Does it trouble you when you find yourself in full agreement with those from the hard right?

[Stinky The Clown]

It happens.

You consider something. You chew on it. You ruminate. You trust your head or your heart. In the end, somehow, it is done. You come to a conclusion. Honestly.

Then you find that you agree with many at the polar opposite of the ideological scale.

Your reasons for holding your opinion may or may not be the same as theirs, but the end result is the same.

I faced this recently. I don't like the choice of Panetta to head the CIA. In my work, I have more than occasional opportunity to work with people connected, directly and peripherally, with all manner of the security business, in and out of government. There are liberals as "wacko-left" as me in that group. But the majority, to be sure, are on the right. Some are pretty hard right. I have not encountered one person who favors Panetta.

Drill down, and the reasons are manifold. And diverse. But the end result is the same.

So no. I am not troubled by this.

Not this time, at least. The almost unanimous opinion, in the circles in which I travel, among liberals and hard core hard righters, is near unanimous. Panetta was not a good choice.

So maybe that's a good thing ...... agreeing with your ideological opposites on some issues.

How do you see it?

[Fumesucker]

1. You're not agreeing with them, they're agreeing with you..

A little better way to look at it. :)

[terisan]

2. I think it may mean that you are want to decide issues on their merits nt

[slackmaster]

3. No, that doesn't bother me at all

I pick my positions Chinese Restaurant style: One from Column A, two from Column B, choice of hot and sour or egg drop soup, with five or more you get free eggroll.

[L0oniX]

4. I liked Ron Paul's idea of pulling out all of our military bases from around the world.

I totally agree with him on that issue.

[ogneopasno]

5. No, it doesn't trouble me. I find it surprising, but I also see a little hope in it.

Being human, I'm able to agree with an idea without thinking every proponent of it is brilliant. Besides, I often come to a conclusion for different reasons than my ideological opposite might, and that doesn't necessarily mean we "agree."

[Gman]

6. It happens

maybe not often, but it can happen. Regarding Panneta, the RW's dislike of his appointment to head the CIA is more based in the fact he's against torture in any form or fashion. Maybe you don't like him because he's a Clintonista but you're also against torture. That does not mean you're in sync with the RW. Those are two incompatible and incongruous reasons for opposing Panneta that just so happens to equal the same conclusion. It's like counting cows and coming up with 32 cows and comparing that to counting 32 rocks. It's the same count, but that's where the comparison ends.

[Kajsa]

7. This happened when my congress critter,

Dana Rohrabacher, voted against the first bailout of the banks/Wall Street.

I've never agreed with him on anything prior to this.

Rohrabacher is for privatizing damn near everything,
very Repub of him.
He doesn't believe in global warming,
In spite of being a surfer, he's now for offshore drilling,
etc, etc.

He rejected the bailout because it did not include how the money would be spent,
and guidelines to prevent this from happening again.

I don't like to admit it but

I agree with him.

[RufusTFirefly]

8. The continuum of Left to Right is more of a loop than a straight line

I disagree with you on Panetta, but I have found myself agreeing with right wingers on matters of corporations, for example. (Oddly enough, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan share a lot in common on this issue.)

But generally if you get beyond the fact that the two extremes sometimes agree on a particular position and actually start to explore their individual justifications for that position, the traditional left-right divide often re-emerges.

I've had this discussion/argument with people who are unwittingly taken in by an anti-war site that is run by paleocons. Right-wingers usually have a completely different justification for opposing foreign intervention than do left-wingers.

Complicating the scenario even further is the notion of where the left ends and the right begins. The dividing line hasn't been static by any means. In fact, if you were an establishment Republican in the 1940s and stuck with those positions up to the present time, you'd probably be left of center today. Similarly, I find that as a largely FDR Democrat I am often branded a member of the "liberal left" these days. Even Richard Nixon's policies were more liberal than many of those pushed by modern-day "Democrats."

[grasswire]

here's what I think

Panetta is a budget cruncher. The number two man is a CIA pro. I think it's not a bad idea to let a budget cruncher delve into the workings of the CIA for some period of time so we (the Democrats) find out what the Bush f***ers and DiFi-Rockefeller have done there. The number two man is very strong, and surely can cover the mission of the agency. Then I assume that Panetta would either be up to speed or would leave and someone else would come in.

I think the signal that Panetta brings is worthwhile; that a different worldview will govern intelligence agencies of the U.S.

[Winterblues]

9. There is a reason I am an Independent and not a Democrat

I think for myself. I form my opinions based on my own study and upraising. I do not know of any person that might be better suited for this position so I have no dog in this fight. I feel America is in the process of turning a corner, and the new direction it will head will be more to my liking but certainly not completely. I suspect to accomplish most of the things I want to happen will take the better part of a Decade, so I will be patient.

[YOY]

10. Somethings really aren't right/left.

n/t

[dmallind]

11. Depends

I make my mind up on issues and questions solely based on what evidence and argument I know and understand measured against the greatest benefit or least harm possible. As such I am used to having opinions that run the gamut from very far left to very far right. anyone who think it is impossible for poeple of any particualr political stance to be right about anything is a closed minded idiot. There are certainly different probabilities and resons for these instances.

If I started to agree with the right on more issues where I had traditionally NOT agreed with them earlier then yes I would take a hard look at the evidence and arguments I had.

Something as simple as a presidnetial appointment of a person with a long history in politics annoying various places on the spectrum would not worry me, as anyone who has not angered or disappointed many positions on the spectrum in decades of public life is either a black and white ideologue who has GREATLY annoyed ALMOST everyone or a nonentity.

[JNelson6563]

12. It really alarmed me to agree with Buchannan so often

throughout the Bush years (aka the Dark Ages Redux). That was just crazy.

Julie

[Hydra]

13. That's what I thought of

I always cringe when Buchannan starts speaking sense. I have to check and see if I haven't gone insane or something.

I always come to the same conclusion, though- I'm not insane, but the world has gone crazy!