As a Republican, it was not hard for me to vote for Bush in this past election. Although he wasn't the best choice we had this November, compared to Kerry, the choice was easy... even if I was opposed to many of his domestic agendas (i.e Immigration, Gay Marriage, Social Security, ANWR Drilling)

I mean hell, a few of his domestic policies upset the solid Republican base as it is.

Here's what I'm wondering...

As moderate/progressive Republicans, are Bush's domestic agendas alienating us at the expence of pleasing the hard-core Right?

What recourse do we have to show that, as moderate/progressive Republicans, we'll stand by the GOP, but not at the expense of civil rights, the environment, and national integrity?

As moderate/progressive Republicans, are Bush's domestic agendas alienating us at the expence of pleasing the hard-core Right?

Interesting, many on the "hard-core" Right feel that Bush is selling out to the middle. Ann Coulter, for example writes here.......



And later on in the same column.....



I don't think Annie feels that President Bush has "sold out" to the hard-core rightwing....




What recourse do we have to show that, as moderate/progressive Republicans, we'll stand by the GOP, but not at the expense of civil rights, the environment, and national integrity?

This is where it gets fuzzy I think. I'm not sure quite what the difference between a moderate Republican, a moderate Democrat, or a moderate Independant really is quite frankly other than the party registration. "Moderates" are not the core group of either of the two major parties. Bill Clinton understood this, Ronald Reagan understood this and George Bush understood this. That's why each of them ran a variation of the "triangulation" campaign where they first locked up their core party, then moved to the center to pick off moderates from each side.

Now, both groups are screaming "We won you the election!", and to a certain extent, they are both right. And thus, neither group is going to get everything they want and that never happens, especially in a second term. President Bush is going to do what he thinks is the right thing to do and understand that someone is going to complain about it. That's what being a leader is really all about and to be brutally honest, I think that's what this election was really all about despite what the pundits might say. I think Bush won because people perceived him as the stronger leader.

So, your "recourse" I suppose is to support the kind of legistlation you favor and hope that "moderates" from both sides like John McCain and Joe Leiberman can build a coalition strong enough in Congress to push it through. If they are successful and it's good legislation, chances are Bush will sign off on it. That's the way it works.

People, everytime I hear the Left scream about how the evil "rightists" have taken over I simply have to graffaw. Might I remind you that real conservatives still have a serious problem with how much money is being poured into the federal budget to solve social ills. Lest we forget this is the same administration that had an outright domestic spending bonanza in its first two years. To listen to the opposition however, you'd think we were denying kittens from their favorite balls of yarn. We should keep an honest perspective when it comes to what consitutes a real "vast right wing conspiracy" running the show because on the spending issue alone, the Bush administration does not constitute this at all.

I think that the Bush administration has been relatively moderate in most areas except foreign policy, where they are acting in response to the 9/11 disaster.

While the "hard core right" supports Bush, they find fault with much of his agenda. Bush has never been a die-hard conservative and he's the type of man who tries to incite cooperation. He's not a right wing "bomb thrower". With respect to abortion, for example, Bush has made it clear that he personally disagrees with the procedure. But he's done absolutely nothing to restrict it. The Bush administration also played the middle ground on the affirmative action debate. His administration supported the policy when discrimination is uncovered but opposed across the board "quotas". The same is true with the "environment". Bush has been wrongly hit on being environmentally insensitive and that's a bum rap in my opinion. The Kyoto treaty was dead before Bush took office. The other changes in environmental policy were also common sense. Environmental science is the most politically corrupt area of "science" today. Bush is correct in insisting on hard facts before decisions having huge economic repercussions are made.

I am pretty far right and haven't been pleased at all by some of decisions made by the Bush Administrations. I couldn't figure out why the left hated his policies, let alone moderate Republicans. Has he ever vetoed a bill? He bent over backwards
to get along and caved in on every issue from education to immigration. What did it get him? A big kick in the rear from the Kennedy democrats. I take offense to your use of moderate/progressive Republican. A moderate is not a progressive if you are using the word as liberals use it -- ie to hide the fact that they are Socialist/Communist. A moderate Republican should be equal to a conservative democrat although our Maine Senators have me wondering why they keep the party affiliation. The Republican party as a whole is making more progress (as in moving forward) than the Democrat party. The word is used in the proper context that way.
You would have to present your case to demonstrate what you mean by that. Clinton signed environmental legislation that was radical, unfair, and too costly for businesses to comply with just before he left office. He knew they would be repealed but that gave the Democrats something to use to beat up Republicans with. President Bush and Republicans reversed his policy and the left screamed "the sky is falling -- again!".
National integrity by whos standards? The lefts, BBC, Aljeezera? What civil rights issue are you talking about? Holding terrorists in Cuba without a lawyer? The law doesn't require it. Are you sure you are a Republican?

I'm a staunch conservative, so I can't answer the first question from personal experience. However, I can give an example. My mother is a moderate Republican. She's strong on defence issues and loves tax cuts, but lately there are some things I've noticed whenever President Bush is on TV. Just last week I heard her scream, "What about healthcare?" I looked aghast because I wanted to see if my Mom hadn't turned into Senator Hillary Clinton. Luckily, she hadn't. My Mom's always tread that middle road when it comes to abortion too. She doesn't think just anyone should be able to get an abortion, but when it comes to rape and other gray areas like that she's pro-choice. When it comes to education too, she would love too up the ante there too. She doesn't think that the President has done enough in those areas, or in abortion's case she'd like him to appoint judges that were less hostile to it.
On the other hand I'm not happy about many things President Bush has done either. President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 9066, which mandates affirmative action in the federal bureaucracy. Why hasn't President Bush rescinded that one? The national debt is huge. I'm a deficit hawk, and I'll always be deficit hawk. Now I understand that in times of war spending has to go up, but we need cut a lot of programs. President Bush put all that money into Medicare and Medicaid. No Child Left Behind has been criticized by "the left" for not being enough, but that's because the big spending parts of the program will be coming into effect in the next couple of years. Of course, my mother and some other more moderates I know would tell roll their eyes at me and say there's not enough. So, I think President Bush is just following that old adage of Abe Lincoln's, "You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can please some of the people some of the time."

Progressive is a completely subjective word, so I'll stay away from it. If moderates in the party want to get more done they can't be so attached to party labels. They have to appear like they will vote for other party candidates. Also, the party has people in Congress who can and will cross the aisle. Grass roots movements are usually successful. The Civil Rights movement was such a one, and they got the Democrats (anti-African-American at the time) to go against there own constituency. The Democrats lost the South forever after that. If you stay involved and dedicated than things get done. However, you have to keep in mind that there are people that are working just as hard if not harder for something that you may not believe in. The conservative pressure on President Bush may be greater than anything moderates put on him.

As moderate/progressive Republicans, are Bush's domestic agendas alienating us at the expence of pleasing the hard-core Right?

I'm not a Bush type of conservative, that's for sure, but I've never identified with the moderate/progressive wing either. I guess what I am is one of the last of the Goldwater Republicans, which means I'm not so much a conservative as a hawkish libertarian.

There're lots of Bush domestic policies I have a problem with, but prettry much they're all tied to the same big issue: big government. I'm against it. I want to shrink government, radically if possible but at least incrermentally and Bush wants to grow it, though maybe a little less than the Dems. That's not good enough for me.

I have a quibble with Bush on one social issue too. I wish he'd support the Orrin Hatch substitute amendment on gay marriage instead of the main one. The Hatch version doesn't ban gay marriage, but bans judges from making changes in the institution of marriage. The judicial activism about gay marriage is the problem, not gay marriage per se.

On civil liberties grounds, I'm against some of the more intrusive sections of the PATRIOT Act, most notably "sneak and peek."

And I'm completely against the Drug War and support full legalization. I also know that isn't politically possible right now, but I am pretty annoyed at the feds walking all over state's rights on medical marijuana. They could stop doing that without getting in political trouble, and they should.

What recourse do we have to show that, as moderate/progressive Republicans, we'll stand by the GOP, but not at the expense of civil rights, the environment, and national integrity?

I'll do what I've been doing, which is to support the Republican Liberty Caucus. I'll also continue to maintain my membership in the Libertarian Party and various single issue groups, including Gun Owners of America and NORML And I see no alternative to supporting any plausible GOP nominee over anybody the Dem's left-wing base would let them nominate.

I don't have a problem with Bush and the issues you've mentioned, and I'm mostly happy with the Bush foreign policy. What would make me happy on domestic issues is if the GOP became generally more moderate on social issues, but more "far right" on economics, property rights and gun rights. I'll vote in primaries for candidates like that.

...what she said! (ya, I know...one liner...but if you just agree completely with someone, whadda ya do?...thought I'd at least get my 2 cents worth in, even if not adding anything additional to debate other than agreement with Izdaari)