how very true...some might even argue that it's too late...the shift has already been done quite a while back

what was a tea partier, became a republican, can soon be called a democrat

yet...move right! move right! more right! right?



-Also, I can’t help but notice a curious pattern in the recommendations of some self-proclaimed -centrists. When Republicans were in the ascendant, centrists urged Democrats to adapt by -moving right. Now that Republicans are in trouble, with some feeling that they have no choice -except to vote Democratic, these same centrists are urging Democrats to … adapt by moving -right. Funny how that works...

The goal was supposed to be pilfering the opponents' votes and their supporters' donations.

But the more you go to the right to get them, the further right the remainder become. And when you've got many of them, they become important to you, and you've got to invest money and time in nurturing them.

It's a pursuit that fundamentally changes the life of the pursuer.

one must become...as the enemy

(w0nderer addendum to old saying above) :
and eventually one IS the enemy

Somehow I missed Krugman yesterday and this is well worth reading.

If the Republicans who had no place to go formed their own party and consistently split the right's vote with the new Republican Party full of Trump supporters. There is no reason to be accommodating to them.

to woo Republicans of course. Fuck that fucking BS. Ugggh!

Except for Trump, because Trump.

Perhaps I'm not as well read as Krugman, but I haven't seen the calls from these Centrist Democrats for her to go right.

I don't care what commentators say - She hasn't had a chance to move right, and GOP leadership are jumping ship because they realize the crazies have the wheel - yes they let the crazies in the wheelhouse, but they know they're not going to survive the trip.

I think if Hillary stays true to what the majority of Democrats have elected her to do, the sensible left in the GOP will go with her. The true Hillary haters among them will never change, and they'll go with Johnson if they can't stand Trump.

I think that she knows this. Trump going off the cliff makes her look way more moderate simply by comparison, no matter that the disgruntled seem to think that GOP defecting to her is "evidence" that she's going more conservative.

Although the center is a moving target, it is as a matter of geometry and politics, always to the right of the middle of the left.

That's what Krugman's responding to.

Good post! You really nailed the situation IMHO

And for the compliment.

But now they are showing signs of falling apart at the seams. No one is running the show. Certainly not feckless, unappealiing Reince Priebus.

So I agree, it's time, as Trump might say, "for the gloves to come off."

They are at their weakest. Let's take them out.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

I'll celebrate that crumble when they no longer control the House and the Senate.

like she's a blend of everything popular for the last 30 years

She is in no danger of moving right, there's nothing to move to
except vapid privatization and vulture capitalism, and she's not
aligned with either of those

She'll be Clinton II, and Obama, and supportive of social issues,
strong on national security, innovative on domestic policy, and a
fair regulator on economy and finance because we need banks and
commerce, and changes will be gradual.

She's older and therefore wiser than her husband was in office, her years
as SoS bring experience, and she's smart.

No wonder the Republicans hate her!

Sounds like this warning is about 30 years late.

I really hope this time that the fucking media doesn't do what they did in '08 and start parroting RW talking points about what the agenda should be.

chance she and those around her are tempted to take this recommendation seriously: Don’t.

First of all, let’s be clear about what she’s running on. It’s an unabashedly progressive program, but hardly extreme. We’re talking about higher taxes on high incomes, but nowhere near as high as those taxes were for a generation after World War II; expanded social programs, but nothing close to those of European welfare states; stronger financial regulation and more action on climate change, but aren’t the cases for both overwhelming?

There’s absolutely no evidence that tax cuts for the rich and radical deregulation, which is what right-wingers mean when they talk about pro-growth policies, actually work, or that strengthening the social safety net does any harm. Bill Clinton presided over a bigger boom than Ronald Reagan; the Obama years have seen much more private job creation than the Bush era, even before the crash, with job growth actually accelerating after taxes went up and Obamacare went into effect."

But I guess it's the thought that counts.

Well, okay, unless you are working class, minority and/or under poverty level.

A hard right Con party, a centrist Liberal party and a left NDP party.