CNN Defines 'A Moderate Republican'

After earlier this week defining what a moderate Democrat is, on Saturday CNN tried its hand at defining what a moderate Republican is.

CNN Newsroom featured a segment on governors who are refusing stimulus funds because of the inevitable Federal strings. Anchor Fredricka Whitfield had this exchange with CNN deputy political director Paul Steinhauser:

STEINHAUSER: Exactly. That is very -- a very different case there, too, because Arnold Schwarzenegger is very much of a moderate Republican. He's kind of on the different end of the spectrum from Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford and Bobby Jindal.

Right. That's why:

In 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle's Washington bureau chief titled a column "Schwarzenegger's liberal views leave GOP flummoxed: Actor is pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-gay rights." At about the same time, National Review editors determined "Schwarzenegger, it seems clear, does not merit conservative support."

The following year, columnist Jonah Goldberg wrote: "No matter what Schwarzenegger's boosters may claim, at the end of the day Schwarzenegger is a liberal Republican." Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, who knows a thing or two about matters leftist, has written the "fact is that Schwarzenegger is for all intent purposes a Democrat to the consternation of Republicans and quiet glee of Democrats in the great Golden State."

The Sacramento Bee reported in 2007 that the UK's Daily Telegraph compiled a list of America's 100 most influential liberals and conservatives. Schwarzenegger made the list - as a liberal.

Then we have today's Arnold, the one who commends Barack Obama "for the courageous leadership and the great commitment that he has displayed over these last few months." The one who calls Obama a "fantastic partner." The one who counsels fellow Republicans: "You know, you've got to go beyond just the principles."

So that's what a moderate Republican looks like. If CNN hadn't told us, we might still think Arnold Schwarzenegger is a liberal. Oh, that's right. At CNN there's no such thing.

[First: control the language.]

READ MORE

FLASHBACK >

CNN Defines 'A Moderate Democrat'

Let's briefly examine the congressional voting record of the "moderate Democrat" Ellen Tauscher...

.

CNN Defines 'A Moderate Democrat'

This week CNN's Political Ticker reported "Congresswoman takes post in State Department." The article begins:

California congresswoman Ellen Tauscher is vacating her Bay Area seat to serve under Hillary Clinton at the State Department.

Tauscher, a moderate Democrat and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a message to her constituents that Clinton had asked her to serve as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

Let's briefly examine the congressional voting record of the "moderate Democrat" Ellen Tauscher.

According to interest group evaluations compiled by Project Vote Smart, for 2007 the congresswoman received a zero from the American Conservative Union and the National Right to Life Committee, an F from the National Taxpayers Union, an F- from Gun Owners of America, and a 4 [of 100] from Citizens Against Government Waste.

In contrast, she was awarded 100 percent ratings by NARAL Pro-Choice America, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Education Association, and the National Organization for Women. Americans for Democratic Action assigned her a 95 and the AFL-CIO accorded her a 96.

CNN considers such a voting record to be one of a moderate Democrat. Apparently, over at the most trusted name in news, liberals are as rare as a Barack Obama misstep.

[What spin-by-(mis)labeling?]

READ MORE

Still the Biggest Missing Story in Politics

.
In August of last year I wrote an article, "The Biggest Missing Story in Politics," which reviewed the single most important datum in the last thirteen Battleground Polls over a period stretching from early 2002 to late 2008. The critical fact, completely ignored by almost everyone, was that in answering Question D3, which asked the respondent what he considered his ideology to be, sixty percent of the American people described themselves as "conservative" or "very conservative."

In every single Battleground Poll, conservatives vastly outnumbered not only liberals, but moderates and undecided respondents combined. The Battleground Poll itself is a bipartisan poll, combining the resources of the Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners. Unlike many polls driven by newspapers, networks, or other agenda driven organizations, this poll is one of the few which has no ideological agenda or partisan bias.

The last Battleground Poll, which came out after my article, no longer revealed the answer to Question D3. Did that mean that America, suddenly, stopped being an overwhelmingly conservative nation and had been seduced by Obama into being moderate or Leftist? No. The Tarrance Group did reveal the ideological breakdown of Americans, although in a different way than in the thirteen prior Battleground Polls.

Those earlier polls had asked people to describe themselves as "very conservative," "somewhat conservative," "moderate," "don't know," "somewhat liberal," or "very liberal." Those who chose "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative" were as low in some of the thirteen polls as 58% of the nation and as high in other polls as 63% of the nation, and the average of the polls was a rock solid 60%, year in and year out.

The Tarrance Group chose to look at ideology differently in its post-election poll. Respondents were asked to refine their definition of "conservative." So instead of being asked about the intensity of their ideology (i.e. "very conservative" versus "somewhat conservative"), the Battleground Poll changed the question.

Two questions replace the old Question D3. Now Americans were asked on social issues if they were "very conservative," "somewhat conservative," "moderate," "somewhat liberal" or "very liberal" as well as on fiscal issues if they were "very conservative," "somewhat conservative," "moderate," "somewhat liberal," or "very liberal." The Tarrance Group also provided data on the answers to this question within political parties.

The responses illuminated some aspects of the prior polls, but the over all result was the same: Americans, overwhelmingly, are conservative. There were some differences between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Twenty-six percent of Americans call themselves "very conservative" on fiscal issues and forty-three percent consider themselves "somewhat conservative" on fiscal issues. One percent of America is moderate on fiscal issues -- that vital "center" of American politics! -- and three percent "don't know." Twenty-two percent of Americans are "somewhat liberal" on fiscal issues, and a piddling five percent of Americans are "very liberal" on fiscal issues. When the mushy "moderate" and "don't know" respondents are excluded, fiscal conservatives outnumber fiscal liberals by seventy-four percent to twenty-six percent.

Social conservatives are the clear majority of America too, although the numbers are not quite as overwhelming. Thirty-four percent of America, more than one person in three, is "very conservative" on social issues and nineteen percent are "somewhat conservative" on social issues. One percent is moderate on social issues - again, that vital "center" of American politics! - and seven percent "don't know." Twenty percent are "somewhat liberal" on social issues and nineteen percent are "very liberal" on social issues. When the mushy "don't know" and moderates are taken out, social conservatives outnumber social liberals fifty-nine percent to forty-one percent.

Tarrance also helps explain what Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are so popular with Republicans. Seventy-four percent of Republicans are both social and fiscal conservatives. Ninety-one percent of Republicans are fiscal conservative. And seventy-seven percent of Republicans are social conservatives.

Any effort to change the Republican brand ought to begin with that dramatic fact.

What about Obama's own political party, the Democrats? Only forty-two percent of Democrats are both social liberals and fiscal liberals. Perhaps more amazing, twenty-three percent of Democrats, almost one in four, describe themselves as both social conservative and fiscal conservative. Forty-seven percent of Democrats describe themselves as fiscal conservatives, and thirty-four percent of Democrats describe themselves as social conservatives. Fifty-eight percent of Democrats consider themselves either a fiscal conservative or a social conservative or both.

These results, more detailed and more informative than past responses to Question D3 in previous Battleground Polls, do not alter the profoundly conservative character of the American electorate at all.

A social conservative, who was perceived as a social conservative running against a social liberal, would win an easy majority of the American people in any election. A fiscal conservative, who was perceived as a fiscal conservative running against a fiscal liberal, would win a landslide greater than any in the history of these two political parties. A candidate perceive as both a social conservative and a fiscal conservative would win one quarter of the Democrat Party vote, if the Democrat was perceived as a liberal, and sweep the nation easily.

In fact, if a Democrat ran for his party's nomination as a conservative - and if the other candidates for the nomination were perceived as liberals - he ought to be able to compete for the fifty-eight percent of Democrats who were social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, or both. The biggest story in American politics has been answered again, with the data even more detailed and refined.

The answer is the same - just the same - America is still, in every way and from every vantage, a conservative nation.

[So how in the world do liberals compete ideologically?

A: Because so many Americans get their news from TV, where all things are contorted.

This is also why the MSM is working overtime portraying conservatism as the Republican party's 'problem', and ceaselessly attacking folks like Sarah Palin: because if the party can nurture another Reagan, they know what will happen...]

READ MORE

The Myth of the Moderate Democrat

Subject: txt 2010 -
Don’t assume that the 38 Democrats who voted against Nancy Pelosi’s extremist version of health care reform wouldn’t have supported it if their votes had been needed. The days before the final passage on Saturday were not filled with stirring appeals to get Democrats to back the bill so much as an auction to decide whom to let off the hook. Knowing that the bill will likely be political suicide for any red state Democratic congressman... [snip]

The chicanery and deception that led up to the vote underscores the myth of the moderate Democrat. The entire Democratic caucus — with pitifully few exceptions — was committed to passing the health care bill.

The real question facing the voters is whether they will be deceived by this sleight of hand in which moderate Democrats pretend that the bill was passed over their objections. Will the voters buy their claims that it became law despite their best efforts?

Once, the voters might have fallen for this trickery.

But not now. The electorate is far too well informed to believe that any Democratic congressman really opposed this bill.

READ MORE

Cheney Advises GOP Against Moderation

“I think it would be a mistake for us to moderate. This is about fundamental beliefs and values and ideas … what the role of government should be in our society, and our commitment to the Constitution and constitutional principles.

You know, when you add all those things up, the idea that we ought to moderate basically means we ought to fundamentally change our philosophy. I for one am not prepared to do that, and I think most of us aren’t.

Most Republicans have a pretty good idea of values, and aren’t eager to have someone come along and say, 'Well, the only way you can win is if you start to act more like a Democrat.'"

READ MORE

When truth trumps protocol

.
After 8 years of blistering attacks on President Bush by the top echelon of the Democrat Party, suddenly they've become prudish about references to the country's Chief Executive.

How quickly they forget the instances when Bush was booed by the liberal side of the aisle when addressing the Congress in that same "hallowed" hall. Let's also recall an interview in December 2004 on Meet the Press in which Democrat Senator Harry Reid said

"President Bush is a liar." ... " That's how I feel, and that's how I felt. People may not like what I said, but I said it, and I don't back off one bit." [snip]

Lost in this entire deceptive diatribe is whether President Obama was telling the truth when he said millions of illegal aliens will not be covered in his healthcare plan. The fact is that Republicans have served on committees that proposed amendments to the president's plan which would assure that illegal aliens would not get coverage, but those amendments were defeated by Democrats.

Rep. Wilson served on such a committee and came away believing that the president was lying. If he was correct, his outburst may have been the only way to expose legislation that could be disastrous for the future of this country. If he was incorrect, all he did was breach a protocol that has been breached many times before.

[I dislike the disrespect that's taking place - but I dislike it less than the outright deception that's being passed off as sincere dialog - it's not, it's all an insulting play. We're being blatantly deceived, at which point anger and volume are an appropriate response to our being lied to - and a moderate tactic considering that if these folks don't knock off the deceit the next step is appropriately pitchforks...]

READ MORE

NYT's Tale of Two Withdrawals: Respecting Edwards, But Giuliani 'Living an Illusion'

The presidential field has winnowed down further, with Democrat John Edwards and Republican Rudy Giuliani announcing their withdrawal from the presidential race on the same day. But while the Democrat was serenaded as a trailblazer, the moderate Republican was mocked for "living an illusion."

"Indeed, Mr. Edwards was poised to collect enough delegates in early nominating contests to potentially influence the outcome at the Democratic nominating convention in August, if neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama won enough delegates to clinch the nomination."

Wednesday's lead "news analysis," "Dizzying Fall For Ex-Mayor," by the tag team of Michael Powell and Michael Cooper, dispensed with anything positive about Giulani's efforts;

"As Mr. Giuliani ponders his political mortality, many advisers and political observers point to the hubris and strategic miscalculations that plagued his campaign. -- the more that Republican voters saw of him, the less they wanted to vote for him. Perhaps he was living an illusion all along."

[no bias here, move along...]

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080130134248.aspx

The true face of Hollywood

Back in 2004, a smart, good-looking moderate Republican Hispanic ran for Congress. At the time Victor Elizalde was just under 40 years old and working as an executive at a big-time Hollywood studio. As an ethnic minority, a family man and a rare open conservative in an industry dominated by liberals, Mr. Elizalde represented hope and change for the Republican Party.

Yet because he was running for Henry A. Waxman´s 'safe seat', Mr. Elizalde got no support from the Republican Party . In fact, no one in the party´s leadership took notice of him. As a result Mr. Waxman trounced Mr. Elizalde with 71 percent of the vote.

Mr. Elizalde has since moved on with his life and is no longer pursuing a political career. Mr. Waxman has run virtually uncontested for 35 years now. And he causes nothing but problems for Republicans. To hear him speak, you´d think the Grand Old Party is the No. 1 scourge in the world. Yet Republicans are nice to him and do nothing to hold him accountable for his miserable failure as Hollywood's key congressional representative in Washington. [I.e., testiclevoiditus - snip]

During Mr. Waxman's 35-year tenure, Hollywood has not just shipped countless jobs overseas, it has become the ultimate outsourced industry. Films are invariably financed by foreign countries: Russians, Saudis, French and Germans, to name but a few guilty parties, now dictate the content of what many consider the DNA of American culture.

Where was Henry?

Ever wonder why the white American businessmen are always the bad guys and radical Islamists almost never are? More money is now made from foreign than domestic box office.

As a result, Hollywood now crafts its moral, ethical and political messages to assuage external sensibilities... [snip]

Hopefully, new Republican Party chairman Michael S. Steele, who promised in his acceptance speech last week to take the Republican message places it hasn't been taken previously, will see that in Mr. Waxman - a liberal Democrat who has done nothing to save jobs in his district - the Republicans have a fantastic poster child for the empty rhetoric of the modern Left.


[but before you can win an argument you must engage in it]

READ MORE