is one of marketing.

Author Drew Westen's "The Political Brain" does an excellent job of fleshing out the right's seemingly perpetual dominance in defining the debate. He goes further to suggest approaches to counter this dominance. In my opinion, the real value that the Wingnut column offers is the reminder of the importance not just of the battle of ideas, but the battle of the naming of the ideas.

To summarize your argument, the US is a center-right country because most people in the US participate in heterosexual marriage. Since the vast majority of participants in marriage will always be heterosexual couples, your argument actually says that gays aren't a threat to the status quo. We'll still be a center-right country even if gays can get married.

Also since it seems the majority defines the reality for the whole, it also follows that "marriage" will be just fine even with gay people participating.

Hmm. I didn't expect to hear an argument that allows for gay marriage from a Wingnut, but there it is.

Wing-nut, you wrote, "...conservatives continue to believe America is a center-right country." And then tried to back-peddle and put the onus on the way we want to be governed.

Face it, conservatives believe the United States is a center-right country because it is the only way that conservatives can justify their intolerant point of view on issues that, "We The People", are much more out front on than you foot-dragging wing-nuts.

The argument by which you derive the "center-right" phrase.

Clearly, it means "Americans are generally to the right of the most extreme left-wing positions."

Doh!

The problem is, you haven't defined "center" at all. Anywhere. Nada. NoWay. "Right" is easy, and "Left" is easy. But where, in your view, is "Center"? Can you define that political concept without using the words "left/right"?