Surely the fact that "center-right" approaches are often either no solution or even more damaging is no reason to give them up.

After all, Sensible People would rather be wrong than truly liberal. And they'd much rather we all believe that that's what we all want.

The chattering classes can define all they want. Once Obama is in office, he can govern however he likes, just as GWB did in 2000. Remember all that talk about how Bush would have to govern from the center, considering his narrow mandate? Hah!

Brookss piece, Meachum's piece in Newsweek, etc. - it's all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Exactly correct. If liberals can redefine the center as "an appropriate mixture of market and government" - so that market purists are clearly placed far to the right of center as they should be, as far from the center as Marxists - they will redefine the boundaries of political debate for the next generation. In some ways, it's the most important thing Obama could accomplish.

In a just society, conservative pundits who cheerleaded Bush and the war in Iraq should all lose their jobs.

Instead, they will be left to ankle-bite the progressive agenda.

That's why I'm not impressed with the rats fleeing the sinking McCain ship. The David Brooks' of the world want to stay relevant, so they can bring eventually bring us more of Bush's failed philosophies.

When one of those dinks comes up with a policy reason they are not supporting McCain, I'll listen. So far, all I've heard is polite excuses (McCain is being mean; Sarah Palin isn't qualified; The politics of divisiveness) that cover the failure of every tenet of conservative philosophy they will continue to espouse.

DCBob - Right on. I think Obama is hopefully going to be to the left what Reagan was to the right. Reagan wasn't nearly as radical as modern conservatives, but Reagan gave them the rhetoric and high ground. If Obama can change the conversation so that calling someone a "liberal" is the end of the discussion, we have a real chance at reform in the future.

Unfortunately, I don't think we have time to wait for a rhetorical realignment before we get a policy realignment, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed and hoping to sign up for the Senate's health plan the first week of Obama's presidency.

Don't worry, I can't dismiss it if I never read it in the first place.

There's nothing sober about letting health care costs crush the federal budget and explode our deficit.

Can we stop this bait-and-switch? There are no proposals on the table that look to really control costs. You've said so yourself.

In that same column, he remarked at how unconcerned the general populace was, really, with Wall Street's role in this. Patio Man didn't want to punish the financiers, just wanted to return to stability.

The phone calls received by Congress re the bailout certainly belies this ridiculous claim.

As a patio person who has decided to vote for Obama, don’t delude yourself into thinking its because I’m (or my wife or my neighbors) are so excited about his Presidency. Its because although we voted Republican in the past, they have totally screwed up their opportunity to do good (a relative term). If Obama swings the pendulum too far in the “liberal” direction, I’m fairly certain our votes will go back to the Republicans next time. We just like the other guy less than your guy- you’ll get your chance- don’t start to believe that you’ll have any more of a mandate than the Republicans ever had (they didn’t have one either).

As a patio person who has decided to vote for Obama, don’t delude yourself into thinking its because I’m (or my wife or my neighbors) are so excited about his Presidency. Its because although we voted Republican in the past, they have totally screwed up their opportunity to do good

Politicians take all comers-- your vote is as good as anyone else's. But let's face the facts here: you're not voting Democratic because Republicans are "too conservative." You're voting Democratic because the Republicans screwed up. It won't much matter if Obama "swings the pendulum" too far in the liberal direction or not-- what will matter is, in 2012, if voters feel that the country is safe and is succeeding economically.

"If Obama swings the pendulum too far in the “liberal” direction, I’m fairly certain our votes will go back to the Republicans next time."

We liberals should be willing to take the risk. If people are voting for Obama just because he appears to be more "effective" at implementing what is basically a conservative agenda, we're really getting nowhere as a country.

I think our model ought to be Social Security in the 1930's. It may have been unpopular among conservative supporters of FDR (assuming there were any) but it passed and was eventually embraced by the nation as a whole.

It may have been unpopular among conservative supporters of FDR (assuming there were any) but it passed and was eventually embraced by the nation as a whole.

Which explains why conservatives are so dead set against any new social programs. How many social programs for the general population (not just the poverty-stricken) have been eliminated? Are we really going to see ads in thirty years with Bill and Ethel saying, "God damnit, I'm tired of having my health care paid for by the government! I want to pay for all my doctors visits out of pocket! Or at least be able to get an insurance company so they can pay my bills, if I send them the right forms and pay my exorbitant premiums."

Nope. As long as Obama's reforms are for everyone, they will be untouchable. Sure, people might, en masse, give Obama a sound drubbing for being a crazed-eyed liberal in 2012, but those programs will stay in place and patio man can maintain his sense of whatever it is he is attempting to maintain.

There's nothing sober about letting carbon scorch the earth and cause untold trillions in economic damage.

I really hate using the term "carbon" as shorthand for carbon dioxide. Carbon is a promiscuous atom--don't sell it short. There is literally no limit to the number of compounds one could make with carbon. Plus, it obscures the fact that there are lot of other GHGs out there, some with carbon, some without.

Too much O-chem for me, I guess.

"are no proposals on the table that look to really control costs. You've said so yourself."

But to a very great extent, it's precisely the attitude that Ezra describes that is the reason why there are no such proposals on the table.

Yeah, chastened sobriety, meaning, "Boy, I really fucked up, backing Republicans. Well, never afuckingain."