Your article is built on a mistaken premise. The current political debate in America isn't "conservatives vs. liberals." It hasn't been for a very long time.

It's "Republicans vs. the center."

Hoewever, Republicans prefer to frame the debate agsinst the liberal whipping-boys they created, because that's what works for them as demogogues. The GOP platform doesn't sound so extreme when they lay it out against the godless socialist America-hating liberal straw man. Heck, I'd vote Republican myself if that were the true choice.

But every Republican argument crumbles when confronted by a centrist Democratic point of view. That's why Clinton won and would win again.
private | 03.15.06 - 9:23 am | #

oops, posted in wrong thread... sorry.
private | 03.15.06 - 10:17 am | #

Well, the consensus is in the same place it was before...since a consensus based on thousands of scientific papers will not change because one scientist comes up with a crackpot hypothesis (which hasn't even seen the light-of-day in a peer-reviewed journal). And, this is really a pretty crackpot one...See http://www.realclimate.org/index...index.php? p=271 for a discussion of its scientific merits. [In addition to the RealClimate article itself, it is worth reading the responses to comments #20 and 29 which show how abominably poor some of Shaidurov's arguments are.]
Joel Shore | 03.18.06 - 10:34 pm | #