There is Such a Thing As a Moderate Republican, But Joe Knollenberg Is NOT one of Them

Joe Knollenberg is planning to spend the next 18 months trying to convince voters that he is really a "moderate" and not the radical right winger that he has been voting like for the past 14 years.

But as we have already described below, Joe Knollenberg is not a moderate. Joe Knollenberg votes with the extreme and radical right factions of his party.

If you want to see how a real moderate Republican talks, read this interview with Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R) of Maryland. Here are some of the more interesting points:

When asked about Bush's recent veto of the supplemental spending bill for Iraq, Gilchrest said:

The veto and the speech were both big disappointments because the president mischaracterized the nature of the legislation. There was no drop-dead date to withdraw troops. There was a recommended goal for beginning to leave in 2007. The president should have looked at that legislation and said "You have your goals, here are mine, let's see what we can do." We should be able to reach both of our goals in that short time frame.

Joe Knollenberg sided with Bush on the Supplemental spending bill for Iraq. Joe Knollenberg gives Bush unconditional support for escalating the occupation of Iraq.

When asked about being frustrated by Bush's constant moving of the "goal" for Iraq, Gilchrest said:

The goalposts are moved on a regular basis. This football field isn't 100 yards. This football field has gotten about 3000 yards long. In 2005 the president had recommendations for the Iraqi government to reconcile the differences between the Sunnis and Shiites with the oil distributions, with elections, de-Ba'athifaction, with a whole host of things. And none of that's moved forward. You couple that with a weak Maliki government, with the Iraqi people seeing a weak government being propped up by occupying forces. Then you see the Maliki government being supported by Iran, an enemy of this country that we might invade or attack. We're looking at chaos.

When asked if, contrary to the Bush Administration position, the US should be talking to Syria and Iran, Gilchrest said:

Yes. It's absurd that a strong country doesn't talk to a weak country. We never stopped talking to the Russians in the ‘50s, and we didn't stop talking to the Russians when they had deployable nuclear weapons in Cuba. We engaged them and worked through the process. We talked to the Chinese. We talked to the Soviets after Khrushchev pounded his shoe on the podium and said "We will bury you" to Henry Cabot Lodge. How did Ike respond to that? He invited Khrushchev to America. But who did we not talk to at that time? Ho Chi Minh. We're in a global marketplace, and it seems like some of my colleagues will endorse a global marketplace but they don't want to talk to any foreigners.

As to the talking point that Knollenberg tosses around that discussing timelines destroys morale of our troops and emboldens the enemy, Gilchrest said:

It's absurd. When we do this we tell Al Qaeda that their days are numbered. The Sunnis don't want Al Qaeda there and the Shiites don't want them there. Sending the message that we're going to leave prods the Sunnis to stop fighting with the Shiites. A timeline sends signal that your days are numbered, your time is up.

Maybe Joe is worried that if he votes against Bush on the Iraq issue, the radical rightwing of the Republican Caucus and their "Victory Caucus" will take him on in a primary in 2008.

Joe Knollenberg is an EXTREME Right Winger.

Joe Knollenberg is too Radical for Oakland County.