Reply #7: Interesting article - and I identify with those moderate Republicans.

[leyton]

Interesting quote from Lincoln Chafee:

"The president's agenda has been so different from his campaign rhetoric," Chafee says. "He is pushing an extreme agenda, from the abandonment of Kyoto, to banning access to abortions for service members overseas.

That's pretty encouraging.

On a side note, I wrote a paper recently on a similar party split as the one that seems developing within the GOP - except it was about the split in 1912. President Taft and Speaker Cannon were too conservative, too business friendly, too anti-progressive for many progressive Republicans, including Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt mounted a third-party challenge and essentially threw the election to Woodrow Wilson; if you think McGovern and Mondale lost badly, Taft did far worse (8 EV's) and he was the incumbent. If all goes well for us, let's hope we can have a repeat, even though it won't be so radical.

But in the long term, I certainly hope that moderate Republicans are able to take back their party. Even if it makes them more electable and more competitive against Democrats, I would hate to see radical Republicans in control of any part of government. Why? I know I'm gonna get attacked for this, especially since we're at the DU, which is to the left of the mainstream Democratic party, but I can identify with some of these Republicans. While I don't feel the pull from the far left on the Democratic party is nearly as strong as the pull from the far right on the Republican side, it still worries me at times. This is not meant as a slap at Kucinich (or an equation of him and Tom Delay) and his supporters, but for me Kucinich is way too far to the left, as can be Sharpton and Moseley Braun.