No Room for Moderate Republicans?

"It is mind-boggling to me that the press only focuses on right-wingers. Is it just because sensationalism sells?" asks Ann Stone, national chair of Republicans for Choice, a DC-based group that supports pro-choice Republican candidates. "When moderates try to do something, it might get attention on NPR or in the Los Angeles Times, but the press here in Washington is pretty much ignoring moderates."

She's right. By reading news coverage of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement, you wouldn't even know that moderate Republicans exist. A July 12 opinion piece in USA Today reads: "Now as Bush considers how he will fill the first Supreme Court vacancy to occur on his watch, he is under pressure from conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats to name someone to their liking." According to a July 13 Voice of America article: "Special interest groups on both ends of the political spectrum have been mobilizing for a Supreme Court confirmation fight for years." And a July 15 story in Human Events, a conservative weekly, says, "All told, liberal and conservative special interests could spend upwards of $50 million by the time a nominee is confirmed by the Senate."

Why aren't moderate groups -- of which there are many -- receiving as much attention as groups like People for the American Way, the Christian Coalition or Planned Parenthood?

"We are not spending our time doing a lot of loud screaming on the outside," says Stone. "Instead, we're working directly with the senators who will be swing votes."

Republicans for Choice, a group with 150,000 members in all 50 states, is lobbying moderate Republicans to fight for a "moderate, thoughtful" Supreme Court justice who will "uphold a woman's right to choose."

Stone says that so far the female candidates mentioned to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor are "horrible," while three of the male candidates, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, are "close to acceptable; [Gonzales is] the only one that is remotely pro-choice," she says. "We're not even sure that he's 100 percent pro-choice, but he's been moderate in his decisions." As far as the other two candidates go, Stone is "afraid to give their names because that would ensure they would not get nominated, especially after the smear campaign against Gonzalez from the right."

If Bush names a justice who is in favor of outlawing abortion, Stone believes moderates will leave the party in droves. "People are becoming very upset," she says. "A lot of the people who have already left the party are only giving money to us."

The next Supreme Court Justice's opinion on Roe v. Wade is also the main concern for Republican Majority for Choice (RMC), a moderate Republican group that endorses the "big tent" philosophy of inclusion and tolerance on social issues. "This is the most important decision that has ever been made for this organization," says Kellie Ferguson, RMC Executive Director. "We've done polling after polling that shows the majority of Republicans support women making decisions, not the government."

For now, the RMC is spending its resources on a judicial task force of attorneys who have been researching potential Supreme Court nominees and sharing their findings with moderate Republican senators. "Spending a lot of money up front is a waste," says Ferguson. "This vote is with the Senators and we need to focus our attention on targeting them."

Ferguson says four to five Republican Senators are close to 100 percent pro-choice; another handful support family planning. "We believe members who are not pro-choice will be hesitant to confirm a conservative nominee because there are so many ramifications involved."

RMC works with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America on legislative issues, but they part ways when it comes to endorsing specific candidates. RMC is working on a game plan if the President decides to nominate a justice who is similar to Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia.