The Moderate Republican

A new Organzation for Moderates

Remember, when I felt that it seemed like the moderate Republican movement was dead and gone? Well, don't put that nail in the coffin yet. Several past moderate Republican officials including former governors and staffers in the Nixon and Ford Administrations have put together a group for moderates to come together to bring the party back to the mainstream of American politics. It's called Come Back to the Mainstream. They are urging an agenda for the GOP that is pro-environment, offers a more multilateral approach to foreign policy, and " pay-as-you-go" way of dealing with government spending.

It's nice to see the old guard moderates come to life. Join this group. I did.

GOP: Party of the Open Door. Try Not to Laugh.

"We are the party of the open door."

-Former GOP Chariman and current Governor of Mississippi Haley Barbour who led platform diliberations in social issues.

"[A]nd we believe that neither federal nor state judges and bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that the legal recognition and accompanying benefits should be preserved for the unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage."

-Part of the 2004 GOP platform on gay marriage which also calls for denying civil unions and domestic partner benefits.

Party of the open door? Yeah, ushering gays out of the Republican Party.

The GOP's Dead-End Future

If you talk to a Republican today, things look pretty good for the party. The GOP controls the White House and Congress, and if George W. Bush wins in November, they could remake the Supreme Court in a more reactionary image.

However, two writers think that while the current far-right GOP is ascendant, it will not have a healthy future. James Kirchick writes in the New York Sun that Americans under the age of 30 do not have the same atttitude about gays as the current makeup of the party does. He writes:

"...it [homosexuality] will become a political liability down the road as homophobic public policies become increasingly anachronistic with young people. The polls bear this contention out, and Karl Rove would do well to pay attention. In 2000, Mr. Bush nearly split the 18-to-29-year-old vote with Mr. Gore. But in a recently released Washington Post-ABC News poll, Mr. Kerry now leads the president among that same demographic by a 2-to-1 margin. While the war and the economy are paramount in creating this shift, the one glaring issue that separates this age group from older voters — who are evenly split in the presidential race — is gays."

He continues:

"If the Republican Party wishes to have a future, it must come to grips with the fact that its stances on issues related to homosexuality, while perhaps not strategically risky right now, will prove disastrous in the future if they do not evolve. Voters under 30 are “gay friendly.” Half of us support gay marriage and a sizeable majority of us support full legal rights via civil unions. We can claim more openly gay friends, relatives, and coworkers than any other generation of Americans. We view any remark that hints of anti-gay animus with the same mix of disdain and ironic bemusement as we do retrograde comments endorsing racial supremacy.

And he's right. Kids today know friends who are gay. They see gay characters on shows like "Will and Grace" or "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." Those kids who are just starting to vote or will vote in the coming years, think that all this emphasis on hating gays is just plain silly and mean. What this means electorally, is that they will vote for the Democrat who will at least mouth gay-friendly platitudes than for the homophobic Republican who tries to wrap their hatred in God and the flag.

John Judis writes in the New Republic about how different the Republican Party of George Bush is different from the GOP under Ronald Reagan. Reagan's party was a coalition of Southern Conservatives, Sun Belt Libertarians, Midwestern Moderates and Northeastern Liberals. Bush's party is really just a coalition (if you can call it a coalition) just of Southern Conservatives and they are reshaping the party into it's more radical outlook on life. However, Judis notes that American political parties, unlike European political parties, are not ideologically-based but built on coalitions. Judis writes:

"there are disadvantages to Bush's tightly knit conservative coalition. Electoral majorities--from William McKinley's in 1896 to Franklin Roosevelt's in 1932 to Reagan's in 1980--have always, by necessity, been socially and politically heterogeneous. McKinley drew together Northern labor and capital; Roosevelt combined the urban North and the rural South. The new Republican conservative coalition, however, achieves homogeneity at the expense of majority support. America is not Cobb County, Georgia, or Midland, Texas, writ large. Most Americans don't think government should be dismantled and abortion outlawed. They don't want creationism taught in schools or environmental regulations gutted.

And, because of that, the Republican Party's very success has put it at risk. Though its rebirth as a Southern-based conservative party allowed it to capture the White House and Congress, it also hindered it from building a stable national political majority."

Judis might be a bit biased since he co-wrote a book called, The Emerging Democratic Majority. However, I think he is right. America is not Texas writ large and while many Americans don't want European-style bigh government, they also don't want laws that discriminate against gays or unsafe drinking water. I think the current dominance of the GOP is not going to last. Just as America is becoming more tolerant of gays, it is also becoming more diverse, with people of different races and ethnicities. We are fast becoming a nation where people of European ancestry will be in the minority.

The changing demographics of the United States spell doom for the Republicans unless they change course. This could present an opening to moderates and Sun Belt conservatives, but then they might also become so disgusted they will allow the GOP to hang on its own pitard.

Money Quote of the Day

Q:Why should any gay or lesbian person support the Republican Party?

A:Gays and lesbians should support an inclusive Republican Party, not a Republican Party that marginalizes them.There are millions of gays and lesbians who believe in strong national defense and free markets and the limited role of government. Log Cabin Republicans is not sending money to people who oppose our basic equality, and there is a tremendous difference [between] them and Senator Arlen Specter, Congressman Christopher Shays, Congressman Rob Simmons, and Congresswoman Mary Bono, good Republicans across the country who, without their support, we will never pass a single piece of legislation that will lead to equality for LGBT Americans. The American political system requires that we have members of both political parties supporting major legislation.

-Log Cabin Republicans President Pat Guerriero in an interview with The Advocate.

The Sound of One Finger in the Air

Now, I really don't like Dick Cheney. I thought he was a bad choice for VP and he just is not a friendly guy. However, I am glad that he said what he said on gay marriage a few days ago.

But there are some that think that Cheney is being a selfish jerk on this issue since it happens to be his daughter. In a very mean-spirited essay in the New Republic, Michelle Cottle basically says that Cheney's defense of his gay daughter, his love is "b.s." becuase if he didn't have a gay daughter, he wouldn't care. She then goes on to list a variety of things he hasn't support like civil rights and such becasue he has no personal connection.

I find this whole article rather disconcerting because many liberals say that when people know gay people especially as parents find out their children are gay, they become more gay friendly. I guess that excludes Mr. Cheney. He should love gay people regardless.

Probably the most powerful argument for gay rights come not from gays but from their parents. This is why Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays gets the biggest cheer during any Gay Pride March.

Is Cheney's acceptance of his daughter selfish? Yes. But then so is, any parent's love for their child. Please. What this boils down to is not about gay marriage but about his voting record. Since he is not liberal he doesn't get a shred of sympathy from Ms. Cottle.

As I said before, one doesn't have to agree with Cheney to have some respect for what he did. I don't agree with him on a lot of issues. It would be nice if people like Ms. Cottle could put aside their partisan hatred to at least say one nice word, to see him as at least speaking up for countless conservative parents of gay children who want their children to be happy. Instead, Ms. Cottle chose to be mean and nasty, expecting Mr. Cheney to agree with her on every issue and throwing the baby out with the bath water.

And they say the Right is nasty.

Another Republican (Step)Parent Against the FMA

As I said when Dick Cheney came out against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriges and other same sex arrangements and benefits, the Religious Right seems to be oblivious to the fact that there are Republicans are parents of gay and lesbian children who only want their offspring to be happy and fulfilled. This is why Cheney is against the FMA.

And now Mary Bono, the widow of Sony Bono and stepmom to out lesbian Chastity Bono is not going to the GOP convention in part because of the party's stance on same sex marriage.

What I would love to see is more Republicans of all walks of life who have gay children, be as brave enough to speak for their children. To have them speak about how they love their child just as they are, the more the far right will be seen for what they truly are: a bunch of cold-hearted bigots.

Vice President Loves Gay Daughter. Religious Right Stunned.

So, the Vice President has gone and done it. When asked by an attendee at a Bush event in Iowa what he thought about gay marriage, Dick Cheney said:

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. . . . With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free -- ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

The Vice President not only said the word, gay, something neither President Bush nor Senator Cheney has done in a speech, but he said that his daughter was gay. He also states that this issue should be settled by the states, not by a constiutional amendment.

Of course the Religious Right was not pleased. Here is what Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said:

"Unfortunately, protection of our values is made more difficult when mixed messages emanate from the White House," said Tony Perkins, the group's president. "We support President Bush's commitment to a constitutional amendment on marriage, but we are left to wonder why the vice president is allowed to depart from this position when the top of the ticket is unified on all other issues."

Good point, Tony. Why would the Vice President depart from the President's view? Maybe because he has a gay daughter who he loves and he wants her to be happy and fufilled in her life like any father would want their child to be. Wanting the best for your daughter, what is that, Tony? Sounds like family values to me.

I don't know if this will trigger a sea change in the GOP yet. It is way too little too late to win back any gay votes Bush has lost because of his support for the FMA. However, this might allow other Republicans who have gay children to start speaking out and being honest. And maybe when enough people do that, then the party will become more tolerant, because having then gay marriage is not about some scary people out there, but about the gay child that any parent wants to make sure is happy.

Beyond Swift Boat

I haven't really commented on the whole Swift Boat controversy. For the most part, I really don't care about what happened 35 years ago, which happens to be around the time I was born.

I don't care what Kerry did in Vietnam or what he did afterwards.

I don't care if Bush did or did not serve in the National Guard.

Heck, I don't care what Bill Clinton or Dan Quayle did during Vietnam either.

What I'm concerned about are things that concern me now. Since June, I've been without health care insurance. It has been hard to find a permanent job with benefits, so that means paying a whole lot of money for doctor's visits and drugs. I want to know who will do something to get the economy going. I want to know what each candidate is going to do concerning the terrorist threat we face.

This is what's important to me, not who did or didn't get a medal or who did or did not serve in Vietnam. Folks, the Vietnam War ended nearly 30 years ago, it's way past time to move on.

The LA Times Ronald Brownstein expands on this issue. Read it and wonder why we are so worried about what happened in IndoChina when Richard Nixon was president and not why 44 million Americans have no health insurance.

New Links

I wanted to let you know of a new site on the web called The Angry Elephant Society. They are a bit more to the right than I am, but they are gay friendly and are just as sick of the neocons as I am. Sounds like an ally to reform the GOP to me.

Check 'em out. They are pretty cool in my book.

Comments of the Day

From Tony in Minnesota:

"I believed Bush in 2000 when he championed compassionate conservatism so I'm not sure where that places me - but in my defense I live about as far north of Texas as one can get and still be in the continental U.S.

Where as the left is being whipped up to sneer, dismiss and infantalize those supporting Team Bush, the right is being (and has been for some time) egged on into an animosity for the non-Bush that doesn't have to far to go before it becomes hate. "

And from Mark, Contributing writer to the Moderate Republican:

"Dennis,

I think Edwards could have done that, had he gotten the nomination. Hell, I know Edwards could have. Dean, possibly, could have risen above that charm with fiery charisma. But Kerry simply can't pull that off, and that's one reason all the polls are still so evenly divided."

Worst. Campaign. Ever.

"Otherwise, I've been staying away from politics for the most part, because it's depressing. Have you ever seen two candidates run a worse campaign? Man, neither one can come up with a compelling message, or a reason for people to vote for them. It seems that the core voters look at Bush as being a bigger terrorist basher, and voters for Kerry see him as not being Bush.

I'm glad that Texas isn't a battleground state. We miss a lot of the stupidity of these guys."

-From Michael Edwards of Houston.

Bush is a Doo-doohead and other "wise" sayings

New York Times guest columist and Slate Editor Dahlia Lithwick writes that liberals are making a big mistake in treating the President as dumb kid. Lithwick writes that "infantalizing" Bush instead of making a case for Kerry, allows liberals to live up to their repuatation of "snotty know-it-alls" who think that people in the Red States are simple minded idiots. She also says that this baby treatment also implies that anyone who voted for Bush in 2000 was a fool. Here is her money quote:

"These assertions also insult anyone who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000. Rather than offering an argument for Mr. Kerry, they merely disparage swing voters, who may be tempted to defect to the Democrats over the war or the economy, by sneering that they voted for a kid - and a dumb kid at that."

I did not vote for Bush in 2000. I was one of those people didn't like either one and voted for Nader out of protest. (That was a mistake.) However, between Bush and Gore, I liked Bush more and did support him for the first two years. Why? Because he ran a campaign that seemed moderate and showed resolute resolve after 9/11. What has bothered me is how liberals are still wondering why anyone would have supported Bush or still does. I think they need to stop being shocked that anyone would vote for Bush and find a way to pursuade Americans to support Kerry.

But the, making fun of your opponent is so much easier and fun. You don't have prove why your guy is better, especially when he doesn't seem to give a reason to vote for him except that he's not the current occupant.

Republican says War in Iraq was a Mistake

I don't know if this is the start of something big or not, but retiring Representative Doug Bereuter of Nebraska is breaking ranks with most of the leadership in saying that the war in Iraq was a mistake. Here is the money quote:

"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action, especially without a broad and engaged international coalition."

Of course those who still think this was a great idea think Bereuter was just playing the scorned wife because he was passed over as head of the House Intelligence committee. Ray LaHood of Illinois said Bereuter was "very bitter."

You have to wonder if there are others who agree with Bereuter, but are just silent.

Action Alerts

From the Republican Majority for Choice:

The Republican Majority for Choice has been working hard this year to ensure that the Republican National Committee and Party leaders clearly understand our position in opposition to the current anti-choice language in the Republican Party Platform.

Thank you for your hard work and dedication during this all important election year. We are grateful for your efforts and appreciate the time and energy you devote to our mission.

Also from Republicans for Environmental Protection:

July 20, 2004

For more information, including contact information for sending letters to editors, please contact Jim DiPeso by e-mail or by phone at 253-740-2066.

Note to Kerry: Bush is smarter than you think. Well, kinda.

Every so often, I hear some Dem talking about how people should vote for Kerry because he is smart and erudite while Bush is an idiot. While I don't think Bush is on par with a Nobel Laurelate, Bush is cagey and shrewd and could still pull off a victory. No, not by cheating as some on the Left claim, but because he knows how to connect with people emotionally in ways that the Dems can't.

Kevin Featherly argues in his blog that Democrats have consistently misunderstood Bush and that is a fatal mistake. Featherly notes that what gets voters are not policy positions, but who can tug at the heartstrings:

"After all, it isn't the meat of what is said--certainly not the policy statements--that will determine who prevails. Presidential debates don't matter at that level. It's all about who can resonate best with voters at an emotional level.[emphasis mine.] Maybe that's likeability, or maybe, as Fallows says of Kerry, it's demonstrating possession of "an interesting mind." But it's not about who has got the best tax policy.

This is why Ronald Reagan won two terms. The Democrats percieved Reagan as a dolt, but he was able to resonate with the American voter. Case in point: a few months ago, I heard former Vice Presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro talk about the 1984 campaign. She was talking with some autoworkers and asked angrily why these workers were willing to vote for Reagan who was against them policy-wise. An autoworker, responded saying, "He makes us feel good." There was a loud clucking of tounges in the audience. Ferraro and the Dems missed out on the factor that connecting to people's hearts is just as important than any policy position. Perhaps the only Democrat in recent memory who knew how to connect emotionally with voters was Bill Clinton.

I remember one of the 1992 debates that was held in Richmond, Virginia. A woman asked how the deficit was affecting them. The elder Bush didn't understand the woman, but Clinton seemed to and started to connect not only with that woman, but with the nation. Meanwhile, the elder Bush was starting at his watch as if he was very bored.

The Democrats need to pay heed to this. Simply saying Kerry is smart is not going to put him in the White House. Bush knows how to connect . He did that perfectly after 9/11 and he could still do that.

Kerry and the Dems could very well pull this off- if they learn to engage with the voters and don't act so smug.

Hagel for President (in 2008)

The Lincoln Journal Star reports that Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel is considering a run for the Republican nomination in 2008.

Hagel is considered a GOP marverick like his ally, Arizona Senator John McCain. If he does decide to run, it could get moderate Republicans as well as independents interested in his campaign in the same way that McCain excited centrists back in 2000.

Let's hope his run is more sucessful.

Moderate Republican-August Issue

The August Issue of the Moderate Republican is now online.

When Gay Men Marry

Those who oppose gay marriage expect that gay men should just live the lives they believe God intended them to live- ie:marry a nice girl and live a straight life. In essence, that is what Gov. James McGreevey did. Nevermind that it seems he had no sexual feelings for his wife and was making out with guys on the side.

Dan Savage makes a good point about how forcing gays into hertro-marriage is not a cure all and in fact is what can really harm "traditional marriage" than same-sex marriage ever could. Why is it that those opposed to same-sex marriage are willing to consign men and women into living double lives instead of living out in the open?

Comment of the Day

The party has not been "lost" to the religious right. DEBETOTH WHOSHU - DEmocracy BElongs TO THose WHO SHow Up. And the religous right has been showing up. If the so-called moderates cared enough about anything to get off their fat fourth points of contact, turn off the TV and actually show up at conventions, get out and do the hard work of electing people (phone banks, walking precincts) they would have more influence. Well, y'all don't. And until you do, you will not have a say. Because DEBETOTH WHOSHU. Voting doesn't matter much. Giving money matters. Showing up matters even more.

Larry, from Minnesota.

Election 2004: In Search of the Big Idea

For all the talk about how important this election is, you don't hear a lot of talk about big ideas. Back in 1992, we were talking about the deficit and health care. This year, even though those are big issues again, you don't hear either candidate talk passionately about these issues.

Ted Halstead who heads the New America Foundation and is co-author of a must-read book The Radical Center, has come up with some big ideas of his own that either candidate could use as a winning strategy. Among some of the big ideas are:

Universal Capitalism. This would give every American newborn financial assets at birth making every kid a "trust fund baby."

Universal Auto Health Insurance. Halstead thinks that rather than having a single payer system, why not make health care mandatory like car insurance? Subsisides would be given to those who can not afford the premiums.

Out with the Payroll Tax, Hello Consumption Tax. For some reason, no one ever talks about payroll taxes and that takes a big bite if you are a moderate income worker. Halstead thinks that scrapping the payroll tax and starting national consumption tax is a better way to go.

I think Halstead is kidding himself if the thinks Bush or Kerry would take these ideas to heart. Both are bound by special interests and are too timid by themselves to do it. What is needed is a citizen movement to take these ideas and give them life. Civil Rights did not happen because leaders decided it was time to give black Americans the rights we deserved. Instead, Black Americans marched and protested to get Washington's attention. I believe we need to do that again to get the attention of our leaders.

GOP Smackdown in New York

There seems to be more and more signs of a fight taking place in the GOP between social moderates and social conservatives. Case in point: according to the Los Angeles Times socially moderate groups like Log Cabin Republicans, Republican Youth Majority and Republicans for Choice are working together to challenge the party platform on gay marriage and abortion rights. The three groups are hosting a press conference this week to outline their strategy for unity plank that would say that Republicans of good faith can disagree on "family issues."

Of course, it's pretty certain that the GOP platform committee will not take this plank seriously. So, the group has an interesting Plan B:

"If the Platform Committee, which meets the week before the convention, rejects their plank, they hope to collect enough signatures from six state delegations to force a fight on the floor -- the dread of convention planners.

A fight on the convention floor-not something we're used to in these days of scripted conventions.

In some cases, this might be a long shot given the delgates tend to be more conservative than the average Republican. However, I do believe that the three groups are acting quite pragmatically and are being quite media savvy. The way that a party changes is through these attempts, such as asking for changes in the platform. What is interesting is that going to New York and having a bunch of gays and pro-choice Republicans force a fight on the floor could, and I stress, could make for a convention that might embarass the leadership in front of millions.

Their gamble might fail miserably, but I think there are enough disgruntled Republicans out there that New York might just become interesting.

Youth to Bush: Talk to the Hand

Conventional wisdom states that the current generation of youth under 30 are more conservative than past generations. This should mean that they are a lock for Bush, but the latest polls shows the under 30 crowd is abandoning Bush for Kerry. The reason? The war in Iraq and the economy. According to the Washington Post-ABC News poll Kerry is leading the youth vote 2 to 1 against Bush.

I wonder if the Bush campaign is concerned. If it's true that Karl Rove only wants to focus on the religious right, then they are probably not concerned. I wonder if this will spell trouble for Bush come November.

Thanks

I didn't say this earlier, but thanks to all who gave during Pledge Weekend last week. As I said, I'm unemployed right now and this helps in maintaining the site.

Even though pledge weekend is over, you can give anytime. Simply click on the Amazon button on your right.

Gay Marriage: Slow and Steady Wins

On Thursday, we found out that the California Supreme Court invalidated the 4000 same sex marriages that took place in San Francisco last winter when Mayor Gavin Newsom issued marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Looking at some of the blogs there was much saddness in the gay community as one would and should expect. I for one, was sad but not surprised. It was a gamble to see if these marriages would hold up and as wonderful as it was seeing people literally line up and in many cases, drive for hours to get married, you always had the feeling that this might not be the real deal. I mean, those pieces of paper issued by the city were in legal limbo whereas the papers issued in Massachusetts were the real deal.

I wasn't as sad about this, because of how Newsom tried to frame this argument. An article published in Slate talked about the stark differences in approach taken by those in Massachusetts and those in San Francisco. Richard Thompson Ford shows that the "Massachusetts Way" was the better of the two and the result is that same-sex couples are getting married in the Bay State. He offers this reason as to why the Massachusetts approach was better:

Put your Finger to the Wind. The litigation team waited years to find a sympathetic court and politcal climate as well as sympathetic plantiffs. It was carefully planned and mapped out. The criteria needed for a successful case was found in Massachusetts and they went there and won the case. On the other hand, San Francisco provoked the action which caused the state to slap them down. This placed opponents of gay marraige in the driver seat as the plaintiffs with the city having to defend itself. The other mistiake is that it took gay people out of the equation. Instead of a sympathic gay couple carrying the "torch" for gay marriage, it was the city of San Francisco. Kinda hard to feel sorry for a city.

San Fran in many ways, jumped the gun. They tired forcing the issue and ended up sidlining the issue. The article shows that going slow and steady is the sure way to get to the utlimate goal of gay marriage.

New Link

I've added a link the New Republicans Blog. They are the kindred spirits. Enjoy.

Friday Open Thread

Have at it.

Comments on Bob Faust

From Paul W. in Florida:

"With regards to Faust, the best suggestion is to not let the defeat in away end his interests in politics, and that he encourage others to remain politically active as well.
I had been on a primary campaign with Trish Muscarella in Florida back in '92, running against incumbant Bilirakis, mostly on differing views on moderate issues like education and abortion (I was really involved because my mother's teachers union was dissed by Bilirakis for an interview, while Muscarella took the time to come in. My mom came home and the first thing she said was 'Paul, go work for Trish'). I can tell you from experience, running against any incumbant is a damn near impossibility, based on money, ad time, money, political contacts, money, and money. Bilirakis had three ads denouncing Muscarella's 'negative campaigning' before she even had one radio ad broadcast. That should tell you something. If Faust had the same problem against Musgrave, I'm not surprised.
The result was pretty much 33 percent for us, 66 percent for Bilirakis. The problem was it seemed to deflate the moderates who had worked for Trish's campaign, and I don't think Muscarella tried again, even at a state office level.
As moderates, we must expect the defeats (not from the voting, but from the stranglehold the conservatives now have on the party pursestrings), and stick to the issues, and try again. That, plus wait for a really nasty scandal to explode the incumbant out of the water...;-)"

And from Tony in Minnesota:

"Thankyou Bob.

he just knew it was right. "

Reform Party:1995-2004 (?)

Remember when the Reform Party was seen as the next big thing in Ameican politics? With Ross Perot at the helm in 1996 it won 8 percent of the vote and won the governorship in Minnesota in 1998. It was seen as a new centrist party that was socially inclusive and fiscally conservative. However, by 2000, things turned south. Pat Buchanan decided to run for President under the Reform banner and brought his far-right buddies with him taking over the party. Annoyed by this, the most powerful state party, Minnesota, pulled out that year and took its old name, the Independence Party. Ross Perot decided to back George W. Bush

In 2000, the Reform Party barely made a dent in the polls. Most of the Buchananites left the party in 2002 to join the Constitution Party leaving a weakened mess.

Now there is news that the party is flat broke. The party's treasurer asked the FEC to terminate the party saying it has only $19 in the bank. The national chair denies that there is a problem, but I doubt the treasurer would talk to the FEC just because he had nothing better to do.

In some case, it is sad that a party that once had great potential is now pretty much dead. However, the party was based really on the personality of Perot and had very little in the way of a guiding philosophy. When he left, Buchanan came in to fill the void and when Buchanan left, there was nothing left to rush in.
This is unlike a party based on principles, like the Libertarian or Green Parties.

It's odd that the Reform Party is dying just as it's primary issue is in the forefront again: the deficit.

You're a Good Man, Bob Faust

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
— Theodore Roosevelt, "Citizenship in a Republic," speech at the Sorbonne, Paris (April 23, 1910)

For those of you who don't know, Bob Faust lost in his primary against incumbent Marilyn Musgrave. While I would have wished for him to score an upset against a person that I believe has sullied the GOP with her sponsorship of a hate-filled amendment, it was not meant to be at this time.

However, I want to use this space to thank Bob for his bravery and courage. Too often these days, moderate Republicans seem to run away from challenging the religious right. Too many think staying in the party and working for change is a lost cause and either jump ship to the Democrats or become independents.

However, Bob was willing to step up to the plate. He ran a campiagn with very little money and tried his best. Yes he lost, but in the long run he might have planted a seed. People forget that it took decades for the far right to control the GOP and it will take a while for moderates to regain control. There will be losses, but the fact that a Republican alternative was given to voters planted ideas in people's minds.

I hope in the future, we will see more moderates make a run for office and get moderate ideas out there to the people. We are not always going to win, that's politics. But if we keep on keeping on, in time people will start listening.

Bob, I hope that you will stay active in the GOP as a strong moderate voice. I hope you will speak out for health care reform, the environment and gay rights. Your loss was not in vain.

Keep the faith, Bob and thanks.

More on Wal-Mart Republicans

Slate has an interesting article about where one shops reflects one's party preferences. Slate writer Daniel Gross talks about how big box retailer Costco is the Blue State store. Here is his defintion of how Costco is like the Dems:

"On the left: Costco Wholesale Corp. Last week, Jeffrey Brotman and James Sinegal, chairman and chief executive office of Costco, respectively, joined the list of executives who endorsed John Kerry for president. The company is based in Washington (a blue state in the past four elections, and one that Kerry leads, by a 53-45 margin according to the Aug. 2 Zogby poll), and a list of its locations bears some resemblance to the Kerry-Edwards campaign: strong on the affluent coasts and virtually nonexistent in the comparatively poor Great Plains and in the Old Confederacy....

Costco also has the sort of labor policy that would bring a smile to Barbara Ehrenreich's face. Pay starts at $10 an hour. About one in six employees is represented by a union, and workers receive nice health benefits. Sinegal has a non-zero-sum view of employee relations. Give people good jobs at good wages, and they'll be more likely to work harder, less likely to leave, and less likely to steal. As Helyar reported, Costco's turnover "is a third of the retail industry average of 64%," and "shrinkage"—the amount of inventory lost to theft—"is about 13% of the industry norm."

The there is his description of Wal-Mart and how it seems similar to the current GOP:

"On the right: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Founded in Arkansas (a blue-turned-red state), it grew by spreading into the adjacent South and Great Plains. Like today's Republican Party, it focuses intensely on rural areas and generally avoids cities. (Republican conventioneers won't be able to shop at a Wal-Mart when they visit New York City.) As this Bloomberg story notes, "Sixty-seven percent of Wal-Mart's stores are in the 30 states that voted for Bush and Cheney in 2000."

The company's labor policies are state-of-the-art, for the 1890s. It has been investigated for hiring contractors who allegedly hired illegal aliens to clean Wal-Mart stores and for locking them inside overnight. (One wonders if the Wal-Mart employees who in April were bused in to hear Vice President Dick Cheney sing the company's praises at Wal-Mart's headquarters were similarly confined.) In June, a federal judge certified a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of female Wal-Mart employees who claimed discrimination. The average wage at Wal-Mart, which has no unions and bitterly opposes raising the minimum wage, is lower than Costco's lowest wage. Turnover at Wal-Mart, according to the Economist, is 44 percent, meaning it "has to hire an astonishing 600,000 people every year simply to stay at its current size."

Gross says if Bush=Wal Mart and Kerry=Costco, Costco/Kerry is winning. Costco's sales are rising faster than Wal-Mart and investors have a better future outlook for Costco than WalMart.

A while back, someone commented on the similarities of WalMart and the current Republican party. The writer tends to think that not all Republicans reflect this and I believe that. I'm definitley not a WalMart Republican. I believe there are Republicans who are more "blue", but also have some Republican principles like limited government and fiscal responsibility. I tend to believe there are "Costco Republicans" out there or as I like to put it, "Ikea Republicans" named after another low-cost retailer.

What does everyone in blogland think?

With Friends Like These...

There are many in the gay community that are backing John Kerry with enthusiasm. In some ways, I can't blame them since the GOP seems to be going out of its way to kick gay Republicans out of the party. However, before Kerry get crowned as the new messiah of the gay community, people might just want to take notice of something.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Kerry backed the recently approved same sex marriage ban in Missouri. Here is Kerry's take on the Missouri ban:

"We support nondiscrimination against our fellow Americans," Kerry said. "We've always argued the states will be capable of taking care of this by themselves. Massachusetts and Missouri are proving they are capable of taking care of it by themselves. [That] I think bears out that we didn't need a [federal] constitutional amendment in order to do what's right."

So let me get this straight. It's bad to discrimate against gay people. It's bad to put that in the federal constitution. However, if a state decides to do the exact same thing, well, then it's okay. States rights, don't you know.

Kerry seems to want it both ways. He thinks it's wrong to be bigoted against gays, but seems fine with the states barring people from getting married if they happen to be of the same sex. So in essence, it's wrong to discriminate at the federal level, but at the state level, anything goes.

Uh huh.

What's even more interesting is the response from the Human Rights Campaign one the nation's premier gay rights groups. Here is a quote from their communications director:

"This is consistent with what he's been saying all along,'' Steven Fisher, the group's communications director, said.

That's it? George Bush is doing almost the exact same thing and HRC is asking for his head. Why in the world are they not screaming bloody murder?

Listen, I'm not here to defend Bush's stance. It was an act of cowardice to shore up the religious right. He lost my vote the day he did that. But for goodness sakes, people should be willing to at least mildly criticize John Kerry for supporting a discriminatory ban passed on a state level. Yes, I know Missouri is a swing state and all, but please, this is about freedom. Does he have to sell us out in order to win this state? And does the gay community have any sense of courage to even summon up a mild rebuke?

Is Kerry better than Bush on gay rights. Yeah, but that's not saying much.

A Log Cabin Republican Supports Bob Faust

"In LCR head Patrick Guerriero's words: "Culture War is a recipe for defeat!"

This race is not only important because it would send a message to the
Republican party that right-wing extremism is never the way to go, but it could
also determine whether Republicans keep the House or not. If Faust wins, the
urgency to have Matsunaka win may not be as much and Faust may beat him in the
general election. If Musgrave wins, a coalition of all different people who are
pissed off at Musgrave for any number of reasons will pull out all the stops to
put Matsunaka in the 4th district seat. Even in a heavily Republican district,
this time around Matsunaka could conceivably win, and every House seat loss
brings the Democrats closer to regaining the House! If you want to prevent
this, having Bob Faust is the best way to do it, since there are far more
registered Republicans in the 4th district, and most Republicans would prefer a
progressive Republican in a House of 218 Republicans to 217 Democrats -- the
outcome of which which could hinge on this election. Otherwise,
many gay and gay-friendly registered big tent Republicans, angered by
Musgrave's pushing of the FMA might wind up holding their noses and voting for
the Dem, just as many are doing for Kerry. Let's make sure that moderate and
progressive Republicans be given a mandate and let's send a message of
resounding rejection to the reich wing of the Republican party and let's keep it
within the party!"

Comment of the Day

"Hi folks,

Michelle

I did read this, Michele and I don't mind you "budding in." Thanks for the insightful comments.

George Bush: Conservative in Name Only

I found an interesting piece by William Bryk that makes an excellent case against President Bush from a conservative viewpoint. I have no idea who this writer is, but what he says lines up with what conservatism really means and not as it is expressed by Bush and the far right. Here is his summation of conservatism:

"...American conservatives seek what Lord Acton called the highest political good: to secure liberty, which is the freedom to obey one's own will and conscience rather than the will and conscience of others. Any government, of any political shade, that erodes personal liberty in the name of social and economic progress must face a conservative's reasoned dissent, for allowing one to choose between right and wrong, between wisdom and foolishness, is the essential condition of human progress. Although sometimes the State has a duty to impose restrictions, such curbs on the liberty of the individual are analogous to a brace, crutch or bandage: However necessary in the moment, as they tend to weaken and to cramp, they are best removed as soon as possible. Thus American conservative politics championed private property, an institution sacred in itself and vital to the well-being of society. It favored limited government, balanced budgets, fiscal prudence and avoidance of foreign entanglements.

More subtly, American conservatism viewed human society as something of an organism in itself. This sense of society's organic character urged the necessity of continuity with the past, with change implemented gradually and with as little disruption as possible. Thus, conservatism emphasized the "civil society"—the private voluntary institutions developed over time by passing the reality test—i.e., because they work—such as families, private property, religious congregations and neighborhoods—rather than the State. In nearly every sense, these institutions were much closer to the individuals who composed them than the State could ever be and had the incidental and beneficial effect of protecting one's personal liberty against undue intrusion from governments controlled by fanatics and busybodies, that which Edmund Burke presciently called the "armed ideologies," and thus upheld our way of life as flying buttresses supported a Gothic cathedral. "

Bryk states that while the current Administration bills itself as conservative, it has is really far from true conservatism and has put this movement into a sort of identity crisis:

"...the policies of this administration self-labeled "conservative" have little to do with the essence of tradition. Rather, they tend to centralize power in the hands of the government under the guise of patriotism. If nothing else, the Bush administration has thrown into question what being a conservative in America actually means."

He then talks about how Bush has betrayed conservative principles by ballooning the federal deficit, allowing the cronyism of Halliburton, the passage and support Patriot Act and going to war in Iraq.

It's a good read. Thanks to the Canadian blogger Peace, Order and Good Government, Eh? for the tip.

Pledge Weekend

Just one and only one reminder that this is Pledge Weekend here at the Moderate Republican. If you can help support what you see here, that would be great.

And to those who have already gave, thanks so much!

Republicans for Environmental Protection Endorses Bob Faust

August 5, 2004

James M. Stuhltrager
Chairman, REP PAC

And They Call it Democracy

There are two interesting stories from Iraq today that makes you just shake your head. The most recent one is the arrest warrants for former Iraqi Governing Council Member and one time heir apparatent to lead Iraq Ahmad Chalibi and his nephew, Salem. Now it's not a suprise that Mr. Chalibi was nabbed since there is substantial evidence that he is a thief, but what is truly shocking is that his nephew who happens to be heading the special tribunal charged with trying Saddam Hussien has an arrest warrant out of...murder?

Okay, so this guy is trying to try one of the worst dictators and mass murderers and he himself is charged with murder? Was there anyone in the US vetting these guys?

The second story, is the fact that Iyad Allawi interim Iraqi prime minister, decided to shut down the Bagdhad bureau of Al-Jazeera because they incite violence and gave a bad image of Iraq.

Come again?

Listen, I have mix-views of Al Jezeera and do think at times they might be a bit biased, but in a democracy, you don't shut down a press operation simply because the show news you don't like. If the interim government has a problem with Al-Jezeera, then they should demand an interview or give interviews with other networks.

If this is what Mideast Democracy looks like, then God help Iraq.

Pledge Weekend

If you like what you have seen here over the last few months, would consider giving a pledge to maintain the blog and it's sister 'zine the Moderate Republican? It does take some money to maintain these sites and right now I'm in between jobs. If you want to support what is one of the few center-right journals of opinion out there, please consider giving what you can. You can pledge by going to this site:

Thank you in advance.

Clinton-haters, Bush-haters, Kerry-haters?

You know, despite my kevetching against the current President, I don't hate George W. Bush. I'm upset at his policies such as Iraq and his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment, but I don't actually hate the man, just his policies.

That's not true with some people I know. There are many people who open hate W. for no logical reason. Then there were those people a decade ago who just hated Bill Clinton for no reason. Before that were people who hated Ronald Reagan.

You have to wonder what makes people openly hate the leader of an opposing party. This Washington Post story gives some insight into why people tend to hate certain presidents.

The answer? The never-ending culture wars. Mr. Fine notes that Clinton represents to conservatives all that was wrong with America in the 1960s, while for liberals, Bush represents someone who breezed through life, like some did through those turbulent years.

All this doesn't help those of us in the middle who want to judge a leader based on what he has done as President and not on what he did 30 or 40 years ago. To me, it's further proof that this election is less about issues than it is about culture.

Anyone want to place bets on how Kerry will be treated?

The Illinois GOP: What the Hell are they Smoking?

Well, the Illinois GOP has finally found a candidate to face Democratic opponent Barak Obama in the Senate race. After the much time deliberating, they chose someone who represented their values.

They chose Alan Keyes.

Who lives in Maryland.

Who lost twice in senatorial races in his own state.

Who was an also-ran presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000.

Who is as the Chicago Tribune noted is from the "right wing of the right wing of the Republican Party."

The conservatives are happy of course that they finally have one of their own running in a race after having to deal with moderates who did such shocking things like accept gays or tended to think that it's none of the government's business to pry into a woman's health decisions.

According to the Tribune, the GOP had the chance of nominating an an African American woman who was more moderate and maybe would have had some chance of challenging Obama. But no, instead they chose purity over pragmatism.

I think it's safe to predict that Obama will win a landslide that will make Mondale vs. Reagan look like it was too close to call.

Keyes will make for an interesting campaign and will lose again (this time in a different state) and then leave for the East Coast with the state GOP looking like a bunch of idiots. I'm hoping the moderates will get angry enough that they will quash the nutjobs once and for all.

For now, let me just say, congratulations, Senator-elect Obama.

Personal Responsibility vs. and Social Responsibility

Most of you know that I was laid off from my job back in May. That event, put me and my housemate in a very perilous position. For me, it meant losing health care coverage, something I need since I suffer from clinical depression. It also meant, that there was less income coming in to pay bills like the mortgage and utility bills.

It has been a struggle. I've done some temp work, but that is a pretty dicey opportunity. When work is coming in, it's good, but you never know when the company you are temping at decides they don't need you and you are without a steady income again.

I know we are not alone. Many Americans are feeling this kind of insecurity, this sense that they are only a paycheck a way from utter chaos.

This New Republic article makes a good case for some kind of "social insurance." I do think we need to find some way to repair and not shred the safety net for people. However, there is one part of this story that bothered me:

"The last two decades have witnessed a revival of the American credo of personal responsibility, championed by conservatives as an all-purpose tonic to every social ill."

I will agree that many conservatives use personal responsibility as the solution to all life's problems. However, I also get upset when liberals seem to run from personal responsibility too.

I think that this is a false choice. The fact is we need both personal responsibility and social responsibility. People need to responsible for the lives they are given and be responsible for their fellow man and woman. It's not an either/or, but a both/and.

I need to find a job. That's my responsibility, not the government's. However it should be the government's responisibility to make sure I have adaquate health care, and other stablizers in order to keep me slipping into poverty. That's what makes a social contract: I will do something and in return you will do something for me.

I think the reason that liberals have failed to make a case for government-sponsored programs is that they've only focused on social responisbility and not on the personal as well. Maybe that's why Barack Obama's speech at the DNC was so popular: he was able to mix the two.

As a pragmatic moderate who is experiencing economic insecurity, I know we need to have government play a more expanded role. However, let's not sideline personal responsibility in process.

Friday Open Thread

The microphone is yours.

"What are we Doing tonight Brain?" "The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Take over the GOP!"

Warner Brothers references aside, I read an interesting story in the New Republic about how former Deaniacs are trying to remake the Democratic party into a liberal party by working from the inside. Howard Dean turned the ashes of his failed presidential bid into an organization called Democracy for America which basically works in the same way that the Christian Coalition did for the GOP. Here is the money quote:

"On the surface, this might seem like nothing more than a short-term strategic calculation based on a realization that liberals somehow failed to grasp last time around: Their differences with the Republicans overwhelm their differences with centrist Democrats. But the shift is more fundamental than that: Liberals have put aside their ambivalence toward the party and decided to work for their causes from within. In fact, they're borrowing a strategy from one of their arch-ideological enemies: the Christian Right, which succeeded in changing the direction of the GOP by