View Full Version : Will the right wing now become moderates in order to win.
TheLion03
05-15-2009, 20:48
It would seem to some that the left wing liberals are becoming stronger and stronger every day. And whether the cause for that in their eyes is GWB or not they will fixate on the last eight years and use them as leverage. With said leverage they will most likely gain more and more steam as time goes by, because if they screw up they have the ultimate excuse.....GWB. He shall be blamed and they shall prosper pushing a more and more liberal attitude toward every facet of society, not democratic just liberal.
Would anyone else argue that with the ridiculous gallivanting of the liberal news media and an extremely liberal administration the GOP of old is now defunct? In order for them to win anything at this point they will need to shift to a more moderate POV.
This in and of itself is not impossible. As the liberal media gains ground the sheepeople will follow in trace. Along every turn a conservative columnist or Congressman is stonewalled and called a heathen.
At this point the country and in essence the nuclear family is becoming more and more liberal due to influence. With this the GOP ideals are all but gone. GOP policy is still true to the party, but they are not gaining ground at a rapid rate. It would seem that in order for them to do so they will have to shift their policy towards the middle and in time the actual right wing will turn into moderates and left wing into complete socialism/borderline communism.
With the great messiah's opportunity to select new Justices on the SC he will have a very real shot at making this "change" happen on his term. The word has come down about Republicans rebuilding but it seems they will be forced to rebuild with different fundamental values.
I am sorry if this was the wrong place to put this. Please delete this if that is the Occasion
The Problem with the right is no clear message.
The "right" ran a moderate this last election. The moderates went for Hope and Change. The true "right" sat out the election or voted third party - see NC election results.
What is a moderate?
1. More gun laws or no more gun laws? A moderate says "OK, lets be moderate and only have a few more gun laws." The left cheers and comes back the next year, and the next, and the next until there are no guns.
2. More government programs or no more government programs? Repeat 1.
3. More taxes on workers and free money to non-workers or fair taxes for everybody. Repeat 1.
4. Free speach? The moderates will be out grazing on that one.
Moderates just want to be liked and fawned upon by the press. They don't take a firm stand on anything. A few might take a stand on "ONE" issue but the pack grazes with the libs.
The right needs to come up with a clear message and be unified in the execution.
The Reaper
05-16-2009, 08:26
I think that we have already seen what happens when the Republicans run a moderate candidate. They need to clearly identify the differences between themselves and the Dims, find a way to work the media the way the Dims do, and find candidates who understand and live the values and principles they stand for.
I personally believe that with the way things are going in this country, and the fact that Obama will not be on the ticket in 2010, things may not go as well for the Dims as they believe, IF the Repubs can turn out their base in good numbers. To do that will require candidates that we can believe in as conservative Republicans.
TR
Peregrino
05-16-2009, 10:19
Think! It's a mid-term election and America will be reeling from 18 months of unbridled liberalism. At this point most conservatives are holding out for a repeat of 1994. Though if the Republicans can't get a platform, find a new(t) Gingrich, and stay on mesage, it won't happen.
rubberneck
05-16-2009, 11:32
You win elections with ideas. You lose elections when you abandon your ideals for the sake of political expediency. The Republican's lost the last election because they had a great man who just so happened to be a grossly incompetent politician. He allowed his opponent to co-opt some popular conservative ideas and refused to call him on it. He was more interested in being respected than winning.
The fact of the matter is that Republicans are in a better position now than the Democrats right after the 2002 midterm elections no matter how the DNC PR machine (i.e. the MSM) loves to spin it. They only gained control of the House and Senate by running conservative Blue Dog candidates. If they ran traditional liberals they would still be in the minority. Many of the ideals held by conservatives are still wildly popular. So popular in fact that Barack Obama ran as a fiscal conservative despite being a closet socialist. If conservative ideals were so out of touch with most Americans than why did he have to pretend to be something he wasn't? Would he have been elected if he told the American people that he would essentially nationalize large parts of American industry.
The fact of the matter is that he is still in his honeymoon but he has made a number of serious mistakes (trillions of them) that the American people are going to have to pay for down the road. Right now they don't care because they haven't seen the effects of it in their personal lives but when these programs become rife with waste, fraud and are of little public utility people are going to really resent having to pay for them.
What the Republicans need to do is not become more moderate (boy wouldn't the dems love that), but rather to find candidates who believe in their ideals and are not just a bunch of opportunists. We need candidates who don't believe in big government. We need candidates who won't feel the need to apologize for defending this country. We need candidates who believe that our economy is driven by individual exceptionalism not governmental fiat. We don't need candidates who are unwilling to stand up to the PC bullies who want to ram their agenda down our throats, and what we really don't need is candidates who constantly check to see which direction the wind is blowing before deciding what the believe. I am tired of hearing about "Republican's" leaving their party. Most of them only had an R next to their name because it could get them elected. The second that they thought a D next to their name would have more pull they jumped ship.
This last election was just what the party needed long term. It cleared out all the dead wood that had accumulated in this party over the last 20 years. I just hope that the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt (the real one) and Reagan can find their voice before the 2010 mid terms. If they do I suspect they will do much better than the media would lead you to believe.
I think that the message of the GOP needs to be more moderate in its tone, not in its substance.
I think that the GOP is falling increasingly into the bad habit of using charged rhetoric that plays into the hands of the opposition.
While intense debate within the party is crucial, I am less sanguine about the efficacy of the gratuitous name calling, the overly broad use of inaccurate generalizations, the selective use of historical evidence, and the ongoing efforts to demonize moderates. YMMV.
Source is here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090524/ap_on_go_ot/us_republican_ruckus/print).
Powell to Republicans: Listen to moderates, too
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer Douglass K. Daniel, Associated Press Writer 40 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The conservative vs. moderate split threatening to rupture the Republican Party played out across the airwaves Sunday, with Colin Powell and Tom Ridge denouncing shrill and judgmental voices they say are steering the GOP too far right. Karl Rove challenged Powell to lay out his vision and "back it up" by helping elect Republicans.
At stake is the GOP's status as a major party, Powell and Ridge suggested.
"I believe we should build on the base because the nation needs two parties, two parties debating each other. But what we have to do is debate and define who we are and what we are and not just listen to dictates that come down from the right wing of the party," said Powell, the nation's top military officer under President George H.W. Bush and later secretary of state for President George W. Bush.
Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh have openly mocked Powell as a Republican in name only, citing his endorsement of Democrat Barack Obama over Republican John McCain in last year's presidential race.
Powell reaffirmed that he is a solid Republican and said the GOP must be more inclusive or risk giving Democrats and independents the chance to scoop up disaffected moderate Republicans. He detailed his presidential voting history — yes to GOP nominees Ronald Reagan through the younger Bush, but yes also to Democrats John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter.
"If we don't reach out more, the party is going to be sitting on a very, very narrow base. You can only do two things with a base. You can sit on it and watch the world go by, or you can build on the base," Powell said.
Fellow GOP moderate Ridge, the former Pennsylvania governor and homeland security secretary under George W. Bush, said if the GOP wants "to restore itself, not as a regional party, but as a national party, we have to be far less judgmental about disagreements within the party and far more judgmental about our disagreement with our friends on the other side of the aisle."
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a potential presidential candidate in 2012, insisted he didn't want to pick a fight with Cheney. But Gingrich offered this advice: "I think Republicans are going to be very foolish if they run around deciding they're going to see how much they can purge us down to the smallest possible base."
Cheney, defense secretary when Army Gen. Powell was Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman during the Gulf War in 1991, has made clear that he would rather follow broadcaster Limbaugh than Powell into political battle over the GOP's future. "I didn't know he was still a Republican," Cheney said in a television interview two weeks ago.
Limbaugh has called Powell "just another liberal," said he should become a Democrat and charged that Powell endorsed Obama based on race. Both Powell and Obama are black.
In remarks to business leaders in Boston this past week, Powell took on such high-profile criticism, saying, "I may be out of their version of the Republican Party, but there's another version of the Republican Party waiting to emerge once again."
Rove, chief political strategist for the younger Bush, took the position that "if you say you're Republican, you're Republican." But he wanted more than words from Powell.
"I don't like this thing where people — and Powell is one them — who said, `Rush Limbaugh, shut up.' We believe, as Republicans in the marketplace of ideas. Let that marketplace decide," Rove said.
"I want Colin Powell to go out there and lay out his vision, and then I want him to back it up by finding people who share it and working like heck to get them — and that's how you win the party."
Like Cheney, Rove said he would pick Limbaugh over Powell, but said it's moot. "Neither one of those are going to be people who are offering themselves for office. ... This is a false debate that Washington loves."
Intraparty squabbles would appear to be natural given the low standing of the Republican Party and the administration of George W. Bush in opinion polls. But Republicans who have suggested that the party moderate its views and even support some of Obama's initiatives have been quickly targeted for criticism.
Ridge, a supporter abortion rights who was on McCain's short list of vice presidential picks but deemed too moderate by more conservative elements of the GOP, said he thinks "a lot of our commentators are being shrill."
"Rush Limbaugh has an audience of 20 million people. A lot of people listen daily to him and live by every word. But words mean things and how you use words is very important," Ridge said. "It does get the base all fired up and he's got a strong following. But personally, if he would listen to me, and I doubt if he would, the notion is express yourselves but let's respect others' opinions and let's not be divisive."
Powell appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" while Ridge's taped interview was aired on CNN's "State of the Union." Gingrich spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press" and Rove on "Fox News Sunday."
rubberneck
05-24-2009, 14:49
I respect Colin Powell and his service to this country but his comments are thoughtless. He might want to phone Rep Heath Shuler and ask him how a moderate voice is treated by the Democrats. It is no different. The fact of the matter is that the minority voice falls on deaf ears in both parties. I guess the Republicans can be cynical like the Dems and recruit a bunch of RINO's to run in the Northeast, and then tell them to drop dead when they regain power much like the Dems are doing to the blue dogs right now.
I wish I could ask General Powell is the goal to win national office or to move the entire party to the middle? If he is using the Democrats as his yardstick it is the former not the later.
edited to add
Intraparty squabbles would appear to be natural given the low standing of the Republican Party and the administration of George W. Bush in opinion polls.
That is a patently false statement. While President Bush remains unpopular according to the Real Clear Politics generic party vote poll average the GOP is within the margin of error and leading the Dems in some of the polls. If the GOP has a low standing than they aren't very far behind the other party. I wish these guys would take the time to check their facts before making baseless claims.
My take on General Powell's statement is that we in the GOP need to do a better job at talking to each other. The current tone of debate within the party is undermining the potential for synergy.
I also think he's suggesting that we are on the verge of making some of the same mistakes the Democrats made during Bush the Younger's presidency. If we cannot come together and offer viable answers to the problems Americans face, we're going to lose even more ground to the Democrats.
Lexington, The Economist's commentator on American politics, offered this view recently. Source is here (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=13579055).
Lexington
Party-hopping
Apr 30th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Arlen Specter has shifted the balance of power in Washington yet farther to the left
THIS week was always going to be a gloomy one for the Republicans, with Barack Obama celebrating his first 100 days in office and the media singing “hallelujah”. But the mood got a lot gloomier on April 28th when one of the most senior Republicans in the Senate announced that he was switching parties.
Arlen Specter’s statement could not have been better timed from the White House’s point of view. Just as Obama was about to hit the 100-day milestone, the press was suddenly obsessed by the spread of swine flu. Mr Specter’s party-hopping not only shifted the spotlight back onto politics. It also provided the White House with a perfect opportunity to hammer home one of its favourite messages: that the Republican Party is becoming such a rump of Rush-Limbaugh-worshipping fanatics that sensible people have no choice but to back Mr Obama.
Mr Specter explained his decision to switch parties by saying that his vote in favour of Mr Obama’s stimulus package had caused an irreconcilable schism with Pennsylvania’s Republican Party, particularly the hardcore members who vote in primaries. But in truth he could probably have pointed to any number of irreconcilable schisms with his former party. Mr Specter parted ways with the Republican Party because the Republican Party is ceasing to be a viable force in Pennsylvania.
Mr Specter faced a strong challenge in next year’s Republican primary from Patrick Toomey, a fierce conservative who has been ahead of him in the polls by some 20 points, buoyed by white-hot Republican fury at the Obama administration and generously financed by the low-tax, minimal-government lobby, the Club for Growth. And even if he had survived Mr Toomey’s onslaught, he would then have had to perform the difficult trick of moving back to the centre to beat a Democrat. Why subject himself to trial by fire when he could simply switch party?
Mr Specter’s party-hop will dramatically change the political terrain that Mr Obama faces in his second 100 days, all but guaranteeing the Democrats control of the 60 seats in the 100-seat Senate that allows them to pass legislation without the threat of a filibuster. The only thing that now stands between them and this supermajority is Norm Coleman and his interminable legal battle to prevent his Democratic rival, Al Franken, from being seated, and that battle looks increasingly doomed.
Yet the supermajority may not prove to be the cure-all that many Democrats hope. Party discipline is much looser in the Senate than in the House—and an inveterate maverick such as Mr Specter is not going to cease behaving like one. In his statement he insisted that he would not be “a party-line voter any more for the Democrats than I have been for the Republicans.” He also noted that his opposition to a law to make union organising easier will not change. Moderate Republicans, like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, will undoubtedly find themselves voting with their old colleague often enough in the future.
But Mr Specter’s decision nevertheless changes the dynamic on Capitol Hill. Hitting the magic 60 will change the psychology of life in the upper house, emboldening the Democrats and enfeebling the Republicans. And shifting parties will subtly change the thinking of even such an independent as Mr Specter. He will no longer have to keep a wary eye on his right flank, particularly over judicial appointments. He may also find that the simple fact of caucusing with Democrats nudges him farther to the left. Thus Mr Specter’s move will both increase Mr Obama’s chances of getting his domestic agenda through Congress and boost his ability to put liberals in the courts.
Mr Specter’s decision is yet more proof that the once mighty Republican Party is in a perilous state—abandoning the middle ground of politics to the Democrats and retreating into an ideological and regional cocoon. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll revealed that the proportion of Republicans had shrunk from 25% in late March to just 21% today, the party’s lowest figure for more than a quarter of a century. That compares with 35% for Democrats and 38% for independents. A recent Democracy Corps poll also shows that Mr Obama enjoys a 16-point advantage over the Republicans on the economy, a 24-point advantage on heath care and a 27-point advantage on energy policy.
Even these dramatic numbers may understate how bad the situation is for the Republicans. The party is rapidly disappearing in whole swathes of America. The proportion of Republicans among 20-somethings has reached its lowest ebb since records began to be kept after the second world war. Just two and a bit years ago Pennsylvania had two Republican senators. Today it has none, and there are precious few in the entire north-east.
Club for shrinkage
Mr Specter argued that he had almost no choice but to abandon an increasingly shrunken and hardline party. More than 200,000 Pennsylvania Republicans, most of them suburban moderates, shifted their party identification to the Democrats during the last election cycle, giving Mr Obama a ten-point victory in the state and leaving Mr Specter at the mercy of an ever-diminishing band of hardliners. Mr Specter’s particular nemesis, the Club for Growth, is proving to be a Club for Shrinkage.
The Republican Party would be wise to think carefully about its loss of Mr Specter, one of America’s best known senators, whose views are shared by many old-line business-friendly Republicans. Some clearly realise what a mess their party is in. Ms Snowe described his decision to jump ship as “devastating” both “personally and then for the party”. But all too many others were content to respond with lame jokes (“I read that he was switching parties, but was disappointed to learn he’s still a Democrat”) and even lamer declarations of ideological purity.
IMO - too much prattle and nobody walking the walk on either side of the aisle lately. I'm not sure that it can be done anymore - but somebody sure as hell needs to try because what we've seen over the last couple of decades sure isn't working. Where's Jefferson Smith and Dave Kovic when you really need them? ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
IMO - too much prattle and nobody walking the walk on either side of the aisle lately. I'm not sure that it can be done anymore - but somebody sure as hell needs to try because what we've seen over the last couple of decades sure isn't working. Where's Jefferson Smith and Dave Kovic when you really need them? ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I'm waiting for the Libertarians to produce a decent candidate.
I'm waiting for the Libertarians to produce a decent candidate.
From what I've seen of them to date - I'd stockpile the tin foil and wouldn't hold my breath awaiting such a miracle. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
rubberneck
05-24-2009, 16:49
It is hard to take that article from the Economist at face value when it is obvious to anyone paying attention that Specter left the party because he had no shot at winning his parties nomination. His defection says nothing about the current state of the party rather it speaks volumes about what a cheap political whore Specter has always been.
If Specter is the sort of candidate that men like Powell think we in the GOP should embrace than I would rather spend the next 20 years in the minority as that is where we will be any way. As a conservative and a member of the GOP I don't want to become what essentially would be the party of moderate Democrats. When the Democrats were in the wilderness 6 years ago I don't remember the chorus of voices demanding that they moderate their tone. In fact they took the opposite track. Who can seriously argue that President Obama represents the face of a moderate party. He doesn't. Instead they honed their message and found candidates that they could sell in more conservative areas that were disillusioned with their current Representatives.
The bind the GOP finds itself in has little to do with moderation but everything to do with the inability to control it's own message. When they find their voice they will be just fine. As I said before, every major party goes through a period of time where they are on the outs with the general public and as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow the public will grow disillusioned with the DEMs and the cycle will start all over again.
From what I've seen of them to date - I'd stockpile the tin foil and wouldn't hold my breath awaiting such a miracle. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I'd settle for voters reading a candidate's platform and not basing their decisions on charisma.
perdurabo
05-24-2009, 21:10
I just want a small fed, but strong defense, respect for the Constitution, more privacy, lower taxes, less govt interloping into our lives, less regulation, etc. The Dems nor the Reps represent that today.
From the insightful and opinionated pen of VDH. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Why Did Republicans Lose Their Appeal? And how can they get it back?
Victor Davis Hanson, National Review Online. 8 May 2009
Colin Powell keeps insisting that the Republicans lost the presidency because of right-wing extremists like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, who, in his view, have become the public face of the Republican party, and thus will ensure its permanent marginalization.
Others argue that the Bush administration had allowed Republicanism to become a cowboyish clique of the selfish who wanted a free hand to make money and let others less fortunate be damned. David Frum offered the novel notion that Rush Limbaugh’s girth, past drug use, checkered marital career, and palatial digs were emblematic of the party’s out-of-touch self-indulgence, especially when contrasted with the athletic, happily married, and transracial Barack Obama.
But none of these explanations rings true — especially since most of the current critics themselves were, in the heyday of 2002–03, either enthusiastically working for, or writing in praise of, the very administration whose policies they now claim caused the present mess.
Limbaugh & Co.?
First, the real public expressions of extremism in American politics recently have not been from the Right — not surprisingly, perhaps, given that for much of this new century the Republicans smugly controlled most of the government.
It was not Rush Limbaugh, for example, but Michael Moore who announced that the 9/11 killers wrongly selected a blue-state city, or that the al-Qaeda insurgents were Minutemen-like patriots. Moore, remember, was no marginal figure but the darling of the Democratic establishment, who flocked to the gala opening of his crude propaganda film Fahrenheit 9/11.
Indeed, if one were to follow the logic of this new Powell doctrine that public expression of extremism sinks a party, then the Democrats would never have won back the Senate and the House. Senators as diverse as Dick Durbin, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy shrilly compared American soldiers to terrorists, Nazis, Pol Pot’s thugs, and Saddam’s Baathists.
The most inflammatory public figure of the last two years was, in fact, Barack Obama’s own minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who uttered vile racist characterizations of everyone from Italians to Jews, as part of his generic “G-d damning” of America. So far we have not seen a conservative version of Nicholson Baker’s novel Checkpoint, or anything like Jonathan Chait’s New Republic essay that began, “I hate President George W. Bush.” Colin Powell himself has been demonized in scurrilous terms, but the epithets have come not from Rush Limbaugh, but rather from such observers as that old cultural icon of the Left, Harry Belafonte, who once quite unapologetically compared the secretary of state to a “house slave.”
The Cycles of American Politics
There were historical reasons why it was unlikely that the Republicans were going to win the presidency last year. It has always been difficult to extend a party’s control of the executive branch for 12 consecutive years; the Democrats themselves had not done it since the Roosevelt-Truman years. In 30 out of the last 50 years, Republicans have controlled the White House, hardly proof of a conservative implosion. Over the last half-century, the general rule was that a Democrat could not win the presidency unless he had the cover of a Southern accent. That both JFK and Obama defied that conventional wisdom suggests that only the rare appearance of a charismatic youthful Democratic candidate can balance the stigmatization of out-of-touch northern liberalism.
The elections of 1964, 1976, and 1992 were all heralded as the beginnings of new permanent liberal majorities. In the first two cases, the inept governance of LBJ and Jimmy Carter ensured that Republicans were back in office in four years. Bill Clinton extended Democratic rule for eight years; but he did so without winning a majority of the votes in either election. Take Ross Perot out of the equation in 1992 — and perhaps even in 1996 — and Clinton might well not have won. Clinton survived Monica because no Americans were killed in his Balkans War, and because Dick Morris taught him the arts of triangulation, while the Republican Congress forced spending cuts that led finally to two years of budget surpluses. He left office popular, despite Monica, with balanced budgets and an assurance that the era of big government was over.
The September Meltdown
John McCain was ahead of Barack Obama when the September meltdown occurred. Had the financial panic not transpired until December, there was a 50-50 chance that McCain would have won — despite deep defections from the conservative base. In that case, we would be talking now about the continued Democratic propensity for self-destruction by nominating liberal northern presidential candidates like Obama, Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, and Mondale.
A Stealth Candidate
Obama was an especially charismatic candidate. His mixed racial heritage and exotic name were novelties that both intrigued and reassured elite white liberals, while galvanizing minorities in a way that Jesse Jackson and other traditional African-American candidates had previously not managed to do. Had the Democrats run Al Gore or John Kerry they might well have lost; or had Barack Obama, Kerry-like, paraded around in various costumes — duck-hunting camouflage, biker’s spandex, a windsurfing wetsuit — or even kept up the arugula talk and the faux bowling appearances, he too would not have won.
On nearly every campaign issue — offshore drilling, nuclear power, NAFTA, guns, abortion, capital punishment, Iraq, the war on terror — candidate Obama hedged or triangulated in favor of the more conservative view. Had he in late October outlined a $1.7-trillion deficit, the need for serial apologies abroad, and the nationalization of the banks and the auto industry, he would have lost.
Red Ink
But the above are peripheral issues. The real cause of unhappiness with the Republicans was simply that they could not make a convincing case for conservatism to a changing electorate because so many of them were not acting as conservatives.
Take the seminal issue of spending and expanding government. The last Republican to balance a budget was Dwight Eisenhower. Had President Bush — despite 9/11, Katrina, and two wars — simply limited spending increases to the rate of inflation and natural growth, then he would have entered his last years of office with balanced budgets.
In contrast, once Republicans started talking about federal deficits only in terms of manageable percentages of GDP rather than as real money, they forfeited the entire issue of fiscal responsibility, and lost the moral high ground. Barack Obama can get away with unprecedented and astronomical of projected deficits, in part because the Republicans are not credible any more on spending.
Compassionate Conservatism?
Compassionate conservatism was supposed to show the middle classes how, even with small government, lower taxes, and streamlining of existing programs, social protection was still ensured for those who did not do as well as the wealthy during the boom years.
Instead, it ended up as a rather crude quid pro quo on things like No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. Bush’s embrace of big old-fashioned spending was supposed to be a demonstration of bipartisanship that might extend to united congressional support for the war. Instead, Democrats cherry-picked the Bush overtures, increased their anti-war rhetoric, and then, mirabile dictu, attributed the ensuing deficits not to the profligate spending but to “tax cuts for the rich” — despite the yearly increases in aggregate federal revenue.
The War
Obama’s continuance of the Iraq war, his escalation in Afghanistan, and his preservation of wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, renditions, Predator drone attacks, and, so far, the Guantanamo Bay detention center prove that Bush’s war on terror per se, even the controversial Iraq war, did not lose Republicans the election. The problem was more complex than just the mayhem of the insurgency in Iraq, which was over by November 2008 — as witnessed by Obama’s constant campaign demagoguing against the very Bush anti-terrorism protocols and war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan that he was soon to embrace.
When conservatives advance tough foreign-policy initiatives, they naturally evoke hostility from the therapeutic media. Instead of tough “smoke-’em-out” talk that reinforces the cowboy caricature, they needed to explain exactly why the resort to force was needed, what the strategy was, and why such a bad choice was better than the existing worse alternatives.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration was not able to articulate exactly what Iraq was about, why the congressional Democrats had willingly joined them to authorize the war on 23 counts (nearly all of them not about WMD), and why it was both moral and in the United States’ interest to remove Saddam and not abandon the nascent Iraqi democracy.
(cont'd)
Why Did Republicans Lose Their Appeal? And how can they get it back?
Victor Davis Hanson, National Review Online. 8 May 2009
(cont'd)
Specterization
If the Republicans think they can outbid the Democrats for the support of feminists, gays, and growing numbers of minorities, then they will only add embarrassment and permanent failure to the present natural cycle of political correction. Instead, they must be ready to show that deficits of the present magnitude, when added to existing debt, are unsustainable and will sap the vitality of the entire American society.
Most people dread going to the DMV; that such a state-run blueprint will now be superimposed on manufacturing, energy, health care, and banking should scare the landscaper and the roofer alike. Precisely by showing to gays, women, minorities, and the young that none of us gets an exemption from the iron laws of nature — you cannot spend what you don’t make; you can’t apologize to unsavory characters and end up respected and safe; you can’t expect government bureaucrats to make better decisions than private executives — conservatives can become inclusive.
Conservatives should remind the electorate that the very wealthy, the Wall Street big money, and the elite in the universities and foundations are now consistently voting Democratic. It was the nexus between Wall Street financiers and lax liberal Democratic congressional overseers — the former wanting profits, the latter able to cloak lavish campaign contributions with populist rhetoric about caring for the poor — that got us into the financial mess.
The reason Sarah Palin earned real hatred was the populist nature of her appeal. Her rallies did not draw many of the government-dependent poor, true; but they also did not draw the rich and liberal elite. If Palin had survived the press demonization, she might have been able to show the electorate why the current leadership of the Democratic Party is at odds with the middle classes, who do not require most of the government entitlements that liberals love to dispense, and yet don’t share the aristocratic tastes that the elite in the media, foundations, universities, and Wall Street see as requisites for paternal governance.
If the Republicans can offer a sane alternative of balanced budgets to the current mega-deficits; if they demonstrate the nexus between those who don’t pay taxes and those who have so much money that they don’t worry about taxes; and if they can talk without braggadocio of the tough choices abroad that are not solved by apologies, then they will win again in 2012.
Conservatism is the political belief that best mirrors human nature across time and space; but because its precepts are sometimes tragic and demand responsibility rather than ever-expanding rights, it requires adept communicators — not triangulators and appeasers whose pleasure is only for the moment.
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson050809.html
Gen Powell is a RINO nothing more nothing less...
He may have been a distinguished military officer with a bright and distinguished career, but now he is just a politician desperately looking for a party that will praise his talents. Should he somehow gain support and someday run for ANYTHING as a republican candidate I would almost surely vote for an independent candidate.
The fact seems to be, when republicans run as conservatives and refuse to apologize for the sky being blue, they win. When republicans runs as "republiberals" or try to show that they can appeal to both sides they get beat. Get with the program D.C. - bipartisanship? My ass... I want a staunch, stubborn, partisan party line spewing prick representing me in DC. If bipartisan politics was what people wanted we wouldn't have a multiparty system.
After his idiotic comment about more taxes for goods and services from the gub-mint I wouldn't want to see him elected to anything more distinguished than assistant greens keeper at the Ft Bragg Golf course.
I do thank you however, for your military service General Powell.
Surf n Turf
05-25-2009, 17:51
What right do Colin Powell and Tom Ridge have to lecture the Republican party?
by Toby Harnden Telegraph
The Brits do get it
So why does Powell now seem to think he has the right or credibility to lecture Republicans on how their party should be run? Just as he did not just go quietly into the polling booth and vote for Obama.
Vice President Cheney was perhaps unnecessarily cutting when he said that he assumed Powell had already left the party. Being goaded by Rush Limbaugh about having voted for Obama "solely based on race" must be very difficult to take.
[U]But thinking that you can vote for the Democratic presidential candidate - and one assumes that Powell still supports Obama and will vote for him in 2012 - and remain a senior figure in the Republican party is trying to have your cake and eat it.
Another Republican moderate was on television today - Tom Ridge, former Pennsylvania governor and Homeland Security chief, Then, when he was asked whether he would support the Republican nominee in the Pennsylvania Senate race if it were (as is highly likely) Pat Toomey he pointedly declined to do so. "Why should any Republicans listen to you if you won't commit to voting for the Republican nominee?" Ridge responded: "Well, it begins on the message and the messenger. You know, I'm a strong, strong, Republican, but I'd be - I've never, ever, ever voted straight Republican ticket in my life and I never will."
Republicans are being told what they must do by one man who will almost certainly vote for Obama in 2012 and another who will almost certainly vote for Senator Arlen Specter, a newly-minted Democrat, in 2010.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/05/25/what_right_do_colin_powell_and_tom_ridge_have_to_l ecture_the_republican_party
SnT
.... and the fact that Obama will not be on the ticket in 2010, things may not go as well for the Dims as they believe, .......
TR
Well I would be for that - but, what crystal ball are you looking into?
Source is here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-identity-crisis27-2009oct27,0,152918,print.story).New York race at epicenter of a GOP mutiny
Many conservative voters are rejecting the party nominee in a special House election, leaving leaders to rethink the Republican Party's identity.
By Janet Hook
October 27, 2009
Reporting from Washington
Silvan Johnson adores Sarah Palin, belongs to a conservative discussion group and fumes at President Obama's spending policies. But when it comes to picking a new congressional representative for her upstate New York district, she is in no mood to help the Republican Party.
In fact, Johnson and many other conservatives want to use a Nov. 3 special election to teach the GOP a lesson about sticking to conservative values -- even though that lesson could mean the party loses a House seat it has held for decades. The conservatives are backing a third-party candidate, splitting the Republican vote and giving the Democrat a lead in some recent opinion polls.
"Both parties seem to be more for big government," said Johnson, a probation clerk in Fulton, N.Y. "The Republicans need to learn that the people they are running [for office] do not represent the views of the people."
The conservative rebellion in northern New York is showing that the anger among disaffected voters, which became prominent this summer during the "tea party" anti-spending rally in Washington and at town hall meetings on healthcare, has become a baffling political force that even Republicans are having a hard time harnessing.
The fight on the right has also made this district the epicenter of a national debate about the future of the Republican Party -- leaving party leaders to ask whether they are better off emphasizing the GOP's small-government and socially conservative values, or trying to broaden their appeal to reach independent and moderate voters.
That dilemma is coming clearly into view as the party lines up candidates for important 2010 races, including Senate contests in competitive states such as Florida, Illinois and New Hampshire.
The party establishment has tended to choose middle-of-the-road candidates, like moderate Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida. But conservatives have responded by raising money and building up the candidacy of conservative Marco Rubio, former speaker of the Florida House.
For now, major GOP figures are using New York's special House election to send a signal that they want the party to turn toward the right.
Palin herself has rebuffed the Republican candidate, who was hand-picked by local GOP leaders and who supports abortion rights and gay marriage. Instead, Palin has endorsed the conservative alternative, Doug Hoffman. So have former House Republican leader Dick Armey of Texas and former GOP presidential candidate Steve Forbes.
Voters from outside the district have weighed in too. Cathy Vasilakos, an accountant in Brooklyn, sent a $50 check to Hoffman to protest the fact that Newt Gingrich and the national GOP had endorsed the Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava, a longtime state assemblywoman.
Vasilakos returned a fundraising letter from the Republican National Committee, after scribbling with her black Sharpie: "I'd rather give my monetary support to conservatives like Doug Hoffman. When the RNC gets a clue, they can put me back on their mailing list."
But Gingrich and many other Republican leaders say that if the party is to win nationally and in swing districts like this one, it cannot move too far to the right.
Support for Hoffman, they argue, is a recipe for electing the Democrat, lawyer Bill Owens. That may allow Republicans to maintain their ideological purity, they say, but it will not win the elections needed to oust Democrats from power.
"We have to decide which business we are in," Gingrich said on his website after conservatives derided his endorsement of Scozzafava. "If we are in the business of feeling good about ourselves while our country gets crushed, then I probably made the wrong decision."
The 2009 off-year elections come at a crucial juncture for the GOP in its journey to recover from brutal electoral defeats in 2006 and 2008.
The party has been buoyed by near unanimity among its lawmakers on Capitol Hill in opposition to Obama's healthcare, economic and environmental policies. Its fundraising and candidate recruitment efforts for 2010 have rebounded.
But polls indicate that dwindling enthusiasm for Obama and his policies is not translating readily into increased support for the GOP.
Recent surveys show Republican Party identification dropping this year, even as the share of Americans who say they are independent has jumped.
In another greatly watched 2009 political campaign, for governor of New Jersey, a wide swath of alienated voters is turning away from both political parties: An independent candidate is showing surprising strength against Democratic incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine and his Republican opponent, Chris Christie.
New York is holding a special House election in the 23rd District -- which stretches across the Adirondack mountains from Oswego to Lake Champlain -- to replace the district's 16-year congressman, moderate Republican John M. McHugh, who was named secretary of the Army. The region has sent Republicans to Congress since 1980. But in presidential races, it is a swing district: In 2008, Obama won it with 52% of the vote.
When McHugh was picked for the Army post, the district's 11 GOP county chairmen met in July and chose Scozzafava as their nominee -- over Hoffman and a handful of other contenders. She had high name recognition, and supporters said she was the one most likely to draw the centrist support needed to win.
Hoffman, a businessman, abandoned his promise to back the Republican nominee and ran with the endorsement of the Conservative Party, a significant force in New York politics that usually works in tandem with the GOP.
Word of his insurgent campaign spread locally and nationally, via online activist groups and publicity from conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck.
The campaign attracted volunteers like Jennifer Bernstone, a performing artist in Canastota, N.Y., who had never been involved in politics.
Bernstone had been seething ever since President George W. Bush agreed to bail out teetering Wall Street banks in late 2008. She snapped into political action a few weeks ago, after the GOP nominated Scozzafava.
"Dede is more liberal than the Democrat," Bernstone said, as she put in a day of campaign work that began at 8 a.m. and was likely to end after midnight.
In addition to supporting abortion rights and gay marriage, Scozzafava backs legislation making it easier for unions to organize. Critics say she is insufficiently committed to tax cuts.
McHugh had been easily reelected in the district by wide margins, and Scozzafava's backers say a conservative like Hoffman does not fit the district.
"Her positions on a lot of issues are reflective of the electorate here," said Matt Burns, a Scozzafava spokesman. "If the idea is that every Republican that runs for office needs [to be] someone who fits in Georgia, then it's going to be very, very difficult for Republicans to gain a majority in the House of Representatives."
Many of Hoffman's supporters and donors are from outside the district.
Bernstone said she was expecting volunteers to come from far-flung parts of the state, and even from Connecticut, for weekend canvassing.
Donations started coming from all parts of the country as the race began to draw national attention. As of Oct. 14, the campaign reported it had raised about $307,888 -- more than Scozzafava, but less than Owens.
In the week after that, a surge of Internet donations doubled Hoffman's total, campaign spokesman Rob Ryan said.
Vasilakos, the Brooklyn accountant, was among Hoffman's long-distance donors.
"This race matters to me," she said. "But I can't go upstate with a sign."
Surf n Turf
10-27-2009, 16:58
Sigaba,
This is yet another battle for the meaning and creed of the Republican Party. I participated in Arizona in the 1964 “Mutiny”, by supporting my home state Senator.
The essence of what the Country Club Republicans believe was in your article:
Quote:
But Gingrich and many other Republican leaders say that if the party is to win nationally and in swing districts like this one, it cannot move too far to the right.
I favor the views of VDH, as posted by Richard.
Hanson is usually spot on with his assessments (even when I disagree with him) :D
Conservatism is the political belief that best mirrors human nature across time and space; but because its precepts are sometimes tragic and demand responsibility rather than ever-expanding rights, it requires adept communicators — not triangulators and appeasers whose pleasure is only for the moment. - Victor Davis Hanson
The 1964 Republican campaign
The history of Rockefeller Republicanism dates to World War II. These "liberals of the right" supported many New Deal policies, and a strong welfare state. They also favored high tax levels, long-term economic-growth strategies and increased funding of infrastructure programs.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/30/decline-of-the-unlamented-rinos/
"This is still a free country, ladies and gentlemen." Standing before the hostile crowd at the 1964 GOP Convention in San Francisco, a defiant Nelson Rockefeller could barely make his words heard above the booing.
Rockefeller was a Cold Warrior himself, but he strongly disagreed with the Arizona senator on most social and fiscal issues. He argued for a more mainstream and progressive Republican agenda, one that would not turn its back on people in need.
The scene was set for the battle over the heart and soul of the Republican Party. After years as the target of ridicule, the conservative wing of the party had staged an impressive comeback through a grass-roots campaign in the South, the Southwest and the West. Their leader was Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater
Goldwater would articulate some of these conservative principles in his controversial acceptance speech: "Let our Republicanism, so focused and dedicated, not be made fuzzy and futile by unthinking and stupid labels," he summoned the crowd. ]"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice -- and let me remind you also, moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."
The legacy of Goldwater's "conservative revolution," however, would be felt for decades to come -— eventually ushering into the presidency one of the men who had helped him win the decisive California primary: Ronald Reagan.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/peopleevents/e_1964.html
After that I Proudly cast my first Presidential vote for Barry Goldwater. There were only 19 Million of us nationwide that did so, but he did change the history of my country.
“In your heart you know he’s right”
SnT
but yes also to Democrats John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter.
That just about wraps up Gen. Powell. A fool who is sometimes on your side is still in the end, a fool. I still admire him for his service, and the excellent work he did for this country, but politics is not the place for him.
Arlen Specter has shifted the balance of power in Washington yet farther to the left.
Mr Specter’s decision is yet more proof that the once mighty Republican Party is in a perilous state—abandoning the middle ground of politics to the Democrats and retreating into an ideological and regional cocoon. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll revealed that the proportion of Republicans had shrunk from 25% in late March to just 21% today, the party’s lowest figure for more than a quarter of a century. That compares with 35% for Democrats and 38% for independents. A recent Democracy Corps poll also shows that Mr Obama enjoys a 16-point advantage over the Republicans on the economy, a 24-point advantage on heath care and a 27-point advantage on energy policy.
Even these dramatic numbers may understate how bad the situation is for the Republicans. The party is rapidly disappearing in whole swathes of America. The proportion of Republicans among 20-somethings has reached its lowest ebb since records began to be kept after the second world war. Just two and a bit years ago Pennsylvania had two Republican senators. Today it has none, and there are precious few in the entire north-east.
Let's be clear; Specter was NEVER anything but a RINO. Treating him as a "republican defector" just because he officially changed his party is laughable, and it was probably a bad move on his part. His voting record is pretty clear on this. With any luck, PA will finally wake up.
Source is here (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/nyregion/01upstate.html?hp=&pagewanted=print).November 1, 2009
G.O.P. Candidate, Pressed by Right, Abandons Race
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEREMY W. PETERS
A moderate Republican whose candidacy for an upstate New York Congressional seat had set off a storm of national conservative opposition, abruptly withdrew on Saturday, emboldening the right at a time when the Republican Party is enmeshed in a debate over how to rebuild itself.
The candidate, Dede Scozzafava, said she was suspending her campaign in the face of collapsing support and evidence that she was heading for a loss in a three-way race on Tuesday involving Douglas L. Hoffman, running on the Conservative Party line, and Bill Owens, a Democrat.
Ms. Scozzafava had been under siege from conservative leaders because she supports gay rights and abortion rights and was considered too liberal on various fiscal issues.
The Republican National Committee, which had strongly backed Ms. Scozzafava’s candidacy, issued a statement applauding her decision and announcing it was now supporting Mr. Hoffman.
“Effective immediately, the R.N.C. will endorse and support the Conservative candidate in the race, Doug Hoffman,” the party’s national chairman, Michael Steele, said. “Doug’s campaign will receive the financial backing of the R.N.C. and get-out-the-vote efforts to defeat Bill Owens on Tuesday.”
But other prominent Republicans expressed concern that Ms. Scozzafava’s decision seemed likely to unsettle the party going into next year’s midterm elections, raising the prospect of more primaries against Republican candidates that they deem too moderate. Party leaders — including Mr. Steele and Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker — had argued that local parties should be permitted to pick candidates that most closely mirror the sentiments of the district, even if those candidates vary from Republican orthodoxy on some issues.
“This makes life more complicated from the standpoint of this: If we get into a cycle where every time one side loses, they run a third-party candidate, we’ll make Pelosi speaker for life and guarantee Obama’s re-election,” said Mr. Gingrich, who had endorsed Ms. Scozzafava.
“I felt very deeply that when you have all 11 county chairman voting for someone, that it wasn’t appropriate for me to come in and render my judgment,” he said. “I think we are going to get into a very difficult environment around the country if suddenly conservative leaders decide they are going to anoint people without regard to local primaries and local choices.”
Ms. Scozzafava, a state assemblywoman and former small-town mayor, was nominated this summer by Republican county leaders who quickly found their choice second-guessed by the party’s conservative wing. Many officials in the district, a vast expanse from the Vermont border through the Adirondacks to Lake Ontario, were deeply resentful of the outside involvement.
“They’re trying to bang 435 elections across the United States into the same mold,” said James Ellis, chairman of the Franklin County Republican Party. “It’s a detriment to democracy.”
Ms. Scozzafava’s withdrawal leaves a clear two-way race between Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Owens, a Plattsburgh lawyer. As such, the contest on Tuesday could offer a test of the debate that Republican leaders are having: whether it needs to adjust itself ideologically to expand its appeal to places like New York.
Mr. Hoffman, though running as a Conservative, had been endorsed by some Republican luminaries, including Sarah Palin, the party’s 2008 vice presidential nominee, and Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a likely candidate for president in 2012. The swell of opposition to Ms. Scozzafava was reflected on conservative radio talk shows and in a heavy diet of television advertising supporting Mr. Hoffman that was financed by conservative groups.
Ms. Scozzafava did not say whom, if anyone, she would endorse. Polls in the district showed that Mr. Owens and Mr. Hoffman were each drawing about 35 percent of the vote; several Republicans said that at least in theory, her withdrawal should help Mr. Hoffman as Republican voters join his campaign.
The district has been solidly Republican since the 19th century and had been represented by Representative John M. McHugh, who stepped down after Mr. Obama named him secretary of the Army.
“In recent days, polls have indicated that my chances of winning this election are not as strong as we would like them to be,” Ms. Scozzafava said in a statement. “The reality that I’ve come to accept is that in today’s political arena, you must be able to back up your message with money — and as I’ve been outspent on both sides, I’ve been unable to effectively address many of the charges that have been made about my record.”
The decision by Ms. Scozzafava to suspend her campaign is a clear victory for conservatives in the party at a time when there has been a pitched battle among party leaders over whether Republicans needed to change their ideological appeal as part of an effort to recover from the losses of 2006 and 2008.
Ms. Scozzafava fit the model of candidate advocated by Republican leaders like Mr. Steele and Senator John Cornyn of Texas: one whose views might not be in keeping with much of the national party, but are more reflective of the district in question.
A primary is unfolding in Florida, where Gov. Charlie Crist, who is running for the Senate, is facing a challenge from a conservative, Marco Rubio, the former Florida House speaker. Mr. Crist has come under fire from conservatives for, among other things, supporting Mr. Obama on his economic stimulus package.
Republican officials said that Ms. Scozzafava decided to drop out after reviewing private and public polls that convinced her that she was going to come in third place.
One Republican who had spoken to Ms. Scozzafava about her decision said that she was concerned her candidacy was too divisive for the party and that the decision was hers alone.
“She didn’t want to be labeled as a spoiler,” said the person, who requested anonymity because private conversations were involved.
Suzanne Moore contributed reporting from Plattsburgh, N.Y.
There is a problem for the Republican party and it is the "far right wing" not the "moderates".
But not in how both sides view the other.
The far right wing's first and formost focus is Abortion.
I'm futher right than most right wingers but I'm not pure enough.
My issues and their order of support are 2nd Amd, 1st Amd, Taxes & Large Government/Spending and lastly abortion and gay marriage.
I can vote for a 80-90% candidate as long as he/she is stronge on the other issues. It is far better than the "100% against me" other guy.
NY 23 is a special election with very special dynamics. The R was selected by party bosses with one flipping and going against her county's wishes and the R is more liberal than the D running. The Conservative Party is not the same as third parties elsewhere.
The right wingers are going to take the success of NY 23 (it ain't over yet) and try it everywhere in 2010. Republicans will hold a primary, the non-100%er will be selected, the right wingers have a hissy fit, go third party and the D is elected.
In a year when the R's should hold primaries, get behind the winner and go on to the election to win you'll see a number of D's elected because of the spoilers going third party looking for the pure candidate.
Obama won NC by less than 25,000 votes, Barr got more than 25,000 votes in NC.
Opinion piece from the local paper
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20091101/OPINION01/311019918/-1/OPINION
What are moderates and what is the difference between Republicans and Democrats? Are Republicans just Demo-lite - we'll get to the same place but at our pace not their's.....?
Scozzafava was running as a Republican, put in by her cronies, and she took Republican money and help to run her campaign. When Conservatives got POed they got fired up and her numbers tanked.
She has now dropped out with some mushy statements about her supporters can make up thier own minds as to who to support.
This leads to the opinion piece in the paper making the claim that she is secretly urging her supporters to vote for the Democrat. She needs to come flat out and now support the Conservative who said if he wins he'll caucus with the Republicans and run as a Republican next year. But will she?
Any wonder people throw their hands up and walk away?
Don't throw your hands up - get out there and make your fight in the primaries. If your guy don't make it support the guy/gal who did.
Just my opinion of course.
The Republican who dropped out of the race has endorsed the Democrat
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/01/scozzafava-endorses-democrat-dropping-ny-congressional-race/
Smooth move Newt, Steele, the RNCC. et all. Maybe you need a little more exlax before running off at the mouth about who to support.
Less than 48 hours before the voting begins.
Bet the early voters for DeDe are pissed.
HowardCohodas
11-01-2009, 15:21
Obama is the best thing to happen to conservatives since Ronald Regan. At the moment, the Republican party is the only home for conservatives. To use petroleum refining as an analogy, the heat that Obama generates is what is needed to crack the goo that is the Republican party and distill out the valuable compounds. Out of this mess will come leadership that may well surprise us.
The biggest risk we face is if Obama succeeds sufficiently for us to reach a tipping point from which even strong conservative leadership bring us back. I think it possible, but unlikely.
My three posts show the problem with the Republican party.
The Conservatives in the party have been at a slow burn since 1994. Yes there has been the infighting between the social & fiscal conservatives but they are conservatives non the less.
They are getting a little POed about being invited to the dance and then sitting in a chair the whole night.
The Blue Blood Country Club types have been saying year after year "We must be moderate" "The big tent" and all the while marching down the same road as the Democrats.
Even though NY 23 is a special case the bizzaro way it's been handled by the powers that be in Republican leadership all the way from the district to the RNC spell doom for the average (RINO) moderate Republican in 2010.
In an off year election where the R's should pull a great many victories look for third party folks with no chance of winning to get enough Conservative votes to swing the election to the D's.
........For example, if you have a person who is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, okay with say a government health program that covers only catastrophic types of things for people (Rush Limbaugh has said he is okay with covering catastrophic stuff), is pro-free market, for low taxes, limited government, fiscal conservatism, etc...wouldn't this person be considered a "moderate?" But yet they do stand for things, just some things they stand for tend to be solidly Leftist areas, and others solidly conservative areas.........
Who is this person in elected life? Surely not a D or an R.
A moderate is someone who trys to find middle ground.
What is the middle ground in gun issues - taxes - abortion - government spending - size of government? Middle ground means the person who says "no" has to say "well, OK, a little" We've been saying "Well, OK, a little" on gun issues and the rest since the 1960s.
The only red herring is gay marriage. I don't think all that many people really care what gays do to each other. They're just getting a little pissed at having the lifestyle pushed into their face.