Dionne & Cook Weigh In

Just a month after Slate wrote an obituary to moderate Republicans in the Senate and the Bull Moose joined in tolling their death knell, the conventional wisdom seems to be tacking strongly toward a Lazarus-esque revival for the persecuted RINOs. Between Ron Brownstein's recent pronouncements, the intense interest that I've been getting here and other moderate bloggers are attracting as well, and then two new pieces just out this morning, I'm beginning to think there might actually be light at the end of this tunnel. It's a tiny flicker still, but it's there, way off in the distance.

In his "Off to the Races" column today, Charlie Cook writes:

"The difficulties that the president's Social Security proposal and his nominee to the United Nations have encountered underscore the argument that, given the choice between Bush and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., last Nov. 2, more people liked, agreed with or trusted Bush than Kerry. This was a very specific choice between two specific people, and the election did not mean that the American people were so supportive of Bush that they decided to award him a platinum Carte Blanche card to do whatever he wanted to do and however he wanted to do it.

The Bush campaign's strategy of putting a premium on appealing to the Republican Party's conservative base, of organically growing the party, rather than reaching out to the ideological and partisan middle ground, may well have worked brilliantly in last year's campaign. But it might not work so well with a Congress as closely divided as this one, or specifically with as many moderates and free agents as the Senate has. The danger is that the more legislative and nomination battles Bush loses, the less deference lawmakers will give the president, and the less he will accomplish. There is a real price to over-reaching, and Bush and his aides might soon have to pay it." [emphases added]

E.J. Dionne echoes Cook's sentiments in his Washington Post column this morning, "Revolt of the Middle." Apparently having seen the excellent interview with centrist author John Avlon on "The Daily Show" recently [available for viewing online here], Dionne writes:

"If you were to prepare a list of the top 10 stories you will never, ever read in a newspaper, one of them would surely include a sentence beginning: 'Thousands of angry, screaming moderates took to the streets yesterday demanding . . .'

You can finish that sentence however you would like. The accepted view in politics is that moderates don't get angry, don't scream and don't demonstrate. Politics these days is said to be dominated by ideological enthusiasts. Moderates are thought of as people who sit on the sidelines and decide which batch of true believers they can most easily live with."

Sad, but it's been too true for too long. Dionne:

"But something important has happened since President Bush's inauguration. America's moderates may not be screaming, but they're in revolt. Many who reluctantly supported the president and the Republicans in 2004 are turning away. The party's agenda on Social Security, judges and the Terri Schiavo case is out of touch with where moderate voters stand. Worse for Bush and his party, most moderates have a practical, problem-solving view of government and think these issues are far less important than shoring up a shaky economy and improving living standards." [all emphases added]

Dionne goes on to note, as I and others have been for weeks now, that the GOP's leadership, by rallying around Tom DeLay and John Bolton and threatening to change the Senate's rules for ten measly judges is focusing on what moderates see as distractions from the real issues. "All this, in turn, explains why Republican charges that Democrats are 'obstructionist' have not worked," Dionne says. "As long as moderate voters believe that Democrats are blocking measures that are immoderate, middle-of-the-roaders will welcome, or at least tolerate, a fair bit of obstruction."

Dionne neglects to mention the important point made in many places lately that it certainly helps the Dems to a) be united and b) have some moderate Republican support on these issues as well, but nonetheless, this is an excellent piece and highly recommended.

Is this an opportunity for the Democrats? Just plain old bad news for the GOP? Does it open the door to exactly what Brownstein discussed yesterday? Too early to know for sure how this will all play out, of course, since it's literally taking place as we speak. But it certainly will keep this RINO charging forward in the name of the things that really matter, because more and more each day, I know I'm not alone.