When talking about fights between different factions of the GOP there is a tendency to say that it’s the Tea Party v. the Establishment, or conservatives v. moderates. This is simply laziness on the party of talking heads. The reality is that in the fight between different GOP factions there are no moderates. As for someone being part of the so-called establishment this is what the fight is about. Right now there is no establishment controlling the party. Deciding who that establishment is and where they will take the party is what the party is all about.
So if they aren’t moderates or the establishment, who is the opposition to the Tea Party? They are Bush-Republicans.
Why? Because they are pushing the former-President’s policies. Don’t believe me, let’s review. They are for an aggressive foreign policy (especially in the Middle East), favor increased military spending, support immigration reform, while they oppose Obamacare are in no rush to repeal the Bush prescription drug benefit, opposes cap and trade, support banning abortion, oppose gun control measures like the assault weapons ban, are against more regulations on Wall Street or businesses, back state’s banning gay marriage, oppose legalizing drugs, favor Common Core and NCLB.
While this is not libertarian, it is also a mistake to say it’s centrist or moderate. Instead they are another shade of conservatism. This is the conservatism of AEI, the Heritage Foundation, or the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Are any of those moderate, centrist, or anything but conservative?
By calling them moderates or the establishment it creates the false impression that these positions are some how moderate or in the center of American politics. If reporters were smart they would move away from painting one side the GOP fight as moderate and describe more accurately as the type of conservatives they really are – right in the model of George W. Bush.