Pete McCloskey (I ♥ moderate Republicans)
Mar. 7th, 2006 01:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
progI just listened to an On Point interview with Pete McCloskey, who is running on the Republican ticket in California's 11th district this year.
This would be a return to politics for him, as he served in the House from 1967 to 1983. His platform today is based on disgust with his party's current policies, as well as the corruption brazenly running through it; his opponent in the state primaries will be Richard W. Pombo, who is currently entangled in the Abramoff mess. On the show he compares himself to Sens. McCain, Collins, and Snowe, which makes me listen to him. Yes, it's just words, but the willingness to even say them sets him apart from so many of his mouth-foaming colleagues who consider these folks RINOs for not being so thoroughly evil and insane as themselves.
I urge my Californian readers to give him a listen, and consider tossing a sawbuck his way (via his website) if they like what they hear. (Actually, I am considering doing this myself, if it makes sense for someone who is not a potential constituent to do so.)
This would be a return to politics for him, as he served in the House from 1967 to 1983. His platform today is based on disgust with his party's current policies, as well as the corruption brazenly running through it; his opponent in the state primaries will be Richard W. Pombo, who is currently entangled in the Abramoff mess. On the show he compares himself to Sens. McCain, Collins, and Snowe, which makes me listen to him. Yes, it's just words, but the willingness to even say them sets him apart from so many of his mouth-foaming colleagues who consider these folks RINOs for not being so thoroughly evil and insane as themselves.
I urge my Californian readers to give him a listen, and consider tossing a sawbuck his way (via his website) if they like what they hear. (Actually, I am considering doing this myself, if it makes sense for someone who is not a potential constituent to do so.)
There are no moderate Republicans anymore
Date: 2006-03-08 02:31 am (UTC)That is not to say that there are no sane people left in the Republican hierarchy, there surely are, but they are completely powerless and their continued presence actually advances the radical agenda being pursued by the leadership.
Consider the situation in the House, where, for the sake of political careers and continued access to K street money, Republican congressmen have to vote lockstep with the leadership on the votes that matter. Yes, a select few in swing states are allowed to deviate on the votes that don't, thus preserving their "moderate" credentials, but so what? As long as the leadership can continue to hide behind the "moderates", they stay in power and continue to do what they're doing.
Even in the Senate, you have to ask, what has the Gang of 14 actually accomplished? The promise was that they would allow the filibuster for "extreme" nominees. Alito is now on the court, so who the hell are they saving it for? Given Alito's known positions, no true moderate Republican would have voted yes on cloture; end of story. You can blame the Democrats all you like for "bungling" the committee hearings, or not being able to coerce Tim Russert and Brit Hume and whoever else into framing things the right way in media-land, etc,... but in the end, it all comes down to votes, and the Democrats simply don't have the votes to do it on their own. Chafee, Snowe and the rest of the "moderates" (in solidly blue states, I might add, and thus nothing to lose from that end) had all of the information they needed and when push came to shove, they apparently just didn't care that much. Either that or whatever it was the leadership was holding over them was so horrible that they didn't dare vote their conscience; at which point I again ask, what's the point of having them there?
The only way the current Republican leadership is going to be displaced is if Republicans lose elections and continue to lose them decisively over a long period of time. (What we really need is Goldwater-style repudiation, but even with all the recent revelations I'm not optimistic that we're going to get it -- I'd thought that the shit coming out in the fall of 2004 would have been enough to have it happen then but apparently not.)
In this context, McCloskey's run is entirely counterproductive; if he wins he'll be a vote for Hastert and Boehner and that's that. But I severely doubt he can win a modern Republican primary; the party has changed a lot since 1983 and he's going to find that out real quick. Not for nothing have the evangelicals spent the past 20 years taking over the lower levels --- and again they're not going to be kicked out until they're perceived as being bad for the party; as long as they keep sending winning candidates, that just won't happen.
If McCloskey really wants to change things and send a powerful message, he should run as a Democrat; if he did that, I suspect he'd win the district immediately and decisively.