The Moderate Republican

Lincoln ran for the Senate on the Whig ticket in 1846 against Peter Cartwright an old evangelist.

During a townhall meeting, with Lincoln present, the evangelist took a poll of sorts by asking people to stand - first those who thought they were going to Heaven, and then later those who thought they were going to Hell. He targeted his "stump" speech accordingly.

After Lincoln failed to stand either time. Cartwright challenged him: "Just where are you going Mr. Lincoln?"

"I'm going to Congress," Lincoln responded.

I think that's how the president should deal with "political realities".

Posted by: dorsano at October 19, 2004 09:36 PM

Possibly you prefer the fact that by the time the election is over 20% of our states will have constitutional amendments banning civil unions, something that would not have happened if the FMA moved forward (as it would have taken the wind out of the sails of those who would wish to pass them).

The solemnization of marriage (primarily by churches) is certainly protected by the 1st amendment. My personal opinion is that all states should drop the idea of recognizing marriage, per se.

I am assuming from your response you didn't read my earlier, much longer, post in its entirety, but maybe you did.

Your comments reflect that you seem unwilling to accept certain political realities. In fact, when Bush announced the FMA, he said it should not be seen to preclude civil unions, and should in fact open the debate.

Best,

--Barry

Posted by: Barry Johnson at October 19, 2004 08:16 PM

You suggest that Bush, "is supporting an amendment that would not only prevent same-sex marriages, but would prohibit civil unions and may also ax some pro-gay laws on the books." The latter claim is flatly false

Marriage is protected by the 1st Amendment. Neither the states nor federal government can force a church to marry same-sex couples without first repealling the amendment.

I really don't care what Clinton and Democrats did or didn't do.

If the president had the interests of gays and lesbians at heart, he would sponsor an amendment in support of civil unions.

Let's call him up ask him to. I will if you will.

Posted by: dorsano at October 19, 2004 07:40 PM

You suggest that Bush, "is supporting an amendment that would not only prevent same-sex marriages, but would prohibit civil unions and may also ax some pro-gay laws on the books." The latter claim is flatly false, the text of the FMA supported by the WH and the Republican leadership was the most limited form possible. I welcome your evidence to the contrary.

I would most of all enjoy your response to the piece I e-mailed you over the weekend, now posted as "Why George Bush's Call for a Federal Marriage Amendment is in the Best Interest of Gay Americans". I sent it to you out of genuine interest in the feedback of someone who disagrees. Sadly, I have seen no interest in furthering the possible debate from you, or the Log Cabin Repubicans.

Oddly, some Kerry supporters have at least responded, as summarized in my follow-up post, "George Bush and the Federal Marriage Amendment Feedback" to respond.

You are obviously entitled to your position, but I am still trying to understand why, emotions aside, Bush's call for the FMA is worse for Americans, gay and straight alike, than the alternative of duking it out in the courts and polling places for decades.

Throwing out incedinary remarks while shying from invited calm debate is not a way to win others to your position. Possibly that is not your aim.

Respectfully,

--Barry

Posted by: Barry Johnson at October 19, 2004 02:26 PM

It amazes me that Republicans still call themselves the party of Lincoln. Pre Civil-Rights Republicans are essentially Democrats today.

Now, you mention that the cornerstones of Republicanism are limited government, federalism, and equality. Republicans threw quality to the wind when right-wing extremist Southerners opposed the Civil Rights Movement; the Green Party is arguably more of a proponent of Federalism than today's GOP and Democrats; and Bush Jr.'s lack of an iota of fiscal discipline makes the most fiscally progressive Democrat look like Scrooge.

Posted by: Steve at October 17, 2004 11:38 PM

Dorsano, Dorsano, Dorsano,
I’m killing Americans? Then include Thomas Kean, Lee Hamilton, Bob Kerrey and the rest of those on the 9/11 Commission who had published that finding. Include Debra Burlingame, the sister not widow as previously stated, of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77 which hit the Pentagon.
In her editorial in the Wall Street Journal, she cites two examples of the connections between Saddam and al Qaeda, yes al Qaeda, and she gets those connection from where? The 9/11 Commission Report. Burlingame: “…it states that Saddam Hussein--wanting to curry favor with other Arab governments wary of Osama bin Laden--was not responsive to a 1996 request by bin Laden for safe haven in Iraq when the Sudanese government was poised to give him the boot. After bin Laden declared war against the U.S. in 1998, two al Qaeda operatives went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. Later, a delegation of Iraqi officials traveled to Afghanistan and offered to set bin Laden up. Taliban leaders, concerned with the increasing possibility of retaliatory strikes by the U.S., urged bin Laden to go. During heated discussions with other Clinton administration policy makers about the effect of launching missile strikes on bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan, then-NSC Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke worried that bin Laden would "boogie to Baghdad" where he would put his network at Saddam's service and be all the harder to root out, given Saddam's formidable security apparatus.” She adds: “The commission further reported that terrorist training camps, now eliminated by the coalition forces of Operation Iraqi Freedom, were set up in Northern Iraq with bin Laden's help. Al Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was given safe haven by Saddam Hussein after he fled Afghanistan. It is Zarqawi, a chemical weapons expert, who is believed to be the leading force behind Ansar al-Islam, the terrorist organization bin Laden assisted in founding several years ago and which is carrying out beheadings and suicide bombings in Iraq today.” Her article is Right War, Right Place, Right Time, October 2, 2004.

Posted by: Russell Fette at October 17, 2004 09:30 PM

"Sen. Snowe from Maine might just be our next best bet to run for President in 08."

Oh, how I would love it if Sen. Snowe ran for higher office. A friend of mine and I were trying to think up "wishful thinking candidates" and Sen. Snowe was definitely on our list. I think we had her running for vice president with McCain running for president. And then we thought about the "what if" she ran for president question.

I'm not sure yet about Chafee, if only because who knows if he will still remain a Republican. I'm a big fan and so I hope he stays, but whether or not he could win the nomination is very much up in the air. I would love to see him try, though.

Good post, Dennis.

Posted by: Nicole at October 17, 2004 05:26 PM

The question of which faction I want to win is a complicated one, because I long for the days of Reaganism when both factions could co-exist.

That's an honest answer Dave - And one I can respect.

Posted by: dorsano at October 17, 2004 01:58 AM

Hi dorsano,

The question of which faction I want to win is a complicated one, because I long for the days of Reaganism when both factions could co-exist. But those days are gone due to the fact that the GOP now controls all the levers of the state and no matter which policies we choose, they will offend half the party. Generally I think that McCain-ism is probably the future of the country, though I don't think that should be mistaken as the old New England Republicanism of Snowe and Chafee. I think that McCain represents a combination of tax cutter and deficit hawk, federalist and traditionalist, a foreign policy hawk who is not guided solely by ideology. Unfortunately, McCain will be too old to lead any revolution, and the intraparty fight will be quite ugly.

I'm not sure whether Bush wins or loses will affect this war; in fact, a Bush loss may just prolong it. If Bush wins, it will be like LBJ's win in 1964 --- the Democrats had everything and the only ones they had to fight with were each other. By 1968, the 35 yr old Democratic coalition was over. 2008 could be our 1968.

One of the biggest problems is that the GOP base refuses to give ground on the social issues. Moving to the middle on abortion is the ultimate heresy and even less tolerable than raising tax. If Bush wins, of course, he will have a huge role in determining the shape of this fight, though far less influence than most presidents due to the lack of an heir apparent in his administration. One fear that folks like Andrew Sullivan seem to hint at is that Bush is trying to turn the GOP into the Democratic Party of Zell Miller: the fiscally populist, socially conservative, pro-war party. I don't think that's the case because, like I said, his last name is Bush. But if that were the case, we would see realignment sooner rather than later, as both fiscal conservatives and social moderates would revolt at the GOP becoming solely a party for Southern populists.

I predict that 2008 will be a showdown between someone like Bill Owens, representing the Bush wing, and Rudy Giuliani, representing the McCain wing. The GOP establishment may try to stave off this fight with a compromise candidate like Romney, a moderate who's thrown a bone to the right a la gay marriage, or Pawlenty, a conservative who talks like a moderate, but both sides are seething for this fight and my guess is it will happen in 2008.

Posted by: Dave at October 17, 2004 01:42 AM

Russell, Russell, Russell,

You kill Americans when you say this:

There was a connection between Saddam and terrorist.

Because most people around the world equate the terrorists that attacked us with Queda.

And the 9/11 commission made it clear that there were no operational links between Qaeda and Iraq.

Both the President and Tony Blair acknowledged that fact BEFORE the president took us to war. In the Cross Hall of the White House - in a rare moment of honesty:

Question: One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

When you say There was a connection between Saddam and terrorist. you make it look as if we can't tell the difference between Pashtuns, Arabs, Kurds, Persians, Turkomans, Suni, Shia and those who attacked us.

And if you don't understand how that offends people in just about every nook and granny of the planet - and how it enrages people around the globe to one degree or another

you have no idea of how to defend this country.

Posted by: dorsano at October 17, 2004 01:00 AM

First, it is necessary to actually read the 9/11 Commission Report. There was a connection between Saddam and terrorist. The widow of the pilot whose plane hit the Pentagon outlined it beautifully in the Wall Street Journal. Also read the entire Dulifer Report, you will find that sanctions had long deteriorated, due to bribes under the oil for food program. Just as we were unaware of the faulty intelligence here at home and the entire world on stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we didn’t know when we went to the UN, to broaden the coalition, to get the UN to finally enforce it’s 19 UN Security Council resolutions, that France, Germany, and China’s vote had already been bought. Saddam was assured by France that they would block any attempt by the US to go to war through the UN Security Council. It was understood that money paid out was to lift the sanctions and Saddam was ready to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs once sanctions were lifted and Iraq wasn’t under a microscope. Saddam’s hatred of the US and his cooperation with terrorist organizations was a definite threat to our national security in a post- 9/11 world. Kerry still carries the anti-Vietnam war mentality he brought back home with him. His votes in the Senate against weapons systems. His bill to dramatically cut Intelligence, so much so, he couldn’t get support from those prominent in his own party. Clearly his vote against using force in the Gulf War, despite Saddam’s attack on Kuwait and threat to Saudi Arabia. World condemnation and support to use force, still wasn’t enough for Kerry.
Current deficits are of concern and need to be addressed but they are not that dramatic compared to our GDP within an economy running in the trillions. Surplus and deficit figures are predictions based on constant government spending and revenues coming in. When the economy falters, like a recession, projections change. Taxes effect spending, savings and investment. Cut taxes and you increase revenues through other taxes collected through economic growth. Spending creates deficits, this administration has cut the rate of growth in government spending, reducing the amount of deficits being projected. More needs to be done but electing a tax and spend liberal is not the remedy.
The marriage amendment addresses judges legislating their opinions on the bench, overruling what state legislatures have already put into law. Marriage is restricted between men and women, as there is restrictions on age, restrictions on marrying relatives, restrictions in having more than one spouse. If marriage is a right, equal protection under the law, if judges rule one restriction is a violation, what stops another judge ruling in favor of incest, polygamy, etc.? Marriage is a institution. Created primarily as the foundation in creation of the family. Where humanity with it’s imperfection has failed to always adhere to the principles which make a marriage work, when marriages do work, history going over thousands of years show that children grow and develop best within that environment. We are talking thousands of years, we do not have the same depth of research on child development within a homosexual environment, no matter in what capacity such couples can provide for a child.
Lastly we are talking about a constitutional process that a president has nothing to do with. It has to be approved by 3/4th or 2/3rds, I can't remember which, of the House and Senate to send to the states. The state legislatures have to approve it by the same margin and it has to be approved by more than a majority of states. Plus there is a time limit for passage. A very difficult process, one which requires an overwhelming consensus of the nation.

Posted by: Russell Fette at October 17, 2004 12:03 AM

I find your challenge to the theocons telling because I believe it accurately represents the civil war that is about to break out in the GOP once this election is over. It's the battle between the Bush wing (fiscal populists, neocons, supply siders, theocons) and the McCain wing (fiscal conservatives, social libertarians, pragamatists) of the Republican Party. And it's an imminent conflict, no matter who wins in 2 weeks.

That's pretty good Dave.

Who do want to win?

And what outcome on Nov 2nd stabs them in the back or gives them some covering fire to make some changes?

Posted by: dorsano at October 16, 2004 11:25 PM

Of course I don't agree with your decision, but I do find your analysis of both Bush and Kerry especially cogent. Your problems with Bush are basically mine: his fiscal liberalism, his move to the social right, and what now appears to be both a faulty decision and execution of the war in Iraq. And I completely agree with your critique of Kerry. Yet I continue to ardently support Bush for the same reasons that you've decided to support Kerry: because I'm genuinely afraid of what the other guy will do to the country.

Perhaps it's a matter of weight that each individual gives to various issues. As a social libertarian, I'm generally uncomfortable with the New Religious Right, which seems less interested in being free to practice their religion and more interested in legislating their beliefs. And I guess somewhere deep down inside I still believe that an Ivy League guy like Bush will, at the end of the day, appoint more O'Connors than Scalias and dump the Ashcroftism once reelected. But to me social issues take second place to the harm a Kerry Administration would impose on the nation, growing government even more than Bush has and failing to solve any of the long-term problems like Social Security, Medicare, education, etc. Also, his SCOTUS picks would be far from moderate, and swing the courts to the left for a generation. He's Dukakis Version 2.0, and I fear his potential presidency.

I find your challenge to the theocons telling because I believe it accurately represents the civil war that is about to break out in the GOP once this election is over. It's the battle between the Bush wing (fiscal populists, neocons, supply siders, theocons) and the McCain wing (fiscal conservatives, social libertarians, pragamatists) of the Republican Party. And it's an imminent conflict, no matter who wins in 2 weeks.

Posted by: Dave from Poli Progs at October 16, 2004 11:03 PM

You're not alone Dennis. Our 30th Governor, Elmer Andersen (R) just endorsed Kerry.

Wednesday 13 October 2004

Throughout my tenure and beyond as the 30th governor of this state, I have been steadfastly aligned -- and until recently, proudly so -- with the Minnesota Republican Party.

It dismays me, therefore, to have to publicly disagree with the national Republican agenda and the national Republican candidate but, this year, I must.

The two "Say No to Bush" signs in my yard say it all.

....

This imperialistic, stubborn adherence to wrongful policies and known untruths by the Cheney-Bush administration -- and that's the accurate order -- has simply become more than I can stand.

Although I am a longtime Republican, it is time to make a statement, and it is this: Vote for Kerry-Edwards, I implore you, on Nov. 2.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101704X.shtml

Posted by: dorsano at October 16, 2004 08:42 PM

Hello,
I am syndicating your blog on my site, as I feel it is a great resource for my visitors. I invite you all to click over and have some bipartisan fun:

http://www.ballotboxers.com

Thanks and if you like the site please share it with your friends ;)

Posted by: John Martin at October 16, 2004 05:34 PM

I wonder what Luntz is up to?

Its time for Bush to get worried
By Frank Luntz

The big story of the US presidential election up to Thursday was how few undecided voters there were. Now the final presidential debate is over, these voters have essentially made up their minds - and it is George W.Bush who should be worried.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/10-15b-04.asp

Frank Luntz is a GOP pollster and political consultant. He's president and CEO of Luntz Research Companies, which offers "Strategic Consulting and Message Development," focus groups, surveys and other research for political and corporate campaigns.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Frank_Luntz

Posted by: dorsano at October 16, 2004 03:53 PM

Extremely well put, sir. While I'm sure we come at our reasons for wanting some fundamental changes in the platform from different angles, the end goal is the same. The party has veered dangerously away from the sensible conservative values of the past - fiscal responsibility, respect for individual rights and privacy, shrinking the federal beaurocracy, separation of church and state - towards a hawksish new neoconservative or theoconservative set of values. Our talk of having a "big tent" is nothing more than platitudes, mouthed to try to sway moderate voters, with no substnace behind it. I don't care for John Kerry at all, but he'll be getting my vote as well.

How government handles the people's money in the treasury is surely important, but the most precious capital we have is the lives of our citizens, particularly those in our military. Bush has spent that vital resource foolishly and this must not be allowed to continue.

While I have great respect for McCain, there are other moderate Republicans who would also serve us well. As it says on a t-shirt my sister is fond of wearing, "sometimes the best man for the job is a woman." Sen. Snowe from Maine might just be our next best bet to run for President in 08. It's time we open up a true "big tent" and show that it is more than just words.

Posted by: Jazz Shaw at October 16, 2004 07:11 AM

Nicely said! I wouldn't want you to leave your party. I'm a Democrat, but we'd all be better off if your party were back in the hands of the real conservatives, as I posted back in August.

As I said, I'm a Democrat, but I had moved to a new town just before the Presidential primary in 2000, so I had to register to vote there. I decided to go undeclared and I voted for John McCain (I know, my car and my truck should both be wearing this bumper sticker) who I thought was a really good man -- I wonder what they've done to him or offered him to cling to President Bush the way he has been.

Moderation? Tolerance? Be careful how you talk or they'll say you don't love freedom!! :)

I worry about people all across the country who don't want the Republican party back in the hands of rational thoughtful conservatives. I worry about people all across America who go searching four years from now for the next George W. Bush. If that happens, I may just have to join up with John McCain again. Yeah, it would piss off my Democrat friends, but it would be the right thing to do. Yeah, I do love freedom!!

Posted by: Dave Diamond at October 16, 2004 05:47 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments: