Posted on 05/29/2005 11:31:38 AM PDT by Morgan in Denver
About Us:
Our vision is a Republican Party that is unified by the basic tenets of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom, but that allows for diverse opinions on social issues by its members.
IMP-PAC is chaired by Christie Todd Whitman, a lifelong and loyal Republican and a leader of the party’s moderate wing, who served in the Bush cabinet as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from January 2001 to May 2003. Prior to that, she was the first female elected governor of New Jersey, serving two terms from 1993 to 2000.
Advisory Board:
Congressman Mike Castle (R-DE)
Susan Cullman
The Honorable Robert J. Dole
Lewis M. Eisenberg
David Eisenhower
Julie Nixon Eisenhower
President Gerald R. Ford
The Honorable Michael Huffington
Honorable Nancy Kassebaum Baker
Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-AZ)
The Honorable Amo Houghton
The Honorable John McCain
The Honorable William G. Milliken
Congressman Rob Simmons (R-CT)
The Honorable Alan Simpson
Candace L. Straight
The Honorable William Weld
No its not. And take the rest of the garbage out with you when you leave!
Our side needs to do a much better job of educating the average person as to the harm the Kyoto Treaty would do to our economy and employment.
A+
There are a myriad of reasons for making vague gestures of ones willingness to capitulate at any cost. It's a dangerous game in which the most desparate of political parasites seem more than willing to engage.
Thanks for the target list.
2) Nobody
The "moderate" Republicans are on a mission and it is working well. They are splitting the base - marginalizing and dividing the cultural conservatives and the pro-gun people who do not believe in a "living constitution."
You're welcome.
I posted and failed to stay online to respond. Apologies to everyone.
I'll try to catch up.
I guess moderate means it's okay to kill babies a little bit as long as it's not done totally. I notice Zell Miller is not being called a moderate by the left because he's not as radical as they are.
Unfortunately, most of those moderates essentially became the "tax collectors" for the policies of the dominant liberals of the 1960's and 1970's. It wasn't until a principled Republican (Ronald Reagan) came along and articulated a vision and a set of policies that went beyond the apologetic get-along defeatist "moderation". Reagan was supposed to be a right-wing nut -- he turned out to be the most important and consequential president of the 2nd half of the century.
Where Bush has failed, it has been with his compromising on principle -- his walking away from tried and true conservatism: expanding government spending (education bill), not standing up for his judicial appointments, not engaging the Senate and it's extra-constitutional filibusters of judicial appointments, etc.
Moderates are welcomed under the big GOP tent. But we can't look to moderates for our guiding philosophies and principles -- those are sadly lacking.
Seems most everyone is bracing for the ultimate political insult this next election. Several orders of magnitude worse than the last several elections. Hell, this could be "end of game".
McCain glommed onto her because he claims that global warming is a bigger threat to humanity than terrorism.
Somehow or other the fake phony frauds find each other.
Christie backstabbed the President with her book and McCain backstabbs the President every chance he can get.
He backstabbed the MIAs and he is nothing more than an opportunist....IMO.
Not worthy of our consideration.
I think the third tenet is meant to be vague in a way. There is no question social issues divide Republicans to one degree or another. I'll give Republicans credit for being the party of both sides of the abortion issue and not totally pro-abortion, any time under any circumstances for any reason.
I, for one, would rather have a pro-abortion Republican than a pro-abortion Democrat. At least with pro-abortion Republican's there is still hope of changing minds, and there IS agreement on the other issues so important to all of us.
So .. is McCain trying to start his own party .. and is Whitman planning to run as his VP ..???
That's what this looks like to me.
Funny thing though - Rasmussen's poll about the "compromise" said that only 22% were happy with it. You can't win elections with 22% support.
Republicans have always had RINO's, in the vernacular of today. We used to call them Country Club Republicans, and Limousine Republicans also strikes a memory bell. Although the latter may be my confusion with Limousine Liberals.
The difference is Republicans will battle it out between us and still support each other once the election is over. Democrats, OTOH, destroy anyone in dissent who does not strictly follow the party line.
Whitman or McCain can run, but they can't win the party base. Just a minor item the press fails to report.
Of course we know that .. but if he tries to run as an independent - he can seriously damage a repub win .. and I believe he can also get some of the disgruntled dems who hate Hillary.
While that might dilute Hillary's ability to get in the WH - it would also damage the repubs. A 3-way tie is not something I would ever look forward to.
Neither should be considered morally acceptable as leaders. Someone who capitulates on one tenet is more like to do the same with others. Why take the chance?
Me neither. It is harder for a third party GOPer to win today since most of us remember what happened with Perot in the race. As unhappy as conservatives were with Bush 41, the result was the ethically challenged Bill Clinton winning. Few Republicans want to see a repeat.
I believe the press continues to hype McCain in the hope he'll split the voters, or be someone the media can support. McCain more closely resembles the preferred media image of what a good Republican is supposed to be like: a Democrat.
I actually agree with you. The problem is you have to vote and you have two realistic choices. Choose the one you would never agree with on anything, or the one who might change their opinion on one issue while being solid on all the others.
Pataki says he has changed his opinion on abortion. Once he realized abortions were usually used for birth control, he says he changed his opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.