Anyone out there used to think of themselves as a "moderate"?

[Taverner]

That is, until the definition of "moderate" shifted and it meant Republican lite?

For me, moderate meant wiser spending choices. Problem is, today that means hard-left anti-Globalist

For me, moderate meant Abortion Rights Will always be protected. Problem is, today that means hard-left radical feminist

For me, moderate meant no unnecesarry wars. Problem is, today that means pacifist dovish wimp.

For me, moderate meant regulation not intended to crush capitalism, but to help it grow. Problem is, today that means a localist protectionist.

For me, moderate meant Health Care for all. Doesn't have to be Single Payer, but honestly, that way works best. Problem is, today that means I'm a Pony-Wanting Socialist.

How many of you were "moderates" once?

[stray cat]

1. It sounds like you may still be too moderate for the progressive base

you are not anti-war no matter what; not for single payer or bust; not anti-employer but only pro-worker; not anti-capitalism or anti-wealth of any kind no matter what.

[DarkTirade]

2. In a sane world I'd be considered moderate.

But I've never lived in such a place.

[Odin2005]

3. Sounds like my mom

[abq e streeter]

4. I still do... and am...the wimps in our party "leadership" allowed the MSM and repubes

to keep moving the "line of scrimmage' so to speak, to wherever they wanted and most of the Democratic "leaders" meekly went along. That's my take on it anyway; probably more than a few DUers who won't appreciate my "negativity" but this is how I see it.

[Mimosa]

5. I used to wonder about the term moderate

Rush Limbaugh used to say a moderate was a 'wimp' or something similarly stupid.

On some issues I'm a moderate. I have always been anti-war. Wars are how nation states or tribes capture territory or resources. Wars are about profits. And people are persuaded to support the enterprise because the wars are cloaked in ideals.

I think the moderate and sane course on health care would involve universal access and a panopoly of plans, just as is done in the Netherlands or France. Or a plan which is like expanded Medicare but with firm regulation. We should have healthcare for all and like the post office, it's about providing services, not making profits. To me that seems moderate. A system like the NHS would be going too far.

And yes, we need regulation because without it 'free enterprise capitalism' runs amok and over human beings.