NationStates Jolt Archive

*as Bush continues to run so far to the right that its off the charts moderate republicans are starting to fear for their partys future

Moderate Republicans Criticize Bush
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, AP

NEW YORK (Aug. 29) - A group of moderate Republicans, many long out of office, called on President Bush and the Republican party to ''come back to the mainstream'' on the eve of the Republican National Convention.
''Instead of partisan ideology - which increasingly has led moderates to leave the party - what's needed is a speedy return to the pragmatic, problem-solving mainstream,'' the group called Mainstream 2004 said in newspaper advertisements to be published Monday.

The ''Come Back To The Mainstream'' ads say what many moderate Republicans are thinking, said A. Linwood Holton, who was Virginia governor from 1970-74.

The problem lies with the ''extremist element that controls the Republican party,'' Holton said, ''which has polarized this country.''

''I see the ads as an effort to try to get the Republican party to widen its appeal'' to moderates around the country, Holton said. ''Bush talks that way, but I don't see him or the rest of the party doing that.''

The group in its ads called on Bush and the GOP to ''stop weakening environmental law''; start using ''pay-as-you-go'' budget discipline to end deficits; clear the way for embryonic stem cell research; and appoint mainstream federal judges.

The way the party is now, Holton said he wouldn't vote for President Bush. ''Not unless they change substantially between now and November,'' he said.

The list of Republicans signing the ad include former GOP Govs. David Cargo of New Mexico, Dan Evans of Washington, A. Linwood Holton of Virginia, William Milliken of Michigan, Walter Peterson of New Hampshire; former U.S. Sens. Charles Mathias of Maryland and Robert Stafford of Vermont; and Nathaniel Reed, former assistant Interior Secretary under Presidents Nixon and Ford, and Russell Train, EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford.
www.aol.com

I'm waiting for Jim Jeffords to sign it. ;)

there is an article in the Guardian about moderate republicans that is quite interesting. Apparently they are not all such freaks and Christian nutters after all. I will go find a link to it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1293328,00.html
there it is.

there is an article in the Guardian about moderate republicans that is quite interesting. Apparently they are not all such freaks and Christian nutters after all. I will go find a link to it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1293328,00.html
there it is.
I feel sorry for moderate republicans--theyre party is being held hostage by the Christian taliban

I feel sorry for moderate republicans--theyre party is being held hostage by the Christian taliban

Count the number of hardcore Christian speakers at the GOP convention. If the party is indeed "held hostage" then a majority should be evangelical Christians...

Nope, try again.

Count the number of hardcore Christian speakers at the GOP convention. If the party is indeed "held hostage" then a majority should be evangelical Christians...

Nope, try again.
Bush is trying to act kinder and gentler just in time for the election but the masses arent buying it

Bush is trying to act kinder and gentler just in time for the election but the masses arent buying it

The polls say differently. :)

The polls say differently. :)
the polls are see sawing constantly

the polls are see sawing constantly

Back to the original point... what about the "Christian taliban"? Any real proof?

Back to the original point... what about the "Christian taliban"? Any real proof?
yeah-look at the way he panders to the christian fundies on every issue under the sun even goin so far as to subvert science itself with religious superstitions

well the republicans have picked up congress, the presidency, the senate, the governorships, the state legislatures, and the supreme court in just 10 years and maintained them. more republicans now in the government then any time since 1928. Bush is at the eve of his convention in a stronger position than any republican since reagan in 1984 who won in a landslide. and you say the republicans need to change their tune. thats insane.

It would appear to me that the democrats are the one with the problem ( look at the above and reflect on who is truely in the " mainstream".)

seems i have aptly proved my point liberals! im off to bed.

well the republicans have picked up congress, the presidency, the senate, the governorships, the state legislatures, and the supreme court in just 10 years and maintained them. more republicans now in the government then any time since 1928. Bush is at the eve of his convention in a stronger position than any republican since reagan in 1984 who won in a landslide. and you say the republicans need to change their tune. thats insane.

First off i wanna say im a republican.

Bush definately caters to the right because thats the only way he'd be voted into office again, by catering to religious needs.
By the way the republicans dont have the senate anymore, and dont be shocked if they end up loosing the house, or having a smaller representation in the house.
When you look at the GOP convention, they picked moderate speakers to cater to the moderate crowd, but the truth is that bushs policies are more right sided then moderate, and its very easy to see that.
He just said his best book is the bible for christ sake.

whats pissing me off about the reublicans is the fact that the christian religion has such a strong foothold there, its not good.

First off i wanna say im a republican.

Bush definately caters to the right because thats the only way he'd be voted into office again, by catering to religious needs.
By the way the republicans dont have the senate anymore, and dont be shocked if they end up loosing the house, or having a smaller representation in the house.
When you look at the GOP convention, they picked moderate speakers to cater to the moderate crowd, but the truth is that bushs policies are more right sided then moderate, and its very easy to see that.
He just said his best book is the bible for christ sake.

whats pissing me off about the reublicans is the fact that the christian religion has such a strong foothold there, its not good.

We still hold the House and Senate. Saying that the GOP is run by the evangelicals is absurd, but I'd like to see their lobbying power reduced as well.

He just said his best book is the bible for christ sake.

Well, it is an ok read, i quote enjoyed Deuternomy. But perhaps im just a sadist.


Anyway, i want Bush to stay since hopefully he will work on preventing socialist policy from taking too much of an executive foothold.

Well, it is an ok read, i quote enjoyed Deuternomy. But perhaps im just a sadist.

Beats the Koran. That thing reads like a snuff novel.

Beats the Koran. That thing reads like a snuff novel.

well my point is that he shouldnt be saying thats his best book, because it supports a religion.
Hes in teh government, u kno the whole seperation of church and state thing...

First off i wanna say im a republican.

Bush definately caters to the right because thats the only way he'd be voted into office again, by catering to religious needs.
By the way the republicans dont have the senate anymore, and dont be shocked if they end up loosing the house, or having a smaller representation in the house.
When you look at the GOP convention, they picked moderate speakers to cater to the moderate crowd, but the truth is that bushs policies are more right sided then moderate, and its very easy to see that.
He just said his best book is the bible for christ sake.

whats pissing me off about the reublicans is the fact that the christian religion has such a strong foothold there, its not good.

I'm a republican too, but you are wrong, we do have control of the house, we killed in the 2002 elections, we picked up seats in GA, NH, MN, NC, and MO that i remember,

well the republicans have picked up congress, the presidency, the senate, the governorships, the state legislatures, and the supreme court in just 10 years and maintained them. more republicans now in the government then any time since 1928. Bush is at the eve of his convention in a stronger position than any republican since reagan in 1984 who won in a landslide. and you say the republicans need to change their tune. thats insane.
republicans have a razor thin majority in a deeply divided country with a depressed economy and in the middle of an unpopular war-you do the math

We still hold the House and Senate. Saying that the GOP is run by the evangelicals is absurd, but I'd like to see their lobbying power reduced as well.
its not absurd at all--Bush is appointing these freaks to sensative positions in govt and the bench everyday

HAH!

Let me reiterate:

HAH!

Once more for good luck:

HAH!

We need to show Bush/Cheney the door. That way, the moderates can retake the party- and we'll be fine.

Look who is important to the Republican Party: Guilani and Schwarzenagger! Even Zell Miller and former Mayor Koch of NYC (both Democrats) are voting for Bush! The Democrats are the party being held hostage to their extremists.

Look who is important to the Republican Party: Guilani and Schwarzenagger! Even Zell Miller and former Mayor Koch of NYC (both Democrats) are voting for Bush! The Democrats are the party being held hostage to their extremists.
those moderate reps are just window dressing to hide Bushs extremist agenda--Rudy just wants an appointment Zell Miller is a dixicrat dinosaur whose retiring anyway and is prolly jockeying for an appointment too and Koch is a conservative democrat as well and a neo-con zionist

those moderate reps are just window dressing to hide Bushs extremist agenda--Rudy just wants an appointment Zell Miller is a dixicrat dinosaur whose retiring anyway and is prolly jockeying for an appointment too and Koch is a conservative democrat as well and a neo-con zionist


Really? What about Tom Daschle? Having to show himself hugging the president to try to get reelected.

And according to this, momentum is shifting towards Bush- http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/bush_convention_poll_040829.html

Really? What about Tom Daschle? Having to show himself hugging the president to try to get reelected.

And according to this, momentum is shifting towards Bush- http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/bush_convention_poll_040829.html
thats a corporate media link so its biast

well my point is that he shouldnt be saying thats his best book, because it supports a religion.
Hes in teh government, u kno the whole seperation of church and state thing...

This is absolutely ludicrous. Elected official or not, he has every right to be a Christian, and to speak openly about his religious beliefs.

thats a corporate media link so its biast

Tell me, do you accept any media, other than those that openly support liberal candidates and causes, as unbiased?

Anyway, i want Bush to stay since hopefully he will work on preventing socialist policy from taking too much of an executive foothold.

Let's all just hope and pray that this is not a typical point of view. What do they teach in them there schools?

Tell me, do you accept any media, other than those that openly support liberal candidates and causes, as unbiased?

This was not a rhetorical question.

so:
Bush is ahead
he is the president
congress is republican
the senate is republican
the governorships are republican
the mayorships are republican
the state assemblies are republican
the supreme court is republican
most regestired voters are republican
the most popular radio show is rush limbaugh
the most popular cable news show is bill o'reilly on fox
kerry had no bounce
bush is doing better than any republican poll wise since reagan in 84'
and giuliani just electrified american voters at the rnc with the best speech at a convention in years

and republicans are the ones who are out of the mainstream and have a problem??? look in the mirror liberals. what you see might just scare you.

so:
Bush is ahead
he is the president
congress is republican
the senate is republican
the governorships are republican
the mayorships are republican
the state assemblies are republican
the supreme court is republican
most regestired voters are republican
the most popular radio show is rush limbaugh
the most popular cable news show is bill o'reilly on fox
kerry had no bounce
bush is doing better than any republican poll wise since reagan in 84'
and giuliani just electrified american voters at the rnc with the best speech at a convention in years

and republicans are the ones who are out of the mainstream and have a problem??? look in the mirror liberals. what you see might just scare you.
according to the article its moderate republicans who are the scared ones

well the republicans have picked up congress, the presidency, the senate, the governorships, the state legislatures, and the supreme court in just 10 years and maintained them. more republicans now in the government then any time since 1928. Bush is at the eve of his convention in a stronger position than any republican since reagan in 1984 who won in a landslide. and you say the republicans need to change their tune. thats insane.

And you seem to be saying that it's all about winning. It should be about what's best for the country, not who wins and who loses.

thats what is so sad. The republican party is in better shape then any time in 75 years and these people are trying to make it into a problem. I think that it is the democrats who have the problem and need to shape up , or be shipped out.......again.

And you seem to be saying that it's all about winning. It should be about what's best for the country, not who wins and who loses.

the country knows what is good for it. I know thats hard for some people to realize but it is the basis of free democracy. that is why we vote. And more and more republicans are streaming into the government every year. The winning is based on people liking the new republican message more than the new democrat message. it is not the republicans who need to change. It is the democrats.

time to face reality

thats what is so sad. The republican party is in better shape then any time in 75 years and these people are trying to make it into a problem. I think that it is the democrats who have the problem and need to shape up , or be shipped out.......again.
yeah the GOP is in excellent shape while the country is falling apart--that should tell you something about people who have more loyalty to political partys then to their own country

Look who is important to the Republican Party: Guilani and Schwarzenagger! Even Zell Miller and former Mayor Koch of NYC (both Democrats) are voting for Bush! The Democrats are the party being held hostage to their extremists.

Of course, even Guiliani (who was conservative enough that he thought Broadway was causing all the problems in NY) has expressed concerns about some of the planks in the platform for this year.

The current, far-right platform has also alienated an entire section of the Republican party known as the log-cabin Republicans. These Republicans were in fact not allowed to some of the GOP state conventions.

But, yeah, you're right - the extremists have no power whatsoever in the Republican party right now.

the country knows what is good for it. I know thats hard for some people to realize but it is the basis of free democracy. that is why we vote. And more and more republicans are streaming into the government every year. The winning is based on people liking the new republican message more than the new democrat message. it is not the republicans who need to change. It is the democrats.
if this is true then why did Bush have to be appointed?

time to face reality
yes-it is :)

yeah the GOP is in excellent shape while the country is falling apart--that should tell you something about people who have more loyalty to political partys then to their own country

You've just described virtually every Republican and Democrat in the federal government. Your side has no more right to claim they care about America than the other side does.

thats what is so sad. The republican party is in better shape then any time in 75 years and these people are trying to make it into a problem. I think that it is the democrats who have the problem and need to shape up , or be shipped out.......again.

Again, this is not about your freaking party. It is about the good of the country. I don't give a flying fuck what kind of shape either of the parties are in. I care what is best for the country. If I could, I'd choose neither candidate and make them give me a better option. But since that won't happen, I'm going to do something I know will be good for the country, get rid of Bush.

Of course, even Guiliani (who was conservative enough that he thought Broadway was causing all the problems in NY) has expressed concerns about some of the planks in the platform for this year.

The current, far-right platform has also alienated an entire section of the Republican party known as the log-cabin Republicans. These Republicans were in fact not allowed to some of the GOP state conventions.

But, yeah, you're right - the extremists have no power whatsoever in the Republican party right now.


dont you realize that moderates and democrats are being attracted to the republicans more and more every election? look at my earlier post on what they control. The log cabin republicans are one tiny little sect that are for things that 90% of republicans are not. liberals are in the deep minority. and its not because of somthing that the republicans did wrong.

and source that thing you just wrote about mr. giuliani

if this is true then why did Bush have to be appointed?

read the constitution

This was not a rhetorical question.I was listening to a veteran white house reporter named Helen Thomas on democracynow this morning and shes been covering Presidents in the white house press corp for 50 years and she seems to agree with me on the dismal state of the corporate media in america today

the country knows what is good for it. I know thats hard for some people to realize but it is the basis of free democracy. that is why we vote. And more and more republicans are streaming into the government every year. The winning is based on people liking the new republican message more than the new democrat message. it is not the republicans who need to change. It is the democrats.

We are not "free democracy." The government was set up as a Republic with a Constitution specifically to keep mob rule from happening. So, unless you think the founders of our country were all idiots, you are wrong. To say that the majority is always right is just plain idiotic.

Bush is not mainstream Republicanism. On just about any occasion, you'd probably see me more likely to vote Republican than Democrat (or independent if there was one). And this would still be true if Bush weren't so far-right on social (and scientific) issues. The platform this year is more far-right than ever, and entire sections of the Republican party itself are being alienated. Do you really think that's good for your party or your country?

and while only 31% of the country describes itself as "republican" mr. bush's job approval is 51% , he has 45% of the reelection vote going his way at thsi point, and 53% of congress is republican controled. this is due to moderates who support.....the republicans.

You've just described virtually every Republican and Democrat in the federal government. Your side has no more right to claim they care about America than the other side does.
yes we do cause its the policies of your side thats rippen americas heart out

dont you realize that moderates and democrats are being attracted to the republicans more and more every election? look at my earlier post on what they control. The log cabin republicans are one tiny little sect that are for things that 90% of republicans are not. liberals are in the deep minority. and its not because of somthing that the republicans did wrong.

and source that thing you just wrote about mr. giuliani
actually theres more republicans voting democrat this year then there are dems voting GOP

read the constitutionI did and I couldnt find anywhere where it said the Supreme Court gets to appoint the President

source that with a poll. and I also want a source what was said about giuliani thinking new york's problems came from broadway. I dont believe some things I am reading.

actually theres more republicans voting democrat this year then there are dems voting GOP

Cite source.

I did and I couldnt find anywhere where it said the Supreme Court gets to appoint the President

The suprme court did not appoint the president. It stopped the theoriticly endless and deeply flawed hand recounts in florida. the electoral college decides the president. ( as if you didnt know)

dont you realize that moderates and democrats are being attracted to the republicans more and more every election? look at my earlier post on what they control. The log cabin republicans are one tiny little sect that are for things that 90% of republicans are not. liberals are in the deep minority. and its not because of somthing that the republicans did wrong.

Moderates are drawn to the Republican party, sure - because they are *supposed* to be more fiscally responsible. However, they are *not* drawn to President Bush.

and source that thing you just wrote about mr. giuliani

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00000I9DA/002-7708872-5980032?v=glance

Ok, so I can't find a real source right now. But Giuliani did want to "clean up" Broadway shows just as he "cleaned up" Broadway itself. The shows basically told him where he could stick it.

and while only 31% of the country describes itself as "republican" mr. bush's job approval is 51% , he has 45% of the reelection vote going his way at thsi point, and 53% of congress is republican controled. this is due to moderates who support.....the republicans.
the only poll that matters is on Nov 4th and Bush is alienating moderates--remeber Jim Jeffords?

Cite source.
air america--Randy Rhodes was speaking to a republican for kerry today and try as she might she cant find any dems voting for Bush to interview

Ok, so I can't find a real source right now. But Giuliani did want to "clean up" Broadway shows just as he "cleaned up" Broadway itself. The shows basically told him where he could stick it.

you were not being honest were you. any way, if many republicans dont support bush and more of them support kerry than democrats support bush, then explain how mr. bush's job approval is 51% when republicans make up 31% of the population and why is he about dead even with kerry. Using your theory he should be around , what , half of the approval he is at right now? come on, stop kidding yourself.

air america--Randy Rhodes was speaking to a republican for kerry today and try as she might she cant find any dems voting for Bush to interview

maybe they are avoiding air america! its not exactly popular......

maybe they are avoiding air america! its not exactly popular......
lol theyre gaining new markets everyday

air america--Randy Rhodes was speaking to a republican for kerry today and try as she might she cant find any dems voting for Bush to interview

Quick debate lesson:

You're committing an anecdotal evidence fallacy. You can't provide a single example and claim that it proves a generalized statement. Even if your argument was logically sound (which it's not), you're using information from an obviously biased source (Air America), which got its information from another obviously biased source (Republicans for Kerry).

you were not being honest were you.

Uh, yeah, I was. Giuliani tried to include the content of Broadway shows in his "clean-up" of the area, so he obviously thought that the shows themselves were causing some sort of problem. All I did was exaggerate a bit.

any way, if many republicans dont support bush and more of them support kerry than democrats support bush, then explain how mr. bush's job approval is 51% when republicans make up 31% of the population and why is he about dead even with kerry. Using your theory he should be around , what , half of the approval he is at right now? come on, stop kidding yourself.

I think you are confusing me with someone else, since I never said that. Election polls mean very little to me one way or another and I very rarely, if ever, quote numbers from them. Approval ratings change hourly.

As for Bush's current approval rating and the poll numbers - no incumbent president in history has come back from the numbers Bush is getting and won a reelection, so I wouldn't be so cocky if I were you.

And how old are you, anyways? I usually only hear the very young refer to everyone as "Mr. this" and "Mr. that".

how many markets do they have?

I am 18 by the way. And I talk in a very old fashioned way. i dont know why. but any way, you have it reversed. Bush's approval rating is 51% and that is exactly the same as president clinton's and president reagan's were at this point. actualy, no president has ever been defeated when they have a more than 50% approval rating in august. ever. so you had it switched.

how many markets do they have?
they just got Denver now and someplace in new mexico

by the way, the new york times has published an average of one article for every market air america gets into. if they treated sean hannity the same they would have wrote more than 300 ( glowingly praise filled) articles about him in the last two years.........

I am 18 by the way. And I talk in a very old fashioned way. i dont know why. but any way, you have it reversed. Bush's approval rating is 51% and that is exactly the same as president clinton's and president reagan's were at this point. actualy, no president has ever been defeated when they have a more than 50% approval rating in august. ever. so you had it switched.

I was talking about the poll numbers actually. I could be wrong now, but I know that a couple of months ago Bush had poll ratings that no incumbent had ever recovered from. Considering that all of these numbers change hourly, though, I wouldn't put too much faith in any of them.

Republican leads
august / election day
1976 -33 / -4
1980 -1 / +10
1984 -2 / +21
1988 -17 / +8
1992 -29 / -6
1996 -21 / -9
2000 -13 / -1
2004 -2 / ?


hahahahaha, see a trend anyone????????/

Republican leads
august / election day
1976 -33 / -4
1980 -1 / +10
1984 -2 / +21
1988 -17 / +8
1992 -29 / -6
1996 -21 / -9
2000 -13 / -1
2004 -2 / ?


hahahahaha, see a trend anyone????????/

And these numbers are....what exactly?

point gains for republicans from august to election day:
1976: 29
1980: 11
1984: 23
1988: 25
1992: 23
1996: 12
2000: 12
2004: ???? ( the democrats hope it will be negetive. Do you really think thats possible? neither do I.

Republican leads
august / election day
1976 -33 / -4
1980 -1 / +10
1984 -2 / +21
1988 -17 / +8
1992 -29 / -6
1996 -21 / -9
2000 -13 / -1
2004 -2 / ?


hahahahaha, see a trend anyone????????/

I maintain that the best predictors of any Presidential election are the Washington Redskins and Halloween mask sales.

And these numbers are....what exactly?

the republican lead over the democratic candidate as polled by gallup survey in august compared to that on election day.

the republican lead over the democratic candidate as polled by gallup survey in august compared to that on election day.

So your point is that the ratings for Republicans tend to go up after August. Congratulations.

Of course, none of those candidates were the screw-up we have in office right now, were they?

yes, 2000 ( thats how he got in you know) a twelve point gain over september and october. even if he can only do a fifth of that he can still win this time around..............

http://www.counterpunch.org/hill01042003.html

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]So your point is that the ratings for Republicans tend to go up after August. Congratulations.

QUOTE]

they dont 'tend to' . they DO. every time BY MORE THAN 10 POINTS for the last 7 elections.................

undecidedterritory may be 'deadly' but is also very tired. have a fun liberal fest now that I am gone

undecidedterritory may be 'deadly' but is also very tired. have a fun liberal fest now that I am gone
Im tired too -Nite

http://www.counterpunch.org/hill01042003.html

Wow. I don't know how he does it, but Michael Ortiz Hill actually seems to believe what he's writing.

It would appear to me that the democrats are the one with the problem ( look at the above and reflect on who is truely in the " mainstream".)
I agree that under Clinton the Democrats moved too far to the right, but the Republicans are still more right-wing.

Down with Bush's extremist right-wing policies - bring back John McCain; if he was pres I don't think he would have been the screw-up Bush has been

Down with Bush's extremist right-wing policies - bring back John McCain; if he was pres I don't think he would have been the screw-up Bush has been


You know, when John McCain supports his former rival over his close friend for President of the United States, you have to think he agrees with Bush's policies just a litle bit.

You know, when John McCain supports his former rival over his close friend for President of the United States, you have to think he agrees with Bush's policies just a litle bit.
Either that or he's been 'requested' to toe the party line if he ever wants to add to his Senate legacy. Power politics can still trump individual conviction, even when those convictions are righteous.

This is absolutely ludicrous. Elected official or not, he has every right to be a Christian, and to speak openly about his religious beliefs.

However, he can not base government policy on HIS beliefs. It is supposed to be a representation not a religous appointment.

There is value in a canidate that says what he believes and them follows that. Part of my uneasiness with the Dem. canidate is that he says he believes one thing but supports another ( and I believe it is because he want the best of both worlds). For example, if you run on a platform against beating sheep, you should believe that beating sheep is wrong; not that the majority believe its wrong so your going to follow them.

As for Bush and the Bible, I cringe sometimes (okay, most of the time) (I am a slightly right of center Christian) when he justifies himself with the Bible. But there is nothing wrong with it being his favorite book, certainly it is not a vialation of the seperation of church and state (which is a much misunderstood concept;I should add that I am in favor of such a seperation). There are a lot of good lessons in the Bible as well as many other great books. At least there is an anchor to something solid (hey, I would vote for a Buddhist, Jew or Muslim etc. too if I agreed with their platform).

Just because Bush is a Christian doesn't mean that a church is going to start to get 10% of the tax revenue or anything (which would be a huge vialation of the seperation of church and state). It doesn't mean that all public schools are going to have a preacher on staff and Mass every day. It doesn't mean that students are going to be banned from wearing appearal of religious afilliation.

However, he can not base government policy on HIS beliefs. It is supposed to be a representation not a religous appointment.

That I agree with. It just frustrates me how so many people have come to believe that "separation of church and state" means that government officials don't have the right to exercise their religion freely, just like anyone else.