I had touched briefly on the subject of doing what is right for the American people instead of what the extremes call for in my earlier publishing. To expand on that notion is to unfortunately put into highlight the ignorance and gullibility of the American voter, but also the possibility to become informed enough or at least regain common sense values when it comes to electing and listening to what candidates offer or have done while in office. One such example is the inability for the federal government to exist without revenues (at least effectively) and to answer everything with tax cuts. This had become and still is in many republican areas a necessary litmus test lest one be denounced by the base as not a republican. Now obviously this can also be applied to the liberal democrats who believe the answer to anything is to spend, and although spending is necessary in certain situations, one only needs to look back (including the last 8 years of republican rule ironically) and see how spending without boundaries only leads to unbalanced budgets and lack of accountability on the part of the government that we elected to serve us.

There will be times when the reality of the situation calls for necessary breaks from unhealthy, non pragmatic and sometimes baseless ideology. Actually, I take that back. The time is ALWAYS when reality demands such actions. Not sometimes, not merely in the worst case scenarios do we put aside ideological litmus tests to see to it the well being of our citizens. NO. It is always. It is continuous and never ending, not only when one can see disaster right over the horizon. Had we as the voters and consequently our representatives, as they are after all elected by us, ALWAYS kept the people first and kept ourselves honest about what works and what does not then the disaster right over the horizon would not even have materialized.

In California, disaster is right over the horizon. In the last few days, their government successfully passed legislation that summed up the political courage that is necessary to do the right thing. Of course, it is possible that had they taken steps to address the issue in the first place, there would be no crisis or at least not as grave. I cannot make a sound opinion on that as I don’t know the full extent and history of California’s problems, being here in Texas. But even from someone far away from there, one can easily see how they did what was right in the face of both extremes pushing against from each side. Deep spending cuts across the board, something that liberal democrats no doubt disliked and their constituents may have been unhappy about. And tax increases, something conservative republicans also disliked deeply and whom their people may not have agreed upon. Some politicians on both sides will have to answer their decision to go forward with this plan in their political careers. They made the right choice, be it the democrat who went with the spending cuts, or the republican who went with tax increases. One step in gaining what is necessary in reforming the idea of politics has been achieved in this setting, but the other remains. Although they did the right thing, far right and far left organizations and groups will lambast them with calls of party treason and loss of principle. The incentives of doing what is right for the people will weaken if they are “punished” by the voters come Election Day.

Some say that there never was a time when people didn’t just choose the polar extremes, I disagree. In the past the moderates, be it from both sides, where a large part of the electorate. And their political descendents have largely gone independent as the parties and their bases radicalized in the latter half of the 20^th century. The center exists, although a bit dislodged from the parties. The center is where pragmatic ideology reigns. I talk about the center because the right and the left (far) will never give up their blurred view of the world. It is in the center where proper ideas can lie. Most voters are swung by the polar extremes and its time to end that. To empower the centrists, the moderate Democrats and Republicans who although believe and follow the basic principles of their respective party, believe in self honesty when it comes to what really works or might work. This is what we should try to do, the burden is on our Republican party, as I believe the democrats actually have a healthy and strong centrist organization. They serve to keep balance and help keep their party center-left, not left-center. We too need to heavily organize and galvanize the centrists within our own party, and use the opportunity of political disarray to bring in and as Ike said “flood the party” and overwhelm the deep rooted far right conservatives and keep them in check. To keep the Republican party a party center-right, not as it had been slowing becoming over the last few decades, right-center. Only then, can we then create an atmosphere that is open to politicians that are more willing to do the right and smart decision, rather than worry if about their respective polar bases of their parties.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

[This is article is reprinted with the express permission of its author and publisher. It was originally published at The Moderate Voice and written by their Editor-in-Chief, Joe Gandelman. You really should take a moment and check their site out - Travis]

We’ve asked that question many times before here, but now the question comes from [1] a must read article in The American Conservative that expands upon some of the questions and points we’ve made here over the past few years. These are questions about how conservative talk radio — once a useful device for a seemingly discouraged Republican party — has now apparently become a major motor of policy for the Republican party — a classic “tail is wagging the dog” situation. And if a tail wagged a dog, you can imagine how the dog could get bruised. It is also becoming the paramount image of the GOP and of conservatism.

John Derbyshire, writing in The American conservative in an article titled “How Radio Wrecks the Right..Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare,” thinks the image of conservatives has been bruised and needs to get they need to get own tail-wagging capability back. Some highlights from his piece which needs to be read in full:

For [Rush] Limbaugh to remain a player at this level after 20-odd years bespeaks powers far beyond the ordinary. Most conservatives—even those who do not listen to his show—regard him as a good thing. His 14 million listeners are a key component of the conservative base. When he first emerged nationally, soon after the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, conservatives for the first time in decades had something worth listening to on their radios other than country music and bland news programs read off the AP wire. In the early Clinton years, when Republicans were regrouping, Limbaugh was perhaps the most prominent conservative in the United States. National Review ran a cover story on him as “The Leader of the Opposition.”

Limbaugh has a similarly high opinion of himself…

He gives Limbaugh full credit: Limbaugh jazzed up a staid right that was most typified until he burst on the scene by the cerebral, stimulating but not in-your-face entertaining (this was, after all the late 20th century) “Firing Line.” He notes how liberal talk radio has not succeeded. (I’ve frequently written here that in my long car rides across the country I would need a private detective to find progressive talk in most major and even un-major radio markets).

And then he gets to the core question of whether conservative talk has helped or hurt the right — and whether the fairness doctrine’s revival is a real threat:

Read more »

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Today President Obama released his proposed 2010 Budget. Here are some of the notable spending areas:

• The budget has $4 trillion in spending for the 2010 fiscal year.
• There is a possible $750 billion dollars available in additional bank bailout funds this year.
• There is a proposal for a $634 billion fund to reform healthcare, which is part of a 10 year spending plan to cover the cost of universal health care coverage – the total is projected at $1 trillion.
• There is a line item for $75 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September.
• The Office of Management and Budget projects the government’s deficit for this year will soar to $1.75 trillion.

It appears much of the funding for this spending plan will come from new tax increases:

• He plans to increase the taxes for people making over $250,000. It is estimated the increase will generate $318 billion.
  • It will limit the tax rate for itemized deductions to 28% percent for tax filers over $250,000.
• The plan also calls for letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

Although he is marketing his plan as tax increases for the rich, unfortunately many small businesses may be adversely affected. Many experts are skeptical that the tax increases will actually produce the kind of funds the proposal has projected. Obama is also pledging to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term.

We are working through the entire budget and will have an in-depth look at the spending that affects family planning, sex education, reproductive healthcare and anything else notable in the next issue of Voice for Choice. Look for that tomorrow in your inbox.

In a completely separate story in budget legislation, the US House passed the omnibus spending bill for 2009. The fix to restore affordable birth control to university health clinics and safety-net providers was included. This non-controversial, common sense fix will correct a technical error that cut of these providers from being able to offer birth control at an affordable rate. We are pleased to say that this measure has always had wide bipartisan support.

We will continue to update you as both pieces of spending legislation make their way through Capitol Hill and onto the President’s desk.

[Originally Distributed by the Republican Majority for Choice]

Email this post

Spread the Word:

When Michael Steele was chosen as the Chair of the Republican National Committee, I was pleased to see someone who had said they wanted to reach out and include moderates at the GOP table.

And then you hear something like this:

This one passed unnoticed last night, but it’s definitely noteworthy — yet another measure of the degree to which the Republican Party has bet all its chips on opposing the stimulus package.

On Fox News, Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele said he was open to withholding RNC funds from the three GOP Senators who backed President Obama’s stimulus package…

Speaking of Senators Arlen Specter, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Steele said that the Senators were likely to face primaries as a result of their vote for the stimulus bill.

Then Steele was asked by Fox’s Neil Cavuto: “Will you, as RNC head, recommend no RNC funds being provided to help them?”

Steele confirmed that he would “talk to the state parties about.” When pressed on whether he was open to it, Steele said: “Oh, yes, I`m always open to everything, baby, absolutely.”

So, I guess that inclusion of moderates only matters if they vote the right way all the time.

I find this maddening. I didn’t agree with the stimulus bill, but I also don’t think that the three Senators should be punished simply because they decided to work with the Democrats. As usual, the GOP risks eating their own because of a representative didn’t toe the line and giving seats over to the Democrats.

And the GOP “death spiral” continues…

Email this post

Spread the Word:

From the Washington Times on 19 February 2009:

Having been elected to the job that the Bush White House and its political guru, Karl Rove, once denied him, Mr. Steele is running the show his way. To those who claimed he can’t make the trains run on time, he has this message: “Stuff it.”

He stiff-armed an attempt to get him to elaborate on his public relations effort, saying he would be an idiot to give his opponents too much information, but indicated the Republican Party needs to break out of being considered a regional party.

”There was underlying concerns we had become too regionalized and the party needed to reach beyond our comfort” zones, he said, citing defeats in such states as Virginia and North Carolina. “We need messengers to really capture that region – young, Hispanic, black, a cross section … We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-surburban hip-hop settings.”

Hmm. Have you ever been to a wedding with your parents when, halfway through, the DJ puts on “Let’s Get it Started” by the Black Eyed Peas? And your Dad, stands up and loudly says “Ohhh, snap! This is my JAM!” and proceeds to bust out moves that went out of style while Carter was in the White House?

If you have, then you have a fair approximation of how I initially felt while reading the above article.

Initially.

I’ll admit that it was a little off-putting to read a Republican chairman seriously discuss using hip hop and cutting edge technologies (the “beyond cutting edge” line was more than a little Computer-Salesman-Who-Has No-Idea-What-He’s Talking-About) to reach out to non-traditional voters. But, I quickly realized it was off-putting, not because what Steele was saying was wrong, but because I’d never heard a Chairman of the Republican Party talk about those topics before. Chairman Steele is starting something that should have been started a decade ago and I, for one, could not be happier. This initial move shows a lot of promise.

But Chairman Steele should also be reminded that taking the current GOP message to “hip hop,” Hispanic and other non-traditional audiences will be pointless if that message, and the policies they support, don’t change. Even if he is using “beyond cutting-edge” (oof) technologies.

He needs to start answering some important questions: What kind of policies (other than tax cuts) will the Party support to bring good paying jobs back into inner cities? Will the GOP adovate an education policy that puts resources into schools that most need it? What are we going to do to ensure people have quality health care that they can afford? How are we going to address Social Security (obviously banking on the stock market isn’t the best idea anymore) for the Baby Boom generation and beyond?

Sound familiar? They’re the issues he and the Party need to address are on the minds of every American. If we fix the Party’s stance on these types of issues, the votes will come.

As Chairman Steele mentioned, we need new messengers. The GOP will never reach the audiences we need to reach as long as it continues to rely on the kinds of people who have been and currently are evangelizing for the Party. Will he disavow the support of radical anti-illegal immigrant activists? Will we distance ourselves from radio hosts and others who spew racism and fear? Address these issues and the voters will come.

We’ve all seen it happen in Hollywood countless times: a strong marketing campaign which translated into a big opening weekend, but the seocnd weekend take drops off precpitously because word of mouth was negative. If we’re not careful, the same thing could happen to the GOP. The marketing campaign that Chairman Steele islaunching is a positive development for which he should be commended. If it works, we will win seats back in the Congress. But, if we haven’t worked to make this a Party that really addresses the need of the audience, we will quickly see a major drop-off, ruining our chances of creating governing majority for the 21st Century.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

I was checking out Rebuild the Party, an effort to help reshape the GOP and saw this message from a person whose online name is “Onlyforward.” I’ve highlighted some sections that I think are important:

Many years back I voted for Reagan and Bush 1. This year I spent election day making phone calls to get out the vote for Obama. The Republicans have lost me as a voter until they make major changes to the party, so here’s my take

1) Can the negativity. As a PA (Pennsylvania?) voter, I got tons of mail telling me to vote for Barack Obama- he’ll lower my taxes, he’ll help uninsured people, he’ll bring me a moon full of green cheese. I got tons of mail telling me not to vote for Obama because he was a secret Muslim socialist terrorist. I’m not really sure who the other guy in the election was- I never heard anything about him or his policies.

Folks, the divide and conquer, get out the base and fearmonger your way to 50.1% of the vote method is *dead*. It should have died after the vile attacks on Senator McCain’s family in the 2000 SC primary, but for some odd reason McCain decided to pal around with the same guys who slandered his adopted daughter. I have two adopted kids who look a lot like Bridget- why would I *ever* vote for a candidate from a party that would do that?

Obama offered something positive. You might not like what he offered, but at least he put it out there. McCain ran on nothing but “Don’t vote for the scary guy”

2) Run on ideas, not personalities. I hear lots of talk about Palin in 2012, Jindal in 2012, yet nowhere do I hear a discussion of what they believe in. The Republican party used to be a party of ideas. There’s a great heritage of conservative thought from the early days of Buckley and Goldwater. What happened? We’ve let Bush pervert the idea of conservatism to the point where a guy who runs up a huge federal deficit, creates badly designed massive federal programs like the Medicare drug benefit and who follows a highly interventionist foreign policy is considered a conservative. Hunh? If I want an enormous federal government I’ll vote Democratic- at least they have a clue how to run it.

3) Ignore Rush Limbaugh, Hannity and the theocrats when it comes to those ideas. Running on “We hate gays, we hate abortions, we hate sex ed, we hate stem cell research, we hate evolution, we hate educated elitists” ticket sounds great when you look at turning out the ~30% of the electorate that’s firmly in the Dark Ages, but the rest of the world has moved on, including most of the young voters. Yes, I know abortion is the hot button item- but maybe we could spend a bit of that energy coming up with sane policies to reduce teen pregnancy, to encourage adoption and to help young mothers? Hint- the rest of the first world does this, and they have lower abortion rates than we do.

Drop the gay thing entirely. This is a long term massive loser- young voters simply don’t care about this, and in 20-30 years you’re going to look like the folks who argued for Virginia in Loving v. Virginia.

4) Start working slowly and quietly, but *now*. When the democrats put up stuff you don’t like, don’t scream and yell “Socialist!”. Instead, offer a *coherent*, intelligent counterproposal. Work to remove the worst chunks of the legislation, and take credit for killing the ugly pork and overreaches. Do *not* filibuster everything- all this will do is give the Democrats 61 senate seats in 2010.

I’ve got more, but this is too long already, so we can start there.

It’s a good start. One hopes Michael Steele is listening.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Alarmingly, the North Dakota Assembly has just passed a bill that would give fertilized eggs the same protection under the North Dakota State Constitution as a person. The purpose of this act is to ban abortion. Legal experts think the law would go well beyond abortion and include banning the most effective type of birth control and in-vitro fertilization. The bill’s sponsor says their intention is for the legislation to be a direct challenge to the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which gave Americans the right to privacy.

This is not a new tactic. Last year we help to defeat a similar measure that gained traction in Colorado. We convened press conferences, authored opinion editorials and ran advertisements to mobilize moderate Republicans who joined in a bipartisan coalition of voters to defeat this amendment, 73% to 27%. These are the results we can achieve with the proper resources and the support of dedicated members.

The battle to protect personal choices has been increasing at the state level. Anti-choice extremists have been pushing “personhood” legislation and initiatives all over the country. We will likely see a rise in this sort of extreme legislation that bans reproductive choices on every level. Access to reproductive choices, and the legal and medical maneuvering required, varies greatly state to state. North Dakota has what seems to be every possible piece of anti-choice law on the books. Many measures are so extreme that they are unenforceable because they are not constitutional. Access to an abortion is so restricted that 98% of the counties in North Dakota do not have a single abortion provider.

The personhood legislation is now on its way to the state Senate. We will be activating our members in North Dakota to lobby their senators to vote against. But we want all of our members to be aware of the real threats all over the country. You might be fortunate to live in a state that respects personal freedom, but there are far too many families who do not. It is important we challenge each threat no matter where the come from. Please donate to the Republican Majority for Choice as we continue to fight for individual rights all across the country.

[Distributed by the Republican Majority for Choice]

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Yesterday, I went to a rally. A state Senator was introducing a bill that would allow same sex marriage in the state. Many organizations took part in sponsoring the legislation, including the one that I’ve been a part of for several years- Log Cabin Republicans, a national organization of gay and lesbian Republicans that are working for the inclusion of gays in the GOP and in the larger society.

Being a gay Republican is not an easy thing. People are constantly asking me how I could be openly gay and a Republican. Travis Johnson, the head of Progressive Republicans asked me to spend a blog post answering that question. So, I will.

I had had some inkling of being gay since I was about 12, but it was when I was in my early 20s that I really started dealing with my sexuality. At the same time, I was also dealing with my political philosophy. I grew up with two staunch Democrats, so I kind of followed their leads. After college, I flirted with socialism. But after a while, I started to believe that goverment didn’t always have the best solutions, that the private sector sometimes can do things better than the public sector. I didn’t think single-payer government sponsored health care was the best solution to the health care problem in America, though I did think government should have a role. I tended to like people like Jack Kemp, the former congressman and Vice Presidential candidte, who emphasized conservative solutions to helping the poor prospser. More and more, as I was becoming more confortable with my sexuality, I was become more and more comfortable with my budding conservatism.

However, I hesitated initially from joining the GOP because of its social views. But then, I started to get more familiar with Log Cabin Republicans and their fight for equality. It became obvious that I could be a good Republican and be a proud gay man as well.

So, how can I be gay and Republican? Simple: because I am a Republican that is also gay. I believe in many of the GOP principles, such as limited government, low taxes and a strong national defense. I also live as an out gay man who lives with his partner.

Of course, the answer is not that simple. If it was, I wouldn’t be writing this. For some on the Left, the whole concept of a gay Republican is one of a sad and self-loathing person. This is what Gene Stone said in the Huffington Post in 2006:

Why would any gay man or woman belong to a party that has stated, over and over, as clearly as can be, without equivocation, that he or she is not welcome?

It’s understandable why someone might not choose to be a Democrat. Those brought up in a family or culture where the traditional Republican party values were celebrated, such as smaller government and less taxes, might feel uncomfortable with the Democratic party…

… But why specifically chose a party that loathes you? The answer is hard to fathom. Still, it’s hard to avoid the self-hatred issue. Nearly all gay men and women are raised in families where there is little-to-no support for their core identity. So while self-loathing may be an over-used phrase, it’s hard for most gays not to at least pass through a stage of wondering how they got that way, and whether it’s some form of punishment (particularly for religious gays)–and hating it, and themselves.

There you go: gay Republicans hate themselves. Stone asks why anyone would bother to be a party that doesn’t like you? He tells gay Republicans, who he calls “morons”, that their efforts to change the GOP is a silly guesture.

Mr. Stone has probably never met a gay Republican, or he is so convinced what a gay Republican is like that he isn’t willing to see another viewpoint.

Gay Republicans stay in the GOP because they are Republicans and they will fight for a place at the table. It is our party too, and we will not remain silent. Gay Republicans aren’t interested in being liked, we want to be free. It is liberty that is our song. We don’t want government telling us who we can or can’t marry and we will oppose those who call themselves “conservatives” who try to force goverment to do such a thing.

A common comparison is that of Fanny Lou Hamer and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. That group came to the 1964 Democratic convention demanding to be seated in place of the segregationist delegation from Mississippi. They were not liked by the ruling Democrats in Mississippi because they were a bunch of black folk and white allies who dared to challenge the system. What would have happened had they said that they weren’t liked by the powers that be?

If you want to be liked, get a dog. If you want respect, fight for it.

And that is what I do. That is what many gay Republicans do everyday, fight for equality in their party. They work with those straight allies who are still in the party (and they still remain) who see all of us as God’s children.

The work to change the GOP is not an easy one, but it is a good fight. What I have learned over time, is that by being a presence, forcing Republican lawmakers to see me and my partner as real human beings, is a powerful statement and it starts to change their minds from being anti-gay to more supportive of who we are. If I wasn’t there, then they have no one that can tell them the story, my story.

So that is my story. I believe that one day, the GOP will be a party more open to gays and lesbians. It is my hope. After all, it’s my party too.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Progressive or centrist republicanism has been at times to be a lightning rod within the party’s history. At different points in history, it has been attacked as merely watered down and an abandonment of principles. Of course, this was the frequent labels by the far right wing who sought to establish complete control within the party. In this they were quite successful in doing, making moderate republicans become virtually extinct. In fact, sometimes it has had trouble establishing a strong base of support as it just seems that moderate republicanism is without a strong ideology unto itself that people can wrap their minds around. Is this really true; is the center without a cause to rally behind? We have to look at the reason why this is not the case.

In fact, it’s important to realize that centrism is not without a cause. That striving to be pragmatic is an ideology worthy of standing up for, especially against those who seek extremist ideology that holds no water. In all policy, it is about pragmatism. We as Progressive Republicans must strive to do what is best for the people, and what is best for the people is what works. The extremes have both been shown to fail, as history at different points has shown but it is necessity to be open minded is important. Sometimes there may be a policy that is of the liberal democrat or conservative republican side that might actually work. We can’t automatically say that since it is in the general extreme, that it is automatically wrong, for that would go against pragmatism in search of truth. The center does have a bit of an independent streak as a result, the ability to look at an issue without far extreme ideological lenses.

We must look at the arguments the Neocons offer, as well as what the pacifistic argument would be. We may not agree with either one in full, but one or both may hold some truth in their premise that would be logically applied in a centrist formulation of foreign affairs. Someone on a talk show who had centrist thinking put it as this (paraphrased due to memory), “I’m not a Hawk, but I’m not a dove either. If I have to choose an animal that would best represent me, I would say I’m a raven.” Whether or not we adopt the idea of pragmatic people in foreign policy being “ravens”, doesn’t matter as much as what it stands for. That we understand the world for what it is, know that people are out there who want to kill us, but also realize that there are many choices to consider when dealing with a threat and that obvious force such as a military invasion may not always be the best idea. That we not only think about how to deal with the problem, we try to also get to the root of the problem so that we don’t get into an endless “bop the gophers” game with human blood endlessly being spilt.

In the economy, balance between the ideas of no government involvement and way too much involvement must be found. Free market without any oversight is a formula that begs for disaster, and overregulation of the markets will, as in the past, stifle any economic growth. Supply side economics does not work as it was intended too, as its results were less than stellar when it was implemented during the Reagan years and during the early 2000’s. Tax cuts alone will not get the economy rolling as it should, especially tax cuts aimed at individual families making over $150,000 annual salary, although tax cuts aimed at business but with appropriate strings attached would be an example of fiscally responsible tax cuts. We have to be smart when it comes to taxes, and it is necessary to first realize that taxes are necessary to begin with. There are many programs and services that the governments at the local, state and federal levels need to continue funding, and to do this we need taxes. The idea that for every ill, we only need lower taxes is something so preposterous as to admire the ability for politicians to sell such an idea. The idea of being able to have everything without having a price to pay in the end means only one thing, borrowing. It is this mentality that has led to the huge debt that is now growing ever larger. It is the credit card mentality of having it all and not worrying about the future. It is, in effect an idea that is inherently of the Liberal Democrat side. Through direct communication we must bring the American people back to pragmatic thought as well. We must convince them to not believe those that merely offer them the stars without any cost. We must convince them that anyone who is not willing to make tough decisions on the expenditure and/or revenue side of the government equation is not fit for office. That while we seek to keep taxes low and the spending side of government trimmed, the American people will at times be asked to do what they can for their country through taxes of some sort. Tax cuts have their place and without a doubt are necessary at times and in certain instances. But the idea of tax cuts all across the board is neither smart nor frugal. Responsible investment spending for the future of our nation is. Responsible and focused tax cuts for the necessary breathing space to kick start an economy from a slump is.

Progressive Republicans will try to find the best balance with a mind towards the reality of the people and their general living costs. These are hard decisions to be made and would result in today’s landscape in probable election defeat. That is why, our message of pragmatic centrism, of running government with your head and not with ones rear is absolutely necessary for the people at large to understand so that the centrist republicans can work together without fear of being hunted down by the far right wing of the party.

In social issues it is important to note that social conservatism has had its day. With the complete rejection of the GOP in November’s election, the sentencing was especially for the base that the party had come to rest upon which is social conservatism. Nevertheless, we can not escape the issues. I do believe that the homophobia that was one of the two central themes of social conservatism is something that should not be in our progressive republican wing. I am a person who believes via a reason and logic manner that life and the inherent rights of a person begin at conception. But the pro-life movement’s unreasonable demands belie their real interest; in getting people to not have pre-marital sex. This is their real aim as these groups recently stated that they would work with the democrats in trying to reduce abortions but only if abstinence is the followed route. Even if facts clearly show that comprehensive sex education really does reduce unwanted pregnancy, they are stuck in a failed ideology based entirely on their religious beliefs even if it means that the lives of the unborn are the price to pay for their dogmatic thinking. On homosexuality the GOP has, due to the social conservatives, become the vehicle of anti-homosexual sentiment.

This bigotry must end, and it has no place in the party. The question I have for the other members is how much of an issue do we make of it. Do we make it a nonissue except that we won’t fight against the pursuit of gay rights and instead focus on economic and foreign affairs? I tend to believe this way. Would this then make it so that there is no litmus test for republicans and enable even those that are socially conservative in personal terms to be included? To make this a viable movement, we need people from all walks of life and what we decide on the issue of how the party deals with the subject of homosexuality must be carefully thought over. We cannot be the party of bigotry as we have been towards homosexuals, we can’t just try to overturn a ruling and care more about people not having sex than saving the unborn just as we can’t be the party of anti-intellectuals who embrace the pseudo-science of creationism which has as much scientific weight as the Flying Spaghetti Monster in all of its glory. But neither can we be so exclusive of other’s beliefs that we contribute to a reckless split of the party along personal litmus tests that can go both ways.

Moderates have something to stand up for; a party that works for them; a party of pragmatism; a party that looks to create progress in America and not merely strive to keep the status quo. A party that believes that poverty can be tackled, that terrorism can be eliminated, that abortion can be greatly minimized if not near completely done away with but only if we do away with ideological extremes that limit our choices and stunt our ability to see the whole picture as it is. That with the leaning towards keeping government lean and making sure that when it is deemed necessary that the government can be activist in helping to solve the problems we face but without the irresponsibility of runaway government growth and spending. Moderate to liberal republicanism is about willing to spend money when it is deemed to be in the greater service of the people we serve, but differentiating from the democrats by making sure that not one dollar of hard earned taxpayer money is spent on projects that would be deemed by all as ridiculous. This is what one calls pragmatic republicanism. The ideology, the rallying cry of the centrist republicans should be to embrace pragmatic republicanism. That to fulfill the hopes and dreams that we all hold as Americans for the future we must do so by looking by seeing the world with a clear unbiased mind and stand firmly against the extremism that only breeds fear and hatred in people, seeks to divide America along social and cultural issues, and ultimately endorses a dangerous debtor mentality by avoiding the realities of the economic world. In short, the extremism presented by the far right wing of our party which has ruled supreme for the last few decades must now end. That is why this is the perfect time for the return of the Progressive Republicans.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

When natural disasters strike, looters often show up to take advantage of the dire situation. Instead of acquiring the supplies necessary to keep themselves and their families safe and well-fed, they steal DVD players, video game consoles and big screen TVs. Items they can’t even use, as a comedian once pointed out, because the power’s out!

The Congressional negotiations over the economic stimulus package are a clear indicator that looters don’t limit their activities to times of natural disasters, but they’re equally as active in economic disasters. It’s the only way to explain the irresponsible bill drafted by and shoved down all of our throats by President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Democratic Party.

Certainly no rational person can look at the current economic crisis and say nothing needs to be done. People are losing their jobs by the thousands. Homes are being foreclosed in record numbers. Businesses that have flourished for over a century are closing their doors or begging the government for money. Measures must be taken and taken quickly to stop and eventually reverse this economic downward spiral. If they’re to be helpful at all, these measures must:

• Bridge the gap for between jobs for unemployed Americans.

• Keep people in their homes.

• Help existing businesses survive and provide a stable environment in which new ones can develop.

The American people know that we’ll survive this recession if we keep those three goals in mind. With these goals in mind, we’ll be able to help individuals and families who’ve been hurt by the downturn and lay the groundwork for a robust recovery once it’s over.

For some reason, the Democrats don’t see it this way. Rather than target the stimulus plan (written almost entirely without Republican input) towards the goals I mentioned above, they decided to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on their pet projects. Several hundred million dollars to re-sod the National Mall. Three hundred million for electric golf carts. The situation is a kin to a person pocketing candy at the grocery store checkout, figuring no one will notice since they’re already paying for everything else they’ve put on the belt. Heck, Chuck Schumer said as much! Sure much of the most ridiculous pieces have been removed, but with $800 trillion in play, you can bet more of them remain.

Even though some of our members, members whose ideology largely coincides with that of the Progressive Republicans, voted for this package, it’s our belief that the Republicans are absolutely right to fight this “stimulus” package. It’s true that, for the last eight years our Party lost its way as far as being stewards of our fiscal well-being goes. It was on our watch that a surplus (created by the House of Representatives, led by Speaker Gingrich) was turned into a deficit. But this is an opportunity to reclaim the heritage of Warren Rudman, Jim Leach and John McCain and work to create a solution that does not leave our great-grandchildren in debt.

This is also an opportunity for the Republicans to offer new solutions for financial difficulties. President Obama was right about one thing in this past week: the solutions we’ve been offering are getting a little tired. Tax cuts, which do tend to be a longview approach to economic stimulus, can not be our only solutions. We must be as innovative in our approach to solving this problem as we are resolute in our conviction that the Democratic is the wrong plan.

This is our opportunity to prove to America that we Republicans govern with more than the narrow interests of a few in mind. We Republicans want to see America emerge from this crisis stronger than before, ready to take on the challenges of the 21^st Century. But we’re not going to do that with a bill filled with Christmas presents for Democratic constituencies.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Over the last eight years, the Bush administration pursued a foreign policy that was basically a response to the attacks of 11 September 2001. While this was very understandable, it allowed the sworn enemies of the United States to dictate the foreign policy priorities of the United States, leading to an unwarranted focus on the Middle East, the use of arms both appropriately and otherwise, and finally it led to the sidelining of geography as well as relations with Latin American states, which neighbor our country and whose futures are intimately tied to ours. When the focus on the Middle East was combined with Neoconservative ideology with its pillars of imposing democracy as well as hostility to Moscow, the stage was set for the isolation of America from its allies in Europe, the collapse of cooperation with the Russian Federation and profound hostility towards the United States in the Arab and Islamic worlds.

Fortunately, Progressive Republicans are not doomed to inherit this legacy. With the Obama administration and the GOP’s status as the opposition party, we now have a change to rethink our approach to foreign policy and to offer alternatives to the last eight years as well as constructive criticism for the Democrats in office. A Progressive Republican foreign policy would stem from five critical sources:

Geography: the United States is located in the Americas. While it is an Atlantic and Pacific power and enjoys a global role, it needs to secure its interests regionally first. This means continuing the construction of cooperative relations with friendly states like Mexico, Guyana, Brazil and Chile. The aim of intensifying relations with Latin America would be to secure the neighborhood in which our country is located.  Regional opponents need to be offered dialogue in order to be deprived of any excuse concerning yanqui imperialism. NAFTA should admit additional countries and generate institutions that give it an international presence and coherence. A common North American labor market would render the illegal immigration and investment controversies with Mexico moot.

Multilateralism: acting alone in Kosovo, Iraq, Georgia, and Ukraine has cost the United States dearly. Regional powers like China, Russia, India, Turkey, Iran and Germany have checked United States policy with armed force or arms sales as with Russia in Georgia and Venezuela or with deeper economic integration and diplomatic coordination. With the clear exception of the case of Afghanistan where 9-11 would mandate that the United States go there alone if need be, the days of unilateralism are over. In a hyper-interdependent world, marked with pockets of a-polarity and the rise of large regional actors, the unilateral temptation is ruinous, to put it mildly.

The National Interest: defined as security through prosperity. It is not possible to secure a viable defense force to act against both conventional and terrorist threats without a secure economy underwriting the defense effort. At present, the United States economy is import dependent, the dollar is weak, the industrial enterprises are dying and the financial system is unstable. Therefore, the American National Interest must be redefined to include the overhaul of the economy and the correction of its deep imbalances. This must entail intensive trade and financial negotiations with China, Russia, the EU and Japan. It will also mean some short and intermediate term austerity both within households and at the federal level.

Regimes and Treaties: one of the primary problems inherited from the Bush administration is the notion that the United States simply walks away from treaties it signs. Repairing this damage will entail placing regimes and treaties at the heart of a push towards a more rules-based international system. The predictably and clarity of such a system have much to offer our country. It would reduce surprise and risk.

Energy Independence: oil has fueled the rise of radical and unfriendly ideologies not only in the Middle East but also in Latin America. Oil is environmentally destructive and provides funds to parties that do not mean us well. Reduced oil demand and the encouragement of substitutes, including bio fuels, electricity, renewable energy and nuclear power may yet prove much more effective at forcing democratic change in the Middle East than invasion and nation building programs there. While absolute energy independence is neither feasible nor necessarily desirable, it is important to diversify energy sources and make the hybrid car both common and ordinary.

The main difference between this approach to foreign policy and the one offered by President Obama lies in its inclusion of an underlying balance-of-power logic. The President’s current foreign policy stances are Wilsonian and idealistic in a less militant way than those of President Bush, but they share the same hopes and values. Progressive Republicans have a duty to point out that democracy and freedom are always homegrown and never imported. It is not possible to spread one’s values either through tank barrels or through outstretched hands — other countries have to buy into freedom and democracy before developing their own versions of the same.

We have a chance to offer a revived American Liberal Realism, with strong roots in the thoughts John Quincy Adams and James Polk, let use this chance to rebuild GOP foreign policy after the failures of the last eight years.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Earlier this week Tom Dashcle withdrew his name from consideration for Secretary of Health and Human Services because he had not paid several hundred thousand in taxes. His withdrawal marks the third person Obama has nominated to have had “trouble” paying their taxes in the past. Nancy Killefer was supposed to be his chief performance officer for the federal government, whatever that is, but she did not pay her taxes either. The only one to get away with it is the new Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, who was inexplicably confirmed despite being a tax cheat himself. I guess this explains why Democrats do not mind raising taxes because they have no intention on actually paying them.

Does anyone else wonder why it takes a Senate investigation to uncover all these unpaid taxes? Isn’t that what the IRS is for? Apparently, they do not care if you cheat on your taxes so long as you are politically connected to the current administration. My question is what form do I send in to the IRS declaring myself a Democrat.

This is not a good start for the Obama administration. The entire appointment process reeks of hypocrisy. Not only has there been a pattern of tax aversion but other nominees have withdrawn because of additional ethical concerns. Remember Bill Richardson? I thought Obama was supposed to usher in an era of good government and was going to clean up the pattern of corruption. Instead, we get the same old, same old; attempts to reward political allies with plum government appointments despite their ethical lapses. Obviously, he was full of change we can’t believe in.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

“To my friends in the Northeast, get ready, baby, it is time to turn it on and work, and work to do what we always do well – and that is win. We are going to win again in the Northeast. We’re going to continue to win in the South. We are going to win with a new storm in the Midwest. And we’re going to get to the West, we’re going to lock it down, and we’re going to win there too.”
-Michael Steele, Republican National Committee Chair, January 30, 2009.

Many people see the election of Michael Steele as the start of the GOP revivial. I surely hope so. In his acceptance speech, he talked about winning again in the Northeast. Some have hoped this means running candidates that will win in what was once a GOP bastion. One would hope that is what he is talking about. The GOP has basically become a regional party, having stregth only in the South. The hard line focus on social issues have driven people away from the GOP especially in areas like the Northeast. David Frum highlights a recent poll that shows how GOP support has cratered in Pennsylvania. Frum reads from the Mulhenburg College poll:

As recently as May 2006, the Democrats held a 550,000 person lead in party registration in the Keystone State. By November 2008, that lead had grown to 1,200,000.

Yeah, I bolded that 1.2 million number. So, what is causing the GOP to hemorrage in the Keystone State? Well…

Most described themselves as moderate, 37 percent, or liberal, 27 percent — an obvious contrast to a party overwhelmingly composed of voters who describe themselves as conservative…

…A strong majority of the switchers, 67 percent, also described themselves as in favor of abortion rights…

…Forty-six percent said they were closer to the Democratic Party on taxes, and 38 percent said they were closer to the Democratic Party’s position on issues such as gay marriage and abortion and roughly a third agreed with the statement, “The influence of the religious right on the Republican Party’s social positions led me to leave the party.”

Now those who listen to Rush Limbaugh probably don’t give a hoot about those of us who are moderates. Most will say “good riddance.” For them, trying to appease “RINOs” would mean become a weak copy of the GOP.

But that doesn’t have to be the case. One would have to assume that a lot of these voters supported the elder Bush and even Reagan. These are not wishy-washy people.

If the Republicans want to win back the Northeast, it means running candidates that fit that region of the country. They need to support candidates that might (horrors of horrors) support abortion rights, or gay rights. Social conservatives can run well in the South, but in areas like the Northeast, candidates need to be more moderate.

The question is if Steele can get the RNC to be more flexible and try to win back those moderate voters. I want to be hopeful, but when a majority of Republicans think Sarah Palin is the future of the GOP, one has to wonder.

Time will tell if he ready to represent in the Northeast and elsewhere, because, baby, this is serious.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

This past week an amazing thing happened; for the first time an African American man was elected head of the Republican Party. While many may taunt that this election is just a ploy; that the republicans want to catch up. I say not. It is truly an historic moment.

One of the first things that I realized about the RNC election was how just about each faction of the party had their own candidate. Social Conservatives had Blackwell, Moderates had Steele and to some extent Anuzis, Southern White Voters had Dawson, and then Southern White Social Conservative voters had Saltsman. Like many have been predicting for years (myself included), it was a battle to the death over ideology and who will rule over the weakening confederation of conservatives. Luckily for moderates like me, Steele won. Right now you may ask yourself why exactly I am over elated, well it is very simply; it is Michael Steele.

As I watched Mr. Steele’s congratulatory speech one phrase caught me and made me intensely emotional. The saying went something like “I will work hard to bring all people together and to bring life to the Party of Lincoln.” Just this simple act made me happy. For years GOP Strategists have been saying that the party needs to grow. By Steele invoking Lincoln instead of Reagan, Steele brought relief to Moderates and More Liberal Republicans my suggesting at the diminished role that social engineering policies would have on the party. This is an important concept. No longer will Religion, guns or abortion be a litmus test on the party. Steele’s philosophy is simply this “We will elect pro-choice politicians in the Northeast, Kitchen table economic politicians from the Midwest, and try to get the West.

However, being the pragmatic Ciceronian-Hamiltonian-Rockefeller republican that I am, I know that the party will not change overnight but it gives the party something to work towards. The GOP cannot and will not survive another election round with the GOP being a regional party. What the Democrats did in 2008 was build a coalition, and that is the exact thing that republicans have not been doing. You were either 100% in line with them or you were not. It was this kind of thinking that got rid of wonderful people like former Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut (Shout out to Greenwich, Ct my home town), former Senator Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island, and the countless New England Band of Republicans.

I have one thing left to say: The Southern Strategy is over; it is in its dying days. With Michael Steele the Republican Party can form a new coalition to work with the Democrats and have progress in the right direction..

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Last week, 70% of America felt it with the Inauguration of President Obama. This past Friday, the Republicans found a reason for their own burst of the “H” word everyone else has been on about since November. The election of Michael Steele is the first step on the Republican road back to majority status.

“But,” you may be asking yourself, “how can you support Steele? He’s a social AND fiscal conservative. He’s no Progressive Republican.”

Well, no he’s not, but he is something that the people who HOP leadership has not been in a long, long time:Â open-minded.

Mr…Chairman Steele, as I mentioned in a prior post, is a former member of the Board of the Republican Leadership Council. The RLC is an organization founded by former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman to provide support and guidance to moderate Republican candidates. Contrary to what his political opponents may say, Steele didn’t join the group because he was a closeted “liberal” Republican. If Steele were a liberal, I’m sure he would have mentioned it to the people of his extremely liberal home state of Maryland during his unsuccessful run for the Senate in 2006. A run which was unsuccessful, by the way, in part because he was considered too conservative by much of the electorate.

No, Steele served on the board of the RLC because he understands the the importance of expanding the party base. He shares the Progressive Republican belief that the GOP (perhaps we can place a moratorium on THAT acronym sometime soon? Please?) will never again be more than a regional party if we are not inclusive of the ENTIRE spectrum of the American political right-of-center. That means the socially conservative, as well as the socially progressive.

A lot is riding on Steele’s ability to make his goal of a more inclusive a reality.  The very existence of the Republican Party is at stake. I’m optimistic that he can pull it off, though. He has a vision, he has talent and, most of all, he has the support of people like you who want to rebuild the Republican Party into something we can all be proud of.

Email this post

Spread the Word: