The elephant in the room: GOP schism

Many moderates say they no longer feel invited to the party

 

09:35 PM CST on Sunday, November 14, 2004

By COLLEEN McCAIN NELSON / The Dallas Morning News

LINK

 

A win doesn't mean that all is well in the Republican Party.

 

Though their candidate came out ahead on Nov. 2, some moderate Republicans are as despondent as Democrats. While Christian conservatives have been credited with turning out like-minded voters in crucial swing states, many moderates say they have been marginalized.

 

"There is no future for moderate and progressive Republicans in the Republican Party," said Jim Scarantino, president of the centrist GOP group Mainstream 2004. "The far right wing and the fanatics have seized control."

 

Mr. Scarantino isn't sure where his brand of Republican politics fits into the GOP. Some Christian conservatives say it doesn't.

 

"If they can't agree and support the president and the platform, then they ought to go over to the Democrats," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the conservative group Concerned Women for America.

 

After President Bush's re-election, evangelicals were quickly branded the "it" political group. They have taken a two-week victory lap, appearing around the clock on cable news networks while touting a conservative social agenda.

 

Out of the spotlight and largely overlooked, some moderates said they feel like politicians without a party.

 

Issues such as gay marriage and abortion have exposed fissures in the majority party, as conservatives push for what they call "pro-family" policies and moderates urge renewed focus on fiscal conservatism.

 

Evangelicals have been quick to seize on their moment in the spotlight, launching efforts to expand their influence and criticizing Republicans who don't toe the conservative line on social issues.

 

The Rev. Jerry Falwell announced plans last week for an "evangelical revolution," forming the Faith and Values Coalition, which he described as a resurrection of the Moral Majority.

 

And conservatives accused Sen. Arlen Specter of disloyalty when the Pennsylvania Republican suggested that the Senate might reject anti-abortion judicial nominees. Evangelical groups urged Mr. Specter's colleagues to reject his bid to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

 

'Ruthlessly exploited'

 

For years, moderate and conservative Republicans have coexisted, albeit somewhat awkwardly, agreeing to disagree on issues including abortion, gay rights and the environment. But this year's Republican convention made clear that moderates wield little or no influence, said Mr. Scarantino, whose group was launched by former Republican governors and other officials concerned that the GOP had taken a hard right turn.

 

While big-name moderates such as John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudolph Giuliani took the stage in New York, conservatives controlled the party platform.

 

"The party has ruthlessly exploited moderate Republicans," Mr. Scarantino said. "I think they're deluding themselves thinking they're ever going to get anything more than the opportunity to be on the stage."

 

Dennis Sanders, a gay minister who runs The Moderate Republican blog, has written in recent days about the tough questions facing his wing of the party. Many moderates likely are "considering leaving the GOP this morning after a Bush win," he wrote on Nov. 3. "I've considered it myself. I can only say this: Don't give up."

 

Some moderates remain optimistic, predicting that the president will take a measured approach, striking a balance by doing just enough to satisfy evangelicals without raising the ire of other groups.

 

The Bush administration "wants to have a positive legacy," said Ann Stone, chairwoman of Republicans for Choice. "They're going to figure out what they can give these guys that's not going to alienate everybody else."

 

Political scientist John Green said that the president and his allies are adept at counting votes.

 

"Evangelicals and other conservative Christians were clearly an important part of that coalition, but they were not the only people in the coalition," said Dr. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. Mr. Bush "needs the support of all the Republicans in the coalition to get his agenda passed."

 

Ms. Stone attributed the attention on evangelicals to a journalist-generated frenzy. "It's always sexier to talk about the Christian right. It's something that fascinates the media."

 

 

Evangelicals' pull

 

Regardless of what landed conservatives in the limelight, they are a powerful group.

 

"Evangelicals are in a very strong position right now, and they'll demand a lot," said Geoffrey Layman, associate professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland.

 

Religious conservatives have become for the GOP what labor unions have been for Democrats ? a ready and reliable pool of activists, he said.

 

"The Republicans have never really had that until the Christian right came along," said Dr. Layman, author of The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics.

 

After laboring behind the scenes for years, conservatives are front and center. And they want the president to move quickly to address their agenda.

 

The to-do list includes defending traditional marriage, banning human cloning, reforming Social Security, passing more-restrictive abortion laws and stepping up enforcement of obscenity laws, said Ms. LaRue of Concerned Women for America.

 

And if moderates don't agree with those objectives, perhaps they don't belong in the GOP, she said.

 

Ms. LaRue calls Mr. Specter a RINO ? Republican In Name Only ? and questions why politicians such as Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island remain in the Republican Party when they didn't even vote for Mr. Bush.

 

"Get real," she said. "These are Democrats in Republican clothing."

 

Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, said the Republican tent is large enough to accommodate moderates. But he's not suggesting that conservatives are willing to compromise.

 

"If you read the platform, it's clearly a pro-life party," he said. "I'm sure anybody is welcome to be a Republican as long as they understand the direction the party is headed in."

This schizm has been clear for so long, its ridiculous. I dont think you can be a Republican anymore and be pro-choice, pro-gay or much else. The only thing theyve been getting is the tax cut in the wake of a huge defecit. Some feed on the scraps while others know the party is changing. Eventually some of these guys are gonna have to wake up and smell the coffee and start asking the social conservatives to give a little on issue. I doubt that happens. Im sure we will see how principled guys like Guliani are when it comes time to hit the national seen. We will see how "moderate" Ahnold really is.

 

Its funny because people point to Ahnold and others as some example of moderates winning but seem unable to point to specific policy inititiaves(thats havent been tricks), or future policy initiatiaves that have made headline.

 

btw, Im confident Lincoln Chafee will be jumping over. The guy is in a solid democratic state and is pretty much a democrat.

Good article Lina. Supports everything that I have said that the Republican party is close to splitting into the right-wing hardcore Republicans and the moderates.

That's the same problem that gay Republicans have experienced, as the party that they support (or used to) has turned its back on them, determined to restrict their rights.

That's the same problem that gay Republicans have experienced, as the party that they support (or used to) has turned its back on them, determined to restrict their rights.

616703[/snapback]

 

 

Uhh, homeboy, there are those homos that don't see the "right to marry" as indeed a "right" for them, just as their are women who don't see the right to kill as a sugarcoated "right to choose."

 

See: Me.

 

See: the silent majority.

That's the same problem that gay Republicans have experienced, as the party that they support (or used to) has turned its back on them, determined to restrict their rights.

616703[/snapback]

 

 

Uhh, homeboy, there are those homos that don't see the "right to marry" as indeed a "right" for them, just as their are women who don't see the right to kill as a sugarcoated "right to choose."

 

See: Me.

 

See: the silent majority.

616781[/snapback]

youre gay?

:whistle

That's the same problem that gay Republicans have experienced, as the party that they support (or used to) has turned its back on them, determined to restrict their rights.

616703[/snapback]

 

 

Uhh, homeboy, there are those homos that don't see the "right to marry" as indeed a "right" for them, just as their are women who don't see the right to kill as a sugarcoated "right to choose."

 

See: Me.

 

See: the silent majority.

616781[/snapback]

youre gay?

616807[/snapback]

 

OMG you intolerant liberal you just called him gay in a derogatory way! I thought you libbies were supposed to be tolerant?!

FWIW, somewhere a while ago I read Bush got ~20-25% of the gay vote.

616816[/snapback]

 

:thumbup

That's the same problem that gay Republicans have experienced, as the party that they support (or used to) has turned its back on them, determined to restrict their rights.

616703[/snapback]

 

 

Uhh, homeboy, there are those homos that don't see the "right to marry" as indeed a "right" for them, just as their are women who don't see the right to kill as a sugarcoated "right to choose."

 

See: Me.

 

See: the silent majority.

616781[/snapback]

youre gay?

616807[/snapback]

 

OMG you intolerant liberal you just called him gay in a derogatory way! I thought you libbies were supposed to be tolerant?!

616812[/snapback]

 

wait wait, i got a good one. You said OMG..mentioning God..I thought the liberals were all atheists who oppose every saying God!?

FWIW, somewhere a while ago I read Bush got ~20-25% of the gay vote.

616816[/snapback]

Talk about dumb. Why vote for a President that opposes any rights for gays?

I am a very moderate Republican. I am not a "religous fanatical", the right to choose is of no importance to me, I could careless if it were banned or not banned, I could careless if gays got married or didnt get married, that is not why I voted republican, to claim there is a rift within the republican party is obsurd, check the latest election, if they were so upset why did they vote for a republican, the republican party is a more tolerate party when members do not agree on all there policies, whereas the democrats are not, thus a pro-life democrat has not soken at a democratic convention since 1988, whereas in the republican convention pro-abortion members are able to speak without ridicule.

 

The democrats can come up with anything they want, but obviously the garbage you post is NOT the majority

to claim there is a rift within the republican party is obsurd

616845[/snapback]

 

So all republicans want Specter to replace Hatch as the chairman of the judiciary committee? Where did you read this?

 

To say there is no rift in the republican party is wrong. There is a rift, between the moderate rebulicans that remain and the rest of the party. There are only a handful of moderate republicans that remain, the rest is to the hard right, and a lot of the moderates don't exactly agree with everything the party is doing. And being a moderate republican myself, I don't like how they are quickly becoming hard to the right. I will move left before I move any more right.

There is always disagreements, and different views, but all in all this is a cohesive party, they understand what politics is about, the democrats have a huge rift and that is the party turning to crap before everyones eyes, like I said the democrats can believe what they want, and make whatever claims they want, but they better start looking in the mirror and trying to correct what is wrong with their dying party

It's great to see all you liberals concerned about the Republican party, but maybe its time to worry about the far left taking control of the democrats, and the large number of moderate Democrats that elected Bush. :whistle

 

Anyways, 40% of the country consider themselves conservative compared to 20% who say they are liberal. :whistle

FWIW, somewhere a while ago I read Bush got ~20-25% of the gay vote.

616816[/snapback]

Talk about dumb. Why vote for a President that opposes any rights for gays?

616829[/snapback]

Maybe because they're not single issue voters, or don't really care about those "rights".

 

If one intended to stay in the closet, for whatever reason, those rights are a moot point.

 

You're not thinking very hard about people's motivations, and ascribing priorities to them that may not exist in reality.

616834[/snapback]

not to mention Bush isn't "a President that opposes any rights for gays". He simply opposes the "right" to marry someone of the same sex. Gays can vote. Gays can get an education. Gays can marry! They can marry like everyone else....someone of the opposite sex.

 

But that's off topic to a degree. The point is, gays....and others are looking at MORE THAN ONE ISSUE. Defense, taxes, abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc. are all issues, and to vote for a man because of one issue is foolish.

I am a very moderate Republican. I am not a "religous fanatical", the right to choose is of no importance to me, I could careless if it were banned or not banned, I could careless if gays got married or didnt get married, that is not why I voted republican, to claim there is a rift within the republican party is obsurd, check the latest election, if they were so upset why did they vote for a republican, the republican party is a more tolerate party when members do not agree on all there policies, whereas the democrats are not, thus a pro-life democrat has not soken at a democratic convention since 1988, whereas in the republican convention pro-abortion members are able to speak without ridicule.

 

The democrats can come up with anything they want, but obviously the garbage you post is NOT the majority

 

There is always disagreements, and different views, but all in all this is a cohesive party, they understand what politics is about, the democrats have a huge rift and that is the party turning to crap before everyones eyes, like I said the democrats can believe what they want, and make whatever claims they want, but they better start looking in the mirror and trying to correct what is wrong with their dying party

 

 

 

If you think the whole Spector thing is just a "disagreement" then you are not looking very strongly. He was fried all over the media. People exerted a lot of political muscle such that for him to get that position, he all but has to agree that he will rubber stamp Bush's nominees. If you consider "cohesivness" the same as crushing dissent and demanding loyalty then maybe, but that sounds more like strong front with internal dissent. Letting someone speak at a convention has nothing to do with a platform. Did those same prochoice Repubs get to help mold the platform? Absolutley not. No say whatsoever. I dont consider that much of a choice.

 

You say you are a moderate Republican, but you are willing to give up those elements that make you a moderate Republican in favor of those that make you a strict party liner. You said you side with Dems on abortion but as long as the tax cuts keep coming in, no biggy? Sounds like you empathize with the dems on abortion but turn your back on the issue for more important, tax cuts. And Im sure the reducing civil liberties is ok. Im sure the religious driven sex ed is ok. A lot of stuff seems to be ok with you. Seems like a wolf in sheeps clothing.

 

Well what about the fiscal discipline that was once the hallmark of the Republican party? Now the neocons have asserted their strength over more moderate budget balancing Republicans. Remember when McCain critisized this administration over their handling of Iraq last year and over the need to pay for it? Did Hastert say "well ok, John has a good point"? No, he mocked him. But McCain bit his lip and stayed loyal but does that mean the policies will change? Nope.

 

So lets just see..there is cohesivness, as long as moderate Republicans are willing to give up balanced budgets, anti-nation building, civil liberties, and moderation on abortion. The reality to me seems like some so called moderate Republicans view themselves that way because on social issues they are moderate and on fiscal managment they are budget balancers. But the way the nation is now, they lose on social issues and on budget issues which means they arent getting anything. So for them, they are locked out but will vote Republican because as of now, theyd rather not vote dem or just want tax cuts. Well that may be the view with some, but a lot of moderate Repubs want their moderate beliefs addressed. And what has the far right given up on? All Ive seen since the two weeks after the election has been Jerry Falwell jumping up and down saying the religious right has all the power now.

 

Party of toleration? Is that why the Log Cabin Repubs didnt endorse Bush because they felt excluded and in fact were excluded?

 

To prove my point even further, Ill put up some quotes by right wing Republicans in response to the concerns of moderates:

 

"If they can't agree and support the president and the platform, then they ought to go over to the Democrats," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the conservative group Concerned Women for America.[...]

The to-do list includes defending traditional marriage, banning human cloning, reforming Social Security, passing more-restrictive abortion laws and stepping up enforcement of obscenity laws, said Ms. LaRue of Concerned Women for America.

 

And if moderates don't agree with those objectives, perhaps they don't belong in the GOP, she said.

 

Ms. LaRue calls Mr. Specter a RINO - Republican In Name Only - and questions why politicians such as Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island remain in the Republican Party when they didn't even vote for Mr. Bush.

 

"Get real," she said. "These are Democrats in Republican clothing."

 

 

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/re...tgop.495d0.html

It's great to see all you liberals concerned about the Republican party, but maybe its time to worry about the far left taking control of the democrats, and the large number of moderate Democrats that elected Bush. :whistle

 

Anyways, 40% of the country consider themselves conservative compared to 20% who say they are liberal. :whistle

616851[/snapback]

Youre a lot of talk but not much in the way of actual facts.

 

 

Just this week:

 

Harry Reid made Senate leader. Harry Reid opposes gun control and abortion.

 

Tom Vilsack is on the verge of becoming DNC head to prevent Howard Dean.

 

 

Now please please please tell me how thats the Dem party becoming liberal? Oh wait, I forgot its you. Youre so extreme that you wont be happy until all liberals are put in Guantanamo and the only dem left is Lieberman.

If their is a division in the dem party, its the moderates excluding the left as opposed to the opposite in the Republican party.

 

As far as that silly poll, it means nothing. The word liberal has been so bastardized by the right and made an insult that people wont consider themselves liberal even if they are. And if you were to describe yourself in general terms, no person would want to say they are free and liberal and but rather conservative. That doesnt mean the issues fall that way.

 

Id like an actual substantive response but Im sure Ill get a one liner of some sort.

To prove my point even further, Ill put up some quotes by right wing Republicans in response to the concerns of moderates:

 

"If they can't agree and support the president and the platform, then they ought to go over to the Democrats," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the conservative group Concerned Women for America.[...]

The to-do list includes defending traditional marriage, banning human cloning, reforming Social Security, passing more-restrictive abortion laws and stepping up enforcement of obscenity laws, said Ms. LaRue of Concerned Women for America.

 

And if moderates don't agree with those objectives, perhaps they don't belong in the GOP, she said.

 

Ms. LaRue calls Mr. Specter a RINO - Republican In Name Only - and questions why politicians such as Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island remain in the Republican Party when they didn't even vote for Mr. Bush.

 

"Get real," she said. "These are Democrats in Republican clothing."

 

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/re...tgop.495d0.html

616901[/snapback]

 

 

In response to the quote from Ms. LaRue, I think it's obviously a fairly ignorant one, but not just one that is on the right side of the political spectrum. I'll agree with her on the fact that Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee are RINOS, but I wouldn't be one to kick them out of the party for disagreeing with Bush. Last time I checked, that was legal and both sides were doing it (Zell Miller?).

I like to think of myself as a moderate Republican, and just because I don't agree with Bush on everything that he thinks and wants to do does not mean that I should leave the party. I align with certain issues, like the abortion and affirmative action, etc. But at the same time, I don't agree with his stance on gay rights or certain education policies (see: No Child Left Behind). I take solace in the fact though, that he is going to have one hell of a time trying to do some of the things that he wants to do (ex.: gay marriage ban). To talk is one thing, but to get some of these things passed is completely different, and I just don't see him getting some of these things passed.

I think it might also be unfair to say this is the future of the Republican party, because I dont see any candidate in 2008 along these same lines (McCain certainly wouldn't). I definitely see some more moderation coming with the next Presidential election.

As much as I'd like to believe this, the moderates still voted for Bush...or at least a small majority.

I have heard some of the stupidest remarks of my life on this thread. First of all gay marriage is not a right. In order for it to be a right you need to conclude that homosexuality is NOT a choice but is somehting that cannot is biologically there and it is not an anomaly (science has not yet proven the latter even though i believe it to be true) So lets stop with the taking away all of gay's rights, because thats as inaccurate as it gets. Second there are plenty of people like me who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals who vote republican. A dumb article from a local newspaper does not suddenly prove all liberals right about the republican rift. The republican party has more moderates in positions of power such as BUSH who yes, is a moderate (fiscally especially), than the dems do. In fact who is a dem moderate? Kerry? If kerry is moderate I would hate to see the left wing of the party. We need to remember that the religious right does not make someone all the way to the right, a person who is extremely socially conservative but fiscally liberal like most catholics are NOT RIGHT WING or conservative. End rant.

In fact who is a dem moderate? Kerry? If kerry is moderate I would hate to see the left wing of the party. We need to remember that the religious right does not make someone all the way to the right, a person who is extremely socially conservative but fiscally liberal like most catholics are NOT RIGHT WING or conservative. End rant.

617499[/snapback]

 

Tell me which positions and plans did Kerry propose that were "left wing" (whatever that means)?

In fact who is a dem moderate? Kerry? If kerry is moderate I would hate to see the left wing of the party. We need to remember that the religious right does not make someone all the way to the right, a person who is extremely socially conservative but fiscally liberal like most catholics are NOT RIGHT WING or conservative. End rant.

617499[/snapback]

 

Tell me which positions and plans did Kerry propose that were "left wing" (whatever that means)?

617510[/snapback]

 

You just proved my point what does Right wing mean? Apparently many are mistaken into thinking that right wing means more religious rights legislation. However, kerry's healthcare plan for example creates a more positive state hence it is closer to a more govt controlled economic system which makes it more left wing

Some of you who claim gay marriage not being a right need to learn a bit more about the issue and the law. Yeah its not a strict right. But there is a wee little right called the equal protection clause. Like the due process clause, any denial of equal protection of the law, ie telling gays they cant have marriage benefits, has to have some foundation in a rational goal and a reasonable nexus connection to that goal. The only one espoused so far has been that of protecting the sanctity of marriage as a religious institution and thats an argument that has come more so from the right. Beyond that, gay civil unions has been cut off too under the guise of the religious right. But thats not the only issue in question. So theyve undermined this by passing amendments. How can all this be ok for civil libertarians social moderates unless you agree that gay marriage is really a threat?

 

 

There is also the Roe v Wade question and fire in the eyes of guys like Falwell who have outright said they have won this election for Bush and know they have a strong ally in Bush. For goodness sake they still want that amendment banning gay marriage which is beyond federalism, a out of touch imposition on moderates.

 

You want democrats in power legacy that are moderates? Ive already given them. Harry Reid. He is in no way a liberal and is now Senate leader. He is replaced by d*** Durbin, another moderate of the Illinois mold. The Tom Vilsack will be taking over the DNC and he is an Iowa moderate.

 

Now please name to me the leadership roles in the GOP that are given to moderates?

 

What moderate programs have been accomplished or are on the Republican agenda? Lets see...stem cell research increased federal funding(ask Orrin Hatch and Nancy Reagan if its ok now)?No...lowering the size of the defect?No....control federal spending?no...NO Nation building?No...Please tell me.

 

just because youre a bit more loyal, doesnt mean others arent frustrated. The Dallas Morning News is not some two bit newspaper and this is not the first time Ive read of a rift. Other papers are covering it.

Here's what I see happening. Bush is not going to appease his base (ie evangelicals). The gay marriage ban will not pass. Abortion will continue to be practiced on a large scale. The religious right will get dooked in the butt over their core issues. haha. Falwell and Co. need to create some new issues to energize the base, because, slowly the previous two are near impossible to move on.