We don't think centrism is the yellow line in the middle of the road, we think it is the dead armadillo. SadOldVet is rude and the past is past, but "maximum" and "unambiguously" are cheap rhetorical tricks which don't work here. Don't stab a straw man in the back.
Note that the word "gullible" was used as a necessary qualifier. The implication is that not all centrists ae gullible. Krugman clearly thinks Obama has learned his lesson ( and what could ever be more useful to Obama than Krugman denouncing his alleged centrism?).
I think the 1 dimensional representation of ideology is astonishgly useful, but can be overdone. In particular, the mederate center of US public opinion does not have a view on taxes on the rich between Obama and Romney but much closer to Obama. They clearly are more enthusiastic about class warfare than Obama admits in public to being. This is demonstrated by dozens of polls going back decades.
The winning strategy is based on defining centrism as standing up for the interests of the US middle class (I sincerely am more concerned about the problems of the third world poor so I should be shunned).
The odd thing about your debate with Krugman is that you both agree with Obama's current
rhetorical strategy. I shudder to imagine what you would write about each other if you
actually disagreed about anything.
I hate the captcha, but this one is perfect. It is "ISAbout popolo" . Exactly, it is about the people and populism.
All on Kilgore on centrism http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_04/is_the_centrist_brand_worth_fi036559.php
More on an earlier post
I commented that I agreed with every word in the post above. Not this one. Why do you think it doesn't make much sense for tax fairness etc ? It makes a whole lot of sense to me.
I sense a centrist reflex -- like Obama you feel the need to agree in part with the view you go on to reject. You also love to set up straw men. I think that the trick of ascribing "overriding" to some in your party fails twice. First, since you couldn't identify any such person (until I volunteered in the first paragraph of this commen) the rhetorical trick is obvious. Second, "overriding" isn't an extreme enough word to serve your rhetorical purpose. This is a key issue on which a solid majority absolutely rejects the Republican's overriding priority.
Can you come up with a hint of a shred of an argument for your view that it should't become an overriding issue for Democrats ?
All throwing a cow because he casually wrote that he agrees with the third wayers that tax fairness shouldn't be an overriding issue for the Democrats. This on the way to writing that it should be an issue. A blatant Obamanation.