CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL WHAT WHAT A REPUBLICAN MODERATE IS? CAN YOU NAME ONE?

The last Republican moderate (the white guy in the middle)

A couple days ago Congressional Quarterly, took a look at the impasse over ending the occupation of Iraq and, echoing a consensus among Inside the Beltway media outlets, blamed... the Democrats for not dealing with Republican "moderates."

After the defeat on Thursday of an amendment to the defense authorization bill that also would have drawn down most troops from Iraq by next year, the leaders declared they would not give ground on their demands for a fixed withdrawal date merely to pass what they said would be toothless war legislation with the support of some Republican moderates.

“Compromise,” Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, does not mean Democrats will “give up our principles. Our principle is that we need to change the course of the war in Iraq, not have an amendment that we say could pass [with] bipartisan [support].”

Likewise, the Senate’s Republican leaders, who have kept their caucus solidly behind Bush during this week’s Iraq War debate, dug in their heels in support of the president’s war strategy.

Although a number of centrists from both parties sought middle ground, they appeared to be toiling against the wishes of their leaders. The moderates remained hopeful that Democratic leaders, in particular, would agree to consider several compromise measures on the war next week, by which time the toughest proposals would likely be dead.

...Moderate Republicans such as Collins, Smith, John W. Warner of Virginia, George V. Voinovich of Ohio, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Norm Coleman of Minnesota have been meeting almost daily with Democratic centrists, including Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Ken Salazar of Colorado, to come up with a legislative formula both sides can embrace.

There have been 38 roll call votes in the Senate regarding Iraq since October 10, 2002's five roll calls on SJ Res 45 authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel have bucked the Bush Regime 8 times, although only four of those votes were considered controversial, the other four being routine and bipartisan matters. Even the most reactionary warmongering Bush-Dogs among Democratic senators-- Ben Nelson (D-NE), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Joe Biden (D-DE)-- were 3 times more likely to vote against Bush than these Republican fake moderates. And as for the other Republicans cited by Congressional Quarterly, Gordon Smith (R-OR), John Warner (R-VA), George Voinovich (R-OH), Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Norm Coleman (R-MN), they have even more spurious claims to "moderation." Alexander, for example-- up for re-election next year and desperate to appear independent of Bush-- voted against the Bush-Cheney line one time and that was on a non-controversial roll call with bipartisan support.

In the last few weeks I've asked why the traditional meet insists on labeling rubber stamp Republicans who have consistently and even reflexively backed every single Bush agenda item on Iraq as "moderate." I wrote several letters-- all unanswered-- to New York Times DC political chief Carl Hulse asking him on what basis he insists on labeling Lamar Alexander-- whose voting record makes a clear and unambiguous case that he is a down-the-line extremist on Iraq policy-- a "moderate." Lamar Alexander votes the same way

The following week the Washington Post was busy painting rubber stamp Republicans in the House, like Phil English (R-PA), as moderates. Again, there was not a single shred of evidence to point out a moderate stance on this. These Republicans all have to face moderate voters in 2008 and they all want to be perceived as moderates and in sync with their anti-war constituents... but not enough to vote against the demands of Bush and Cheney, not ever.

Are there any Republican moderates when it comes to the occupation of Iraq? Well, glad you asked. Let's look at that. There isn't a single one in the Senate, although recent votes indicate that Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) may be changing course and moderating their rubber stamp postures regarding the occupation of Iraq. In the House there are probably two Republicans who could honestly make the claim to moderate positions. Their votes are generally pro-Bush but each has taken significant stands against the Bush-Cheney line a few times: Ron Paul (R-TX) and Walter Jones (R-NC). Paul's votes on Iraq, in fact, are better than the handful of the most reactionary, pro-war Democrats (Chris Carney, Bud Cramer, Gene Taylor, and Jim Marshall). Other than that, there are no moderate Republicans when it comes to Iraq, despite the laziness of traditional media to check the facts before labeling members "moderate" or "independent."

The House has voted 56 times on Iraq-related bills. Regular readers of the NY Times, Washington Post, etc cannot be blamed from believing that there are some gung-ho moderate Republicans-- mostly in the northeast-- like Christopher Shays (R-CT), Mike Ferguson (R-NJ), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Christopher Smith (R-NJ), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mary Bono (R-CA), James Walsh (R-NY), Mike Castle (R-DE), Phil English (R-PA), Judy Biggert (R-IL), Charles Dent (R-PA)... The traditional media is constantly referring to these men and women as "moderates." Oft-proclaimed moderate Judy Biggert for example, has voted all 56 votes with Bush and Cheney. How is she a moderate? What is wrong with the media that they consistently bolster her re-election prospects by calling her a moderate every time they write about her. She never disagreed with the Bush company line... not one time. Neither did Charlie Dent, who is running around Allentown like a chicken without a head, campaigning against Blue America-endorsed progressive Sam Bennett (who adamantly opposes the occupation of Iraq) and he claims he's a moderate and an independent voice. The local and national media echo his claims, although his voting record puts them to the lie. He never, ever went up against Bush-- not a single time.

Oh but what about Christopher Shays? He's the one the NY Times is always touting as a paragon of moderation and independence. On October 17, 2003 he defied Bush-- along with a bipartisan majority in the House-- to demand competitive bidding on oil contacts and a few days later he again joined with a bipartisan majority to transform half of Iraq's $20 billion reconstruction budget from a grant to a loan. Other than those two votes and one bipartisan procedural matter he has been 100% behind the Bush-Cheney agenda of mayhem and destruction in Iraq. There is absolutely nothing "moderate" or "independent" about Chris Shays' Iraq voting record, a voting record he does everything he can to hide from Connecticut votes who are hearing Blue America-backed Jim Himes talk to them about plans to actually end the occupation of Iraq that Shays has so steadfastly supported.

These self-dubbed moderates, supported by a lazy and venal traditional media, all turn out to be radical right supporters of the Bush Iraq agenda. Who would have imagined? Perhaps that's why the latest Gallup Poll shows that nearly 60% of Americans have an unfavorable reaction to the Republican Party and that Democrats are favored 53-38%. And maybe that's why the GOP is broke and no one wants to donate to their loser candidates. And maybe that's why record numbers of Republican incumbents are announcing that they'd rather retire than face the voters in 2008. And, surely, that's why "None of the Above" beats each of the pathetic pygmies™ when Republican voters are asked which of the repulsive GOP candidate they favor for the presidency.

Greg Sargent over at TPM seems to have noticed something very similar. And so has David Shuster at MSNBC. Watch:




UPDATE: AND WHEN IT COMES TO CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE... THEY'RE NOT MODERATE ON THAT EITHER

The SCHIP bill originally passed the House on August first, 225-204. Ten reactionary Democrats joined with the Republicans in a vain attempt to defeat it. And 5 Republicans bolted from their greed-obsessed hateful leadership to vote with the Democrats. To get by Miss McConnell's obstructionist tactics in the Senate, the bill was considerably pared down in a compromise with Republicans that made millions of children ineligible. But even after the severe compromise, Bush and most Republicans are still against it. Radical right-- some would say neo-fascist-- Republican Eric Cantor of Virginia, a whip, says "this is a defining vote for Republicans. You are either for or against health care directed by the Washington bureaucracy." Hard core extremists like Cantor are threatening and berating Republican members who are wavering after hearing from their constituents that they want the bill passed.

While Cantor brags that he can keep enough Republicans cowed that Bush's veto will be sustained, Speaker Pelosi is hoping "to galvanize the support of the American people behind this legislation... The president has no credibility on matters of fiscal responsibility due to his astonishing record of compiling historic deficits over the last seven years... I urge the president to drop the partisan rhetoric, put down his veto pen, and work with the new direction Congress to complete this year's spending bills." Ray LaHood (R-IL), who is retiring and no longer fears the wrath of the radical right, joined with severely vulnerable Republican incumbent Heath Wilson (R-NM) to send a letter to other GOP House members urging them to ignore Cantor and the other Republican hate-mongers. They think they can bring in more than two dozen Republicans. I won't be holding my breath on that prediction.

"A bipartisan group of Senate and House Members have crafted this agreement. While not perfect, this agreement retains the core principles of SCHIP when it was enacted and provides states with new tools to enroll more eligible low-income children."