Facebook Slider


Optional Member Code
Get News Alerts!
Monday, 30 October 2006 22:29

Wouldn’t a Real "Moderate Republican" be a Democrat?

  • font size decrease font size decrease font size increase font size increase font size
  • Print
  • Email


We are constantly amazed to find even our most progressive friends fall into the "moderate Republican" trap.

"Oh," we will hear, "He (or she) is such a nice person and good on choice and Head Start and things. We need to encourage moderation in the Republican Party."

Sorry, folks, that’s not our job.

Here’s the scoop: There are no moderate Republicans in Congress. The phrase itself is an oxymoron, given the current radical GOP agenda.

In this day and age, when one-party rule means that the issues so-called moderate Republicans champion never even come to a vote, all that they do is enable right wing, anti-democracy thuggish rule by giving the Straussian, Theocratic Republicans control of both houses of Congress.

This, in turn, enables the "Non-reality based" psychotic Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld crowd to continue trashing the Constitution and this nation. No House or Senate Committee has conducted any credible investigation of the Bush Administration or of the corrupt Republican Congress.

And the "moderate Republicans" enable this behavior.

What’s more, when their votes are really needed to pass an authoritarian, profiteering or anti-Constitutional Bush bill, they will vote with the caucus if their vote is needed to pass the legislation. "Moderate" votes that don’t affect the actual outcome of legislation don’t count. The extremist GOP strategists are smart enough to know that they have to let "moderates" vote for some "moderate" issues so that they can appear "moderate" come election time. Otherwise, the Republicans will lose suburban (for the most part) districts where there are Republican voters with some sanity.

In the 2006 election, there are no local races. You are either voting for a thuggish, Anti-American Revolution, Tory, dictatorial Republican Party or you are voting for supporters of the Constitution and democracy in the Democratic Party.

You are voting for who controls the House of Representatives and the Senate. Period.

No Republican will protect us from the ongoing dismantling of our Constitutional democracy nor from the ravages of leaders living in a world of delusion and failure. We repeat, not one so-called "moderate Republican" will have an iota of power to turn off the autopilot of national and planetary destruction that the Bush administration has turned on.

If the Republicans maintain control of both Houses of Congress, the "moderate Republicans" won’t be worth a bucket of warm spit. They will just be pawns that allow the GOP to keep the machine of corruption, secrets, the shredding of our Constitution, a spiraling deficit, the further gross enrichment of the wealthiest, and an unending war going on full strength.

BuzzFlash will cite as one example of this "moderate Republican" myth, the 10th Congressional District in Illinois. It is one of the wealthiest districts in the nation, on the North Shore of Chicago. We know it well. Donald Rumsfeld used to represent the area.

The current congressman for the district is "moderate Republican" Mark Kirk. Everyone like’s Mark. He’s a fine gent. Very polite and amiable. Every mom would like Kirk as a son-in-law. (He is taken, however.)

Okay, so one of his staffers was just caught trying to punish a wealthy Republican who defected to Kirk’s opponent by implying in an e-mail that one of his charities might not get any more government money if he didn’t get on the Kirk bandwagon. And Kirk just slapped the wrist of the staffer and said that it wouldn’t happen again. These "moderate Republicans" are a very compassionate lot, you see.

But that little insight into Mark Kirk is not the issue.

The issue is that his opponent, Democrat Dan Seals, is within striking distance of taking what is considered a safe Republican seat. If Seals were to win, that would help gain the seats necessary for Democratic control of the House.

So, here’s the irony, if Seals wins, he would actually be able to pass some of the "moderate" measures Kirk claims to support.

So if Mark Kirk wants to truly achieve his "moderate Republican" goals, he should vote for Seals.

If Mark Kirk disagrees, we’d like to know then why Congress has been run like the Politburo for the last decade – and what Mark Kirk did to prevent the right wing agenda from passing through Congress like a greased pig on a spit, or to protect House pages from pedophiles.

(Nancy Pelosi’s maternal instincts will kick in to protect our youth as compared to Hastert’s apparent decision to leave a gay stalker loose among the pages to preserve Republican Control of Congress.)

We encourage the same sort of thinking in races involving "moderate Republicans" around the nation. To achieve their alleged goals, you need to vote for the Democrat!

And what are "Republican moderates" doing as 102 Gis have now died this month in Iraq? (The count is probably higher by the time that you read this.)

Do "Republican moderates" like Kirk define victory the way Bush does: "Victory is not admitting I made a big mistake and letting people continue to die for it. That – pure and simply – is what victory is."

But, of course, Kirk -- and he is just an example here – can’t and won’t do anything to steer America back to its Constitutional foundations.

When you go to the voting booth, remember this: there are no "moderate Republicans."

Because given the realities of the current situation, a "moderate Republican" could only exist as a Democrat.

"Moderate Republicans" are just pieces Rove plays with on his chessboard.