Let's put our smartest Lefty against their smartest righty

in an auditorium with just a wide screen Projector and Google. And then let the audience ask questions from the right and the left. Let's see who comes out on top regarding the truth....

...Robert Reich and William F. Buckley?

And is he still alive?

...maybe a Buckley VS. (Gore) Vidal rematch would be worth a pay per view...at least for the nostalgia value.

Sid

Delicious.

wing idelogue Norquist. That would be moderate v right rather than left v right. I'm thinking Cornel West v. Norquist.

Say the debate was on any number of social or economic issues. How does not being "idealogically left" enough handicap him? And what is "idealogically left" enough?

counterpart to Norquist's right. Clinton is pretty moderate (in fact, if you compare him with other Dems 1930s-1980s, he's quite conservative on economic issues). Sure he's to the left of the Repubs, but Norquist is much more the right-wing idelogue. I don't think Clinton is really an ideologue at all, more a political pragmatist. For example, debate over free-trade and NAFTA between Clinton and Norquist wouldn't be much of a debate, since ideologically they're pretty close on that-- same with "Globalization". The debate over industrial deregulation would simply be over "how much".

And don't forget Norquist is ideologically libertarian, not a Christian fundamentalist (although he's allied with them for purely strategic reasons), so many of the "social" issues of which you speak Clinton and Norquist would actually agree on-- abortion, gay rights for example.

I think West would be a better choice b/c he's the ideological opposite of Norquist on more issues than Clinton is.

Boy, critcize Clinton even a little and you get jumped on quick here.

... which no one can seem to define.

But the post wasn't "Let's put our leftest lefty against their smartest righty." It was "Let's put our smartest Lefty against their smartest righty."

They don't get much more intelligent than Clinton.

But, of course, some how an idealogical purity test to define "lefty" - and always set the bar just out of reach of someone mainstream like Bill Clinton.

Yeah, Clinton is more conservative on economic issues than some dems from the 30s - 80s... but look what that economic philosphy did for our economy. I would say that is an advantage.

And don't forget Norquist is ideologically libertarian, not a Christian fundamentalist (although he's allied with them for purely strategic reasons), so many of the "social" issues of which you speak Clinton and Norquist would actually agree on-- abortion, gay rights for example.

I think West would be a better choice b/c he's the ideological opposite of Norquist on more issues than Clinton is.

Are you saying West would disagree with Norquist on social issues, say, abortion?

Clinton is pro-choice. You've indicated that Norquist is, too. So is West anti-choice? Sound like he must be if if you say Clinton and Norquist would agree on issues that West and Norquist would not agree on.

a good counterweight to Norquist. They'd be too close on too many ideological points-- I just don't think it'd be all that interesting is all. Now put him up against a social conservative and you'd have an interesting match-up. But Norquist is an economic conservative, and so is Clinton (though not nearly as bad as Norquist)-- the debate would come down to tax policy, how much deregulation is acceptable and not much else. Sorry, but I wouldn't find that debate too interesting. I don't mean to bash Clinton (I do that enough in other forums), I'm just stating a personal preference as many others here are. I think Cornel West v. Norquist would be more fun than Clinton v. Norquist.

the debate would come down to tax policy, how much deregulation is acceptable and not much else.

Not much else? Who sets the debate agenda?

And don't forget Norquist is ideologically libertarian, not a Christian fundamentalist (although he's allied with them for purely strategic reasons), so many of the "social" issues of which you speak Clinton and Norquist would actually agree on-- abortion, gay rights for example.

I think West would be a better choice b/c he's the ideological opposite of Norquist on more issues than Clinton is.

Are you saying West would disagree with Norquist on social issues, say, abortion?

Clinton is pro-choice. You've indicated that Norquist is, too, by saying he and Clinton would agree on that issue. So is West anti-choice? Sounds like he must be if if you say Clinton and Norquist would agree on issues that West and Norquist would not agree on.

Now that is a fair fight.

who would be our dumbest lefty?

It'll never happen... the right won't take part unless they have the questions beforehand and the left will implode arguing just who is the "smartest."

...the questions?

...something like whether or not NewsMax is a credible source, or whether or not you can trust anything in the "liberal media".

How old is planet earth?

Did dinosaurs and humans live at the same time?

The Flinstones are in color, but I Love Lucy is in black and white. Did we lose the technology for a while?