Are Moderate Republicans Disappearing?

(CBS)

By now, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe may be wondering whether she is destined to wind up as a disappearing political curiosity: The "moderate" Republican.

Following the decision by Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter to become a Democrat, Snowe's frustration with her party's rightward shift bubbled over in the form of a blistering public critique of fellow Republicans. In a 747 word "J'accuse" published in Wednesday's New York Times, Snowe blamed the party for ignoring "the iceberg under the surface" and for "failing to undertake the re-evaluation of our inclusiveness as a party that could have forestalled many of the losses we have suffer."

"It is true that being a Republican moderate sometimes feels like being a cast member of "Survivor" — you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you're no longer welcome in the tribe. But it is truly a dangerous signal that a Republican senator of nearly three decades no longer felt able to remain in the party."

Her op-ed reverberated through the blogosphere as hard-line Democrats and Republicans staked out expected positions. But a more interesting debate also accompanied the predictable polemics, with some commentators suggesting that the real dynamic at play had less to do with inner-Republican strife than with broader societal shifts.

Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds for one wasn't buying Snowe's argument that the goal posts have moved to the right. Reynolds wrote that that he's been hearing pretty much of the same line since the Reagan era.

"It's certainly true, of course, that the GOP wasn't much good on small government under Bush, though they're looking better in retrospect as Obama spends and spends. But on social issues I'm not seeing it — is this a real shift, or an imaginary one?"

Riehl World View arched a similarly skeptical eyebrow about a Republican shift, suggesting instead that what people like Snowe were reacting to was a broader shift in the culture and the media.

"For espousing ideas that were reasonably mainstream during the Reagan Era, one is promptly labeled a religious kook today. While the Republicans have been and remain the more socially conservative party, the Left has been effective in their demonizing of that aspect, especially every time a social conservative Republican goes astray with a hooker, or in a men's room, for instance. Lastly, televangelists and some notable moderate Republicans have helped demonize this over time, too."

All plausible reasons. But parsing the reasons behind Specter's surprise defection from the Republican Party may come down to the more basic matter of counting noses at election time, according to another conservative blogger, John Hawkins, who writes at Right Wing News. He put it this way:

"Arlen Specter jumped ship from the Republican Party for a very simple reason: he was practically guaranteed to lose a Republican primary to Pat Toomey. You can be sure that Specter, in return for his betrayal, received promises of support from Democratic heavyweights if he's `primaried' from the Left."

Of course, political betrayal, obviously, is in the eye of the beholder. For moderates like Snowe, the future may come down to whether she can convince enough fellow party members to follow Ronald Reagan's advice about emphasizing what unites them and tolerate disagreements. In her Times' piece, Snowe was blunt about the risk of folding "our philosophical tent into an umbrella under which only a select few are worthy to stand."

If that happens, Specter may not be the last major Republican to cross party lines.

[cabse5]

The one special interest and ideology politicians should have is: the people of the U.S., and what is best for them.
As John McCain's campaign slogan said: Country First (not ideology first).
More and more politicians have become confused. They say they are for the American people, yet they allow "anti-American people" ideologies to form some of their policies.
Closing Gitmo (providing speedier trials is "pro-American"), global warming policies, and Keynesian deficit spending economic stimulus philosophies are examples from the Obama administration.
McCain strayed from his Country First ideology and used an "anti-American people" ideology when he refused to educate voters on
Obama's extremely liberal record and influences.

With conservatives and progressives, it is their ideologies that are too important to fail.
A progressive thinks everyone should own a home; that is good for the country.
A conservative thinks a soaring stock market, albeit unregulated, is good for the country.
Actually, the progressive's everyone-has-a-right-to-own-a-home ideology focuses on the government redistributing wealth for the sake of fairness.
Actually, the conservative's high-flying-stock market ideology focuses on stimulating small businesses, which creates new jobs,
which raises the stock market for the sake of fairness.

From at least 2004 on, these two ideologies fed off each other.

The everyone-has-a-right-to-own-a-home ideology sent the stock market to new heights.
This ideology also radically altered a major self-regulation of the free market: supply equals demand.
By federal law, and with an interest in the everyone-has-a-right-to-own-a-home ideology, both supply and demand for home mortgages were dramatically increased.

Mortgage investors were forced to accept mortgage paper for its face value.
BECAUSE THE HOUSE WAS NOT WORTH THE MORTGAGE, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed to ensure the face value of the mortgage even though great amounts of debt were added to do so.
Worthless, defaulted mortgages became more numerous.
The mortgage investor's balance sheet became uncertain.

By federal law instituted in 1993, because of a court ruling that it was discrimination to refuse a mortgage based on the inability to pay or because of low down payment,
the federal government (by at least 2004) began to take homes away from mortgage investors and gave them to personal home owners.

Currently, the federal government pays personal home mortgages in arrears to make the "house gift" permanent.
THIS PAYMENT OF PERSONAL HOME MORTGAGES IN ARREARS WILL BE PERPETUAL.
It will become permanent entitlement spending; more federal spending we just can't afford.

Conversely, the high-flying-stock market ideology sent the everyone-has-a-right-to-own-a-home ideology to new heights.
Bonuses and commissions were earned for the number of mortgages written.

The economy was booming (any administration would have loved that) because many jobs were created, because homes were being built for people who didn't have much invested in them.
There was an overall false feeling of a robust economy and an overall false assessment of rising values in personal homes.

Progressives and conservatives loved it; they both got fat;
unfortunately for Americans, progressives and conservatives forgot to watch out for their one legitimate special interest; Americans.

THE COURTS AND CONGRESS RADICALLY WEAKENED THE MAJOR SELF-REGULATION OF THE FREE MARKET MORTGAGE INDUSTRY AND EARNERS OF MONEY IN THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY HAVE ALWAYS NEEDED REGULATION.
THE RESULT WAS THE MORTGAGE MELTDOWN; one of the biggest scams in American history.

[cabse5]

It seems logical that water vapor, about 95 percent of all greenhouse gases, must be quickly and sufficiently lowered to prevent the imminent "global warming disaster".
Environmentalists are against any change in the natural environment; that is undeniable.
The lowering of water vapor would be a change in the natural environment.

Burning fossil fuels send CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 concentrations have greatly increased.
It seems more likely that ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE ACTUALLY AGAINST THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS, an ideology apart from global warming.
In my opinion, their ideology describes a mandatory environmental "clean-up" operation to remove the excess man-made CO2 "pollution".

Emphasizing the build up need to remove excess CO2 is acceptable.
Describing a world destruction - global warming scenario to frighten people into cleaning up the excess CO2 is lawlessness!
The cost is lawlessness! The oppressiveness of global warming laws is lawlessness!

The issue is, should the government spend MASSIVE amounts of money to lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere
to an arbitrary standard like, for example, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1980?
This could satisfy environmentalists because the LEVEL OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE WOULD BE RETURNED TO A MORE PRISTINE STATE...
Environmentalism has already been mentioned as one of the powerful special interests of the Obama administration...

Combating global warming by lowering the greenhouse gas, CO2, is one of the biggest scams in the history of the world.
Global warming caused by man is one of the biggest scams in the history of the world; up there with the earth being flat
or the center of the universe, or prohibiting baseball players from lifting weights because it reduced flexibility.
Combating global warming by lowering greenhouse gases is a theory; global warming is a theory.

[cabse5]

Progressive ideologies cause some Americans to view the insolvency of GM as an example of the failure, solely, of corporate leadership.
In actuality, the insolvency of GM is an example of the failure of corporate leadership, government leadership, and to a lesser extent the automotive labor unions.

IS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION COMMITTED TO SAVING GM?
So far, the Obama administration has leaned on GM's corporate leadership and the leadership of GM's lenders.
Will the Obama administration lean on the government's leadership and, for example, demand the government dissolve CAFE standards
and/or lean on the auto unions' leadership?
The latter two are major special interests of the Obama administration.

America simply can't afford the MASSIVE global warming expenses already incurred by the government unless a global warming disaster is imminent.
GM can't afford the CAFE standards Congress has placed on the company because of global warming concerns. GM can't
produce their most popular selling vehicles, trucks, because of CAFE standards.

THERE IS NO PROOF THAT CO2 SATURATION IN THE ATMOSPHERE WILL WARM THE EARTH CAUSING MASSIVE FLOODS.
That should be said every day. Believers in CO2's culpability in global warming say that daily; they say the debate is closed because of the "facts".
Believers in global warming use conjecture and the ideology of environmentalists.
THE IDEOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS IS: ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE AGAINST ANY CHANGE IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
Here's more: CO2 is about 5 percent of all greenhouse gases (382 Parts Per Million in the atmosphere in 2006).
Methane's concentration in the atmosphere (another greenhouse gas) was about 1,788 Parts Per Billion in 2008 and has increased by 151% since 1750.
A methane molecule is twenty-three times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than a CO2 molecule.

If we truly want to reduce greenhouse gases, we need to lower water evaporation; about 95 percent of all greenhouse gases.

NATURE PRODUCES ABOUT 95 PERCENT OF ALL GREENHOUSE GASES.

By far, the largest amount of greenhouse gases escape into the atmosphere on a cloudy day.
Over 30 years ago, when Creedence Clearwater Revival sang the song
"Who'll Stop the Rain?", were they actually singing about global warming?
Should we be able to deduct the cost of a dehumidifier, a "global warming preventer", on our federal taxes?
A sure way to slow water evaporation would be to "fill in" bodies of water.

WE MUST HARNESS NATURE TO SLOW DOWN THE BUILD UP OF GREENHOUSE GASES.

If environmentalists are concerned with lowering greenhouse gases, why have they chosen to target CO2, about 5 percent of all greenhouse gases?
For a higher probability in lowering greenhouse gases, I suggest we stop the experiments
which lower CO2 emissions now. - Before the earth turns into a charcoal briquette.
We should begin experiments to lower water vapor. - If global warming is imminent;
if we believe a build up of greenhouse gases causes global warming; if global warming exists.
(OK, when you recognize rhetoric, please realize I can't help it sometimes and excuse me).

Logically thinking, ideologues concerned with the lowering of greenhouse gases to stop global warming will eventually demand most greenhouse gases be lowered;
those greenhouse gases could include: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor.
MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING WILL BE PERPETUAL.
We exhale CO2 into the atmosphere; we will be wearing "gas masks" to trap the escaping CO2.
It is just as difficult to remove CO2 from the atmosphere as it is methane; neither is easy.

The one and ONLY fact environmentalists who believe in global warming caused by the buildup of the greenhouse gas CO2 have is:
levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have dramatically increased (280 PPM in the late 1700's to 382 PPM in 2006).

It seems logical that water vapor, about 95 percent of all greenhouse gases, must be quickly and sufficiently lowered to prevent the imminent "global warming disaster".

[cabse5]

Progressive and conservative ideologies are not pertinent to the moderate.
A moderate realizes the Republican (conservative) and Democratic (progressive) bases are currently radical.
A moderate realizes the Republican and Democratic bases are currently the minorities.
A moderate is usually not permanently fiscally liberal.
A moderate is usually not permanently socially liberal.
A moderate is usually not permanently fiscally conservative.
A moderate is usually not permanently socially conservative.
Moderates do NOT have ideologies that deal strictly with spending policies or social issues like
conservatives or progressives, so they cannot be categorized with fiscal or social labels.
It would be like trying to determine the make and model of a snowflake.
PERTINENT AND CURRENT LABELS SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO CORRECTLY CATEGORIZE MODERATES BECAUSE MANY MORE VOTERS DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS MODERATE.
What should those labels be?

To the progressive or conservative "purist", the moderate may SEEM to combine traits of the conservative and progressive;
the "purist" could consider it "heresy"; some call it "wishy-washyness".
The progressive or conservative misunderstands the moderate because the goals of the moderate are different.
The moderate disagrees with the federal government just as frequently and vigorously as progressives and conservatives;
when the moderate disagrees with the federal government and is not satisfied, they try to "move to the wilderness" just like progressives and conservatives.
I write a manifesto to explain my fairly mainstream-held moderate Republican beliefs when some say we don't exist.
I campaigned to get John McCain nominated for president because he represents more of my ideologies.

Devising a satisfactory platform(s) for the many types of moderates could be arduous and time consuming.
Let me give you my moderate example:
I HAVE ONE SPECIAL INTEREST AND ONE IDEOLOGY.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS THE SPECIAL INTEREST. DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS THE IDEOLOGY.
I identify more with traditional beliefs in the Republican Party.
Most of the time, I am fiscally conservative and socially moderate. I am a moderate Republican.
I voted for McCain but didn't care for Palin.

I believe in gay rights. I believe the less big government intrudes the better.
Neither belief supersedes the other. I agree with the decision to allow gays to legally join using a civil union.
I disagree with the progressive Supreme Court of Iowa that recently legalized gay marriage.
Here are some analogies: can I sue for civil rights damages because, being a man, I can't use the women's public restroom?
Can I sue for civil rights damages if I'm not athletic enough to play on the school's sports team?
Can I sue for civil rights damages if my boss doesn't give me a raise or promotion?
Which civil right is being violated when gays don't have the access to marriage?

Iowans care about civil rights violations.
In my opinion, the Iowa Supreme Court is sympathetic to the gay cause and wants to give gays access to marriage because gays and gay advocates want marriage.
In my opinion, this helps to show the Iowa Supreme Court is progressive.
For once, I'd like an open-minded discussion on gay marriage;
you'd have to excuse conservatives and progressives because, in my opinion, BOTH GROUPS violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Big government changing the definition of marriage is an unnecessary intrusion.
I believe gay marriage is the Supreme Court of Iowa's way of saying big government is the only legitimate setter of standards.
Iowa's gay marriage decision is a violation of the First Amendment; it is a violation of the "separation of ideology and state".

[cabse5]

I would condense the progressive ideology into this: equality makes things better;
the progressive believes the government should forcefully promote equality; "fairness".
The state is the higher power; "FAIRNESS" IS BASED ON PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.
The "fairness doctrine" policies already in place in government and public schools, or the fairness doctrine proposal for broadcast media are examples
of a progressive ideology.
At first, government mandates choices, but in the end government defines what is right and wrong; government defines what makes things equal.
Government eventually stymies discussion. In fact, certain thought is punishable by government.

While at an elementary school a few years ago for a school board election, I was inundated with "Don't let anyone bully you" or "Report bullies to a teacher" signs in the halls of the school.
I thought it ironic that same anti-bullying, forced equality, school knows what "fairness" is ideology bullied students when they were taught about an imminent global warming disaster if CO2 wasn't lowered.
I will explore global warming in more detail later.

When the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, allowing each citizen to achieve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was one of the reasons for creating the tiny U.S. nation.
Liberty means being free to do what you want when you want.
(I've never been able to distinguish liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If you have a clue, let me know please.) I digress.
If there were disagreements between members of the tiny U.S. and they could not find satisfaction, all they had to do was move; the wilderness was vast; they just had to fight Indians.
Today, if there is no satisfaction, there isn't the same vast wilderness in which to move.

Today, conservatives who have disowned the federal government, for example, call for state's rights;
they currently choose this method of demonstration against the federal government because many base conservative ideologies have recently been represented in federal government;
progressives who have disowned the federal government, for example, have sanctuary cities and the courts;
they currently choose this more active method of demonstration against the federal government because few base progressive ideologies have recently been represented in federal government;
when Obama's progressive administration takes effect, progressives will have less active demonstrations against the federal government;
conservatives will have more active demonstrations against the federal government.
The radical progressive and conservative will always seem inclined to disobey laws because few of their wishes become reality.

When a citizen of the U.S. says they have a personal need for the government to force competition on everyone and another citizen of the U.S. has a personal need for the government to force equality on everyone,
how can both citizens of the U.S. achieve liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
It is impossible.
To which wilderness will the citizen who doesn't receive satisfaction flee?
This is the impasse that exists between conservatives and progressives.
Unfortunately for all Americans, the Republican Party is dominated by conservatives; the Democratic Party is dominated by progressives.

Progressives and conservatives believe Congressmen and Congresswomen should do what is "morally right" and not necessarily represent the wishes of the American people;
progressives and conservatives desire this transcendence of politics.

[cabse5]

Let's define conservatives and progressives first.
Conservatives and progressives have to keep track of many more ideologies than Democrats and Republicans
because it seems they try to "micromanage" political thought.
That's probably why progressives and conservatives always try to simplify things into absolute rights and wrongs.
Their political actions happen quickly, but examinations of facts from all points of view rarely happen.
This also prohibits any discussions, any compromises, any solving of political problems if you will allow me to say.

Fiscal policy is how a government spends money. Social policy is how a government deals with social issues.
Conservative means having government do as little as possible unless it's a conservative cause.
Liberal (progressive) means having government do as much as possible unless it's a conservative cause.
Moderate is between conservative and progressive.

Conservatives are fiscally and socially (everything) conservative. Progressives are fiscally and socially (everything) liberal.
Progressives use the term progressive instead of liberal because, in politics, the term liberal is generally looked down upon.
That should change.

I would condense the conservative ideology into this: competition makes things better;
the conservative believes the government should forcefully promote competition.
The conservative also believes in a higher power which forces the competitor to compete "ethically".
Most of the U.S. government was based on competition.
The 3 branches of government were based on competition.
Our free market economy was based on competition.

That's probably why conservatives point to most of our founding fathers when they try to justify their conservative beliefs.
Unfortunately, conservatives do not spotlight famous founding fathers like Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and others because Franklin, Hamilton, and others publicly believed in cooperation as well as competition;

[cabse5]

This is a multi-revised version of "Moderate Manifesto" last updated 05/10/09.

While Bush was in office, conservatives ran the country.
While Obama is in office, progressives will run the country.
The majority of Americans will suffer because of the conservative and progressive minorities.

Moderates need to militantly unite against the conservative and progressive.
Moderates on radio and TV should begin to spring up in cities all across the U.S.
The show's rallying cry might be "We will provide ALL sides not just the progressive or conservative side" or "Some open-mindedness is needed".
These shows would provide all different viewpoints in a concise manner so listeners can make up their minds.

I was in high school in the early 1970's when unrest over Vietnam was on the rise.
The best thing that occurred during that time was a high level of personal political activism;
personal political creativity was encouraged; unfortunately, some political traditions suffered.
Independent parties became influential because the traditional parties failed to represent a majority of Americans.
Numerous groups with new ideologies arrived on the scene; each ideology was researched and approved by the group;
it was a time of enlightenment; there was less prejudice.

Today is not a time of enlightenment or personal political freedom.
It is a time of retribution for some; a time of change.
Today, personal political activism coincides with political party ideology;
personal political creativity coincides with political party ideology.

Some proclaim the country's "fairness" by being unfair; few are rewarded at the expense of many.
I will comment on the mortgage meltdown later.
Closed-minded thinking is proclaimed as open-minded thinking.

We let conservative and progressive minorities do the political thinking for us.
We ask the radio host what we should think! We ask the public school teacher or professor what we should think!
We even ask the dopey comedian what we should think!
There is no one, including myself, who is smart enough to tell anyone what to think.

If you are a moderate, there is usually no clear cut answer for any political issue at first;
you definitely need to do some research.

Right now, there aren't enough facts to prove the existence of global warming, yet many Americans demand action to stop global warming now.
Right now, many Americans want to blame the mortgage meltdown entirely on corporate America;
they haven't comprehended the equal culpability of the courts and Congress.
We need to understand how the mortgage meltdown occurred so it doesn't happen again.

WE NEED A LOT MORE FACTS AND A LOT LESS IDEOLOGIES.

Republicans and Democrats refer to political organizations.
Conservatives and progressives refer to political ideologies.

The definitions of Republicans and Democrats have been blurred by conservatives and progressives.
Conservatives try to "sabotage" the progressive movement and "purify" the Republican Party by forcing "unpure conservatives" to leave the Republican Party.
Examples are: Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Meghan McCain (John McCain's daughter).
Conservatives tried to get John McCain removed from the Republican Party.
I'm just musing: If I were in John McCain's family, I may not like the Republican Party much right now; I probably don't like conservatives much right now.
Progressives try to "sabotage" the conservative movement and "purify" the Democratic Party by forcing "unpure progressives" to leave the Democratic Party.
Examples are: Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (and possibly Meghan McCain).

[cabse5]

Here are some analogies: can I sue for civil rights damages because, being a man, I can't use the women's public restroom?
Can I sue for civil rights damages if I'm not athletic enough to play on the school's sports team?
Can I sue for civil rights damages if my boss doesn't give me a raise or promotion?
Which civil right is being violated when gays don't have the access to marriage?

Iowans care about civil rights violations.
In my opinion, the Iowa Supreme Court is sympathetic to the gay cause and wants to give gays access to marriage because gays and gay advocates want marriage.
In my opinion, this helps to show the Iowa Supreme Court is progressive.
For once, I'd like an open-minded discussion on gay marriage;
you'd have to excuse conservatives and progressives because, in my opinion, BOTH GROUPS violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Big government changing the definition of marriage is an unnecessary intrusion.
I believe gay marriage is the Supreme Court of Iowa's way of saying big government is the only legitimate setter of standards.
Iowa's gay marriage decision is a violation of the First Amendment; it is a violation of the "separation of ideology and state".

[honestabe8]

I don't think anymore will jump over to the Democratic party because you would have to support abortion (baby killers). support inmoral gays, be anti-GOD, anti-American, follow Obama blindlessly as he falls off a cliff with his policies, have no ethics, and be willing to be a low life son of a _________.
Posted by enjoylife63

I see enjoylife63 still has diarrhea of the mouth. anti-GOD? You pompous anus

[bradkt1]

Predictably, there are conservative Republicans calling for Senator Olympia Snowe and other moderate Republicans to leave the Republican Party. Now that's a winning strategy...for the Democrats!

The new math for conservatives in the U.S. Senate appears to be 41 (with Specter)...40 (without Specter)...39 (without Snowe)...38 (without Collins)...37 (without McCain)...and so forth. This may schieve ideological purity, but it will never achieve political power and influence.

There was a time when the Republican Party was the party of fiscal responsibility, moderate on social issues, pro-civil rights (remember Eisenhower and Rockefeller... even Nixon with his support for minority business enterprises!), strong on national security, pro free enterprise...in other words, a political party that had a big tent. Ever since Ronald Reagan, however, it has been hijacked by conservatives who wish to impose their social values on the nation, intruding more and more into the private lives of American citizens. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State Colin Powell is viewed with suspicion and disdain. The Republican Party of today would even consider Ronald Reagan to be an "unreliable" conservative and would sneer with disdain at the many compromises that Reagan made in the course of governing.

And they still claim that staying on this self-destructive path is the right way to go. It's the right way to go all right...into obscurity.