The failure of the Democrats to get to that magical number 60 in the senate means that they will have to get some help from across the aisle if they want to pass legislation, and centrist Republicans would be the obvious targets. Snowe has been called the most liberal Republican in the U.S. Senate, and has become widely known for her ability to influence the outcome of close votes and Senatorial filibusters. Susan Collins is a member of The Republican Main Street Partnership and supports stem-cell research. She is also a member of The Republican Majority For Choice, Republicans for Choice, The Wish List, Republicans for Environmental Protection, and It's My Party Too. Her voting record is moderate, which has caused consternation among some hard-line Republicans.
The two have a history of reaching across the aisle to make things happen. On May 23, 2005, Snowe and Collins were two of fourteen senators, known as the Gang of 14, who forged a compromise on the Democrats' use of the filibuster on judicial nominees. This action both curtailed the Republican leadership's attempt to implement the so-called "nuclear option", and broke Democratic opposition to three nominees brought to the Senate floor. This deal has been strongly criticized by both Democratic and Republican partisans, but the compromise did shift the center of gravity in the Senate at the time towards conservatives like Snowe. The Gang played an important role in the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.
Together with Sens. McCain, Specter, and hopefully, Coleman, they will be in a position of considerable power for the foreseeable future. Let’s hope the Republican Party can have a big-tent approach and not shun those who will compromise to get things done.
Comments
I like those two senators
I was discussing something similar with someone else recently.
At one time, the Republican Party had its moderate and liberal wings, represented by Rockefeller and Ford.
Support moved away from Ford after he pardoned Nixon, and support moved away from Rockefeller after he left his wife to marry his campaign manager.
Then came Reagan, and the party swung wildly to the right. He had broad support from the populace, although the nation as a whole was not so far to the right.
There are two pillars missing from the Republican Party, and they need to be rebuilt.
After all, it's the moderates, not the partisans, that determine elections.
a moderate republican party would
be against abortion, but not out to delegalize it. After all, 70% of Americans think that Abortion is wrong, but a far smaller percentage want it to be illegal.
Not what I was getting at at all
but you come closer in your second comment below.
Not suggesting that the Republican Party moderate, but that they enlarge their base, and mould their ideology into something more inclusive in the process.
True enough that few want to illegalize abortion, but about the same number want gov't funded abortion-on-demand. The public was willing to accept Clinton's "legal, safe, and rare," even while handing the GOP both houses of Congress.
The appropriate stance for the Republicans is opposition to federal funding. This is a measure that has broad support. Too many people are more concerned with their own health care costs.
btw, I'm against federally funded rhinoplasty as well, and any other elective surgery.
The Republicans should hammer the Democrats on the issue of child kidnapping. It's illegal to take a child across state lines to buy a pair of shoes, much less for an elective surgery.
But extremism narrows the view while dulling the reason.
But here's the catch: dead on the heels of advocating gov't pervasiveness and invasiveness in the Patriot Act (and no, I'm not cowering under my coffee table in fear of terrorists), now the GOP is set to argue against extended governmental powers. The law & order party is fresh out of both.
Back to the point-- the Right has too often adopted the Us vs. Them rhetoric w/ accompanying bunker mentality; and so, they're ready to toss out all moderates on their ears. But these are the magic numbers that can change the bitter medicine of defeat into the sweet elixir of health and well-being.
But coming out from the bunker can be terribly hard, even to the welcoming arms of a long-lost comrade. They hold their sore travails to be very dear to them.
Such a bitter draught is better taken well-spiced with ignorance.
I like safe legal and rare
and I find infanticide in some cases morally justifiable!
I'll roll a post on the different sectors of Americans that the GOP can hunt down and corral.
(was there ever a time that the Gov't funded abortion on demand, or is that just a strawman? It's not my issue, so my ignorance is showing!)
Moderation is for chumps, I'll raise a glass to that. The Democrats successfully took the "government out of our business" card from the Republicans (with republican help, i should admit) -- that wasn't moderation by any sense of the word, rather an about-face on priorities.
What is the legal criteria for child kidnapping? And would you really want to say that a teacher or other trusted adult should not be allowed to take an eleven year old child impregnated by her father (with or without her mother's knowledge, permission, or consent) to someplace where they can get an abortion? I wouldn't want that child's possible death (bearing a child at that age is quite hazardous) on my conscience.
The frame of "child kidnapping is bad" is an excellent one, and using that rather than "you can't take a kid anywhere for an abortion" really works. However, for the reasons stated above, I wouldn't use it. There are enough children in this country who are abused -- and even if a child that young could be argued to have only limited capacity to give informed consent to such a procedure, I still believe that an eleven year old child is probably intelligent enough to be able to make her own decisions, without parental guidance.
Am I worrying over nothing here? If parental notification laws have clauses about "in the case of physical, sexual or emotional abuse" don't notify, then I'm poking at a strawman. At any rate, I don't know if I am...
A real case from Florida where a social worker took a teen to
Miss. in order to by-pass state notification laws. The social worker was sentenced to 3 yrs in prison, and lost the ability to practice that profession-- deservedly so.
There was a bill up before Congress (didn't pass) that would have made taking a minor across state lines for the purpose of by-passing state notification laws a federal crime.
Just as well. That failed bill would have provided for a mere 1 yr in jail.
Existing state statutes are much more severe.
on snowe and collins
... they actually appear to be some of the few representative Republicans left -- i.e. people who believe in voting the way their populace wants them to vote. (no, I do not include that cur of a Senator Specter in that ... when you vote against habeus corpus, after such strong statements on the Senate Floor... no. not representative nor ethical.)