4 or 5.
Maybe not a 6, but he perfers one line of thought over another.
And what line of thought is that? After all, consistency does not mean the same thing as partisanship and should not be equated as such. Granted, partisans often display a false consistency by making useless distinctions how similar behavior by one party is bad in this circumstance, but is acceptable or unimportant in another circumstance when it is by another party. And it is possible to be too consistent, when there are important distinctions that should be made between issues or behavior. It is weighting these two factors that allows one to develop a cogent, rational political philosophy. And if, in the end, that political philosophy ends up leaning more towards one party than another, I think it would foolish, if not simply wrong, to call that partisan.
I also don't deny that the weight of this site's forum balance has drifted to the left over the past two years, leaving me less at the center of this site as I once was. But my political philosophy will not change to fit a new acceptable definition of "centrist" or "moderate" unless I see a reasoned basis to do so.
Anyway, after that sermon
, AndrewCT is about a 2.25.
