This is actually a very wide ranging group. Some moderate Republicans are more socially liberal, meaning that they support more social spending or they might agree with liberals on social issues like abortion and gay rights. At the very least, they tend to agree with Democratic budget proposals more closely than those from their own party. These types of Republicans are usually found in the Northeast and in some parts of the Midwest. Generally they support higher spending because they represent more urban areas which require more funds. Some moderates are deficit hawks who are wary of both high spending and tax cutting at extreme levels. Others are more socially libertarian. In short, its difficult to get moderate Republicans together on the same page, although they may act as a bulwark against the national parties more reactionary elements.

Ironically, moderate Republican elected officials frequently seem far more popular outside their own Party then in it, and certainly much more appreciated. Unfortunately they lack the overall numbers to have a major influence within the Party to impact offical policy that's voted upon by delegates and written up during the national Party convention every four years. Another weakness is that to some degree, moderate Republicans are primarily elected within specific regions of the country - the northeast (Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of RI, NY Gov. George Pataki, and former Massechusetts Gov. William Weld)and far west (Senator John McCain of Arizona and California Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger) - and far less so in other areas where the GOP is actually dominate. Still, despite their numerical deficit vs conservatives within the Party, quite frequently they are more successful building coalitions beyond their own Party to push through legislation as well as building numerical voting majorities during general elections with independents and centerist/conservative Democratic voters. Typically, the most challenging task for many moderates is to actually survive the primaries within their own Party first, a task made particularly challenging in more traditional/conservative regions of the country.

Dude1985 is right on target. Lance as usual expressing his obnoxious and beligerent political rhetoric. Where art thou moderates? Who needs right wing nut jobs (George Bush) or bed wetting liberals (Hillary Clinton)? Bring this country back down to earth please.

Could one of you please win the 2008 presidential and set our party back on a no nonsense getting solutions that work course? (McCain/Snowe has a nice ring to me. A little southwest and a little northeast... get past GOP = party of division and get the Dems to realize Hillary's liabillity is not that she's a woman... its that she's a closet socialist.)

Antonin Scalia recently said to a group "now Senators are asking for the President to nominate a 'moderate' jurist to the bench. What exactly is a moderate jurist? ... halfway between interpreting the constitution and completely making things up?" I think the same would fit for "moderate" republicans... they're halfway between doing what is right and capitulating to those who they want to get along with.

Ordinarily, a faction is a group of people working AGAINST the good of the overall group. I know Lawrence gushes about this list but I don't see any less "I hate all republicans and I think they're all stupid" bias in this list. The moderates are not a faction, by the literal definition. They make up the majority of the party, by far. There are some prominent "moderate" republicans but not many leaders come from this contingent. In fact, this is the most rudderless contingent of republicans, following whichever trend is set by a prominent group of extremists. Sometimes, they receive the "moderate" tag because they wander off the reservation on a single major ideological point like being pro-choice or the choice not to support a war. Any republican who does this can expect canonization by the liberal US media. The republican party is no longer the "pro-business" party. It no longer stands for fiscal conservatism, since it achieved the majority role in the US government. The party is growing today primarily due to its stances against certain stances of the democrat party including, but not limited to pro-gay lobbying and legislation (don't ask, don't tell & gay "marriage"), legality and aggressive encouragement of abortion, false elevation of the importance of the United Nations, weakness (to the point of screeching for surrender) of the US military and the fight against islamofascist terrorists, proliferation of gun control laws (which don't work and/or are not enforced), atheistic approach to governing (elimination of all religious guidance and traditional icons) from any government function and the shameful injection of racism into nearly every black-related social and economic problem (vis-a-vis blaming the US for the poverty of its own people). The vast majority of Americans exist in the middle class and enjoy a wonderful standard of living in spite of paying exorbitant taxes and recently, exorbitant gas prices. They aren't stupid zealots and they choose not to pay close attention to their government. They are looking for politicians with tidy, understandable answers to the problems they are aware of. How have the democrats defined themselves in response to the problem of crime? Make sure criminals receive all their rights and when they don't, set them free, and take away the guns of the victims and potential victims. Islamofascist terrorists? If you're going to save lives (finally) by searching people at the airport, you have to search Grandma, too. Proper use of the US military, the greatest, best-trained, best equipped fighting force in the history of mankind? Convert them to international meals-on-wheels. Corruption in government? Remove all religious guidance and icons because some wing-nut might have his sensibilities hurt by a display of the Ten Commandments. Taxes too high? Raise them. Too many abortions? Make sure 16 year old pregnant girls don't have to consult their parents before making a lifelong decision. Some contingent of Americans whining about not having the same "rights" as all others? Manufacture new theoretical rights, just for them. And moderate Americans, who tend to be able to identify right from wrong, smart from stupid, moral from immoral make their choice. And when they do, they are characterized as stupid, sheep-like, a "faction".

All moderates, Republican, Democrat, or Independant, are A Okay in my book. McCain and Guliani are both great.

Both parties usually roll the dice with moderates, you never know what you're going to get. Personally, I can't stand Senator Yoda...I mean, Specter; I find McCain a powerful moderate who doesn't suffer fools gladly and at the very least is respectable. At the end of the day, you always need the moderates.

Highly political people, unfortunately, often treat life as a zero sum game. But victories in life needn't be defined by making the other half of your country lose. Just as I like my politicians working for the good of everyone, I gravitate toward ordinary people who make reasonable attempts to see both sides of the coin and work toward the ideal that everybody can prosper.