The Moderate Republican

You're Darn Tootin'...It's My Party Too

I've really been remiss in not talking about this wonderful book. Former Governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman, has written a book called It's My Party, Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America. It's a wonderful book, let me tell you. Long story short, it's call to arms for moderates to become a voice and a vision in the Republican Party again. It does restore my faith in why I am a Republican and why I want to be in the fight to make it a more centrist party once again. If you haven't read this book, buy it. If you know a moderate Republican , buy this book for them. Just get the book.

Something must have happened to Whitman in that she has a fire lit under her. She has also started a PAC that will work to get more moderate Republicans elected to office called My Party Too PAC. Again, if you or someone you know is a moderate Republican, get them to this site pronto.

Also, Governor Whitman will host an online chat on Monday, February 28. For more details, go to her website.

Info on Russ Potts

In my previous post, a fellow moderate by the name of Andy Smith, alterted people about Russ Potts, a moderate state senator in Virginia, who is running as an "Independent Republican" candidate for governor. Well, after some searching, I was able to find his campaign website. If you live in Virginia, or know somebody who does, you might want to let them know about this site.

A Moderate Republican Runs for Governor in Virginia

I recieved a response from an Andy Smith, a fellow moderate Republican in Virginia. He asked me to post his response to share the news of a moderate who is entering the race for Governor in Virginia. Without further ado:

"Dear Dennis,

Andy Smith

Thanks for this wonderful news, Andy. Please keep us all informed.

It's nice to see a Republican that is willing to govern pragmatically instead of ideologically. Let's hope his campaign gets traction.

Do the Math

Robert Samuelson has a worthwhile column today, blasting journalists for not getting at the real story in the Social Security debate. The problem in Samuelson's eyes is that they are ignoring the enourmous costs coming as the Baby Boomers retire. He explains why this is such a big problem:

" Our central budget problem, as I've noted in earlier columns, is the coming spending explosion in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, driven by aging baby boomers and rising health spending. In 2004 these programs cost $965 billion, or 8.4 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). The Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2030 their costs will rise to 14 percent of GDP, or more than $1.6 trillion in today's dollars. Avoiding a (nearly) $700 billion annual increase in taxes or deficits would require comparable spending cuts in other government programs. It won't happen. The projected increase in retirement spending nearly equals all federal "discretionary spending" -- a category that includes defense, homeland security, environmental programs, national parks, scientific research and much more. We're not going to eliminate all these programs.

Once you've done this math, you recognize that benefit cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are inevitable. They're the only other way to limit massive tax increases or immense budget deficits."

He goes on to say that Boomers would have to face these benefit cuts and adds that the proposed plan by Bush does nothing to prevent this. He then assails journlists for missing this issue and instead focusing only on the political issue:

"The public is understandably confused, and the media feed the confusion. Tackling Social Security's long-run sustainability sounds like dealing with the baby boom -- but it isn't. Generally, the media overlook the distinction. Most stories dwell on Social Security's politics and on the advantages and disadvantages of personal accounts. Journalists echo Democratic criticisms, but that's not balanced or clarifying, because the Democrats, like Bush, aren't acknowledging the unpopular choices posed by an aging baby boom generation. Reporters have to reach independent judgments, but this founders on math phobia."

Samuelson acknowledges something that has been bothering me for a while concerning this debate. All this talk has been basically about ideology and politics; for the most part, the Right talks about private accounts as being the savior , while the Left seems content in not making any changes at all. One side doesn't like government programs and frames policy in that discussion, while another side likes government programs and is loathe to make changes to them. One side talks about Social Security going bankrupt and the other side says that Social Security is being destroyed by politicians right now. All of this is politics. None of it has to do with making sure that the program can handle the coming huge wave of Boomers.

I think somewhere in this debate, pragmatism has been lost. There is no sense that people want to come together and solve a common problem since both sides ignore the real problem and instead fight over issues that really have no importance.

I do think we need to do something to make sure Social Security is sound. It might mean raising taxes or raising the limit at which one's salary is taxed; it might mean raising the retirment age, or cutting some benefits. None of these are popular ideas, and for that reason, no one wants to talk about them. Better to rely on the fantasy of doing nothing or borrowing against the future than act like real leaders and lead.

But then again, politicians are no better than the persons who elected them. If we aren't willing to support someone who can make the hard decisions, then we have only ourselves to blame.

Centrist Dreams

Back in the mid-to-late 90s, I was part of the local Reform party. I felt like I didn't fit in either major party and this new burgeoning party seemed like a good fit. Of course, the party imploded and I began to doubt a strong centrist third party could emerge. These days, I tend to believe that centrism at least for now is better expressed within the two major parties.

Matt Miller's swangsong column talks about how both parties are not really serving the people by ignoring major problems that are just down the road. He believes that it's only a matter of time before it's "third party time." Here's the money quote:

"My intuition is that if Washington Republicans continue to veer right, and Washington Democrats (despite my friendly coaxing) find themselves trapped in a "reactionary liberalism" unable to embrace new ideas, at some point a critical mass of leaders on both sides will start to think (and should start to think) about a new force that can move the nation toward real answers.

And when all that happens, watch out. "

Miller is right that both parties are veering to the extreme and tend to play games instead of acutally formulating real solutions to vexing problems. My concern is if there is really a chance a new party or movement will come about. Maybe it will. I know I for one am tired of the extreme conservativism in the GOP and I know that there are a few Dems tired of the wingnuts that dominate their party. Maybe when the poop starts hitting the fan, people might get some righteous anger and create a movement that will fundamentally change this country for the better.

I just don't know if we are at the point right now. I know that it is hard to get moderate Republicans involved in forming more moderate policy. I've tried getting people involved in my local Log Cabin chapter and that has been an uphill climb.

I hope Miller is right. We need something better than what we have now.

The Definition of Insanity

It seems like Howard Dean's "Deaniacs" are quite pleased on the selection of the former Vermont governor/presidential candidate as DNC Chair. The Washington Post reports that many people are making their first ever donations to the Democratic National Committee. One person in Florida aka home of "Baby Bush"( the President's brother, Jeb Bush) asks Dean to come to the Sunshine State and make it "blue" again.

Writer Dan Balz talks about how these people were the force behind Dean's surge last year and also helped in the Kerry campaign. Much has been said about how the internet has energized the party. What's not been said is Dean/MoveOn's web-based movement has been 0-for-2. Despite all the the talk, Dean did not get very far in the primaries and all the organzing MoveOn did, had very little effect. And now, this losing concept is going to be used again.

Well, we can forget the Dems winning in 2006 or 2008.

Dean may have governed as a centrist while leading Vermont, but he knows he get a lot of mileage from being a leftist than he could as a Clinton-style moderate. You can at least say he knows where his bread is buttered.

But what is disturbing is that the Dems are losing a chance to build on the sucesses of Clinton. Clinton won because he steered a moderate course. That might have frustrated the lefties, but at least they were winning. With Dean as chairman, the left will once again be in the driver's seat. There will be much talk of opposing Bush's policies and about how evil the President is. Money will flow into DNC coffers, not from the money men of yore, but from hard core activists. Dean will make Democrats feel good about themselves. What he won't be able to do is win elections for them. Why? Because the Dean is a symptom of a problem within the Dems: they accept their viewpoint as reality and see no need to spread the liberal gospel. Hence, why we hear silly things like "Buy Blue.com" or calling anyone who voted for Bush an idiot. Conservatives know their viewpoint is just that, a viewpoint. So, they work hard to sway public opinion to their side. Liberals and even moderates like myself are not so good at that. The Dems had the opportunity to remodel the party into one that works to persuade the public and instead chose somone who is nothing more than a cheerleader to an echo chamber.

As messed up as my party is, I think I'll stick with the elephant.

On Vacation

I will be in sunny Mexico for the next week taking a well-needed vacation. See you back February 20th.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

I was looking at Andrew Sullivan's blog today and notice a story of a seminary president who was post, I talked about how conservative activist Alan Keyes, kicked his own daughter out into the streets because she is a lesbian. Keyes talks a good talk about being a good Christian and all, but as the Good Book says, we shall know them by their fruits and his fruits are rotting on the vine.

Then we have Norm. He is a good Christian man who loves his daughter regardless of who she is. He decides to marry his own daughter as any father who is a pastor would and he even pauses to cry during the service. His is an act of Christ-like love. His reward is to be thrown out of his job and will possibly face an ecclesiatstical trial.

Maybe if he threw his daughter out in the streets he would have kept his job.

If you are as outraged as I am about this, I urge you to go to a website set up by Norm's supporters called, Friends of Norm. Drop him a line and sign the petition.

Alan Keyes to Lesbian Daughter: Get Out!

Well, so much for family values: SimianBrain reports that conservative activist Alan Keyes, last seen running against Barak Obama for the US Senate in Illinois, has told his daughter, Maya, who is a lesbian, to hit the road. Here is Maya in her own words:

"Well, it's happened. Finally and officially.

A couple days ago I got my official two-week warning that I have to be out of this apartment; so finally for real I'm getting cut off. I got no severance or anything like that from my sudden termination of employment (don't I have freedom of speech? the right to protest Bush without losing my job? Hehe... most people would think that working under a parent would be security but for me it's quite the opposite.) and so I definitely don't have anywhere near enough cash to find a new apartment; not even one room rented from someone anywhere. I've been searching craigslist but even places where I'd have enough to pay the first month's rent on some room I never have enough for the deposit as well, so so far I've had no luck at all finding a new home, since shelter requires money. Sad boo."

Nice, huh? Maybe I missed the verse in the Bible that says, kick your lesbian daughter out into the streets.

Simain Brain has some wise words for Maya and I echo them:

"My condolences, Maya Keyes, but I thank you for sharing this information. You come from a family whose fortunes have been made by promoting family values, and at this moment your parents are unable to practice them. I suspect they will see the light in time, but even if they don't, you appear to be a person with talents and skills that would take you far even if you didn't have that particular last name.

There will be difficult times ahead for you and difficult choices. Gay rights groups will likely have job offers for you that may verge on exploitation. Be careful not to use these platforms to hurt your father directly. You know, like I know, that we've already won the war for gay equality, and all that remains are a few skirmishes on the way to the Armistice signing. It is undignified to humiliate the defeated, so tread lightly as you go on your way. "

I do worry that some gay groups will use her at time when she needs to be cared for, not to be used a political prop.

All, I can add is that God be with this young woman at this perilous time.

Snowe 2008?

I've been meaning to put this up. A guy by the name of Simon Dodd, recently told me about his website to get some interest going in getting Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, a staunch moderate Republican, to run for President in 2008. The website is called Draft Olympia Snowe in 2008. It's worth the click.

It's always George, George, George!

So it looks like Kevin Drum is having a temper tantrum because a few journalists have called the Dems for not coming up with a plan of their own. One of those who has not fallen in line with Mr. Drum is Nicholas Kristof. Kristof basically says what I've been saying for a while: the Dems don't have a plan and because of that, they will lose this debate. Kristof is not championing the President's plan, he thinks financing it with debt is a bad idea and he wants to see the Dems come up with a strong idea.

Apparantly, that's not enough for Drum. Here's what he says:

"For the love of God, can we stop this? Democrats would be delighted to rescue Social Security by keeping the inheritance tax or undoing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. It's Republicans who won't hear of it. Democrats are also happy to support add-on private accounts. You can hardly swing a dead cat without hearing some Democrat saying so. But that's not what George Bush is proposing. And I imagine Democrats would be open to the idea of reducing the payroll tax and replacing it with something more progressive, too. But Bush's plan contains nothing of the kind.

He goes on to say that this mess could all be solved if not for one person:

"It's George Bush who's insisting on a private account plan that even his own people admit won't do anything to shore up Social Security's finances. It's George Bush who's insisting that the only cures he'll consider are ones that include huge — but quiet — benefit cuts. It's George Bush who has publicly refused to even consider proposals to increase Social Security revenue in any way. It's George Bush who has run up the unconscionable deficits that are far more responsible for our deterioriating finances than anything in the Social Security system.

The problem isn't that Democrats aren't willing to negotiate. The problem is that Democrats don't have anyone to negotiate with. That ought to be the story.

The fact is, there are many Republicans, moderates foremost among them, who don't think the Bush plan is a good idea and might be open to compromise. But I haven't heard a Democrat willing to cross the isle and talk to these moderates , have you?

For example, take Maine Senator Olympia Snowe:

"Ms. Snowe, a moderate Republican who serves on the Senate Finance Committee and who represents a state with a sizable elderly population, said she had "serious concerns" about the idea, and strongly favored continuing the current system in which retirees receive a guaranteed payout every month.

"It has worked exceptionally well for 70 years," she said. "I think it's in our national interest."

I don't know about you, but that sounds like an opening to me.

However, Mr. Drum and many Dems won't take the opportunity. It's better to paint all Republicans as evil and clothe themselves in righteousness with no plan, just opposition.

I still think the Democratic strategy is a losing one. Unless they come up with a persuasive plan and start working on some wavering Republicans, chalk it up as a victory to Bush.

Too bad Mr. Drum can't see that.

When Iraqis Attack

Some people who are against the war commonly say that the Iraqi insurgents are basically fighting for their country, meaning they don't like that a foreign country has taken over their homeland, so they are fighting back. It sounds rather noble-until you hear about the numerous beheadings. These people tend to think that their fellow Iraqis are in favor of the insurgency. Well, they might want to read this story from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation:

"Mark Willacy, we've heard reports about the high voter turnout, but now there are reports of how some voters have taken on the insurgents in order to vote, you know, the people are fighting back.

And a couple of days ago we spoke to some voters in central Baghdad and every one of them basically said that they'd like the insurgents to stop their bombing and shooting attacks. Some even said they'd voted just to send a message to the insurgents that they would not be frightened any more."

Now this is only one report and I don't rejoice over the death of anyone even evil people. But I do think that this shows that maybe, just maybe the common Iraqi is not on the side of the "insurgents," but want freedom.

As I've said before, I was against this venture, but now that we are there, we have to make sure that Iraq can stand on its own as a free society. We can't leave Iraq to fall to insurgents who will plunge the country back into hell. Maybe last Sunday's vote gave Iraqis the courage they need to fight back against despotism and fear.

Hat tip to Centerfield.

Quiet Protest

It was heartening to read about how moderate Republicans reacted to the President's State of the Union Address. Here is an interesting excerpt reagarding Maine Senator Olympia Snowe's repsonse to the President's Social Security plan:

"As others felt the pressure to come to their feet, Snowe, who has said she would "certainly not" support Bush's proposal, remained seated without applauding. She smiled uncomfortably and re-crossed her legs."

And this from South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham:

"When the president made his pitch for restrictions on medical malpractice lawsuits, virtually the entire Republican caucus joined a standing ovation. But Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), who has labeled Bush's proposal "one of the worst bills in Congress," was virtually alone on the Republican side in remaining seated. Spotting Graham in his seat, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) slapped his colleague on the shoulder in a playful reprimand. Graham only smiled."

Moderates have sometimes been portrayed as weak-in-the-knees and the type that goes along to get along. It was wonderful to see a small band who were willing to have the courage of their convictions and not simply join in the applause of something they might not agree with.

I fear that the GOP is becoming a party of syncopahnts: you don't have to think, just agree with the party line. Just agree with what the President or Bill Frist or Tom Delay tells you to agree on. That's not leadership and that is not what any political party is about- except maybe the Communist Party in North Korea.

I would like to believe that the party will understand that following one's conscience doesn't make you a bad Republican-it makes you a thoughtful one.

Kudos.

What's Wrong With the Democrats

The Moderate Voice has an excellent take on what aling the Democrats these days: the problem? Lack of vision. Case in point: the President's speech, both last night and at his Inaugeration was quite visionary. You don't have to agree with it, and there is are somethings I don't, but he is trying to create a vision of what America can be. The Dems? Well look at this excerpt from the Democratic response from Sen. Harry Reid and Representative Nancy Pelosi:

"We Democrats have a different vision: Spurring research and development in new technologies to help create the jobs of the future. Rolling up our sleeves and fighting for today's jobs by ending the special tax breaks that encourage big corporations to ship jobs overseas. A trade policy that enforces the rules of the road so that we play to win in the global marketplace instead of sitting by and getting played for fools."

Well, that gets me excited , how about you?

There is nothing here that makes people excited about the Democrats. Basically, Reid says we need to create new jobs and punish those who outsource. Okay, jobs are nice, but what is their vision? What will make people follow their agenda over Bush's? Reid and Pelosi talk about new Marshall Plans and GI Bills. They are basically trying to exhume old Democratic programs instead of fashioning new plans for a new day.

Take Social Security. Basically, the Dems' plan is to oppose Bush, but they don't offer anything new. For instance, they seem to think there is nothing wrong with a program that in 2042 will only shell out 75% of promised benefits. Now, they maybe correct that Social Security will be bankrupt, but do we really want a government program that only pays 3/4 of its promised benys? Is that fair? As someone who will be receiving benefits in 2042, I'd kinda like the full benefit.

Bush might have a bad plan, but he has a plan. And people are going to go with the guy with a plan over the one who has none.

Democrats think that they have a winning issue in blocking Bush's plan, but I think they are wrong. Bush is crafting a vision that might not knock people's socks off, but they will find it appealing. The Dems have no idea, no vision for Social Security. That's a recipe for disaster.

If there is a lesson the Dems should have learned after the 2004 election, it's this: people might not be crazy about Bush, but he's good at setting grand vision. Kerry had none to share. All he could say was that he was not Bush. The American people deserve more and until the Dems can come up with a reason for the public to support them, they should prepare to be the permanent minority party.

Tuesday Musings

My take on the Iraqi Elections: If a picture is worth a thousand words, then this might sum it up:

Now I didn't think the invasion was a good idea. Still don't. But I do think it was a wonderful thing to see people come out and vote amid threats of violence. A nation that has had to deal with a brutal dictatorship, now is taking the first steps towards democracy. Let's hope these are not the last steps.

In related news, Christopher Hitchens has an interesting story on the differences between Iraq and Vietnam. It's a good read because the anti-war camp seems to use Vietnam whenever the US goes to war. Of course the anaologies are not so clear and as Hitchens points out, they don't necessarily dictate the future of Iraq.

Are the Dems gonna drink the Kool Aid? So, it looks like Howard Dean is in line to become the next head of the Democratic National Committee.

I think I might be the one who screams.

The Dems are in a hard place. They are fast becoming a minority party and they need to find new ways to reach out to people. Dean will not do that. He is pretty partisan and will only make the Dems that much more so. Yes, he raised a ton of money. Yes, he got people motivated on the Internet. But in the end, his campaign went nowhere. I think you can expect the same thing if he's DNC chief:money gets raised, people get motivated on the internet, but there is no footwork.

A few months back, the Washington Monthly did a story about how hidebound the GOP has become. As much as I think that's true, I think the Dems are also becoming that way as well. They need someone who can give the party new visions, not someone who will make them feel good about themselves. Dean is a cheerleader, but he is hardly a leader. But it seems these days that the Democrats are more concerned with feeling good about being Democrats than they are with being a party that can win elections.