Republicans for Kerry? (GOP moderates sick of Bush, DeLay)

[jsw_81]

Great article at Salon Magazine:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/26/moderates/index.html

You have to watch their little ad to get the free day pass, but it's worth it.

[RobertSeattle]

1. Funny... check out www.republicansforkerry.com

in my browser it redirects to the main Kerry site...

www.republicansforkerry.com

[David__77]

3. It's probably owned by Kerry campaign, yet not set up yet.

I'm sure it will be used later on...

[jsw_81]

8. The site

There's an unofficial Republicans for Kerry site here.

[David__77]

2. We need a GOP senator to endorse him. Chafee?

I think it's doable. We need Republican for Kerry as a viable force, saying to suburban moderate non-extremist Republicans that it's OK to vote for Kerry.

[zbdent]

6. Closest we got was McCain saying that Kerry was not soft on

defense.

[RobertSeattle]

4. And if you want smaller government VOTE DEMOCRAT!

In a "macro sense", divided Goverment means that less things get done since one side doesn't want the other side to win. But if you have undivided Goverment like now, you get runaway budgets like we've seem for the past 3 years. A conservative who truly wants less goverment should vote for Kerry.

If fiscal responsibility, paying down the debt, not mucking with the Constitution for political gain, respecting person privacy, reducing the size of government are "Conservative" ideas, then Clinton/Gore were the greatest Conservatives ever!

[David__77]

5. You are, unfortunately, correct.

My goal is not smaller government but more services, so I consider that aspect of the Clinton years as a very bad thing. Despite our current criticism of Bush's deficits, I see nothing inherently wrong with modest deficits if we are actually receiving necessary services that contribute to the general welfare.

[leyton]

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

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.

[blm]

9. Kerry will get the Teddy Roosevelt Republicans.

Bush will get the Tom DeLay Republicans.

The Old-Time Republicans vs. the End-Times Republicans.