This is not the first time I have declared agreement with general conservative ideas, often with reservations, but I have never denounced them purely on ideological grounds. The world of politics and economics is not a zero-sum game. The middle way is the only way, compromise and negotiation, moderation, that is what I have always stressed in my posting, and it is the true genius of American politics. As a nation we have always rejected the extremes, THAT is the American Way, the brilliance of the founders, not the delusional, loony Randian Objectivist/Libertarian fantasy world now coalescing in the Right's fevered imagination. That very post was to remind Bowser that I felt his views were far too extreme for my taste, as I have often done so in the past. I have yet to see a view too extreme for yours.

Your side, on the other hand, dismisses everything you find objectionable as socialist, whether it actually is or not. You have already made up your mind by forcing every problem or solution to pass your own prearranged litmus test, and somehow it always fails it.

I may disagree with conservatives on methods, policies, and on how far they should be carried out. Hell, I even publicly praised Bush I for his Desert Storm policy, much to Bowser's consternation. But you guys attack anything liberal on principle, right out of the chute. We can't say or do anything to your liking, and if we do, you change your mind and attack us. It's happening in the congress and it happens here. You reject ideas based solely on who proposes them, reject analyses unless you come up with them first, and reject sources of data because you find them politically incorrect or commercially inconvenient, or you arbitrarily cast them that way so you can reject them.

I've stressed over and over again that public administration can be guided by a theoretical political philosophy, but in practice, its what works that matters and good ideas can come from either side of the aisle. The middle way is what works, compromise and negotiation, not adherence to some phony principle that only seems obvious to one side.

This is what infuriates you about my arguments, I don't fall into the trap of conveniently choosing some doctrinaire liberal position (that you can easily point out as being foolish and short sighted or tainted by leftist fantasy and avarice), and then insist on pushing it to its ultimate and absurd conclusion. It gives you fits when I point out that is exactly what you are doing all the time. And it drives you into a stuttering rage when I point out that some libersl policies even make sense from a conservative point of view, or were derived from one. I suppose it brings to question your preconceived idea of liberals as being kumbayah-singing, unrealistic, subjective, flower child cowards, weaklings. Remember the battles we had about the Bush-Cheney Iraq invasion? I didn't argue they violated my principles, I demonstrated they even violated yours.

The deliberate contrast between my first paragrah to Bowser and the rest of my post is not a contradiction. It's the ability to see both sides of an issue. I have yet to see you give any liberal policy or leader an even break, ever, for any reason.

I'll rephrase my keystone comment again, so there is no confusion as to where I stand. Although I consider so-called liberal positions as being generally more realistic, effective and humane than conservative ones, I am not in complete agreement with the former or total opposition to the latter. I still consider myself a New Deal Democrat, not a Socialist. The Republican/Conservative view has not remained static, it has moved further right since the days of Goldwater or even Reagan (who I can see now wasn't all that bad compared to some of the drooling cretins your side has lately been considering for high office)

Thanks for the kind words about my writing. I do appreciate them. And I agree, I am probably more of a poet than I am a scientist. But I am not ignorant or uneducated in the sciences, either. And there's no reason a well-balanced human being can't be both. In fact, I kind of think its essential.