Check this out. The article, while purporting to be fair and balanced (oo that phrase!), is a complaint among the ultra-conservative about the less-than-ultra conservative. President Bush has been trying to maintain a united Republican Party amid flagging conservative support and a split with the GOP’s "liberal" wing.
The two wings are so far apart that party strategists no longer envision a united front for the November congressional elections. The strategists said many of the liberals, already alienated from the White House, have been campaigning as opponents of the president in an effort to win re-election as part of an expected Democratic Party sweep of Congress.It's so weird to read about the "liberal wing" of the Republican party. Just something about that phrase just doesn't make sense - I'd thought they'd purged all the rational Republicans by now.
I remember when Craig Kilborn was hosting the Daily Show - he made a joke about "Moderate Christian Conservatives."
He said they're the ones who smile at you when they tell you that "God hates fags."
Back to the magazine.
Ryan Sager, a New York Post columnist, has published a book that argues that Mr. Bush's agenda has split the GOP. Entitled "The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party," Mr. Sager says Mr. Bush's promotion of bigger government combined with evangelical Christian values has separated Republican support in the traditional South from what he termed "leave me alone states" such as Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Nevada."Big government conservatives"? That's as odd as "liberal Republicans." Who knew there'd be so much nuance in George Bush's party?
Mr. Sager said Mr. Bush has attracted a new breed of Republicans, whom he termed big government conservatives. He said this group is mostly female, southern, religious, and seeks solutions from government.
"If the Republican Party is no longer the party of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, limited government, or fiscal restraint, then what is it?" asked the Cato Institute, which hosts Mr. Sager next week. "And what's a self-respecting, small-government, fiscally conservative, socially liberal voter supposed to do?"Uh, go with a small-government, fiscally conservative, socially liberal Democrat, I guess.
The writer of the article has a few problems with those pesky (and obviously independent) liberal Republicans:
In 2006, the GOP’s liberal wing has so far joined with the Democrats in blocking conservative-drafted legislation that would bolster the U.S. military presence in Iraq, halt illegal immigration, and aim at energy independence and health care reforms. Republican liberals also joined with Democrats against a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.Uh-oh. These "liberal Republicans" want to undermine our troops while supporting the millions illegal immigrants streaming through our borders. They want to keep us dependent on those Arabs for our oil and worst yet, they siding with the sodomites on the definition of marriage!
Why are they even Republicans??
I'll give the last word to that clear voice of proper right-thinking morality, Newt Gingrich:
"Republicans need to step forward and regain the conservative wing of the party that stands for fiscal responsibility, individual freedoms and protection of America's reputation and its borders," Newt Gingrich said in a report entitled "Thinking About November.” “The party has been an abysmal failure on all points for the last 12 years. The only reason they have not lost is due to the inability of the Democrats to come together as centrists."This part I don't understand. The whole article is about how the "liberal wing" is doing damage to the party by not agreeing with the "conservative wing." So why do Republicans need to "regain" the conservative wing?
In any event, it's nice to see that Newt thinks that:
The party has been an abysmal failure on all points for the last 12 years.Wait 12 years ago is 1994, right? Wasn't that when the Republicans gained 54 seats in the House and, well, took over? So is he saying that it's been all downhill from there?
I couldn't agree more.