Continuing the unscientific survey I conducted here, I spent a few minutes looking at the last 50 posts on the group weblog The Moderate Voice, trying to figure out what makes up moderate thought and opinion. I altered the categories a bit so that those who consider themselves “moderates” might have a bit less to complain about than they did last time. The inflammatory, credibility-destroying language will remain the same, however.
The three categories I organized them into are as follows: Pro-Bush/Republican Party/Anti-Democratic Party in General, Anti-Bush/Republican Party/Pro-Democratic Party in General, and Other. These days, you just can’t be pro-Republican without being anti-Democrat, hence the first two categories. In Other, I once again included posts like news roundups, general site update information, “dogs with cellphones” stories, more begging for traffic from people like Michael Stickings, and posts that really didn’t express a political opinion.
In the Pro-Bush/Republican Party/Anti-Democratic Party in General category, I found no posts.
In the Anti-Bush/Republican Party/Pro-Democratic Party in General category, I found ten (10) posts. Three (3) were written by Joe Gandelman, five (5) were written by David Schraub, one (1) by Justin Gardner, and one (1) by Stickings.
In the Other category, I found forty (40) posts. Eighteen (18) were written by Joe, seven (7) by Schraub, one (1) by Grant, eight (8) by Holly in Cincinnati, two (2) by Gardner, one (1) by Greg Piper, and three (3) by Stickings.
When they express an original opinion about something, it seems as though the moderates at The Moderate Voice don’t seem to think that Bush or the Republican Party in general are doing a good job at anything. The Democrats, however, are doing just fine, especially Barack Obama.
Joe Gandelman likes to state that he gets called a partisan by both sides, which is a cheap way to proclaim one’s moderate bona fides. If he’s a moderate, I wonder who a partisan is.