I have expressed before my distaste when journalists use the phrase ‘moderate’ Republicans because there seems to be no effort to define what that category consists of that distinguishes them from the other Republicans in Congress, all of whom seem to be intent on pushing a hard-right pro-wealthy, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-science agenda.

This article provides a clue as to what mainstream journalists mean by that term.

Moderate House Republicans who flirted with supporting the GOP’s now-stalled Obamacare replacement will face attack ads in their districts this week for doing so.

…

The ads target five Republican lawmakers from districts won by Hillary Clinton, including Issa, whose Orange County district Clinton carried by eight points. Other Republicans in Clinton-won districts include Arizona’s Martha McSally, Colorado’s Mike Coffman and Florida’s Carlos Curbelo and California’s David Valadao.

Two lawmakers from districts carried won by President Donald Trump — Florida’s Brian Mast and New Jersey’s Tom MacArthur — will face similar ads.
…

Pressure on moderate members is also coming from the right. Conservative groups like Heritage Action have signaled they intend to have a presence in some moderate members’ districts during the recess to highlight their rejection of measures to more fully wipe Obamacare’s core components from the books.

So what makes some Republicans ‘moderate’ are not their views but whether they represent districts where their extremist views make them vulnerable to attack and risk losing their seats, while their fellow party members who have the same views but are in ‘safe’ districts are free to act on them.

Good to know.