What is revealing is not so much what he said, but the fact that he is so scared of the "base" that he won't say those things and let them be attributed to him. The GOP is utterly bereft of leadership, as this coward illustrates so starkly.

Any guesses on who it is?

See earlier postings about how Republicans demand everyone march in lockstep and how dissent cannot be tolerated.

Joe Lieberman can campaign for the Republicans and remain in the Democratic caucus--and keep his committee chair.

This anonymous Republican senator knows that simply voicing mild disagreement with some of his party's actions is enough to get him expelled.

I went to the University of Alabama long after The Bear died and have to say I seem similarities between old-time Bear/Alabama fans and GOPers longing for Reagan. Both men had a strong impact in their respective eras not only while they were there but long after. Their impact is so strong that those that remember are so loathe to give up trying to recreate the past and bring back the glory days that they miss out on the fact that things have changed and they end up making things harder for themselves. So busy living in the past that they can't think of the future. Both men are dead and it is good to honor and appreciate their legacy but the hear and now needs to be attended to.

There's only so many people this could be. Pretty freaking unlikely that it was Inhofe, for instance.

So who is the "anti-Palin" for the GOP? She is determined to be the leader of the party and has support. I guess some in the GOP will stand aside in hopes that she crashes and burns on her own, but I don't see that happening in a party that mostly wears ignorance as a badge of honor.

So who is going to stand up to her and fight for a moderate, rational party? And what think tanks and publications will help that person do it?

I don't see anyone out there. I bet Palin becomes the face of the party for the next few years.

This person should be easy to guess. There are no more than 49 sitting Republican Senators - does anyone seriously think it's Tom Coburn saying all that stuff?

As long as Republican's insist on being in Eat Your Own mode (a la Redstate's drive to shun anyone who is not a "true" conservative who panders to their base), you will not get anything on the record.

mel martinez? moderate, hispanic, jeb bush fan, etc.

I wouldn't be so quick to out the Senator, if he is this moderate (and thoughtful) he might be someone who would back vital legislation making it veto proof. The Republican party needs a range of views on issues, just like the Democrats need the Blue Dog Democrats to keep a center-left majority on their side.

If the left wing of the Democratic Party acted the way the right wing of the Republican party acts now, it too would be a footnote. In fact, isn't this just history repeating itself (with the party names changing?)

Once a party has total control, Lord Elgin's adage is more likely to take hold. Each party is dependent on the other to not only add boundaries, but to keep the message sharp and focused. Otherwise chaos and corruption abound. We have a great example of that in the White House right now. Of course, the Republicans have always been better organized, so the corruption part took a lot less time to appear.

Hate to disappoint anyone, but my guess is Chuck Hagel.

If nobody over there is willing to stand up and lead, then they deserve Sarah Palin as a leader. If the Republican party is going to survive, they need to have a centrist wing that moderates their right wing.

Fat chance of that happening anytime soon. Let them dance with Sarah in 2012 and watch the landslide happen.

What is revealing is not so much what he said, but the fact that he is so scared of the "base" that he won't say those things and let them be attributed to him. - Blue Girl

I'd bet he doesn't vote his principles either.

My guess is that it was Chuck Hagel. He's said similar things recently.

chuck hagel would have said it for attribution..no question about it

If it were chuck Hagel I don't think he would have kept his identity a secret. He's pretty outspoken, and he's been saying similar already.

In any case, off the record talk is cheap. If no one in the GOP is willing to publically take on Palin, she wins. They're afraid of her.

re "this guy": Or, despite the pronoun, it might be a woman. Does sound a bit like something a Senator from Maine might say.

This was, to me, the craziest part of The Unknown Senator's interview:

The senator is asked what he thinks George W. Bush’s legacy will be. There is a long pause, which is followed by an even longer pause....“But he led with his heart!� the senator goes on. “Look what he did after 9/11....But on Iraq, all he did [i.e., invade] is what Hillary would have done.�

That deluded motherfucker. These people are so deep into their desperate, demented need to avoid all responsibility that they've convinced themselves that Hillary Clinton (but why her and not Al Gore?) would have done the same thing as Bush, and that Bush had only the best intentions rather than being motivated by an irresponsibility of epically evil proportions.

Also, assuming, arguendo, that Hillary Clinton indeed would have invaded Iraq, would she have done so (i) without finishing up Afghanistan and al Qaeda first, (ii) without allies, (iii) without justification (other than made-up lies about non-existent WMD, (iv) without enough troops, (v) without enough equipment, and (vi) without a plan for the occupation, to name just a few?

"Hate to disappoint anyone, but my guess is Chuck Hagel."

Nah, it was John McCain.

I don't see why the anonymity grant here is a problem. If the Senator wouldn't say it for attribution, then the question is, are the readers better-informed by having the information out there? And I think the answer is yes. It doesn't strike me as a situation -- one of the greatest abuses of anonymity -- where the grant of anonymity is being used as a shield for dissembling.

Whatever. It sounds provocative, but what serious person is going to discuss what ails the GOP w/o mentioning the religious rights death grip on their party.

The party of Ronald Reagan has to realize that the current republican base would never allow a Reagan/Bush ticket. They would force some Palin like untellectual on the ticket and demand they be heard.

Reasonable people are not allowed to rise while rabid idealogs have taken over. Until they put a leash on the religious right, they will never rise to their former stature.

The Mystery Senator also believes the party needs "someone who speaks from the center,"

They got him in Obama. They are just too partisan to realize it. That and their idea of "center" is really quite warped.

It wasn't Saxby.

Jesus, I've figured out who this Senator is! Just look at some of these passages:

“We need someone who speaks from the center,� he says. “Sarah Palin is not the voice of our party.�

He talks a little about immigration. He is a moderate on immigration, which is to say he is out of step with most of his party. He says the Republican hard line on immigration hurt the party with Hispanics.

He saw the problem as the presidential campaign advanced. The old labels that the Republicans used to hang on the Democrats did not stick.

"Obama was never off message for one second, except maybe [when he met] Joe the Plumber."

“But he led with his heart!� the senator goes on. “Look what he did after 9/11. OK, he should have landed the airplane in New Orleans [after Hurricane Katrina]. But on Iraq, all he did [i.e., invade] is what Hillary would have done.�

“Sarah Palin seems to have been anointed by the media. But I don’t know how she becomes the voice of the party by the power of her ideas or by going to Lincoln Day dinners in Iowa or Florida. But I did rallies with her, and she is a phenomenon.�

So this anonymous Senator is moderate on immigration, pro-Iraq War, concerned that the old labels didn't stick to the Democrats, still going on about Joe the Plumber, doesn't believe Palin speaks for the party and yet has done rallies with her....

My god, put it together and this can be only one man -- it's John McCain!

"Now that the election outcome has been decided, Senator Stephens decided to come clean about a few things that have been on his mind."

But he waited SO darn long.

I agree with the folks who say Sen. Hagel would have gone on record. I think we can assume that the pronoun is correct, so that rules out Senators Collins, Snowe and Dole (others?). It might be Bob Bennett; he's a loyal Republican (as he has to be to be elected from our "Pretty Great State") but he's also a businessman and very pragmatic.

Blue Girl nailed it: The real news is that a GOP senator can't be quoted telling the obvious truth about his party.

Oh, and Bob Bennett's up for re-election in the next round, so he'd be watching his step as to what gets said.

John McCain would have gone on record, too, I think.

As long as rightwingers can be portrayed as cowards and as people who don't have the intellectual firepower to address and solve America's problems, I'll be happy. It's time to start rebranding the rightwing as the party of fools, hacks, and sycophants. Then maybe we can see a wilting away of the Republican party. They gets what they pays for.

It's not surprising that a repub Senator would demand anomnimity with those kind of comments. Das base would make him an ex-Senator at their first opportunity.

"If this guy wants to get this message out, he should have the nerve to say so on the record."

If this guy had any nerve, he wouldn't be a Republican.

I know some regular voters who are Republicans who are courageous and brave, some of them soldiers or vets, all of them believe in what at least the GOP used to represent, or claims to represent.

The politicians who run the GOP? Pussies and criminals, none of whom could be trusted to pick up your lunch AND give you back exact change.

If this mystery Senator truly believes his party is that sick, he should jump ship, lest he become diseased by association.

I was darn proud of the job Sarah Palin did on the ticket, my friends, so you can be sure it wasn't me talking to Roger Simon. I think.

John McCain would have gone on record, too, I think. - Michigoose

He couldn't have for a couple reasons. 1) It would have been like admitting he was running on false principles (which I believe he was, but I doubt he would admit) and 2) He never would have dissed Palin on the record. I think he feels guilty about picking her, not only because she was inept, but because he put her in a position to disgrace herself. The second part, I don't believe he would have said out loud to a journalist, even off the record.

If the Republican Party becomes known as the "stupid and incompetent" party for the next generation, that's fine with me--they'll be our Washington Generals just as the "weak on defense, tax & spend" Democrats were for the Republicans.

Whoever this sitting Senator is, he isn't exactly a profile in courage. I highly doubt it's Hagel, he just went on record slamming Rush Limbaugh, so I don't see why he'd be anonymous here. Maybe Lugar, he hasn't appeared too enthusiastic lately.

Danp: I agree with what you're saying; I don't think John McCain said it. Besides, if you read the Politico article, the Anonator disses John McCain's campaign.

Lugar does seem like a possibility, also. . .

MIchelle Bachman and Virgil Goode think nothing of going on national television and mouthing the vilest of sentiments. This guy/gal is too chikenshit to make reasonable statements to a blogger. Sarah Palin? Don't make me laugh. The Republicans are like Major Kong riding a nuke.

Arlen Spector? After the Supreme Court debacle, he can't speak on the record anymore. Did he do rallies with Palin in PA?

It isn't just the Republican senators who have no spines.....

What is it about the Senate that renders all its members invertebrate?

The good senator is obviously intimidated by the loons, in no small part due to the political conundrum the moderate Republicans face. While the right-wing fundamentalists make for a decided minority in the general electorate, they comprise just over 50% of the GOP base, and provoking a primary challenge from them is not in the senator's best interest.

The Republican Party is the party of fear and intimidation, particualrly since the advent of the idiot son and the henchmen who back him.

But, yeah, if a senator can't speak up on his major concerns that's a great pity.

On the other hand, maybe he can quietly be persuaded to cross the aisle? Now I wonder if Reid is even thinking about who might like to do that well before 2010 or 2012.

Easy: it's Joe Lieberman.

Alex, my first thought was Mel Martinez, too. Also conceivably someone like Specter or Hatch; they're fond of playing the reasonable moderate for the media.

Almost definitely not Hagel, though. I agree he would have gone on the record. He doesn't have much to lose by pissing off the base at this point.

Moderate and craven -- I bet it's Voinovich

Reagan/Bush borrow-and-spend has been discredited except among tax resisters, as it led to a tsunami of debt.

A pillar of America is freedom of religion, so Rove coalition Evangelicalism is a dead end, unless the Pope takes over the Supreme Court, in which case freedom of religion is dead.

Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul proved Americans don't want real conservatism.

I think the party has to go back to Eisenhower to get its groove back--a time when the party was fiscally responsible, but moderate; and patriotic--putting country over business, by running the illegal aliens out of the country, for ex., putting America's interests over Israel's.

I like Ike.

It's Lindsey Graham. And had I had him sitting in front of me and off the record, I would have asked him about a few other things, too.

Why the anonymity? The answer is easy.

The vast majority of Republican politicians are gutless cowards who put self before party, and party before country.

Though I'm thinking the Democrats of late are lacking in spine too, but that's another post.

The piece was irresponsibly indulgent to its source. Was this a prominent or veteran GOP senator? One up for re-election in 2010? From which region of the country? Obviously a moderate, so why not say so?

If Simon couldn't get agreement to at least some such identification, he shouldn't have granted the source anonymity. Especially not after several retiring Republican members of Congress, such as Ray LaHood and Tom Davis, have made the same points as the nameless senator, only on the record.