Bob Schieffer: Just how bad is "moderate"?

I love to vote but I never tell anyone who I vote for - not even my wife. Nor do I advocate for or against anyone.

So don't take this as support or opposition to any of the candidates. But when I saw a voter quoted the other day as saying one of the candidates was "just too moderate," I had to wonder: How can anyone be TOO MODERATE?

Is moderate - like compromise - a new dirty word?

With all these labels being flung about I went to the dictionary for a campaign year review.

Well, it turns out moderate is defined as "avoiding extremes... calm... temperate."

Can any thing or anyone be too much of that?

And I hope liberals who derisively brand others "conservative" and conservatives who are proud to be called just that will not be surprised to know that one definition of conservative is "one marked by moderation."

And those who derisively brand their political enemies "liberal" may be unaware the dictionary defines liberal as "generous and open-minded."

I offer this information as a public service. If we're going to call people names, it does help to know what we're calling them.

And by the way, I also looked up to the term "Christian." The dictionary says it has to do with Jesus, and links it to no particular political party.

I thought I was right about that!

[benunhappy]

Thru the thickest and the thinnest Obama has done a pretty good job even while congress sat on their hands.Jobs are coming back but we all CAN FIGURE OUT those who refused to make the wealthy pay, just what they should ,had a little influence on republican buisness executives to wait alittle longer to hire for whatever reason. This is another reason I recenty stopped voting with GOP, their greed has outwheighed there values.They need to learn to have HEART again...WE ARE ALL AMERICANS !! WE SHOULD STAND FOR GOOD.

[marydaniels6011]

Bob and America in my opinion i feel that the Republican party needs to scrap out there candidates and start over, due to the simple fact that I wont vote for anyone at this moment that is trying to run against Obama. all these candidates except for Paul is only out for their selves and have absolutely no intent in what is best for ALL American people. In what I am seeing all they want to do is make the rich richer and keep the poor poorer. And everyone riding on the backs of the Middle class. The ones who actually work by this sweat of their brow. Americans are watching what is going on and are seeing the Republican party just crumble like they did in the last election. The only reason why McCain didn't win was he made a poor choice on choosing his running mate. No one and I mean no one that I know wanted Sarah Palin in office. And no one who is on SSA and Medicare will vote for any of these candidates that will run against Obama. Romney wont win because he thinks it is fine and dandy for us tax payers who cant even afford to pay for themselves or there children to go to college to pay for Illegals to go. That alone is why he wont receive a vote from me. As far as Newt he might be a good fighter against Obama but he is only in it for himself he wants to keep the tax brakes for the rich which I totally am against. Rich don't need any kind of tax brakes, nor Social Security benefits from the government they already have enough money to survive.
Another thing is My husband and I make roughly around 40,000 a year have no marital debt and because we want to pay cash for everything cant even get a home loan.You would think we would be the best risk but since one goes by credit scores and reports we don't have enough credit to get a loan. All lenders are telling us to go run up debt to get a loan. Now that makes absolutely no since to me. Some of us do still believe in if i cant pay for it right then and there I don't need it. I dont think that i should have to take out a credit card that I dont want to be able to get a loan anywhere. Our income and our non bad credit should speak on its own merit.
Anyway I feel that if we dont get a surprise candidate who actually is what is best for our country to run against Obama, he will win again. As far as all the candidate go, no one cares who is sleeping with whom, and we dont care about all the grade school bickering that is going on. I think that everyone needs to be fired (house and senate both) and start over with real people like farmer, factory workers, and ect. Real people, smart people, Not politicians. This is what our forefathers did and this is what we need to do.
Our people want gripe about large Government but then go to them to run programs that they shouldn't have. Unemployment is one we need but not how it is being done now like all those extensions people are getting. If people are going to get extension after extension that doesn't motivate them to take a job. People are encouraged to hold out for that right job. We do have jobs that people think they are above taking or it cuts there standard of living. Well that is crap! McDonald, farm hands, ditch diggers, and ect are hiring now I think that people should be forced to take a job at least it is one, and in the mean time look for that job they have been holding out for. I have only receive UE benefits one time in my life for two weeks. I was in marketing and when i lost my job back in the 90's I was forced by the unemployment office to apply for a job at a bowling ally. I would of took it if they would of hired me. I have had to work in factories and I have had to do panhandling jobs. But i at least had a job. I just never kept looking for the one I wanted.These extensions need to be gone, and people you need to get off your hind ends and actually go look for work no matter if it is working in a sewage plant. Instead of people lying and say they are looking for work or going to interviews for which they are not qualified for just to say they looked and cant find anything. I see so many taking advantage of these extensions. I'm not saying all is but I know a lot who are. I do apologize for the harshness but it needs to be said.

[RealiteBites]

RE: Skeezix

Personally, as a liberal, I find Newt Gingrich repulsive, and think he's got bigoted beliefs. So when it comes to me, personally, when it's just about me, my response is to just tune him out.

When it comes to crafting policy though, and thinking through the issues - like if I were actually in a position where I had a voice like Bob does ... well it wouldn't be about me at all, and so Newt then becomes somebody who seems sincere about trying to find ways to 'teach people how to fish'. Like taking his words in the best possible light, he idea in the big picture seems to stem from the belief that lack of role-modeling may have failed to give some at-risk kids the opportunity to learn a work ethic, and to show them that hard-work in life will be rewarded with money. Like through hard work, a person in America *should* be able to support themselves and their family, have independence, dignity, be a good citizen, etc.

And taking Newt's words in the best possible light, perhaps a liberal could then actually see that his ideas might actually have some merit. Like there might actually be something to his hypothesis about the lack of role modeling. BUT a liberal who's committed to making the idea work would then have to point out to Gingrich that side jobs shouldn't take the place of education, and that going to college should also be part of the goal. And that it's not just black kids who could benefit from extra guidance and life-skills - race has nothing to do with it. And that investing in the future like this will cost money, but that it should be a worthwhile investment when at-risk kids then wind up having opportunities that they wouldn't otherwise have, and then have the chance to become the doctors, lawyers, teachers, and scientists of the future.

Most of the time, I just come here to blow off steam, and so I dismiss Ginrich as a disgusting cheater redneck (LOL!) But if I were actually in a position of responsibility ... I mean like I AM capable of seeing the 'extremists' as human beings with something to contribute to society (ie people who are worthy of our time and ears ... which is why I feel such strong negative feelings about this stupid narrative being perpetuated by the narrow-minded conflict-averse compromisers, that anybody ought to be dismissed as 'extreme' ... )

[RealiteBites]

PS Bob needs to stop talking process, and get back to talking SUBSTANCE - I mean like even 'extremists' like Gingrich are capable of talking about policy ideas - granted his job-training idea is inconsistent with his tax cutting platform, in the same way Bob's desire to see tax cuts extended while paying down the deficit is also inconsistent. But the more people focus on process as a way to avoid those positions they can't reconcile, the longer it takes to find an ACTUAL solution that's viable.

[RealiteBites]

Well, it turns out moderate is defined as "avoiding extremes... calm... temperate."
________________________________________________________________________________

I think AVOIDING is the operative word - it takes a REALLY strong will to be able to listen non-judgmentally to people across an ideological spectrum, with the goal of attempting to cull through the information for value, and then sythesize it into something new and better.

Type b personalities, like Barack has, and like most media types have, like to stand outside the ring and observe. Problem-solving requires getting in the ring and interacting with opponents on both sides, and getting them to follow your lead.

You know who was masterful at problem-solving? Bill Clinton. We all joke and call him slick willy, but gosh was he ever good when it came to policy ...

[MichaelGaree]

Bob,

Another excellent commentary!

I don't remember the context in which he said it (you probably do), but one of my favorite quotes from JFK, who was generally regarded as "liberal," of course, had to do with "conservatives." He said that a conservative was nothing more than a worshipper of dead liberals.

Michael Garee

[RealiteBites]

I've said the following a thousand times, Bob.

1) Not every issue is subject to compromise - do you not have any thoughts on what's 'right' when it comes to gay marriage? The left believes the right are being unjustly discriminatory and oppressive towards certain members of society, and that they're robbing people of dignity, and are contributing to teen suicides. The right believes the left are causing society to go to Hell.

Where do you stand on the issue Bob? Is your idea of 'compromise' to ignore those stark differences?

2) With all other situations, compromise as a means of dealing with differences, is considered inferior to substantive analysis and problem-solving.

I brought this up when Bob was whining about Congress not extending tax cuts. Then the very next week, Bob was whining about the deficit. That doesn't even make sense!!! That's no compromise, that's avoiding reality.

My point being that sometimes the left and right both have valid points, and flawed/incomplete ideas. It's incumbent upon the problem-solver to NOT presuppose that there's equal validity to both positions when MAYBE there is, but MAYBE there's not, or MAYBE there's partial validity and partial flaws. It's also incumbent upon the problem-solver to add additional insight.

That's what good leaders do - Barack packaged himself as somebody who was like that. But he was too weak to deliver. I KNOW he understands what needs to be done, because he made it clear when he was running for President that he had conducted the analysis and arrived at the conclusion that global trade policy was faulty and unsustainable, and needed to be recalibrated in order to restore growth in the Western world (and therefore make growth in developing countries sustainable as well). He promised that he was willing to follow through, and then he flaked.

Compromise is just besides the point - I mean, what kind of person are we dealing with, that thinks you can keep tax rates low and then also lower the deficit. Or raise tax rates, and still grow the economy. That's somebody who either doesn't understand what's going on, or else they can't deal with reality ...

[cbs_bull]

The worst thing that religious fanatics have done to the US is to have polarized America. When many Americans go nuts, we're destroying ourselves more than the day of 9/11. Schieffer's wisdom told us that being moderate is good for us.

[Jaylah54]

And look at all the TeaPublican/Evangeliban/extremist right-wing nut jobs posting here to prove Bob's point.

[justsane-2009]

well said, as always!

[greenlantern1]

During the American Revolution General Howe, and his Tories, occupied Wall Street.
General Washington, and his ragtag army of Patriots, countered with Beaumarchais!
Benjamin Franklin was an ambassador to France.
John Paul Jones captained the BONHOMME RICHARDS!
Shouldn't a historian, like Gingrich, know that?