who then? Keith?
I'd say you look at the base of the republican party, Berserker.
In the group that calls themselves republicans, are there more "neoconservatives", or are there more "constitutional republicans", who would be to the FAR right of the neocons on religion, spending, nation-building, war, and borrowing.
Since we know the nation is basically 50/50 repub/dem... and we know that Bush is at 25% approval rating, it's a safe bet that AT LEAST 50% of repubs do not approve of neocon agenda (and that number is low - it would mean every dem in america is against Bush).
So, if we can agree that 51% of republicans are NOT neocons - then you have a problem here. You are using a moderator who is a member of a FRINGE WING of the republican party. If 51% of republicans are constitutionalists, then I contend that you are DISENFRANCHISING them here. They are simply not represented.
You have a neocon moderator (which we have proven accounts for 24% of voters at BEST), we have a moderate moderator (ozmo) and far-leftish (berserker) to split the other 50%.
What about the 26% or more, who consider themselves "constitutional republicans". You know, the Ron Pauls, the Bob Barrs among us. Berkserker, you remember that Ron Paul won in a LANDSLIDE in the "who would you vote for" thread we had here. It's safe to say that a majority of your political board members are NOT being represented. Instead, you have a FRINGE group like the neocons.
I think its time you reassessed the constituency. BB has 1/3 of moderator powers here, and he represents less than 1/4 of your readership. You have at LEAST 26% of your readers as constitutionalist republicans - way over 50% if you read the voting results - and they aren't represented at all.
