I, too, would like to weigh in on Specter's decision to switch parties. There's been a lot of emotion churned up by this decision. Like many loyal republicans, I was disappointed and disheartened. Disappointed in that it feels like we, as a party, have been up against the ropes for a while now. This move, while not entirely unexpected, is still a "low blow". I was disheartened because Specter's defection sends a message that you cannot be a "moderate" Republican in Pennsylvania anymore. It would appear that he is not alone. Over 200,000 so-called "moderate" Republicans in Pennsylvania left the party last year because they felt their party no longer represented them. This is NOT a good thing for Republicans; rather, it's a losing proposition. Instead of writing these people off with a "good riddance" attitude, we need to do the opposite. We need to WAKE UP and take this seriously!
There is a reason why only 21% of Americans identify themselves with the Republican Party. The fact is that MOST Americans don't fall into either of the two sides of the political spectrum: extreme left or extreme right. Most people are NOT ideological purists. The reality is that the world isn't black vs. white; right-wing vs. left-wing; good vs. bad. Most people fall somewhere in between or, in other words, they are "moderate". There is a place for ideology. But a political party is not it. Michael Smerconish said today on his radio show that "the purpose of a political party is to WIN". Period. I'd never heard anyone say that before and it makes total sense. Within a party there can be voices of liberalism, conservatism, pro-life, pro-choice, etc. The party that is inclusive of these varying ideologies, and not exclusive, is the party that will dominate elections because it will speak to a MAJORITY of voters. That is, after all, how you win elections. Now you may say that we need to stand for something. We do. Republicans stand for fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, and national security. What good does our Party do in the fight to keep budgets under control, hold governments accountable, and sustain a strong national defense (all issues that a majority of Americans say they support, by the way) if we don't have a seat at the table?
Until we regain that seat at the table...because we certainly do NOT have it now...we have moderate Democrats like Evan Byah, Claire McCaskill and now, Arlen Specter who says he will be a voice for "Centrist Government". You could make the case that the best hope of bringing common sense to the Obama Administration, talk them off the ledge (on the left), is going to come from within. Moderate Democrats will have a greater chance of exerting influence than an increasingly marginalized Republican Party. In fact, having a solid majority will only bring out the dissidents within the Democrat party. Not having Republicans to fight against, they will most certainly turn on themselves. This can be used to our advantage in 2010.
If the Pennsylvania Republican Party wants to keep its seat in the Senate in 2010, we would be wise NOT to run Pat Toomey, the poster boy for the right wing of the Republican Party. If we do so, we will have shown that we have NOT read the tea leaves and have learned NOTHING from the blows we've received in the past six months. Wouldn't it be interesting if the Party put forth someone like Tom Ridge against Specter? Wouldn't THAT be a game-changer? Pat Meehan could possibly fit the bill, but he couldn't do as well in western PA as Ridge could. If we really want to keep this seat, we need a nationally known politically moderate Republican who could reach out to the thousands of disenfranchised moderates in Pennsylvania. As far as getting past the primary, I can see the conservative base supporting Ridge if for no other reason than it gives them the best chance of defeating Specter.
Time will tell. It certainly is an interesting time to be in politics!
Monday, July 6, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Yes, Rush, There IS Such A Thing As A Moderate.
Recently, on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh declared that there is no such thing as a moderate. If that is so, then this is a much scarier world than I thought. One in which life is viewed through a black/white prism. Not only is this a dismal way to view the world, but it ignores the very real shades of gray and rich complement of colors that are so much a part of the modern, complex society in which we live. To suggest that there is no middle ground anymore, that one must choose between two extremes is overly simplistic, irresponsible…and dangerous. By virtue of being “in the middle”, moderates hear both sides of an argument, allowing them a deeper understanding of issues and an objective point of view when it comes to decision-making. Personally, I WANT the leaders of my country to have these characteristics. It’s certainly preferable to ideologues making policy in a knee-jerk way based on some random litmus test that has nothing to do with the difficult issues that plague our nation today. We had enough of that in the last Administration.
This all begs an important question. What exactly IS a moderate? There’s been a flurry of op-eds recently by conservative columnists maligning moderates, saying they “don’t stand for anything.” I take offense at that notion. I also think they are wrong. Ironically, moderation, defined by showing restraint and taking a measured approach to crises, has long been a hallmark of true conservatism. So-called “moderates” like Colin Powell and Jim Baker before him, and like George H.W. Bush by the way, saw the world in shades of gray. They were realists when it came to foreign policy. They were intellectual conservatives; men who weighed the pros and cons, who viewed the world in a balanced way. These men did not act on emotion but took a practical approach to policymaking. Unlike his father’s administration before him, George W’s did not exhibit intellectual conservatism. His brand of “neo-conservatism” is based more on emotion and religion than reality. Powell had the misfortune of being a lone voice on Bush II’s foreign policy team. Perhaps if he had served under the first George Bush, we might not have gotten ourselves embroiled in seven years of war and racked up a deficit that has almost bankrupted this nation.
I understand that neo-conservatives like Rush Limbaugh are fighting for their very existence after a humiliating defeat in November. The tidal wave of Obamamania left republicans flopping around on the beach starved for oxygen; lost, dazed and confused as to why they were left high and dry by the American people. More telling is the fact that they were abandoned by their OWN people. In Pennsylvania alone over 200,000 republicans switched parties last year. Chester County, long a bastion of Republican leadership, enjoyed a 97,000 majority just two years ago. Today, that majority is a mere quarter of what it once was. Instead of trying to figure out WHY this happened and reach out to these people in an effort to bring them back into the fold, some “leaders” in the Republican Party like Rush Limbaugh seek to marginalize, even vilify moderates saying “good riddance.” So short-sighted is this viewpoint that it cannot be seen as anything more than a desperate effort on the part of the right-wing of the GOP to hold onto the stranglehold its held over this Party for eight years.
If the Republican Party wants to be a national party and regain its footing in the northeast, instead of a regional party representing pockets of the deep south and Midwest, it’s going to have to open its doors to moderates and independents. Period. It cannot afford to marginalize a whole sector of voters like that. Statements by Rush Limbaugh that there is no such thing as a moderate or that moderates don’t “stand for anything” only pushes these voters further away. This is NOT a prescription for success for any political party. Political parties exist in order to win elections. Yes, they incorporate certainly commonly-held beliefs but the operative word here is commonly. If they allow their ideological differences to get the better of them, then they are doomed to fail. That is where our party stands today, on the precipice of an ideological war.
Why can’t we agree to disagree on social issues and unite behind those principles that were the foundation of our party at its inception? A commitment to fiscal responsibility, smaller government, the promotion of individual initiative and ingenuity, support of judges who uphold the constitution instead of legislate from the bench and ensuring a strong national defense are REAL issues. ALL Republicans can be proud to “stand for” such beliefs. Furthermore, they are issues that many Americans support, especially now in the face of such overwhelming spending and growth in government. Now is the time when ownership of these issues can catapult the Republican Party back into the game and insure landslide victories in 2010.
If we allow ourselves to listen to negative forces like Rush Limbaugh and others in the neo-conservative wing who seek not to unite this party, but to further divide it, then we should get used to being in the back seat of history for the forseeable future. So…yes, Rush. There IS such a thing as a moderate, and you’d be wise to start listening to them.
Recently, on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh declared that there is no such thing as a moderate. If that is so, then this is a much scarier world than I thought. One in which life is viewed through a black/white prism. Not only is this a dismal way to view the world, but it ignores the very real shades of gray and rich complement of colors that are so much a part of the modern, complex society in which we live. To suggest that there is no middle ground anymore, that one must choose between two extremes is overly simplistic, irresponsible…and dangerous. By virtue of being “in the middle”, moderates hear both sides of an argument, allowing them a deeper understanding of issues and an objective point of view when it comes to decision-making. Personally, I WANT the leaders of my country to have these characteristics. It’s certainly preferable to ideologues making policy in a knee-jerk way based on some random litmus test that has nothing to do with the difficult issues that plague our nation today. We had enough of that in the last Administration.
This all begs an important question. What exactly IS a moderate? There’s been a flurry of op-eds recently by conservative columnists maligning moderates, saying they “don’t stand for anything.” I take offense at that notion. I also think they are wrong. Ironically, moderation, defined by showing restraint and taking a measured approach to crises, has long been a hallmark of true conservatism. So-called “moderates” like Colin Powell and Jim Baker before him, and like George H.W. Bush by the way, saw the world in shades of gray. They were realists when it came to foreign policy. They were intellectual conservatives; men who weighed the pros and cons, who viewed the world in a balanced way. These men did not act on emotion but took a practical approach to policymaking. Unlike his father’s administration before him, George W’s did not exhibit intellectual conservatism. His brand of “neo-conservatism” is based more on emotion and religion than reality. Powell had the misfortune of being a lone voice on Bush II’s foreign policy team. Perhaps if he had served under the first George Bush, we might not have gotten ourselves embroiled in seven years of war and racked up a deficit that has almost bankrupted this nation.
I understand that neo-conservatives like Rush Limbaugh are fighting for their very existence after a humiliating defeat in November. The tidal wave of Obamamania left republicans flopping around on the beach starved for oxygen; lost, dazed and confused as to why they were left high and dry by the American people. More telling is the fact that they were abandoned by their OWN people. In Pennsylvania alone over 200,000 republicans switched parties last year. Chester County, long a bastion of Republican leadership, enjoyed a 97,000 majority just two years ago. Today, that majority is a mere quarter of what it once was. Instead of trying to figure out WHY this happened and reach out to these people in an effort to bring them back into the fold, some “leaders” in the Republican Party like Rush Limbaugh seek to marginalize, even vilify moderates saying “good riddance.” So short-sighted is this viewpoint that it cannot be seen as anything more than a desperate effort on the part of the right-wing of the GOP to hold onto the stranglehold its held over this Party for eight years.
If the Republican Party wants to be a national party and regain its footing in the northeast, instead of a regional party representing pockets of the deep south and Midwest, it’s going to have to open its doors to moderates and independents. Period. It cannot afford to marginalize a whole sector of voters like that. Statements by Rush Limbaugh that there is no such thing as a moderate or that moderates don’t “stand for anything” only pushes these voters further away. This is NOT a prescription for success for any political party. Political parties exist in order to win elections. Yes, they incorporate certainly commonly-held beliefs but the operative word here is commonly. If they allow their ideological differences to get the better of them, then they are doomed to fail. That is where our party stands today, on the precipice of an ideological war.
Why can’t we agree to disagree on social issues and unite behind those principles that were the foundation of our party at its inception? A commitment to fiscal responsibility, smaller government, the promotion of individual initiative and ingenuity, support of judges who uphold the constitution instead of legislate from the bench and ensuring a strong national defense are REAL issues. ALL Republicans can be proud to “stand for” such beliefs. Furthermore, they are issues that many Americans support, especially now in the face of such overwhelming spending and growth in government. Now is the time when ownership of these issues can catapult the Republican Party back into the game and insure landslide victories in 2010.
If we allow ourselves to listen to negative forces like Rush Limbaugh and others in the neo-conservative wing who seek not to unite this party, but to further divide it, then we should get used to being in the back seat of history for the forseeable future. So…yes, Rush. There IS such a thing as a moderate, and you’d be wise to start listening to them.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
What has Happened to the Republican Party?
Originally my blog was called "republicrat" but that's not really reflective of my position. Let me say first and foremost that I am a REPUBLICAN....and I'm proud of that. But I am a Republican as it was originally intended. The Republican Party has always stood for limited government and fiscal responsibility. Stay out of the pocketbooks of entrepreneurial Americans...let them do what they do best -- create jobs, invent new and exciting technologies, take risks and reap their due rewards.
But I have to say that it is hard to identify today with the party as it has evolved over the past few years. It's really hard to be proud to be Republican right now when our party, under the Bush Administration, has led the biggest spending spree since FDR faced coming out of the Great Depression and on the brink of World War. That's right....it was 1933-1934. That's eight decades...almost a century. Not only that, but the current Administration has tried to insinuate its "moral" agenda as well on the American public. You really can't get more anti-"Republican" than that. Stay out of people's wallets but try to tell them how to live their spiritual lives? What is THAT about? So it's safe to say that the leader of the party, George W. Bush, hasn't exactly exhibited the tenents for which the Republican Party stands.
It's also important to remember, however, that it is the Congress, NOT the Executive Branch that has control of the country's purse strings. And that body has been controlled, in the past two years by the Democratic party...both houses. So it is equally safe to say that there is enough blame to go around. It is also important to note that it was John McCain who criticized the freedom of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to deliver loans where they weren't deserved...not Barack Obama. In fact, Obama was one of the biggest proponents of deregulating Freddie and Fannie and, as such, is one of the three largest recipients of those two bodies' money of any other senator. Moreover, sub-prime mortgages were not only allowed but ENCOURAGED by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan during the CLINTON administration.
Bottom line: I still believe...in my gut...that the Republican contract of lower taxes, limited government and incentives for growing businesses is still the better solution to our economic woes. You have to ask yourselves: "Why has the stock market continued to post negative numbers over the past three weeks...even after almost a trillion dollars being injected into the financial sectors? The higher the poll numbers go for Obama, the lower the stock market goes. I don't think it's a coincidence.
But the Republican Party will never regain its former glory until it detangles itself from the evangelical Christian Right movement. They're an important fundraising base...to be sure. But that's all they should be...a fundraising base, NOT a monopoly on the party's ideological platform. I mean REALLY are the conservatives going to vote for Barack Obama if McCain doesn't jump through their ever escalating hoops? Republicans have always been associated with highly educated, reasonable voters. Now it's associated with people who believe that Darwinism is a "nice" theory, but "creationism" is an equally viable educational protocol. Excuse me? What's THAT about? What exactly does "intelligent design" mean? I take that term directly from the McCain website. Huh?
My frustration with the McCain campaign for presidency mirrors that of the Republican Party. This is NOT the campaign I signed on for...and this is defnitely NOT the Party I have known my entire adult life. I liked McCain when he actually thought for himself, instead of touted the "party" line which has been polluted by the conservative right. This is not the CHANGE voters want.
I will vote for McCain because I think he will be a better leader in foreign policy and I think he has a better solution for our current economic crisis. But I do so with great trepidation. And that makes me very, very sad.
But I have to say that it is hard to identify today with the party as it has evolved over the past few years. It's really hard to be proud to be Republican right now when our party, under the Bush Administration, has led the biggest spending spree since FDR faced coming out of the Great Depression and on the brink of World War. That's right....it was 1933-1934. That's eight decades...almost a century. Not only that, but the current Administration has tried to insinuate its "moral" agenda as well on the American public. You really can't get more anti-"Republican" than that. Stay out of people's wallets but try to tell them how to live their spiritual lives? What is THAT about? So it's safe to say that the leader of the party, George W. Bush, hasn't exactly exhibited the tenents for which the Republican Party stands.
It's also important to remember, however, that it is the Congress, NOT the Executive Branch that has control of the country's purse strings. And that body has been controlled, in the past two years by the Democratic party...both houses. So it is equally safe to say that there is enough blame to go around. It is also important to note that it was John McCain who criticized the freedom of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to deliver loans where they weren't deserved...not Barack Obama. In fact, Obama was one of the biggest proponents of deregulating Freddie and Fannie and, as such, is one of the three largest recipients of those two bodies' money of any other senator. Moreover, sub-prime mortgages were not only allowed but ENCOURAGED by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan during the CLINTON administration.
Bottom line: I still believe...in my gut...that the Republican contract of lower taxes, limited government and incentives for growing businesses is still the better solution to our economic woes. You have to ask yourselves: "Why has the stock market continued to post negative numbers over the past three weeks...even after almost a trillion dollars being injected into the financial sectors? The higher the poll numbers go for Obama, the lower the stock market goes. I don't think it's a coincidence.
But the Republican Party will never regain its former glory until it detangles itself from the evangelical Christian Right movement. They're an important fundraising base...to be sure. But that's all they should be...a fundraising base, NOT a monopoly on the party's ideological platform. I mean REALLY are the conservatives going to vote for Barack Obama if McCain doesn't jump through their ever escalating hoops? Republicans have always been associated with highly educated, reasonable voters. Now it's associated with people who believe that Darwinism is a "nice" theory, but "creationism" is an equally viable educational protocol. Excuse me? What's THAT about? What exactly does "intelligent design" mean? I take that term directly from the McCain website. Huh?
My frustration with the McCain campaign for presidency mirrors that of the Republican Party. This is NOT the campaign I signed on for...and this is defnitely NOT the Party I have known my entire adult life. I liked McCain when he actually thought for himself, instead of touted the "party" line which has been polluted by the conservative right. This is not the CHANGE voters want.
I will vote for McCain because I think he will be a better leader in foreign policy and I think he has a better solution for our current economic crisis. But I do so with great trepidation. And that makes me very, very sad.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Excerpts from letter to PA GOP Delegation
The Republican party is currently drafting their platform for the party convention. This is part of a letter sent to the Pennsylvania Republican delegation during this important time in our party's history....
"I'm concerned...and I'm hearing lots of the same type of concern from people in my precinct. We just don't get McCain's fixation with the ultraconservative wing of the GOP. Why does he feels he needs to kowtow to their demands? He calls himself a "maverick", a "reformer" in the Republican party...someone who wants to "change" the face of the party....but the ONLY difference I see in Sarah Palin from any other conservative white male that McCain could have chosen to make the Rush Limbaughs and Karl Roves of the world happy is that well...she's not a man. Does he really think that a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay rights woman is going to win over the Hillary supporters? If he does, he is more out-of-touch with mainstream Americans and, in particular, women than I thought.
Moreover, he has backtracked on some of the very issues that branded him a maverick in the first place....his support of embryonic stem cell research for instance...which in earlier years was strong and unassailable, has seemed to evaporate in a shift in focus from embryos to adult stem cells. This is obviously a political concession to conservatives and not based on the facts, since anyone who understands the science behind the two KNOWS that embryonic stem cells still and always will hold more promise for curing life-threatening and debilitating diseases than adult stem cells. The fact that this important issue has been politicized and demonized by the conservatives in the party is not only shortsighted and ignorant, it's irresponsible. What we need from McCain is a clear show of support for this issue that has languished for seven years since Bush came into office and has led to one of the greatest brain drains we may ever see in our lifetime...not to mention years of wasted promise for research that could lead to a scientific breakthrough such as we have not seen since Jonas Salk cured polio. Don't let the democrats have this one. It's too big...and too important to allow them sole ownership of its direction.
On behalf of the many like-minded voters in not only my precinct but across Chester County, I just wanted to raise this concern about McCain's political compass. The closer to the election he gets, the more RIGHT his compass points. I hate to bother you this week, but SOMEBODY has to tell the leaders of our party that we are NOT all right-wing religious conservatives. And what better time than when they (you) are, at this moment, crafting the platform of the Republican party as it enters the end of the first decade of the 21st century? All this begs the question....just how many votes can the conservative wing of the party guarantee McCain that he would risk alienating the moderates and independents (who from every analysis I've heard, he NEEDS to win a national general election)? Or, even more concerning, how powerful has the conservative wing become that McCain would put their needs over that of the nation by placing a relatively inexperienced, untested VP candidate in the position to assume power of the most powerful nation on earth should something happen to him while in office?
From what I read, McCain is most vulnerable in southeastern PA (Philly suburbs) and western PA. He may win over supporters in western PA with his courtship of the conservative base, but it won't do him much good in the southeast....we NEED to hear that McCain has retained some of the backbone that made us like him so much in the first place. Hopefully, there will be SOMETHING in the party platform delivered next week that reaches out to moderates in the party. There is a reason why fewer citizens identify themselves as Republicans today than ever before in our party's history. We need to stem the tide of this trend and reverse it...now, before it's too late."
"I'm concerned...and I'm hearing lots of the same type of concern from people in my precinct. We just don't get McCain's fixation with the ultraconservative wing of the GOP. Why does he feels he needs to kowtow to their demands? He calls himself a "maverick", a "reformer" in the Republican party...someone who wants to "change" the face of the party....but the ONLY difference I see in Sarah Palin from any other conservative white male that McCain could have chosen to make the Rush Limbaughs and Karl Roves of the world happy is that well...she's not a man. Does he really think that a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay rights woman is going to win over the Hillary supporters? If he does, he is more out-of-touch with mainstream Americans and, in particular, women than I thought.
Moreover, he has backtracked on some of the very issues that branded him a maverick in the first place....his support of embryonic stem cell research for instance...which in earlier years was strong and unassailable, has seemed to evaporate in a shift in focus from embryos to adult stem cells. This is obviously a political concession to conservatives and not based on the facts, since anyone who understands the science behind the two KNOWS that embryonic stem cells still and always will hold more promise for curing life-threatening and debilitating diseases than adult stem cells. The fact that this important issue has been politicized and demonized by the conservatives in the party is not only shortsighted and ignorant, it's irresponsible. What we need from McCain is a clear show of support for this issue that has languished for seven years since Bush came into office and has led to one of the greatest brain drains we may ever see in our lifetime...not to mention years of wasted promise for research that could lead to a scientific breakthrough such as we have not seen since Jonas Salk cured polio. Don't let the democrats have this one. It's too big...and too important to allow them sole ownership of its direction.
On behalf of the many like-minded voters in not only my precinct but across Chester County, I just wanted to raise this concern about McCain's political compass. The closer to the election he gets, the more RIGHT his compass points. I hate to bother you this week, but SOMEBODY has to tell the leaders of our party that we are NOT all right-wing religious conservatives. And what better time than when they (you) are, at this moment, crafting the platform of the Republican party as it enters the end of the first decade of the 21st century? All this begs the question....just how many votes can the conservative wing of the party guarantee McCain that he would risk alienating the moderates and independents (who from every analysis I've heard, he NEEDS to win a national general election)? Or, even more concerning, how powerful has the conservative wing become that McCain would put their needs over that of the nation by placing a relatively inexperienced, untested VP candidate in the position to assume power of the most powerful nation on earth should something happen to him while in office?
From what I read, McCain is most vulnerable in southeastern PA (Philly suburbs) and western PA. He may win over supporters in western PA with his courtship of the conservative base, but it won't do him much good in the southeast....we NEED to hear that McCain has retained some of the backbone that made us like him so much in the first place. Hopefully, there will be SOMETHING in the party platform delivered next week that reaches out to moderates in the party. There is a reason why fewer citizens identify themselves as Republicans today than ever before in our party's history. We need to stem the tide of this trend and reverse it...now, before it's too late."
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
I'm SO Confused!
Okay....I finally joined the bloggers. It's been a long time coming...but I figured, what the hell? If you can't beat 'em...join 'em. So....my first blog. What to say? I'm sitting on my ass on the Eastern Shore, trying to enjoy the final days of summer...trying to put off as long as possible the beginning of another stress-filled school year with three kids in three schools. I'm watching the democratic national convention on tv. Saw Michele Obama and Teddy Kennedy last night. OMG! I'm committed to defeating this guy Obama and wondering....why? My whole life experience says that the republicans have the right idea when it comes to running an economy...but Bush and his cronies totally fucked THAT up! So...it's a little easier to look at John McCain and say that he's going to keep a lid on government spending...he's the cheerleader for cutting pork out of politics, right? Champion of the line-item veto...campaign finance reform, blahblahblah...But there's a part of me that is totally PSYCHED at the prospect of electing Barack Obama the next president of the United States. Alot of racist bullshit would be finally put to rest with a black man in the White House, for one thing. And the United States could finally rid itself of the staid, milquetoast (sp?) leadership we've been associated with through most of the 20th century. But I still can't get past the idea that our economy will go from a recession to a depression overnight if Obama is elected president. And I guess that's what it comes down to with me.....I still believe that our economy does better if left to its own devices to grow than to be controlled, regulated, and dragged down by excessive taxation....The beauty of this election is that we have been given a very clear choice in McCain vs. Obama. I guess the outcome will decide once and for all which platform is the right one for America.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)