Just when you think that there is no hope for moderates, along comes Christie Todd Whitman giving us some words of hope and action.
Whitman, was the former governor of New Jersey and the former head of the EPA under W. until last year. In a book she has written, she comes out and says that under her tenure as EPA Administrator, she had went to to toe with anti-evironmental Republicans. The articles says,
" Whitman, who led the Environmental Protection Agency for President Bush from 2001 until May 2003, also says in the book that she was often at odds with the White House on issues such as setting limits on air pollutants and power plant emissions and in the debate over global warming. Her tenure was marked by complaints from conservatives that she was too moderate.
So, now we know that Whitman probably left the EPA out of frustration with the far right who tends not to be so strong on the environment.
She goes on to say that catering to the far right could end up hurting the GOP. The book, "It's My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America," is basically about her desire for moderates to regain control of the GOP again and steer the party back towards the center.
I think this is proof positive that there is a battle brewing in Elephantland. We moderates are more and more troubled of the direction the party is taking: one that seems unconcerned with issues like the environment, civil rights, poverty and the like. I think moderates have been silent over the years hoping that conservatives would listen to our quiet advice. We have given our more conservative brethern the benefit of the doubt. But now we see a party that seems to be catering to a small chunk of the country who seem to marginalize anyone who doesn't agree with them.
I tend to think 2008 is going to be a key year in the life of this party. I think moderates are beginning to find their voice again.
Just so you know, you can pre-order Whitman's book. I think any moderate out there should order it and people who know moderate Republicans may want to buy one for their friend.
Posted by Dennis at December 19, 2004 11:32 PMI was an undecided voter and still need some help trying to understand why people like the job George Bush is doing. Please tell me why no one seems to discuss anything other than him being tough on terrorism. With all of the growing evidence about how Bush knew months before 9/11 that the attack was imminent but didn't tell anyone other than family and close friends, I'm losing heart and don't think he can be trusted to keep us safe in the future. Please don't tell me about how he is better than Kerry. The election is over. I'm also concerned by the fact that his brother, Marvin, ran the security for the World Trade Center, Dulles Airport, and United Airlines. The towers were just rewired the weekend before the attack and traces of explosives were found in the wreckage of the towers. Not looking too good for Marvin, who was also 'surprisingly' found to be in the vicinity of the towers when they fell! He even called his mother from there to tell her was o.k. Sounds like a pyro who just has to watch the fire burn, doesn't it?
I also can't seem to find any blogs that mention Bush's expertise as a leader in such areas as the economy, healthcare, environment, or cross-cultural relations. Can someone lead me in the direction of some intelligent pro-Bush discussions? I'd hate to only find the Democrat-bashing that I've found on pro-Dem sites. They're usually full of trash talk and foul language, both of which don't help me to understand why they voted for Bush at all. If you'd like to be understood, please let me know where I can read your stuff. How about at this site? Thanks!
Current reports about changes in environmental protections, to where there can be no filtering of sewage into our water supplies, and to where the Defense Dept. doesn't even need to observe environmental laws, ought to tell us everything we need to know about this 'buy now, let others pay later' administration. That and their love of 'privitizing' social security by spending $70 billion more that we DON'T have to fund it.
There's one overriding ideology here, not conservatism, or neoconservatism, or libertarism: it's GREED, self-serving, let-others-suffer greed.
Environmental regulation is a tough subject for Libertarians. Giving control over something you are responsibly controlling to the government is an attack on your freedom, but environmental lack of responsibility by someone else can inversely affect others. I consider myself a Libertarian, but consider most libertarians to be either unrealistic flakes or pluto-anarchists gaming the system. Small government doesn’t mean no government, and I think one of the functions of government should to prevent irresponsible actions from harming others.
On 2008 being the key year in the life of this party, didn’t folks here say that about 2004?
Typically, moderates are quiet until something or someone pulls too far in one direction and the moderates react.
I am puzzled by the link of conservatives and lack of environmental concerns. I would think that a liberitarian would be against environmental controls (freedoms) whereas a conservative would speak to no change (status quo).
And liberals wish for environmental controls except when they affect their own comfort (to wit, Kerry proposes alternative energy policies but is against wind turbines on Cape Cod).
Posted by: EG at December 20, 2004 09:20 AM