There is really no such thing as “moderate.” A “moderate” is a liberal who is ashamed of being called a liberal or who is afraid to come out of the closet just yet.
Well, I don't know if I quite agree with that. There are politicians in some states who represent constituencies who are in the aggregate conservative about some things & "progressive" to liberal about others. Nobody who is across-the-board conservative (or conversely across-the-board liberal) could possibly be elected in some places, and the politicians voters in those places send to DC to represent their interests reflect that. Many call them "RINOs" here, but they're just doing the jobs the people in Purple districts & purple states elected them to do.
But I think in the case of this thoroughly bogus "stimulus" bill which was clearly designed to stimulate only the bank accounts & career prospects of supporters of the current political power structure & further which accomplishes that by forcing a particular segment of the citizenry - a segment which doesn't yet even enjoy the vote to be able to sign off on it - to foot the bill for it, a vote for this particular bill has nothing to do with ideology but with basic ethics. A liberal could just as easily vote against this bill as a conservative on the simple non-ideological grounds that it's nothing more than a massive gold-plated monument to political corruption.
Someone who exploits a non-related situation (in this case, dire economic conditions) to vote for a bill in order to pay back others who help put them in office & puts the tab for that payoff into somebody else's accounts payable column without their permission is just a thief. A plain, old-fashioned two-bit thief!
As we've seen with Spector, Snowe & Collins, the fact that someone who votes for this bill may be liberal or moderate or conservative is just incidental to the fact that they're corrupt. Pull away the utterly irrelevant ideological window-dressing & you've got yourself nothing more than a dirty low-down crook.