CNN: GOP Battle Between 'More Tolerant' Moderates & 'Staunch Conservatives'

Photo of Matthew Balan.

Wolf Blitzer, CNN Anchor | NewsBusters.orgDuring a segment on Tuesday’s Situation Room program, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer characterized the ongoing post-election identity struggle in the Republican Party as being between moderates who are “more tolerant on fiscal and social issues” and “staunch” conservatives “who don’t want the party to become more moderate.” Later in the same segment, Gloria Borger, one of the network’s senior political analysts, labeled some of the moderate Republicans being considered for 2010 congressional races as being “very pragmatic choices.”

Blitzer introduced Borger’s analysis by highlighting the “serious battle...brewing in the Republican party....On the one side, moderates more tolerant on fiscal and social issues -- on the other side, staunch conservatives who don’t want the party to become more moderate.” The analyst herself focused on how this struggle was affecting statewide races, specifically in the northeastern states of Connecticut and Delaware. She argued that Republicans in Connecticut “need to put up a moderate candidate in that state to go against Chris Dodd.” She also cited unnamed conservative recruiters in the GOP who were supposedly saying, “we need moderates in the state of Connecticut.”

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Borger advanced that the same was the case in Delaware: “There’s a possibility that Beau Biden is going to run to try and take that seat in Delaware, and they’re actively lobbying now a moderate Republican, Congressman Mike Castle, to go up against Beau Biden, because Republicans understand, and even conservative ones understand, that it’s their only shot of winning the state of Delaware.”

The analyst later reported that other Republican recruiters in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania tried to find a moderate there as well: “...They tried to get former Governor Tom Ridge to run, and in the end, he decided not to. So now they’ve got a conservative candidate, Pat Toomey, out there as a Republican, and that hurts their chances a bit in that state.”

The full transcript of the segment, which began 47 minutes into the 4 pm Eastern hour of Tuesday’s Situation Room:

WOLF BLITZER: A serious battle is brewing in the Republican party. We’ve been reporting on it for days now. On the one side, moderates more tolerant on fiscal and social issues -- on the other side, staunch conservatives who don’t want the party to become more moderate. Let’s go to our senior political analyst Gloria Borger. She’s here joining us. This could play out -- this battle, in several future races, Gloria.

GLORIA BORGER: In the Senate. You know, Wolf, we have this theoretical argument going on at the national level, as you point out, about whether the Republican Party should go more to its conservative base, or whether it should be a big tent Republican Party. But at the state level, where they’re now recruiting senate candidates -- if you drill down, what you see -- lots of very pragmatic choices that are being made by the Republican Party.

Let’s take a look at the state of Connecticut, for example. You have a vulnerable senator there, Senator Chris Dodd, because of his issues relating to the chairmanship of the Banking Committee. And that is a state that Obama won by 23 points. So Republicans need to put up a moderate candidate in that state to go against Chris Dodd. One of the people they’re looking at is Rob Simmons, who is a moderate pro-choice Republican. And so, you’ve got conservative recruiters in the Republican Party saying, we need moderates in the state of Connecticut. Same thing going on in the state of Delaware, a state that President Obama won by 25 points. There’s a possibility that Beau Biden is going to run to try and take that seat in Delaware, and they’re actively lobbying now a moderate Republican, Congressman Mike Castle, to go up against Beau Biden, because Republicans understand, and even conservative ones understand, that it’s their only shot of winning the state of Delaware. So whatever the argument is on the national level, on the state level, they just want to level the playing field.

BLITZER: So are the Republicans having any success in recruitment?

BORGER: Well, it’s kind of mixed success. For example, when Arlen Specter decided that he was going to become a Democrat, they had to scramble in the state of Pennsylvania, and they tried to get former Governor Tom Ridge to run, and in the end, he decided not to. So now they’ve got a conservative candidate, Pat Toomey, out there as a Republican, and that hurts their chances a bit in that state. But overall, Republican recruiters say it’s easier for them now than it was when George W. Bush was president.

BLITZER: All right.

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

In truth it is between

In truth it is between appeasing Republicans and those that stick to their principals.

 

"DumbAssity of Dope"

Republicans party litmus should be traditional marriage and

no new federal spending.  Anyone who goes against is not a republican.

-------------------------------------------

Liberal judges are the high priests of redefined marriage.  Good men want freedom, Evil men want license 

The GOP has been infiltrated for years

The MSM are far to the left of center and are trying their best to move the GOP as far left as possible. They constantly play up and compliment those in the GOP who are as far left as they can find and villify and denegrate any that they consider to the right or "true conservatives".

Even the "leadership" of the GOP has fallen for this constant twisting of reality to the point where Michael Steele, the Chairman of the GOP, is basically a centrist moderate. You can't be a true conservative and still agree with or vote for the HUGE, MASSIVE government that we have grown over the last few decades.

My list of litmus tests for whom to vote for:

  • Must NOT have voted for the TARP or any bail-out of any corp.
  • Must NOT have proposed any pork in any bugdet bills
  • Should support the repeal of the 16th Amendment
  • Should support the abolishment of the Federal Reserve
  • Should be for the abolishmnet of the following Departments and Agencies: Education, HHS, Labor, FAA, DHS, ATF, EPA Any others are a plus.
  • Should support term limits for all Federal elected positions - 2 terms max. Also repeal of any retirement benefits for all federal elected positions.

Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!

www.loyaltoliberty.com

Since I'm a little lazy to

Since I'm a little lazy to go searching, I'll ask........Who at the national level fits that complete criteria?

Who fits this criteria?

No one currently in office as far as I know. Which is part of my point. The current cadre of Representatives and Senators need to be completely replaced.

Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!

www.loyaltoliberty.com

Litmus leaves out social issues.

-------------------------------------------

Liberal judges are the high priests of redefined marriage.  Good men want freedom, Evil men want license 

This is PRECISELY what we must fight!

This is the socialists attempt at preempting the GOP primaries for the 2009 state elections, as well as the 2010 midterm congressional and state elections. In fact, MOST of the conservative momentum is on the right, not for the more "pragmatic" choices of moderates.

Bottom line: Read my signature. We can NOT AFFORD to back off on our Libertarian or Conservative constitutional values one more iota. Any moderate can expect to be shuttled expiditiously to the RINO preserve under construction in Kennebunkport, Maine.

______________________
Moderate... Democrat... Liberal... Progressive... Socialist... Communist—The progression is clear as day.

How often does the media

How often does the media use the phrase "staunch liberal" or "more tolerant" to describe near-center liberals?

Yea, thought so.

How is someone fiscally

How is someone fiscally tolerant.  I have no idea what that's even supposed to mean.  Does that mean I am a fiscal hater?

I see that the Republican leadership learned nothing on their "listening tour".  From what I saw it was politicians listening to each other give speeches. They backed Spectre before he jumped ship.  They are backing that Florida Governor. They simply refuse to learn. Conservatism didn't lose the last election.  It wasn't even running.  They keep giving us more of the same and can't figure out why nothing changes.

Liberal: remove all that's Right, and this is what's Left.

Fiscally tolerant I guess

Fiscally tolerant I guess means when the gubmint says they want to spend your money on the study of alcohol's influence on homosexual men in Brazil, you willingly grab your ankles and let them do a full cavity search for your last nickel if they say they need it.

fiscally tolerant

like... almost pregnant?  It makes no sense to me either.

___________________________________________ 
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past - George Orwell - 1984

Pseudo-Republicans such as MSNBC's Joe Scarborough are

attempting to rebrand the Republican Party and denigrate conservatives as I posted Here.

The drive-by media must have gotten their latest talking points instructions from the White House: "Dilute the Republican brand and contaminate conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, so there will be little difference between Democrats and Republicans in the next election (just as there was in the last election).

----------------------------------------------------------


"Powell's not a Republican.  McCain's not a Republican.  These guys are not even mavericks.  They are Washingtonians. Washingtonians have their own culture and their own desires, and it is to matter.  They don't care who's in power, they just want to be closely associated with whoever is.  That's the name of the game and they want press adulation.  They want to be loved and adored by the media, they want fawning treatment, they want to be thought of as something special, unique, dignified and so forth, and that's the Washington establishment." ~ Rush Limbaugh 

Hooray for our super industrious news readers

The next deep investigation will be about the moderate democrats who are not supporting Barry's agenda. (anyone near the great Garden state, find me a wake me up)

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

Funny....

 How they never talk about crazy moonbats and centrist liberals...

 

 

"You see Obama is going to tax those not payin taxes...those making over 97,000 dollars ayear. Once you make that much you don't pay taxes...he's going to make them pay. And will finally get a break. I pay way too many taxes and that will soon change and you my son will finally pay your fare share!!" - My mother who is on welfare and food stamps.

Navy

Your tag caught my interest more than anything. Is that an actual statment from your mother? If it is she needs to stop watching the alphabet nertowrks, good luck on changing her mind. BTW, thanks for your service.

"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."

Yes....

 unfortunately that is a real statement from my mother...said three days ago now. 

 I am now out of the service and work as an aerospace engineer. She said that to me over the phone and I said I have proof  that those that make that much pay more than their fair share....ill show you my tax return...she just hurriedly changed the subject....

It just illustrates how stupid the majority of the populous is in this country.....and they vote....scarey.....my mother thinks she is paying taxes on her welfare and food stamps....give me abreak. 

"You see Obama is going to tax those not payin taxes...those making
over 97,000 dollars ayear. Once you make that much you don't pay
taxes...he's going to make them pay. And will finally get a break. I
pay way too many taxes and that will soon cha

SOCIALISM or FASCISM?

We've all heard that Bush/Cheney are "Nazis" and "Obamas" are the equivalent of "freedom fighters."

Socialism or Fascism? Cheerio this one: 

http://wcbstv.com/he...

 But what's the Cheerios difference?

 

so·cial·ism   (sō'shə-lĭz'əm)    
n.  

  1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
  2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition 

--------------------- 

 fas·cism   (fāsh'ĭz'əm)    

n.  

  1. often Fascism
    1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

  Simply replace "nationalism" with "multiculturalism" and - shazam! Goodbye America.

 

I just love how the

I just love how the majority of the msm of all venues has been telling us all how to think and vote, doing their best once again to guide the repub party to do their will, after-all they are the biggest arm of dem party themselves... they have a huge stake in this...they have done a real good job over the years so far...why should they stop now when in my opinion we have spineless wonders for big-wig masters of the universe that agree with the leftists and their tactics.

It's been obvious once again...hope things change...just don't see it coming anytime soon in the big picture.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Evening, bt....you are on

Evening, bt....you are on target with that!

Sure...listen to CNN and the rest of the media!  They know what Republicans need to do..be more like Democrats.  

Look how well that worked in 2008!  I don't think there is a Republican anywhere more like a Democrat than John McCain!  And he got his knickers ripped!

More "moderate" than McCain? Who, pray tell?  Arlen Specter?  Oh, shoot, he's an official Democrat now!

They might say "Wow, that sucks!"  But at least they'll say "Wow!"  -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes

They are just lying to us.

We just finished running a moderate Republican for President of the United States.  He had a woman for a vice-presidential candidate. What did the same people, who are now calling for the party to moderate, do to them?  They trashed them to no end.  The press was so busy sucking up to Obama they couldn't even find a way to be even handed with a moderate Republican.  

The answer isn't to moderate, the answer is the stick to your guns.  The answer is to only have candidates run who bellieve in Republican principles AND CAN ARTICULATE THEM in a campaign.  The press is going to treat them the same was as they did John McCain and Sarah Palin but, if they get their point across anyway, it won't make a difference and they'll be able to win on principle.  

The policies being advocated by the Democrats can't possibly succeed and they're going to be vulnerable in 2010.  If the press has its way, we'll only have Democrats and Democrat lite Republicans running giving the electorate no choice.  I hope Michael Steele understands this and gets the campaign committees to get the best candidates out there.  A good conservative candidate can win, even in states like Pennsylvania and Delaware.  I believe people, realizing just how this administration could easily by-pass the checks and balances written into the Constitution, will decide to curb some of the power they gave this Congress.  We've all seen some pretty scary things, like taking over the car companies, and understand that only Republicans are going to put the brakes on this freight train.

Election 2008-God's way of showing us that elections count.  

I do not see where anyone is lying

They are telling anyone who to vote for, they are saying the the GOP is split right now. Some are saying they want to stick to their conservative roots, some are wanting to be more moderate.

I have in the past used the example of Senator McCain winning the nomination, when I do not know of one person on NB that voted for him.

People disagree with me and said McCain used dirty tricks to win the nomination. Okay...fair enough. Lets look at the final contenders besides McCAin after Fred Thompson dropped out.

Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani and Mike Huckabee. Does anyone believe any of these 3 are very conservative?  If not, why not  even 1 true conservtive in the final 4?

He had my vote

Right, shawn, McCain was

Right, shawn, McCain was the media's Republican....and look how well he did!

So Republicans should listen to  them again......why????

They know darn well that no "independent" (read: closet Democrat) is going to vote for a "moderate" Republican.

As to why there were no genuine conservatives in the bunch: I believe it's because they have accepted the media's "conventional wisdom" that a true conservative can't win.

They might say "Wow, that sucks!"  But at least they'll say "Wow!"  -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes

comparison

Don't conservatives believe that moderate Democrats are fighting a battle with lefty/socialist/communist Democrats?

MSM & the GOP

The MSM cares about the GOP? Why should they as long as they're winning elections and contolling the government? Besides the party is a vehicle to win elections, conservatism is a philosophy of governing. They aren't looking for our growth, they're looking for collaborators to blame things on if Comrade  O's brave new world busts out.  Sice they support him, having ready patsies in "moderate Gopers"who went along make them the fall guys for not standing up the Comrade.  When they statrt voting GOP then I'll at least listen.  Their "concern" rings quite hollow.