I recieved this comment from frequent contributor to the Moderate Republican about Arlen Specter's win yesterday in the Pennsylvania senate primary against hard-core conservative Pat Toomey:
Well the results are in and Specter is battered but still (for now) Senator Specter. It's going to be an interesting election even without Toomey. Specter has been a moderate in the past and is still a moderate in some ways, but he's been shifting further to the right lately. This primary highlighted that.
I wonder if the far-right's strategy of putting up Toomey is going to backfire on them. Normally Specter would have an easy cruise to his next term, no matter who the Democrats put up, because he is powerful, experienced, and centrist. Many Penn Democrats have voted for him in the past because of that. But this primary has exposed fractures in the Republican party and has forced Specter to publicly shift further to the right. And as a consequence, it could catapult Hoeffel into the spotlight - in previous election years, you can bet hardly anyone would have known who Specter's Democratic opponent was.
And that will give Pennsylvania Democrats a fresh look at their party and its candidate. They outnumber Pennsylvania Republicans, and many are not too eager to see Bush in office for another four years. With Specter now publicly endorsed by Bush (out of necessity to keep up the appearance of a united party), perhaps the Democrats will shift allegiance and vote for Hoeffel.
But then, this is exactly what I wrote about. The far-right seems willing to punish Republicans who don't toe the far-right line, even if that means some Republicans have to lose offices to Democrats.
More about the Specter victory, here.
I'm participating in the Minnesota AIDS Walk on Sunday May 16. The proceeds go to help those living with HIV/AIDS as well as HIV Education in the state of Minnesota. I'm asking you to pledge me as I take the six-mile walk next month. If you would like to help prevent AIDS, please consider giving a pledge. Whatever you can afford is great. You can pledge by going to this site.
Thanks.
I'm thinking there needs to be some sort of grassroots group for moderates. Maybe call it the Progressive Conservative Caucus. I want to know what people think. Please shoot me an e-mail and let me know what are your thoughts. Thanks.
Update: Please also let me know how you would want to participate in said group. Thanks.
The April Edition of the Moderate Republican is online. Please read the commentary by Mark Kittel about the upcoming GOP primary pitting moderate Arlen Specter against far right candidate Pat Toomey.
For a short time, Sandoval County, New Mexico was issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The county clerk who issued the licenses was Victoria Dunlap, a Republican. Well, I guess in today's GOP, showing compassion to a group that has been excluded is a big no-no. Dunlap was censured by the New Mexico Republican Central Committee for her actions. It seems that the Central Committee wanted to more. Listen to what chairman Richard Gibbs said:
"Other than assassination, all we can do is censure her."
Sweet. Some elected official makes a decision and the respect she gets from her fellow party members is thoughts of rubbing her out. The Central Committee said that she has brought disgrace to the party. I don't think so, the creeps like Gibbs are the ones that have sullied the once-proud party of Lincoln. The party that once was behind the abolition of slavery is now the party that wants people who like gays dead.
And these people think they have a winning strategy?
It Gets Worse: My home state of Michigan has just passed a bill in the Republican-controlled state house that would allow doctors to refuse treatment to gays. The state Catholic conference, that paragon of moral virtue, pushed for it. It is now going to the Republican-controlled Senate where it will probably pass as well.
So let's just set the picture here: if an ambulance is called to a house of two gay men and one of them is having a heart attack, it's okay for the EMT to do nothing because he doesn't like gays? It's okay for him to allow that person to die?
Folks, this is not about religious freedom. This is pure hate.
Thanks to Andrew Sullivan and Eva Young for the tips.
In honor of Earth Day, I wanted to share two articles from two leaders of Republicans for Environmental Protection. The first is from policy director, Jim Depeso and the second is from president Martha Marks. Happy reading.
Tami Silicio, a Seattle-area woman who works for a defense contractor, paid the utlimate price for snapping a photo: She lost her job. It turns out she supposedly was breaking a 1991 Pentagon ruling barring pictures of coffins in transport to the United States. The photo of flag-draped coffins was show in the Seattle Times.
I'm curious to know what others think about this. I think the photo is respectful and it just shows the result of war: death. If it was a photo of managled bodies, then there might be a case for firing her, but that wasn't the case here.
I just recieved a comment from "Bill" on this. Slate magazine is pushing the idea of the President Bush dumping Veep Dick Cheney for someone else. This has been a rumor milling about for months and no matter what the White House does, it just doesn't die. That makes me wonder if there is some truth to the story. Tim Noah thinks Cheney is the reason that the White House is so far to the right on so many issues and if Cheney is gone, then there might be a change of policy.
I don't know if things will be that rosy for Bush, but I do think Noah is right that there is every good chance that getting a new running mate would not hurt him.
Bill thinks we should draft McCain for veep. I do wonder if McCain would take the bait. The question remains: would Bush want to win enough that he willing to bend to McCain's reform-minded conservatism? Would McCain extract some promises from Bush to tackle certain issues or would McCain be another Colin Powell, a good and principled man who has become ineffective in the face of the neocons?
All interesting options. Talk amongst yourselves.
We Americans love to talk about how high our taxes are. Here in Minnesota, which is a high tax state, people are willing to gather and kvetch that taxes are "way too high." Never mind most of that money goes to helping make Minnesota the great place that it is to live.
I'm not crazy about taxes, but we need them. Look, as a new homeowner, I know now the joys of paying property taxes. I could complain about that and vote down a school mileage request, but that might cause more programs beng cut for kids.
There are a lot of Republicans who think the perfect society is where we pay no taxes. I'd like that, but not at the expense of putting my two 70-something parents into poverty. Because of Social Security and Medicare, they are able to live full-productive lives and I'm willing to pay my share of the tax to keep it that way. Unless most the anti-tax crowd have no parents who will one day become elderly I don't think they want to make that choice either.
Here's a op-ed going over our hatred and our need for taxes.
A recent conversation reminded me of this article that appeared in the Moderate Republican in November, 2003. It's written by Mark Kittel, a frequent contributor to the webmagazine. I think he states how moderate Republicans should act when we enter th voting booth this November.
While I've been against the whole endeavor in Iraq, I've always believed the US should stay in Iraq until the work is done. It's sort of the "you broke it, you buy it" strategy. We are responsible for the well-being of an entire nation and we can't just cut and run.
John Kerry's op-ed follows that line of reasoning. Kerry realizes the stakes are high in Iraq and we can't just leave. But as the mounting death toll is showing, we can't do this alone either. The Bushies are trying to make nice with the UN and nations like France to get some international help, but I think the "appeasers" will for the most part allow Bush to twist in the wind until November when there might be a change in leadership here.
Kerry shows at least through this op-ed that he is not a weak-kneed liberal, but a liberal realist. I can deal with that.
I'm waiting for the neocons to say something about the European reaction to the reported offer by "binLaden" to spare Europe from terrorist attacks if they pull out of Iraq. Didn't see much appeasment here. Maybe I'm missing something. What do you think?
I found this on Andrew Sullivan's blog. It's an e-mail to our favorite Brit:
I am a 49 year old professional classical musician and educator and not a democrat. Your quote today from Margot Mifflin of Salon in her 'therapy' session perfectly describes the reaction I have stirred up in a new girlfriend. Like many musicians, she is zealously left-liberal. Her heroes are Ted Kennedy and Hillary. (not Sir Edmund) We share everything in common except politics. I am able to accept and understand her values while not agreeing with them, but am perplexed by her difficulty with mine. She is like the robot on the old Lost In Space TV show. When I explain rationally that I do not think that Rush Limbaugh is 'evil', and that perhaps Al Qaeda might better illustrate that concept, she starts spinning around and yammers "It does not compute, It does not compute". Furthermore, she is constantly asking questions about my views on one aspect of politics or another with every question beginning with either 'Why'? or, 'How could you possibly?'........ In other words, I am viewed as some kind of double anomaly, on the one hand I am one of those neanderthal Republicans, and on the other I SEEM to be a reasonable and civilized one. This is causing her no end of confusion. She is actually having dinner with and making love to one of "THEM". So much for inclusiveness and ending 'Us against Them' thinking in our lifetime. Sigh...
I've had to put up with people who think that being a gay, black Republican is some kind of oxymoron. I've given up trying to explain that there are actually Republicans who are not religious right clones and just because I'm a Republican doesn't mean that I'm some kind of self-loathing person; I'm just different.
Well, anybody hoping and praying for John McCain to be placed on a ticket with fellow Senator and Democratic nominee, John Kerry can hold your breath. Speaking today on NBC's "Meet the Press," McCain said he join the Dems ticket under any circumstances. He explains:
"I will not be vice president of the United States under any circumstances. I feel that I can be far more effective in helping shape policy in the future of this country as a United States senator."
And he is right. He has a considerable amount of influence as a Senator. Plus McCain is not the kind of guy that would want to play second fiddle. I think he would want the whole enchilada or nothing at all. McCain has incredible power where he is. He is tough-minded reformer in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt and the GOP has so few of those kind of politicians these days.
McCain also made it be known that he's not leaving the GOP:
"No, no and no. I will not leave the Republican Party. I cherish the ideals and principles of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan."
Again, bully for him. There have been more than a few wags that think McCain doesn't fit in the GOP anymore and should become an independent or a Democrat. I've never thought either was a good idea. The GOP is becoming a party where anyone stagnant in its thinking. Anyone who does not agree with their anti-tax, anti-government, "pro-family" agenda is deemed a heretic. McCain needs to stay where he is as a Republican to ensure that the reform-minded spirit of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt is still alive. Too often moderates like Jim Jeffords, leave the party when things get rough. In my view that only makes the far right stronger. I'd rather stand and fight.
So, the dream ticket appears dead. But at least we will still have one helluva Senator.
John Kerry is a tad bit wary of taking on Bush concerning Iraq, partially because he voted for use of force back in 2002. However, if Kerry wants to gain points with moderates and Independents, he might talk about how this nation went from a shining beacon of hope to an international pariah.
Remember when the French leftist newspaper Le Monde said after September 11th that "We're all Americans Now?" There was an outpouring of support from around the world for the United States. Bush could have capitalized on that and created a strong coalition that could have taken on Al Queda. He could have even used that clout to pressure Iraq if need be. Instead, he chose to focus on invading Iraq even though there was no evidence it was necessary and he ignored and derided long-time allies. Now, we are hated around the world with people now calling us murderers.
This is arrogance is having its effects. We are now losing control of Iraq and the rest of the world is not rushing to help us out. God forbid there is another 9/11-style attack in the US, but if it happens, I doubt we will get much sympathy.
Kerry needs to talk about how Bush has messed up and why we need to go back to the more cooperative approach that was the policy of most post-World War II presidents from both parties. Do that and you will see more moderates and independents come to his side.
With all the chaos going on in Iraq, the United States is suddenly realizing that working with other nations to solve problems makes sense. In fact the Bushies have decided to talk to France about helping out.
Yes, France.
As in the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys."
A year ago, we were calling our ally everything but a child of God. Neocons were talking about how France colluded with Saddam (something of course the United States never, ever did) and people were talking about how evil the French were. We slapped a long standing friend in the face and now we are asking for their help in a war that they told us was not a good idea.
If people weren't dying in Iraq, this would be amusing. Now, it's just sad.
Just to let you know, if you are interested in donating to keeping this site and it's sister site going, please click on the Amazon link on your left. Thanks.
Yet another commentary of someone pining for McCain for Veep. I think someone needs to set up a "draft McCain" blog or something.
So, the New York Times did a survey to find out who was the most qualified Democrat to be John Kerry's running mate? Well, the perfect Democat was a Republican: John McCain.
Yes, John McCain.
I don't think the respondents were smoking anything, either.
He beat John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.
When a bunch of people say that the best qualified running mate for the Democratic nominee is a Goldwater-esque Republican, you know something is up. People LOVE John McCain. In many ways, he is a 21st century Teddy Roosevelt.
The interesting thing is that it's not just a few poll takers who are thinking of Kerry-McCain. Some advisers to Kerry think McCain is an "alluring choice." One advisor said having McCain on the ticket would almost assure Kerry the election.
I keep thinking, there is something to this dream ticket. McCain would get a second chance to get Bush and Kerry would have a man who could attack Bush from the right. Having a "fusion" ticket might actuall do something Bush and Co. advertised they would do, but failed to do: united the country. McCain would bring moderate Republicans and Independents that are needed to win the election. Hmmm...a coalition government....I'm liking where this is going.
Today was to be the opening day of the Hiawatha Light Rail line, the very first light rail line in the Twin Cities. That is not happening today because of the bus strike and it may not happen until at least April 2005. You think I'm joking? Read this Minneapolis Star Tribune article and see it's true. I'm beginning to think that our Governor Tim Pawenlty not forcing the two sides back to the table because this is a last ditch attempt to scuttle light rail, something the right wind idiots like the Minnesota Taxpayers League don't want it. They also want us to abandon our busses for cars.
So, since neither the Met Council or the Governor give a damn while the poor can't get around and businesses other other commuter's lives are disrupted, it's time to disrupt theirs.
Below, I'm including the links to the Governor, Chairman Peter Bell of the Met Council. I think between now and Monday we need to flood their voicemail and inboxes with messages so that their phone system will become clogged. It's time to afflict the comfortable.
Who says a Republican can't play dirty? (hmmm, that might be the wrong choice of words.)
Here's the contact info:
Governor Tim Pawlenty: tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us
651-296-3391
Chairman Peter Bell, Met Council: Metropolitan Council, attn, Peter Bell
651-602-1453
peter.bell@metc.state.mn.us
Also, please look at two informative blogs of striking workers.
I guess, I'm breaking another rule here in that I rarely talk about stuff going on in my personal life. Today was not a great day. I work as a customer service rep at a health care company in the Twin Cities suburbs. I really desire doing something that would allow me to use my communication skills, but those jobs are few and far between. I have a Masters of Divinity and I'm ordained, but full time work in this area is few and far between, though I am thankfully working as a parish associate at a local church that does pay a little. Back to the main story. My current job pays okay, but I have a lot of bills to pay: mortgage, car and insurance payments, loans and credit card debt. A year ago, I had a second job at a church that allowed me to pay all the bills, but I was let go from the job and have spent the last year looking for a better paying job. No dice. Despite having a Bachelor's in Journalism, a Masters in Divinity and working on a Masters of Library and Information Science, I can't find a better job. So, I'm stuck here answering phones.
I'm glad I have a job, but I want more and need more to pay bills. Tonight, I stumbled on an interesting article by a fellow GenXer who write about underemployment: the fact that people who are highly educated are working at entry level, low wage jobs. I've thought about my situation and the job market with the news of more jobs being created. I have to wonder if all the people in those jobs were underemployed or not. I just have a feeling I'm not the only highly-educated person working in an entry level job. It seems like this is a problem, but no one seems to talk about it.
I need to think more about this.
Okay, I'm joking...somewhat. It does take some money to keep both this blog and the Moderate Republican webmag going and right now I'm a man with a job that does not pay all the bills, so every little dollar helps.
I wish I could say something like, "And with you pledge you will get this handcrafted mug made from the Rock of Gibraltar," or something, but I don't have things like that yet. You will have my deepest appreciation, though.
So, if you would like to support one of the few sanely conservative news and opinion sites around, please consider giving. Just click on the Amazon link to the left. Thanks.
I don't tend to write a lot about local issues on this blog, but I am now. For about a month, the Twin Cities has suffered under a transit strike. It has affected everybody in many ways. Right now I have to give my housemate rides into and out of downtown Minneapolis because he has no other way to get into town. While the strike is an inconvenience to people like my housemates, it's damn near impossible for the poor to get around. You would think our Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) would have the interests of the wider community at heart and try to get both sides back to the bargaining table. As Nick Coleman of the Star Tribune notes the Guv has seemed to not get involved, except to say that the transit workers get health care benefits better than anyone else so they should stop whining about having to pay more under a proposed new contract. Nice to know you're neutral on this Tim.
Coleman talks about the last bus strike in 1995 when then Governor Arne Carlson (R), forced both sides back to the table and played hardball with both sides until an agreement was made. Now that is leadership. Carlson did not favor either side, he just knew that getting the buses rolling was important to the Twin Cities and to the state of Minnesota as a whole. He wasn't guided by any ideology, just a pragmatic desire to solve the impasse.
While both governors were Republicans, they come from two different worlds. Carlson was a moderate, who did things from a pragmatic perspective. Pawlenty, on other hand, is guided by a far-right ideology that seems to denigrate the public sector. The people Pawlenty listens to are right-wingers like the Minnesota Taxpayer's League which thinks mass transit is a big waste of money and thinks we should give the poor cars instead. Uh huh. Unless the state plans on paying for the poor's auto insurance, which one must have and for any of the inevitable repairs, I don't see how that is going to fly. But these are the people who got Pawlenty elected, so he's going to listen to them.
I like mass transit. Right now, I have to drive 15 miles daily to get to my job in suburban Eagan. I would give anything to be able to take a bus that would get me to my job, but the buses don't go that far. So I have to put miles I don't want to on my VW Jetta. I'm thankful it's fuel efficient.
I want this strike to end. I want to see the poor get their transportation back. If the good Governor is reading this, start acting like the leader you were elected to be. We didn't elect you to only govern only the right-wing looneys.