Basically. Those who are called "Liberal Republicans" are in fact moderates. Those who are called "Moderate Republicans" are in fact solid conservatives who aren't entirely insane.
You are redefining moderate and liberal to suit your political preferences. A neutral definition relies on common usage in the media or measurable criteria such as the number of members of the opposite party that lie closer than the politician in question to that politician's party's center. As I noted, measurable criteria to label DC politicians have become difficult in this decade since there is little or no overlap of party members."Common usage in the media" is bullsh*t though. According to the mainstream media, Chris Christie is a "moderate" because he hugged Obama, doesn't demonize gays (but is still against same-sex marriage), and because members of his own party don't think he's extreme enough
in rhetoric. It's all about image and how harsh or soft they are in rhetoric, it doesn't reflect policy. It's like what someone said in another thread, if all the Democrats swore an oath to Karl Marx, would Bernie Sanders suddenly be considered a moderate?
It gets pretty egregious when you consider things like the Affordable Care Act, which is to the right of Clinton's healthcare plan from the '90s, is rebuked by most Republicans (and some Blue Dog Democrats) in Congress and is built upon the concept of private health insurance and its linchpin is an idea from a conservative think-tank. How do you reconcile something like that, where the political playing field has clearly shifted, with terms like "liberal" or "conservative" or "moderate"?
