OFFICIAL FREE CLUE THREAD: for those who haven't any.

[iconicgnom]

I'll start it off with two easy clues:

1. The George W. Bush admin isn't "centrist", and a move to align more closely with Bush on foreign and economic policies isn't really a "movement to the center".

2. Rush Limbaugh and his PUMAs aren't *really* disaffected Dems, and they don't *really* support Clinton or any Dem ideals. They're just playing "let's pretend".

Anyone have any more clues to give away, free, to the needy?

[The Magistrate]

1. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Sir

Who do you see the first point applying to, particularly in its latter element?

[fascisthunter]

2. lol

:popcorn:

[iconicgnom]

6. answer (free as well)

(so I can remember my wording)
"1. The George W. Bush admin isn't "centrist", and a move to align more closely with Bush on foreign and economic policies isn't a "movement to the center"."

First element: The * admin is neocon to the core, a la Freidman, and described quite well by Naomi Klein. I call such a "purist" market economics coupled with rigid enforcement "extreme right".

Last element: any move to align with * policies constitutes acquiescence with the extreme right status quo. For example, a debate on "health plans" and "health insurance" etc. between Dems can of course include input from Republicans and independents as well, but those who "move" to align more with the * neocon admin, for whatever reason, are bypassing any actual centrist position and moving directly to define their position in terms of more or less alignment with an extreme. Likewise w.r.t. the recent passage of a FISA bill. The movement, here, was entirely toward the * admins extreme position, bypassing a "center". In fact, the movement was so radical the original purpose of the bill was scarcely mentioned in the debates, such as they were. Likewise with respect the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, and so on. This can easily be illustrated by the BBC news that * will be opening an office in Tehran. Now, that's a move, by *, to the "center". On the other hand, had Obama made a move from his position to more closely align with that of the * admin prior to today's event, it would have bypassed a "center", it would have constituted acquiescence with the extreme right.

OK, that was fast and dirty.

[Labors of Hercules]

8. I very much appreciated this explanation...

I do not agree with the way you applied the principle to FISA, which no-one who actually read the bill could call a capitulation to the far right.

[iconicgnom]

12. The bill was originally intended as a prophylactic against gov't abuse of power.

Motivated by Nixon's abuse of spying powers. Recognizing that the proper US agencies had to have powers to spy on enemies, possible enemies, etc., particularly in wartime, but that there had already been demonstrable abuse of that power by the Nixon admin, FISA was legislated into existence to provide for BOTH tasks - that the intelligence agencies have sufficient powers, and that there be sufficient watchdog protection, esp. for wrongdoing at the highest levels. Unfortunately this current amended bill eviscerates the watchdog protection part.

[The Magistrate]

9. Can The Gentleman Provide Names of Persons He Refers To?

[iconicgnom]

10. Aside from the presidential candidates (presumptive), and those who discuss their campaigns?

No.

Could you explain the motivation for your question.

[The Magistrate]

11. So You Are Referring To Sen. Obama Here, Sir?

"Enquiring minds want to know!"

[iconicgnom]

13. Re. FISA, yes. The Dems in general failed to define a "center".

And it was a loss.

[The Magistrate]

14. Thank You For Clarifying That, Sir

[NYC_SKP]

3. Here we go...

Uh-Gain...

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[DustyJoe]

4. Clues

Can never hurt to have many of them.

[blogslut]

5. I know what your Avatar is

I wish I didn't.

[NYC_SKP]

7. Oh no you don't...

.....whatever do you think it is?

All I can imagine is a goatse.

:shrug: