You Can Call Me IRV

November 4th, 2007
By PETE ABEL, Managing Editor


Those of you who have been on this planet 40-plus years will probably remember Bill Saluga. No, you might not remember his name, but I bet you remember his signature schtick as Raymond J. Johnson Jr.

… ya doesn’t has to call me Johnson. You can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, or you can call me Johnny …

Inspired by Mr. Saluga — and recognizing that I’m just not, nor will I ever be, the type of neo-con, blind-partisan Republican preferred by Hugh, Rush, Sean, and Bill, I’ve decided that:

… ya doesn’t has to call me RINO. You can call me ROI, or you can call me IRV, or you can call me simply Republican …

Simply Republican?

You bet, if you’re referring to Republicans like Abe Lincoln, Ike Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Jack Danforth, or Christy Whitman.

ROI? IRV?

Yes, for “Republican-Oriented Independent” and “Independent Republican Voter,” respectively.

In other words, I’m registered to vote as a Republican, and I consider myself a Republican of the ilk generally defined by those former three presidents, one senator, and one governor listed above. However, if I’m faced with voting for a Republican candidate who does not fit said mold — versus a Democrat or Libertarian or other-party candidate who does — then I’ll be voting for the Democrat, or Libertarian, or other-party candidate.

(I think that makes me more of an IRV than a ROI, although I’m sure there are others who will argue just the opposite. And frankly, in the end, where you place the emphasis — be it on Independent or on Republican — probably doesn’t matter. What matters is the vote, and my vote is still up-for-grabs, regardless of party affiliation.)

So, why am I raising this subject now? Four reasons; the first couple speak to why I’m keeping the R; the next couple explain why that R is threaded with a decidedly independent streak.

(1) Notable defections continue from the Republican core.

Among office holders and former office holders, there’s Missouri State Senator Chris Koster, NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and former U.S. Congressman Pete McCloskey. Among pundits, John Cole was probably the most recent. I respect their various decisions, but I think they’re jumping ship prematurely.

(2) Contrary to conventional wisdom, I believe the two-dozen-plus Republicans who have signed The Letter (so far) are more reflective of the “real base” of the party than the “faux base” of social conservatives, isolationists, and bigots.

I also believe the “real base” outnumbers the “faux base” and thus, the challenge of reforming the party is not so much a challenge of numbers, but of voice and volume of voice. Unfortunately, if the “real base” continues to be as quiet or muted as they have been for the last six years — or if they decide to follow John Cole out the door — then the party and its core principles will, in fact, be doomed to the outmost fringe of American politics.

(3) I’m not a “party-first, above-all-else” kind of person.

I recently had to step back from my involvement with the Republican Leadership Council. I did so out of necessity, for entirely personal reasons, which have nothing to do with politics or political will. But I realize now that this move was likely the right move for other reasons, too. For you see, as much as I respect the RLC’s moderate mission and its founders like Whitman and Danforth, I fear that a sizeable portion of the group’s supporters still adhere to that “party-first” mentality, much like President Reagan did. Reagan said that we should “never speak ill of a fellow Republican.” If he had been referring only to character assassination, I’d agree with him. (Hell, I’d go a step further, because I rarely think it’s justified to speak ill of anyone’s character, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise.) But Reagan was not narrowly referring to character attacks. He was broadly warning Republicans never to argue in the public’s eye. They could argue in back rooms, face-to-face, but when the curtain opened, they should join hands, smile, and present a unified front. Wrong. I believe a party is much stronger when its debates are held in the open, when dissents like those from Chuck Hagel and Ron Paul can be aired and vetted, when the tug and pull of ideas is engaged with the public’s full participation.

(4) It’s increasingly likely that I will do the unthinkable in November 2008 and vote for a D for president.

Accordingly, I wanted to put my stake in the ground now, so my right-leaning readers, friends, and family will understand why. Granted, some would argue that John Cole’s approach (flat-out dumping the Scarlet R) is intellectually more honest. But I think both approaches have merit. Cole warns the party leaders by defection. I warn them by defiance. Either way, it’s still a wake-up call — one I hope will be increasingly difficult to ignore in the months ahead.

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 4th, 2007 at 8:35 am and is filed under Republican Party, Moderate Republicans, Politics. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


Poll: Americans Want Change From Bush Direction And Agenda »

By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.