The liberal Democrats cannot have it both ways – they either learn how to compromise in the context of a more politically diverse majority, or live with a smaller number of ideological diehards.

So I can’t say I have a lot of sympathy for the inability of Emanuel or whoever to demand perfect ideological conformity within his party. Politics is the art of the possible, as they say, and a lot of left leaning Democrats seem to be in denial on that point.

In this case we cannot tell the true extent without knowing Matheson’s private feelings on the subject. If he thinks that cap and trade in the form it came out of his committee is a wonderful thing, then his resistance to the pressure of his partisan peers would certainly be more a matter of self-interest than genuine moral courage.

However, as a general rule, I suggest that partisan outliers such as the Blue Dog Democrats typically have political inclinations that very much match the electorate that selected them. Any electorate has every motivation to select the real McCoy rather than someone whose votes are little more than a matter of political opportunism. Not that they are always successful, of course. The recent election is an excellent case in point.

I don’t know how others define moderate. I define it by viewing any policy issue and noting that there are people strongly opposed and strongly for and a large stretch in the middle who like the policy with modifications. If a person favors enough middling views on most policies I call them a moderate.

So someone like Chris Cannon was very conservative, yet on immigration he was very moderate. (Partially why he lost re-election) I’d never call Chris a moderate though simply because it’s a single policy he was moderate on. (Actually he was moderate on a few other views as well)

The views that most typify GOP moderates these days are liberal views on social issues such as abortion, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and sometimes health care and environmental issues. Most are typically relatively solid on free market economics and the need for limited government. If not, they would be Democrats. Notable exceptions (Scozzafava anyone?) excluded, of course.

Rich

Regarding Huntsman and Romney – I see it as more coincidental they are Mormon. I have grave issues with Romney due to his pandering and flip flopping. Huntsman just happens to be close to my ideal candidate in a number of ways.

In one way one of the biggest disappointments with the Republican party right now is that few of the figures out there as potential leaders are appealing, the way Obama was for Dems in 2004. Huntsman was, prior to being named Ambassador, putting out a Presidential campaign and was mentioned a lot in various press reports. However there was an Evangelical distaste for him on numerous levels.

Therefore, if you are calling someone a moderate Republican are you saying he holds the ideals of moderate Republicans? Or, is he a conservative without holding “extreme” positions with the conservative wing?

Rich