Talk Elections

Which state or area has the most liberal republicans? I was thinking, I know every state has different types of republicans, but are there any areas where liberal republicans are elected?

The Maine twins are all that's left, and it's increasing hard to call them liberal anymore.

As an electorate, do you think Maine has the most liberal republican voters?

there aren't many liberal republicans left. But I can tell you of Republicans in the past who have been considered such:

Thomas Kuchel (guy who replaced Nixon in the senate)
Lowell Weicker (senator from Connecticut who later became Indy)
Mike Castle At Large Rep from Delaware 1993-2010
Chuck Percy Senator from Illinois 1967-1984
Jim Leach US Rep Eastern Iowa 1977-2006
William Cohen US Senator Maine 1979-1996
Charles Mathias US Senator Maryland 1969-1986
Gilbert Gude MontCo US Rep Maryland 1970s
Connie Morella Same District Rep 1987-2002
Margaret Heckler US Rep Massachusetts 1970s
Ed Brooke US Senator Massachusetts 1967-1978
Marge Roukema US Rep New Jersey 80s and 90s
Clifford Case US Senator from New Jersey 1960s and 1970s
Jacob Javits US Senator New York 1957-1980
Mark Hatfield US Senator Oregon 1967-1996
Arlen Specter US Senator Pennsylvania 1981-2009 (switched parties)
John Heinz US Senator Pennsylvania 1977-1991
Dick Schweiker US Senator Pennsylvania 1969-1980
Hugh Scott US Senator Pennsylvania 1953-1976
John Chaffee US Senator Rhode Island 1977-1999
Lincoln Chaffee US Senator Rhode Island who later became Indy
Jim Jeffords US Senator Vermont 1989-2001 (became Indy)
George Aiken US Senator from Vermont 50s and 60s

Probably Vermont, Massachusetts, or Rhode Island.

VT and Mass. republicans seem to be the most liberal ones.

Rhode Island has the most liberal Republican Party.

You actually forgot Alan Simpson of WY of all places.

A few more from Kansas:

1) Gov. Bill Graves (1995-2003)
2) Sen. Nancy Kassebaum

Nebraska

1) Sen. Chuck Hagel

Maine
1) Sen. William Cohen

California

1) Rep. Tom Campbell
2) Rep. Mike Huffington

New Mexico
1) Rep. Heather Wilson

The better question is where there aren't liberal Republicans.

but also probably the smallest.

What exactly is your definition of a liberal Republican? I can only think of one: Lincoln Chafee. I think he was more liberal than most Democrats when he served in the U.S. Senate: he is pro-choice, supports the separation of church and state doctrine, opposes the death penalty, isn't exactly hard-line pro-War on Drugs, opposes charter schools, supports embryonic stem cell research, supports same-sex marriage, and was the only Republican in the U.S. Senate to vote against the Iraq War. He would probably get my vote over any generic Democrat any day.

I wouldn't call Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe "liberals." They are moderates, IMO.

How about posing the question of who is the most moderate-to-liberal elected Republican member of Congress from each state? I'd say from Missouri it'd be Jo Ann Emerson.

Depends on how liberal you mean, but I suppose Scott Brown, the Maine twins, Lincoln Chaffee before he became an Independent, Chuck Hagel, Mike Castle, and Arlen Specter before he became a Democrat, and Jon Huntsman are the most moderate.  All of them have worked with Democrats on numerous occasions.

I was more referring to an electorate of liberal republicans, I suppose the northeast probably has the most.

Massachusetts

New England in general, but the issue there is that most states are plurality independent. I go to school in Massachusetts, and most people there are liberal Democrats. But the Republican tradition still exists among a small portion of voters. Many have moved on to other states, or have died. Here's a list of some prominent Bay State Republicans who are or were at the very least liberal by Republican standards.

Silvio Conte: 1st District (Western Mass) Representative from 1959-1991. Known for his anti-pork views and amicable relations with most members of Congress.

Edward Brooke: African-American Senator from 1967-1979. He was a major social liberal, leading the fight against the Hyde Ammednment in the Senate. Defeated in 1978 by Paul Tsongas, he was actually to the left of the eventual 1992 Presidential Candidate on many issues.

Scott Brown: Let's see, pro-choice, pro-labor, pro-gay rights, pro-dodd-frank. Not a liberal in the overall sense, but a liberal among the GOP ranks.

Mitt Romney (Pre-2006): Just like his dad, a liberal Republican on most issues. Definitely a pro-business, pro-growth conservative, but liberal on most everything else. Watch his 1994 Senate debate with Ted Kennedy for some laughs.

William Weld: Governor from 1991 to 1997, and a Senate candidate in 1996. Endorsed Obama and is now an Independent I believe. Pretty indicative of Massachusetts Republicans: pro-reform, pro-growth, socially liberal. More of a reaction to the big city machine politics that dominated Northeastern Democratic Party politics prior to the 1970s.

A better question is why on earth a liberal would belong to a virulently far-right party. Though to be fair, nearly all such liberals have finally figured out they don't belong in the GOP. We're still waiting for the yokels in Oklahoma to get a clue.

I'm still dealing with that myself, as I slowly lose faith with the republican party... lol
I'd prob become dem if it wasn't for Obama.

yeah but the argument goes both ways. Ever heard of:

Tom Nichols
Tom Bevill
Bud Cramer
Howell Heflin
Robert Sikes
Sam Nunn
Herman Talmadge
John Breaux
Gene Taylor
John Eastland
John Stennis
Fritz Hollings
Lloyd Bentsen
Jim Turner
Ray Roberts
Olin Teague
Marvin Leath
Kika de la Garza
Omar Burleson
George Mahon
OC Fisher

That's a double-edged question.  The Republican Party wouldn't be so "virulently far-right", as you put it, if there were more moderates or even somewhat liberals within the tent.

I think the country's politics were much better when there were more conservative Dems and moderate Republicans to modify partisan polarization.

Ok, so if you leave.. what good does that do?  There will likely always be a two-party system in this country and a need for parties to contrast positions with one another in order to energize an electorate.  The more moderates leave the GOP, the harder the task is for the remaining moderates and responsible conservatives to provide a reasonable and rational alternative for voters.

DINO hunters can be just as viscous as RINO hunters.  Its always gonna be hard out there for those of us who judge issues individually based on logic and reason rather than always following the dogma of a particular ideology.

I'd be happy if the repubs became more socially moderate. They need to embrace more reasonable and equal stances. The younger generations aren't going to put up with their bigotry anymore, and the push to purify the party is pushing out moderates like myself.

()

Yeah I agree.  If anything the GOP doesn't need to become more socially moderate, it should become more socially libertarian.

You appear to be more of an Independent/Libertarian than a Republican.

Can someone please explain me why the first step in recreating a big tent party, is to give someone else the boot from it? That doesn't work you know. No party is going to abandon a reliable base for one that will take 30 years to come to fruition. Unless both conservatives and moderates can drop the self-righteousness and accept each other, there will never be a big tent GOP.  For instance there will always be a strong pro-life segment of the GOP and if moderates want a big tent party, they will have to accept them being contented as long as they get contented somewhere's else. That is what big tent party means. That is not what I hear from moderates. What I hear is, "drive those ignorant hill billy's out and don't dare try to appeal to them at all, or I'll vote Democrat". It it is inconsistent and even hypocritcal to decry the push for purity on the right when in the same sentence you deny them a place at the table.  

So moderates should go somewhere else in a nutshell? Yeah, that's real big tent try that. Oh wait, you already did that with Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chaffee. Do you just want a pro-life party? What about all those other ones like pro-choicers, pro-gay marriage, and those that don't demonize other demographics? DeLay and Gingrich did a lot of purging of moderates and liberals after 1994, you conservatives seem to forget that.

Because having convictions is "demonizing"...

As a self-described "liberal Republican" myself, I feel as if my input is needed.

Truth be told, if it wasn't for 9/11 and the war on terrorism I probably would have counted myself a Democrat a long time ago.

The GOP's neoconservative foreign policy (and their low-tax policies) are the only things keeping me in the party.  I am an unapologetic supporter of Israel and the wars in the Middle East.  I believe that the United States should not be involved in the United Nations and should pursue a more unilateral diplomatic and military approach.  I favor increasing our nuclear arsenal, while at the same time financing the creation of new, nuclear defenses.  I support taking preemptive action against the nations of North Korea and Iran.  I support the deployment of U.S. ground forces to Libya in order to "finish the job".  In short, I favor increasing American influence around the world by military and economic means.

 The Republicans' increasingly reactionary, and quite frankly bigoted, social policies are causing me to resent the party I once much loved.  I support women's right to choose, stem cell research, and euthanasia; I also think that the states should be given more leeway in marriage equality and drug legalization laws. I favor immigration reform that includes Amnesty for some illegals.  I support more comprehensive environmental regulations in the name of conservation, not global "warming".  I am a limited proponent of consumer protection and worker's right to unionize.  In all of these things, I consider myself very liberal.

To complicate matters, Obama and congressional Democrats seem to be continuing the neoconservative policies of the Bush years--evident by the Libya operation and continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.  However, Obama's obvious support of Palestein statehood and his weak stances against Pakistan are no-starters for me.  Obama's foreign policy is just Bush's foreign policy "lite".

In light of all of this, some ask why I haven't joined the Democratic Party.  This is a fair question, and here is my answer:

To me, politics is much more personal than it is for most people.  I cannot bring myself to identify with the party of latte liberals, animal-rights activists, hipsters, and welfare moms.  For now, I am content being an outlier in the GOP (which suits my "demographic") rather than being a more mainstream Democrat because I feel as if the Democrats, despite their "big-tent" efforts of the past 6 or 7 years, do not represent the America in which I, and other upper-middle class white people, live. 

You do realize that I supported Chafee in 2006, Castle, Kirk, and Campbell in 2010  and have said that conservatives should stay the hell out of the Kerry by 8 or more states like CA, ILL, DE, NJ, and NE (save for maybe NH if it's a Sununu or an Ayotte style conservative).

If you are done imagining me saying things so you could respond with this worthless pre-formed text, perhaps you can reread my post and actually understand what I am talking about, because obviously you didn't and decided to assume I had said something else.

I support and welcome a big tent party. I ddn't say anything about an all pro-life party either. I said there will always be a pro-life segment in the party. My point was is that you guys don't want a big tent party. You are saying the same thing as the Conservatives. "It's them or us". Well that doesn't make a big tent party. You have to be able to accept conservatives as a part of a political coalition just as they have to accept you. If that isn't possible then there is no basis to form a big tent and someone will have to leave.


And here's a little information, most conservatives despise Delay also. He wasn't exactly a purist himself. Hardly with unfunded entitlements and wars, nationalizing local education authority, etc etc.

No political party will every represent everyone 100%. It is impossible. You can strive to try and make your party more like yourself but in the end politics is about allying with your 70% friend to beat a 90% foe.


I support a workers right to unionize too, but at the same time I support Walker's law in WI because like FDR I don't think it should extend to public sector employees. Once you start getting into every little nuance of every issue, the differences will only diverse more. For instance in a poll we both would check yes to a question about unions in general but maybe we diverge on WI. I support "enviromental regulations" but oppose both a carbon tax and a cap and trade system for various reasons, mainly because China wouldn't go along and they have enough of our jobs as it is. Perhaps you support one or both.

At this point you feel the Republican party represents you more then the Democrats do demographic wise. Maybe that opinion will change maybe it won't, but regardless of which party you choose to go with, there will always be crazies whether it be animal rights activists or fundamentalist christian groups fearmongering about gays in the military. Right now the GOP base is "pissed of an not gonna take it anymore". They were promised things would be a certain way by people like Bush and Delay and now they have realized it isn't and they want blood, moderate blood. If you look at polls the thing that most sets the GOP base off from the Dem base is that they don't have a lick of trust in its leadership at all. They are blaming the wrong people of course in some places, but the first step to overcoming that anger is to understand the very legitimate reasons for it to have come into place. This anger is causing a lot of politicans to cater to it and still others "from the movement" to come into positions of power when they really should have remained activists in whatever town they are from instead of becoming Senators and Congressmen.