Sunday, November 30, 2003

Draft Whitman: Be careful what you wish for! There is also a website to draft former New Jersey Governor and EPA Administror Christie Todd Whitman as well.

Draft McCain:Well, it looks like a few people are investing time in an effort to draft John McCain for President. The Draft McCain.orgwebsite seems pretty active and looking for people interested in the drafting the Arizona senator. D. Allen Kerr thinks that maybe even having McCain as a write-in cadidate would send W. a message. The seems sort of inactive at this time, but it wouldn't hurt to send them an e-mail at There is also a Draft McCain blog but it seems rather dormant right now.

While I'm supporting Howard Dean right now, I would love to support of Republican who could steer the GOP away from the ideological cliff that its hurtling towards. I'm interested to see how these draft efforts evolve.

Standing Up to Bush: I have long thought that someone brave Republican needs to stand up to Bush and run against him in the primaries. I guess there are others who are thinking of this too. I was looking at this blog which gave a list if "reasonable Republicans" who could just give Bush a run for his money. I know that many will immediately think that none of these people could win, but winning would not be the key. I think this is about the soul of the Republican Party and not simply about winning a race. The GOP is seriously off track from its true conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, civil liberties and equal rights. It more resembles some kind of nationalist party than it does the party of Lincoln. Ronald Reagan lost in the '76 campaign, but was able to use his loss as a base to build his conservative movement and win four years later. No one who ran now would win, but they might set the wheels in motion for a strong moderate movement in the GOP. My vote would be for Olympia Snowe or Chuck Hagel. I wish somebody would consider a draft somebody movement. There is a lot of discontent among Republicans out there that something could result.

Wednesday, November 26, 2003

Happy Thanksgiving:I hope everyone out there has a great Thanksgiving. See you back here with new posts on November 30.

Thursday, November 20, 2003

Red Meat: I haven't yet weighed in on Tuesday's momentous decision in Massachusetts concerning gay marriage. I'm glad that they have come to the conclusion that there is no reason gays should be denied marriage. And yet I am worried about the backlash that is starting. Stanley Kurtz from that National Review opined on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" today that while society should be tolerant of gays, supporting marriage would in essence weaken straight marriage. He cites the example of Scandanavian countries where gay domestic registry laws came to pass and less straight people got married. Okay, how do the two correlate? So, if I decided to get married to a guy, then that might make my hetro friends less likely to get hitched?

I think there are many reasons the marriage rates in Scandanaiva are low. First off is the role of women. Women and men are more equal and there for women are not in a rush to marry and more willing to leave a marriage should things go south. The falling marriage rates here are probably for the same reasons, not because I or any of my fellow gay friends decide to tie the knot. I don't think it is a bad thing that women have more of a say in how they choose to be treated by the opposite sex or the same sex for that matter. Women are no longer viewed as property or as the weaker sex, but as full and equal partners that are able to decide for themselves what they want from a partner and the freedom to walk away. THAT is what has changed marriage, not me.

If you would like to hear the audio commentary, please go to

Does the Left Get it?-or-A Note from a Conservative Ally:The problem with coalitions is that you don't always agree with your allies. I have that problem with my leftist allies. While I agree that the war in Iraq was a terrible mistake based on a false premise, and while I think that President Bush is taking us down the wrong path as a nation and as a world, I disagree with their lack of interest in dealing with terrorism. After 9/11, I had hoped the Left would give up its "Against America" line and come together to stop this menace we call terrorism. Instead many on the Left talked about the evil of going after binLaden and about the those who died because of our involvement there. Now, I think Bush did a lot to make the Left loose any interest it had in dealing with terrorism with his arrogance and outright lies concerning Iraq. However, there is something amiss when people are more concerned with Bush than with terrorists who might strike again. The events of 9/11 happened and we have to find ways to deal with them. Terrorism is a very real threat. Experts warned us that this could be a problem and it has come to pass. Bush has handled this crisis miserably, trying to destroy a century of international cooperation, with his "go it alone" stragtegy and his slow erosion of our civil liberties. However, even if Bush is behaving badly, the threat still remains. There are people out there who mean to us harm. All of us, have to find ways to curtail that threat; hopefully through law enforcement, but sometimes through the use of force. The Left has to find a way to criticize Bush without dismissing this threat. Until it can do that, it will not be seen as very credible with the American public.

Wednesday, November 19, 2003

Who is Fiscally Responsible?: Today's Washington Post editorial shows something that should make one wonder what has happened to the GOP. The Republicans have long charged that Democrats need to show fiscal disciplne, and of course that is very true. Governments can't do their job if they are running massive deficits. Indeed, former governor of New York and two-presidential candidtate Thomas Dewey once critiqued the New Deal Democrats for massive spending without any fiscal restraint. He said:

"It is our solemn responsibility to show that government can have both a head and a heart; that it can be both progressive and solvent; and that it can serve the people without becoming their master."

But of course that was when the GOP had both a head and a heart. The party is no longer progressive; it openly tries to block gays from getting married, it opposes affirmative action, it is rolling back any type of environmental protection even one that is market-based. It also no longer solvent. When President Bush took office, the government was running a surplus. Now we are in debt and there seems to be no concern.

This fiscally irresponsibility and the attempt to peek into the private lives of adults show that this party is no longer conservative; it is in reality a nationalist party that only serves a priviledged few and punishes those who don't fit their ways of living. It's time for those who care about the heritage of this party to take it back.

Sunday, November 16, 2003

Socially Conservative Agenda not a winner: Among Canadian conservatives there is a debate going on concerning the merger the two political parties of the right. The Canadian Alliance is the larger of the two and favors a socially conservative agenda. The smaller Progressive Conservatives are socially liberal abd fiscally conservative. There is much fear among the PCs that the planned merger might swallow up their party and create a more pro-life, anti-gay party. Jonathan Kay of the National Post argues that a hard-right social agenda may not be a successful strategy. He notes that many conservative parties in Europe have accepted society's viewpoints on such issues as abortion and capital punishment. The thing about this article that has me thinking is why the conservative party in the States, the GOP, thinks it can win with a such a backward agenda. I think right now, the far-right is winning in the aftermath of 9/11. However, that can't last forever. At some point if they keep pursuing such a hard-right agenda, the American public will lose interest. But then, the current leadership in the GOP is not one that listens to reason,

Wednesday, November 12, 2003

Writers Wanted-Again: Thanks to those who have responded to an earlier post about writing for the ModerateRepublican. I'm still looking for contributing writers who have an interested in politics and writing from a "progressive-conservative" viewpoint. I'm looking for people with an interest in the following areas: international relations, gay rights, abortion rights, health care, religion and the environment. If you are a Republican in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt and want to do your part to stregthen the moderate Republican voice in this country, please drop me a line at

Monday, November 10, 2003

November Edition: The newest edition of the Moderate Republican is online.

Monday, November 03, 2003

Wither Conservatism? If you listen to the mainstream media, you would think that all conservatives are in allegiance to Bush. That could not be further from the truth. ReadPhilip Gold's article on what has become of the conservative movement and you will see that not all conservatives are singing the praises of the neo-conservative leadership in Washington.

Is it really a choice?: Walter Cronkite wrote an interesting op-ed that appeared in Friday's Minneapolis Star-Tribune. I think he was fair in saying that the current power grab in Texas is not simply a right-wing takeover, but part of a long sad process of politcal parties choosing their voters. I wholeheartedly support Cronkite's assertions that states need to follow Iowa and create independent commissions that can choose the districts. Allowing the parties themselves to come up with districts is crazy. Why in the world should political parties who have nothing but their own interests at heart be able to define the poltical districts? The Republicans want primarily white districts that help them, while Democrats want minority districts to shore up their votes. And in the end, democracy gets screwed.

!-- End .box -->