Centrist to Please

I was disturbed yesterday when I heard John Kerry say that we need at least 40,000 more troops on duty. While I very much approve of his plans to return the national guard and reservists back home, where they were really meant to serve, I'm concerned about the great need for the Democrats to rush in and fill the centrist void left by the GOP that's been moving ever more toward the extreme right.

In fact, the farther right the other side goes, the more right of center the Democrats feel obligated to move.

Why?

I respect that many Americans would not necessarily embrace the same degree of left of center politics I might prefer. I appreciate the need for people to come together so that Mr. Bush can be removed from office. At this point, I think that's the most important thing we can try to achieve.

However, why do we need a second Republican Party? That seems to be what the party of John Kerry is doing. Do we really need to pander to everyone not quite as extremist in their right-most views as those who embrace Bush?

I supported Howard Dean from nearly the beginning. But not because he was a "crazy liberal." As a resident of the state where he was governor, I knew that while Dean was definitely not a Republican in the traditional sense, he was very much a pragmatist and a centrist. Truthfully, he didn't lean as much to the left as I would have preferred. But, as I said, I thought it was more important to bridge some of the gap and include more Americans within the support base than it was to try to have a system that was more to my liking.

John Kerry, however, seems too eager to play it careful, to dance to the tunes of the right than to be faithful to some of the basic precepts of what it at least once meant to be a Democrat.

I want to win, too, but there are some costs that are unacceptable. It's bad enough that this country largely operates on a system where there are usually just two candidates to choose from (while we would never accept just two choices for a car selection, a housing choice, a job, or even a recurring dinner menu) without us merging into one party: all Republicans, but varying by degree of extreme.

Can't we represent something more than just what is acceptable to get elected? Maybe if we did, this race wouldn't be defined simply as Bush vs. Anybody But Bush. I don't want to vote for "Anybody But Bush". I want to believe in a candidate. Yet, as of right now, John Kerry will get my vote only because I could never vote for George Bush and what he represents.

OK, OK. It's Friday night. Let me kick the soapbox back under the desk.