This term has been bandied about for years and years in the mainstream media, but without definition. Oh, the term “moderate Republican” used to have a definition. It used to mean a fiscally conservative Republican who nevertheless held that government had significant responsibilities for social welfare. A moderate Republican often was the one to lead the way when Congress was forced into compromise. A moderate Republican, though, is an endangered species. They simply don’t exist anymore. Seriously. Can you name a Republican who takes a stand on an issue that is not the doctrinaire, party-line Republican stance?

But the media still has “moderate Republican” as a category, though their definition of that term is unclear. It is not clear, even, that these so-called “moderate Republicans” have ever bucked their party’s hard line in any significant way. Anyone who thinks they will rebel from Bush is on some serious drugs. As are those in the media who perpetuate the myth of the “moderate Republican.” Check this out from the WaPo:

GOP Moderates Weigh Loyalty To Bush vs. Political Realities

By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 19, 2007; Page A03

With a difficult war debate looming and presidential vetoes for a host of popular legislation threatened, moderate Republicans in Congress are facing a tough choice: Stand by President Bush or run for their political lives.

Votes are due soon on Iraq, an expansion of a children’s health insurance program and an array of spending bills. GOP leaders hope to use them to regain credibility with their base voters as a party for strong defense and fiscal discipline. But moderates, many of them facing the possibility of difficult reelection bids next year, are dreading the expected showdowns.

“We are at a very significant juncture,” said Rep. Jim Ramstad (Minn.), a moderate who on Monday joined seven other Republicans in announcing that he will not seek reelection. “I’d use a metaphor, but it can’t be printed — something about something hitting the fan.”

The article is interesting in that it notes a high number of Republicans who will be retiring because they are being tarred in their districts by the incompetencies of their party. Well, if their party farked it up so much, and they did NOTHING to stop it, they deserve to have their constituents turn on them. But there’s a revealing definition of “moderate Republican” there. Losers.

Are you a moderate Republican simply because you call yourself one, or are you one because you actually take a stand against your party’s excesses once in a while? That’s how the mythology perpetuated by the press works. They actually believe there are Republicans who stand on principles other than “back the President” and “demonize Hillary.” But it just ain’t so — the “moderate Republicans” are extinct. The article calls Deborah Pryce a “moderate Republican,” but ignores the fact that she stood with the Republican leaders when Mark Foley was caught trying to turn the pages. It isn’t “moderate,” Deborah, to stand by your party right or wrong. It would be “moderate,” Ms. Pryce, if you’d stood up and outlined what you knew about Dennis Hastert and John Boehner (rhymes with “loner”) and Tom Reynolds’ roles in covering up for Mark Foley. Instead, Pryce played the good soldier, evidently unquestioningly. That’s why she is exiting the Congress, because she didn’t have the courage necessary to be a real “moderate Republican.” Neither is loyalty the only measure of moderation in Pryce’s case. Just go and look at her stances on abortion, education, gun control, etc., and you’ll see that Pryce is an enabler of the most extreme of Republican policies.

WWMRD? What would a “moderate Republican” do? First of all, he or she would not have rubber-stamped the record spending of the first Bush Administration. But I’ve got little time this morning to complete the definition of a mythical creature, the “moderate Repulbican.” We would be more productive chasing snipes.

Let me be as clear as possible. The term “moderate Republican” is antiquated and carries no meaning anymore. The media uses the term because the media is too lazy to figure out that those they call “moderates” have been supporting unfailingly the hardline Republicans all along. Only now, when 70% of Americans understand that Mr. Bush has been an unmitigated disaster for this country, have Republicans even pretended to moderation in their stances. No, that term has no meaning anymore, except in the mids of media writers, and perhaps in the minds of cowardly Republicans afraid to take responsibility for supporting Mr. Bush’s extremist policies.