He has lamented the loss of the middle before. It’s sort of a recurring theme for him. Here’s a column of his from earlier this year about leaving the Republican party and becoming an independent.

Head Strong: Sorry, but for me, the party is over
2.21.10
By Michael Smerconish – Inquirer
Inquirer Currents Columnist

It took only the single tap of a computer key, and just like that I’d exited the Republican Party after 30 years of active membership. The context might sound impulsive, but I’d been thinking of becoming an independent for a long time. I just hadn’t expected that a trip to renew my driver’s license would mark the end.

Just before my photo was snapped, I was asked if I wanted to register to vote. For me, the question was borderline offensive. I first registered after turning 18 in the spring of 1980 and haven’t missed an election since. And I’m not just talking presidential races. I mean all elections. Congress, town council, school board, whatever.

“I’m already registered,” I offered. Next came the unexpected question of whether I wished to change my political affiliation. I’m not sure why that is asked of someone renewing a driver’s license, and I question whether it is even appropriate for most. But in my case, it was the only impetus I needed.

Years ago, I grew tired of having my television or radio introduction accompanied by a label, with some implied expectation that what would then come from my mouth were the party talking points. That was me 26 years ago, when I was the youngest elected member of the state delegation to the Republican National Convention, but not today. I’m not sure if I left the Republican Party or the party left me. All I know is that I no longer feel comfortable.

The national GOP is a party of exclusion and litmus tests, dominated on social issues by the religious right, with zero discernible outreach by the national party to anyone who doesn’t fit neatly within its parameters. Instead, the GOP has extended itself to its fringe while throwing under the bus long-standing members like New York Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, a McCain-Palin supporter in 2008 who told me she voted with her Republican leadership 90 percent of the time before running for Congress last fall.

Which is not to say I feel comfortable in the Democratic Party, either. Weeks before Indiana Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh’s announcement that he will not seek reelection, I noted the centrist former governor’s words to the Wall Street Journal’s Gerald Seib. Too many Democrats, Bayh said in that interview, are “tone-deaf” to Americans’ belief that the party had “overreached rather than looking for consensus with moderates and independents.”

Where political parties once existed to create coalitions and win elections, now they seek to advance strict ideological agendas. In today’s terms, it’s hard to imagine the GOP tent once housing such disparate figures as conservative Barry Goldwater and liberal New Yorker Jacob Javits, while John Stennis of Mississippi and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts coexisted as Democratic contemporaries.

Collegiality is nonexistent today, and any outreach across an aisle is castigated as weakness by the talking heads who constantly stir a pot of discontent. So vicious is the political climate that within two years, Sen. John McCain has gone from GOP standard-bearer to its endangered-species list. All of which leaves homeless those of us with views that don’t stack up neatly in any ideological box the way we’re told they should.

Consider that I’ve long insisted on the need to profile in the war against terrorists. I believe that if someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has actionable intelligence on future terrorism, you try the least coercive methods to extract it but ultimately stop at damn near nothing to get what you need to save American lives. I want the U.S. military out of Iraq, but into Pakistan. I’m for capital punishment. I think our porous borders need to be secured before we determine how to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants already within them. Sounds pretty conservative. But wait.

I think that in 2008, the GOP was wrong to adopt a party platform that maintained a strict opposition to abortion without at least carving out exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life. I was appalled that legislators tried to decide Terri Schiavo’s end-of-life plan. I don’t care if two guys hook up any more than they should care about my heterosexual lifestyle. And I still don’t know what to think about climate change.

I think President Obama is earnest, smart, and much more centrist than his tea party caricature suggests. He has never been given a fair chance to succeed by those who openly crow about their desire to see him fail (while somehow congratulating one another on their relative patriotism). I know he was born in America, isn’t a socialist, and doesn’t worship in a mosque. I get that he inherited a minefield. Still, the level of federal spending concerns me. And he never closed the deal with me that health insurance is a right, not a privilege. But I’m not folding the tent on him. Not now. Not with the nation fighting two wars while its economy still teeters on the brink of collapse.

All of which leaves me in a partisan no-man’s-land, albeit surrounded by many others, especially my neighbors. By quitting the GOP, I have actually joined the largest group of American voters. According to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, 39 percent of Americans identify themselves as independents – compared with 32 percent who say they are Democrats and 26 percent who are self-described members of the GOP. Nowhere is this more pronounced than locally, where a shift away from the Republican Party has taken place in the four bellwether counties surrounding Philadelphia.

I will miss casting a ballot in the spring, as current state election law prohibits unaffiliated voters from voting in GOP or Democratic primary elections. Instead, I’ll join the others who bide their time until fall, when we can temper the extremes of both parties.

“My decision should not be interpreted for more than it is: a very difficult, deeply personal one. . . . I value my independence. I am not motivated by strident partisanship or ideology.”

Those are Bayh’s words, not mine. But he was speaking for both of us.

There is much wisdom here.

“But when you write or talk about the “graveyard” of the middle or the rise of polarization on TV, how can you ignore MSNBC?”

I am assuming this is a rhetorical question….one only has to pay scant attention to understand what happens when one fires salvos in that direction. I suspect Mr. Smerconish enjoys the paycheck he gets from the unnamed entity.

I’m unclear as to how he can lament the collapse of civility and comity and then appear regularly on MSNBC. Not only appear on that channel, but, as mentioned, not include any criticism of the poison they inject into our discourse.

Yes, yes, yes, a thousand yes’s: Fox and Limbaugh have done more. Rush Limbaugh has single-handedly done more to bring down our political discourse than anyone alive today. No one can defend what he does.

But that’s not a defense for MSNBC.

He loses every single ounce of credibility (not to mention his right to criticize) by failing to mention MSNBC. They make CNN seem right wing! He used to be a good solid guest until he got caught up in the “chill up the leg” crap of the second worst commentator in television history, “Mr. Haaahhhhhh, Chrissie-Pooh”…ok, throw in Maddow so maybe the third worst…..obviously, KO is the all-time, hall of fame, biggest piece of garbage ever to appear on any network, anywhere…….

So one vote you don’t like immediately renders a previously credible political commentator worthless?

Of course Smerk enjoys the paycheck from MSNBC. Anyone with an IQ above room temp knows his criticism includes his employer, understandably not overtly. Have you read about the internal dictates at MSNBC regarding host vs host? “Never go against the family” from “The Godfather” comes to mind. That said, Smerkonish’s lament is the same as mine.

The national Democratic party is one of exclusion and litmus tests, dominated on social issues by the far left, with zero discernible outreach by the national party to anyone who doesn’t fit neatly within its parameters. ”

I totally agree!

cash your MSNBC check, Mike.

Hey michael, how about some cheese with that whine.

Conservative-Bashing Hypocrites at WaPo Publish Smerconish Attacking Cable News for ‘Polarized Politics’

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/06/11/conservative-bashing-hypocrites-wapo-publish-smerconish-attacking-cable-#ixzz0qZ0ATYam

Smerconish strangely holds up Arlen Specter as an exemple of the “moderate” politician he wants to promote.

Now, Specter may or may not be a moderate (I guess we could bring up his ADA and ACU ratings to document such things). But I think we all agree that he is probably the most un-principled Senator to serve in Washington in a long time.

I mean, please Michael.

Your overall argument is sound; but your supporting statements leave something to be desired.

So America is not polarized? The middle is not dying? He is totally and completely wrong?

As I said at ICN:

Is there any bigger weasel in political chat today than Smerconish? The guy has no opinions about anything… he just goes with the breeze.

I’ve listened to his radio show… and I don’t think he has ever disagreed with a caller… ever. Even when the first caller says something right-wing, and the second says something left-wing. Have an opinion and own it! Quit sitting on the fence!

It’s a good thing he grew a beard, otherwise the transformation to a visual as well as intellectual Charlie Brown would be complete.

The problem for Smerconish isn’t that there isn’t a place for someone in the middle… it’s that there isn’t a place for someone with undefined opinions, who changes their mind daily. Why would I want to listen to someone who’s opinion is consistently, “I don’t know what to think, we’ll have to wait and see.” At least with a firm righty or lefty, you know where the opinion is coming from… with this guy, it’s all so “blah.”

I haven’t followed Smerconish for very long. He seems to have defined opinions to me, and I certainly have heard him disagree with callers. Does he really change his mind that frequently (I assume daily is an exaggeration)? Or could it be that he genuinely gravitated away from a political party and toward the middle?

LOL at Smerk and the WAPO for publishing this article to begin with. By leaving out any reference to MSNBC, to clearly protect his own paycheck, Smerc demonstrates those “journalistic ethics” simply do not exist at either MSNBC or the WAPO.

paulmdoro says:
June 11, 2010 at 1:27 pm

When I think middle, I think someone (for example) who says, “I don’t like abortions in the 3rd trimester, but approve of it for the health of the mother, before the fetus can live outside the womb, etc.” Whereas as person on the right would say, “I don’t approve of abortions at all,” and someone on the left would say, “I approve of abortions when a women feels it necessary.” (Please, abortion was just the first example I came up with, don’t wanna talk about that… it’s just an example.)

Smerconish, on the other hand, would say something more like, “Abortion is a tough issue, and the folks on the left and right have interesting ideas about it.” Then take a call from someone who says, “Yeah, I hate abortions,” and he’d say, “Hmm, interesting point.” And then another caller would say, “Abortions for everyone!” and he’d reply, “Another interesting argument.”

Ugh. That’s not an opinion show or the “middle,” that’s just uncommitted wishy-washy.

And yes, there was a little hyperbole in my first comment… but you understood that. Thank you. He doesn’t really change his opinions daily. Some days he’s not even on the radio! ;)

So you and he have a different definition of someone who can truly consider themselves in the middle?

INB, it must be a great comfort to you to have all your answers and beliefs carved in granite in your big ‘real conservative’ handbook. good for you. gives you plenty of free time you dont have to waste analytical thinking.

Trickletown says:
June 11, 2010 at 1:51 pm
INB, it must be a great comfort to you to have all your answers and beliefs carved in granite in your big ‘real conservative’ handbook. good for you. gives you plenty of free time you dont have to waste analytical thinking.

That’s a pretty stupid statement. Just because someone has core beliefs, doesn’t mean they aren’t able to be an analytical thinker. Contrary to what some one this board think, I research all sides of an issue. Just because my mind isn’t change doesn’t mean I can’t think for myself. Perhaps it means I was right all along!

paulmdoro says:
June 11, 2010 at 1:51 pm

So you and he have a different definition of someone who can truly consider themselves in the middle?

Perhaps I was unclear.

To me… “the middle” means you’re in the middle of both sides. You take a little from the left, and a little from the right, and that’s where your opinions are. That makes you a “middle” person, or a moderate. Being “middle” doesn’t mean you don’t have strong opinions.

Smerk isn’t “middle,” per se… he’s just wishy-washy.

Trickletown says:
June 11, 2010 at 1:51 pm

Yes, because clearly, that’s where my opinions are. I’m glad you were able to tell me that… since obviously, you must know me so well. Please, do tell… what do I believe?

But more to the point (or at least the bit that’s almost accurate in your post)… you, me, and the rest are allowed to have “evolving” opinions, or opinions that aren’t set in stone. However, listening or watching someone babble on about how their opinions aren’t formed, or they don’t feel strongly one way or another is boooooring.

Ever watch someone try to decide between chocolate or vanilla ice cream? As long as you’re not standing in line, it’s all good. But don’t waste my time with your indecisiveness. That’s the problem with Smerk, and that’s what I was saying.

So in your mind who is someone genuinely in the middle? Who is a true centrist?

Upon further reflection… the ice cream example is much better than my previous one.

That’s the kind of wishy-washy Smerconish is, and that’s why it’s so frustrating to listen to him.

paulmdoro says:
June 11, 2010 at 2:09 pm

So in your mind who is someone genuinely in the middle? Who is a true centrist?

Honestly, I don’t think there is any media personality who really represents that. O’Reilly sometimes goes that route… but not enough to really be a “middle” guy. Matthews used to go that route sometimes, but also not enough to be consistently one or the other. I think the closest you’d get to that on television right now would be Shep Smith… who isn’t afraid to go after Democrats or Republicans. Although, since he’s not really an opinion guy (just a guy who’s opinion sometimes creeps in), we may be slightly apples and oranges here.

But I think the larger point is that being a centrist or a moderate isn’t necessarily good television or radio. On that point, I think Smerk is correct. But being that his argument (at least to me) comes across as a, “Let’s talk about me,” argument… it’s tough to take him seriously. It’s not because he’s a “moderate” or “centrist” that he’s boring… it’s because he’s got no passion and is too indecisive.

Yeah Smith’s opinions and politics are pretty closely guarded. What about a politician or someone outside of media personalities (for an example of a centrist/moderate)?

paulmdoro says:
June 11, 2010 at 2:18 pm

Politicians… I don’t think there are. And the reason is probably more psychological than anything else. A moderate or a centrist is more willing to compromise. So a politician needs to be far enough to one side to capture the party members (the Republicans or the Democrats, but not necessarily the far- members of those groups), and a centrist will probably willing to slide one way or another. But a true centrist politician would only be able to capture the centrist group, not the party group (or at least not enough of them), and would wind up floundering around.

Because a centrist is more willing to compromise, and weigh the agree versus disagree, it makes more sense (politically) to be more entrenched on one side or the other, thus potentially capturing the majority of two groups (where the groups are left/middle/right).

I hope that made sense.

It makes sense but it’s kind of depressing to think that it’s this difficult to come up with a true centrist in politics or the media.

it’s this difficult to come up with a true centrist in politics or the media.

As I noted above, Smerconish cites Arlen Specter as one of the models for the “thougtful moderates” he supports.

2+2=4. There is no middle, it is RIGHT or WRONG.
The libs and moderates try to tell us there is no right or wrong. Of course, they are WRONG.
They also try to sell the idea that their positions are in the middle. Of course, they are WRONG.
Pro abortion is not a moderate position.
Amnesty is not a moderate position.
Anti-war is not a moderate position.
Claiming illegals are not illegal is not a moderate position.
Raising taxes is not a moderate position.
Trying to take away peoples guns is not a moderate position.
National health care is not a moderate position.
Nationalizing private business is not a moderate position.
Blocking oil drilling and nuclear power is not a moderate postition.

The opposite of the above are all supported by the majority of Americans. Yet the libs call the majority opinion RIGHT WING.

A majority of Americans are pro-war? Ah, false. Plus, many Republicans were against the Iraq War. Your political analysis is suspect to say the least.

This is easy. To find moderates in this day and age, simply look up “Rino” and the Democratic equivilant. Any representative with the audacity to cross a party line to co-sponsor or work out legislation is most likely the hated “moderate”. Many come to mind, but rather than create targets, I’ll leave it to you to figure out who they are. Smerc gave the example of Arlen Spector. Spector, in my mind, was always a distinguished moderate until he went bat-shit crazy over the last couple of years. Good riddance.

pauldumbo, where did I say anything about PRO war?
I know this is hard for you to understand, people like you always come up with excuses to oppose war, ANY war.
When we DO go to war the AMERICAN position is to WIN.
If people opposed the Iraq War why did Bush win a second term? Don’t give me the crap that he stole it. I don’t care what MANY republicans oppose. The issue is about moderate positions vs right and left. There is nothing moderate about opposing ALL wars.

gordo – one can only marvel at your stupidity. It is indeed rare…that someone can be that completely clueless. You should be the poster boy for tea-bag conservatism, you’ve earned it.

The last person in the world who should be talking about “thoughtful analysis” is a torture enthusiast like Smerconish. You might as well have Louis Farrakhan whining about the lack of civility.

Ted, don’t quit your day job. Look up stupid in the dictionary, your photo is right next to it. When are you gutless wonders going to quit hiding behind phony names?

He ignores MSNBC because he likes being on TV. He’s kind of a dork, so I imagine the attention he is now getting (not least of which from women) is relatively new and exciting. This moderate schtick he works over at MSNBC works only so long as the arrows are always pointed in a rightward direction. Still not enough of a snake to be invited onto Olberman’s show, though. So that’s says something, I guess.

It is because of people like “gordonbloyershow” that reasoable conservatives like Michael Smerconish leave the GOP.

I doubt that selftitle – Smerc leaves the GOP so he will get invited to the cocktail circuit and be able to socialize with the elite media gliterati. His piece is nothing but a self-serving essay.

Sooooo they leave the GOP to support socialists?

Trickletown says:
June 11, 2010 at 4:41 pm

Arlen of a few years ago, might have been pretty close. Same with Lindsey Graham. Although, I’d hesitate to name these folks, because for every “moderate,” you know someone else will say, “Nuh-uh… look at what they did when they voted for XYZ.” Consensus will be hard to find.

With a name like Smerconish it cant be bad!……oh thats Smuckers…..nevermind