In an obvious swipe at colleague David Broder’s mythinc “independence” party, WashPo’s Harold Meyerson lets “moderate” Republicans have it:
Chafee and Maine’s Olympia Snowe and such deathbed converts to moderation as Ohio’s Mike DeWine are seeking reelection to the Senate by claiming that they represent a Republicanism less rabid than the Bush-Rove strain. They point to individual votes in which they broke with the president and flouted the party line. But those votes have been negated a hundred times over by their votes to make Bill Frist the majority leader, just as they would be negated when the new Senate takes office in 2007 if the moderates backed any Republican unwilling to make a fundamental break with Bush and Bushism.
The issue isn’t the individual voting records of Frist and McConnell, which are indistinguishable from each other and define the mainstream of today’s gorge-the-rich, drown-the-poor, stay-the-course Republicanism. The issue is that under the control of the Republicans, both the Senate and the House have abandoned their constitutionally mandated obligation to oversee executive branch endeavors, most especially endeavors gone as awry as the war in Iraq. The issue is that under Republican control, both houses have abandoned any effort to address America’s real problems.
The House and Senate vote to ban flag-burning and gay marriage but never quite find the time to slow the rising costs of health care or raise the minimum wage or mandate fuel efficiency standards lest the polar ice cap melt. Chafee, Snowe and DeWine readily admit that a melted polar ice cap would be troublesome; they will fight it tooth and nail. But come time to vote for majority leader, they always vote for a leader of a party in thrall to big oil.
Problem is, Chafee and his moderate band are an ever weaker force in a party whose very essence is extreme, whose electoral strategy is solely to mobilize its base, whose legislative strategy is never to seek votes across party lines. And unless these moderates boldly go where they have not gone before and cast their vote for majority leader (and I don’t mean in caucus, I mean on the Senate floor) for someone other than the nominee of their party caucus, they are not moderates at all. They are loyal and indispensable foot soldiers in the Republicans’ continuing campaign to drag the nation rightward and backward.
And guess what. The moderates will vote for the extremist. “Moderate,” after all, is only an adjective; “Republican” is a noun. Chafee, Snowe, the whole lot of them, are moderate enablers of an extremist party. That leaves those voters in Rhode Island, Maine, Ohio and other states where these self-proclaimed Republican moderates are running only one choice if they seek a Congress to check and balance the president, if they want a more moderate nation: Vote for the Democrat.
Amen, hallelujah.



That also goes for “moderate” Arlen Specter. After we get rid of Santorum, Specter is next.
Myerson is right for now, but after the elections it will be time to look for broader based, distributed policy and politics so that a real 50 state strategy can be in place for 2008. Olympia wins effortlessly this year by dint of the Democratic Party’s limp message since 2004. There was no effective long range plan to make Myerson’s point again and again in the years preceeding the election. The real question is what to do so as not to give the same gift to Susan Collins.
We’re looking good here in Rhode Island: Linc can go back to shoeing horses in January.
If we’re talking about dealing with problems like the rising cost of health care, the outsourcing of jobs and our dependence on oil, I really don’t see much difference between the two parties. Democrats did little or nothing about those issues when they were in power — does it make sense to believe they will do so if given another chance? Give me the name of a Democratic leader in Congress who favors national health insurance or a gas tax that will make alternative fuels more attractive. Well? Cat got your tongue?