That's sounds like the title of a great college class. Maybe I could teach it. At any rate, as I've addressed previously in this space, a favorite attack strategy of both conservatives and libs (often to try to evade addressing the substance of an argument) is to try to paint anyone who disagrees with them on anything as being a member of the opposite extreme. But when they realize that such argument would have no credibility in a particular instance, then the fallback position is to attack the person as being a creature known as the mealy-mouthed "moderate." And look no further than today for an example of each.
First, I had a comment on yesterday's blog post (where I accused His Majesty of being a hypocrite). The comment was simply that I'm obviously a right-winger falsely holding himself out as an Independent. By the way, even if I am a right-winger (which I'm not), what does that have to do with Majesty's hypocrisy? But I digress. So presuming that guy is a lib (and I'm sure he'll correct me if he purports to be something else), that's an example of the preferred tactic set forth above.
Next, we see an example in the news today of the fallback tactic. Yesterday (as referenced in my No $%&@ Sherlock feature in the right sidebar), Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio) accused his own party of "being taken over by Southerners." Today came the conservative response from Senator David Vitter (R-La.) (the goof pictured above), who accused Voinovich of being a "moderate, really wish washy" (link below).
Folks, these people on the two extremes are so predictable so much of the time. See through it. And realize that libs and conservatives have no place for you in anything they do unless you're also a liberal or conservative.
Posts
