I got it from one of my good friend (traditional or rather, moderate republican)... He told me that many moderate republicans (according to my friend, it is the last intelligent 'republican' groups in America) voted against Bush and want to do something about Bush & these neocons in these next four years. I suggest you to read this to understand a bit more. Here it is:
Can Republican moderates find the nerve to fight back against the neocons who have hijacked their party?
The search for the soul of the party, it seems, is not confined to the Democratic faithful, where those belonging to the traditional “base” are gearing up for a fight to wrest influence away from the centrists in the party.
There is a similar battle playing out in the Republican arena as well, where for the past 20 years, moderates have watched their ability to affect the GOP’s national agenda slowly erode. An oppressed band of political optimists, they have subjected themselves to years of abuse in the hope that thoughtfulness and good manners would restore their power in the party.
Referred to as RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) by many hard right conservatives, they are respected by the voters in their states, but despised by party leaders in Washington.
Out-organized by neo-conservative groups like the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the Club for Growth, moderates are no longer viewed as respected members of a philosophically broad-based party. They have, instead, become targets for a group of cannibalistic vigilantes bent on establishing ideological purity.
Drunk with power from their recent electoral victory, these ideologues make no pretense about their intentions. Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, says his organization's goal is to punish moderate Republicans and make them an endangered species. “The problem with the moderates in Congress is that they basically water down the Republican message and what you get is something that infuriates the Republican base,” Moore says.
“They will learn to conform to our agenda or they will be driven from our party,” he says simply.
The “Problem Children”
In previous years, when party majorities in the House and Senate were thinner, GOP moderates were able to manifest more control over an increasingly extreme Republican agenda. This year’s U.S. Senate elections show how that equation has changed. Candidates with demonstrated hardcore conservative credentials won open seats in Oklahoma and Florida, as well as North and South Carolina. They also defeated Democratic minority leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota. These victories increased the Republican’s majority in the Senate from 51 to 55 seats.
The issue facing Republicans may not be a question of inclusion or exclusion, but rather one of polarization. Over the last 20 years neo-conservatives have pushed a radical social and economic agenda. As this program has become increasingly extreme, the country has been driven more and more into an us-versus-them posture. We have seen the emergence of ideological “bases” within the two major parties, and the destruction of the country’s ideological center.
The result has been the defection of millions of Americans voters who no longer identify with either party and have chosen, instead, to become Independent.
The “Civil War” Within
It is into this political wilderness that a dwindling number of hopeful, but increasingly outnumbered, moderates have been driven. As the neo-conservative majority increases, these moderates are caught between their natural instinct to be loyal but powerless Republicans, and the reality that their concerns are being totally ignored by Senate and House leaders.
When Arlen Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the mistake of suggesting that judicial nominees who sought to overturn Roe v. Wade would likely face a filibuster by Democrats in the Senate, Republican conservatives immediately moved to deny him the chairmanship of the committee.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said that he was “disheartened” by Specter’s position and all but withdrew his support for Specter.
The first test for Republican moderates may come on the issue of filibusters. Frist has suggested that Senate filibusters be declared illegal — a legislative move that requires a simple majority to pass, instead of the 67-vote super-majority required to change Senate rules. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) responded that such a move would be viewed as “a nuclear attack” on Democrats by this administration and could have long-range Constitutional implications. Should Frist push such a tactic, will the moderate Republicans capitulate to pressure from party leadership, or align themselves with Democrats to block a blatant Republican attempt to seize long-term control of the Senate.
Jennifer Stockman, national co-chair of the Republican Majority for Choice and a delegate to the 2004 Republican National Convention, sees the prospect for a serious and potentially damaging confrontation. “Election Day brought the mudslinging battle between Democrats and Republicans to a close,” she says, “but an equally brutal battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party is looming. Will President Bush work to unite us, as he promised in his acceptance speech, or will the civil war between GOP party fundamentalists and moderate pragmatists, only serve to eventually ruin the GOP?”
One longtime Republican analyst in Washington (unwilling to be named for fear of professional retaliation) says: “Moderates have to commit to a fight using the same hard-nosed tactics that have made them such a legislative minority in their own party. At the moment they lack the fire to confront neo-conservatives who are rapidly rewriting the historic principles of their party. A narrower, more focused approach that targets winnable state legislative and congressional seats will allow them to get maximum value for their more limited resources. It will require patience and passion, but a variety of recent surveys indicate that it is a tactic that has a realistic opportunity for success.”
A change of 30-40 percent of these moderate votes would have overwhelmed the president’s 3.5 million vote margin and reversed the outcome of the election. In all likelihood, such a shift might also have altered the results of a number of tight U.S. Senate and House races. While such a move would have elected a Democratic president and some Democratic senators and congressmen, it almost certainly would have expanded the ranks of moderate Republicans as well.
Centrists in both parties must decide whether to trade a little partisanship in the interest of restoring ideological balance to an increasingly polarized nation. “As these fissures deepen, they transcend President Bush and Sen. Kerry,” says Alan Murray, Washington bureau chief for CNBC. “They run deeper than disagreements over the Iraq war. They represent a fundamental difference in visions of the country's future.”
“Moderate Republicans have a couple of choices,” says one longtime GOP activist. “We can set the clock back 30 years and begin a process of rebuilding — similar to the one the religious right used to seize power. Start at the school board and county commission level and develop candidates, and then move on to state legislative seats and finally into the Congress. The other option is to wait for a political event so seismic in its proportions that it shatters the present political environment and forces massive political realignment along ideological lines. An example of such an event might be the overturning of Roe v. Wade.”
Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing
The irony of the current situation is that too many political observers are willing to accept President Bush’s assertion that this election represents an overwhelming “mandate” for his agenda, one that many suggest is the result of almost total evangelical support. This notion appears to be more perception than reality. Exit polling shows that 21 percent of all self-identified evangelical voters supported John Kerry — a total of 2,801,400 votes. (Magatsu's comment: Wow, I was assuming that all of them voted for Bush but actually I was wrong about that... I have to change my attitude toward these specifc evangelical voters from now)
More ... http://www.alternet.org/election04/20522/ (over 10,000 character limits so I couldn't paste any more than that)
Hmm, civil war. That's excatly what my friend (same moderate republican I spoke of) said whenever Bush won the election for second term, there will be sort of 'civil war'. It just proved that Bush is a divider, not uniter. I cannot wait for the 'civil war'. Once again, my friend restored my hopes for America due to these intelligent moderate republicans. Allow me to quote from one of my topics in this forum:
Can Republican moderates find the nerve to fight back against the neocons who have hijacked their party?
The search for the soul of the party, it seems, is not confined to the Democratic faithful, where those belonging to the traditional “base” are gearing up for a fight to wrest influence away from the centrists in the party.
There is a similar battle playing out in the Republican arena as well, where for the past 20 years, moderates have watched their ability to affect the GOP’s national agenda slowly erode. An oppressed band of political optimists, they have subjected themselves to years of abuse in the hope that thoughtfulness and good manners would restore their power in the party.
Referred to as RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) by many hard right conservatives, they are respected by the voters in their states, but despised by party leaders in Washington.
Out-organized by neo-conservative groups like the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the Club for Growth, moderates are no longer viewed as respected members of a philosophically broad-based party. They have, instead, become targets for a group of cannibalistic vigilantes bent on establishing ideological purity.
Drunk with power from their recent electoral victory, these ideologues make no pretense about their intentions. Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, says his organization's goal is to punish moderate Republicans and make them an endangered species. “The problem with the moderates in Congress is that they basically water down the Republican message and what you get is something that infuriates the Republican base,” Moore says.
“They will learn to conform to our agenda or they will be driven from our party,” he says simply.
The “Problem Children”
In previous years, when party majorities in the House and Senate were thinner, GOP moderates were able to manifest more control over an increasingly extreme Republican agenda. This year’s U.S. Senate elections show how that equation has changed. Candidates with demonstrated hardcore conservative credentials won open seats in Oklahoma and Florida, as well as North and South Carolina. They also defeated Democratic minority leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota. These victories increased the Republican’s majority in the Senate from 51 to 55 seats.
The issue facing Republicans may not be a question of inclusion or exclusion, but rather one of polarization. Over the last 20 years neo-conservatives have pushed a radical social and economic agenda. As this program has become increasingly extreme, the country has been driven more and more into an us-versus-them posture. We have seen the emergence of ideological “bases” within the two major parties, and the destruction of the country’s ideological center.
The result has been the defection of millions of Americans voters who no longer identify with either party and have chosen, instead, to become Independent.
The “Civil War” Within
It is into this political wilderness that a dwindling number of hopeful, but increasingly outnumbered, moderates have been driven. As the neo-conservative majority increases, these moderates are caught between their natural instinct to be loyal but powerless Republicans, and the reality that their concerns are being totally ignored by Senate and House leaders.
When Arlen Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the mistake of suggesting that judicial nominees who sought to overturn Roe v. Wade would likely face a filibuster by Democrats in the Senate, Republican conservatives immediately moved to deny him the chairmanship of the committee.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said that he was “disheartened” by Specter’s position and all but withdrew his support for Specter.
The first test for Republican moderates may come on the issue of filibusters. Frist has suggested that Senate filibusters be declared illegal — a legislative move that requires a simple majority to pass, instead of the 67-vote super-majority required to change Senate rules. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) responded that such a move would be viewed as “a nuclear attack” on Democrats by this administration and could have long-range Constitutional implications. Should Frist push such a tactic, will the moderate Republicans capitulate to pressure from party leadership, or align themselves with Democrats to block a blatant Republican attempt to seize long-term control of the Senate.
Jennifer Stockman, national co-chair of the Republican Majority for Choice and a delegate to the 2004 Republican National Convention, sees the prospect for a serious and potentially damaging confrontation. “Election Day brought the mudslinging battle between Democrats and Republicans to a close,” she says, “but an equally brutal battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party is looming. Will President Bush work to unite us, as he promised in his acceptance speech, or will the civil war between GOP party fundamentalists and moderate pragmatists, only serve to eventually ruin the GOP?”
One longtime Republican analyst in Washington (unwilling to be named for fear of professional retaliation) says: “Moderates have to commit to a fight using the same hard-nosed tactics that have made them such a legislative minority in their own party. At the moment they lack the fire to confront neo-conservatives who are rapidly rewriting the historic principles of their party. A narrower, more focused approach that targets winnable state legislative and congressional seats will allow them to get maximum value for their more limited resources. It will require patience and passion, but a variety of recent surveys indicate that it is a tactic that has a realistic opportunity for success.”
A change of 30-40 percent of these moderate votes would have overwhelmed the president’s 3.5 million vote margin and reversed the outcome of the election. In all likelihood, such a shift might also have altered the results of a number of tight U.S. Senate and House races. While such a move would have elected a Democratic president and some Democratic senators and congressmen, it almost certainly would have expanded the ranks of moderate Republicans as well.
Centrists in both parties must decide whether to trade a little partisanship in the interest of restoring ideological balance to an increasingly polarized nation. “As these fissures deepen, they transcend President Bush and Sen. Kerry,” says Alan Murray, Washington bureau chief for CNBC. “They run deeper than disagreements over the Iraq war. They represent a fundamental difference in visions of the country's future.”
“Moderate Republicans have a couple of choices,” says one longtime GOP activist. “We can set the clock back 30 years and begin a process of rebuilding — similar to the one the religious right used to seize power. Start at the school board and county commission level and develop candidates, and then move on to state legislative seats and finally into the Congress. The other option is to wait for a political event so seismic in its proportions that it shatters the present political environment and forces massive political realignment along ideological lines. An example of such an event might be the overturning of Roe v. Wade.”
Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing
The irony of the current situation is that too many political observers are willing to accept President Bush’s assertion that this election represents an overwhelming “mandate” for his agenda, one that many suggest is the result of almost total evangelical support. This notion appears to be more perception than reality. Exit polling shows that 21 percent of all self-identified evangelical voters supported John Kerry — a total of 2,801,400 votes. (Magatsu's comment: Wow, I was assuming that all of them voted for Bush but actually I was wrong about that... I have to change my attitude toward these specifc evangelical voters from now)
More ... http://www.alternet.org/election04/20522/ (over 10,000 character limits so I couldn't paste any more than that)
Hmm, civil war. That's excatly what my friend (same moderate republican I spoke of) said whenever Bush won the election for second term, there will be sort of 'civil war'. It just proved that Bush is a divider, not uniter. I cannot wait for the 'civil war'. Once again, my friend restored my hopes for America due to these intelligent moderate republicans. Allow me to quote from one of my topics in this forum:
Yup.
Last edited:
