Sunday, January 06, 2008
|
|
Call Off the "RINO" Hunt
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
3:56 AM
|
|
CALL OFF THE “RINO” HUNT There’s an obnoxious and destructive term that’s begun to do real damage to the Republican Party. That term is “RINO,” or “R.I.N.O.” – an acronym for “Republican In Name Only.” Angry conservatives use the term to attack purported moderates in their own party. Recently, Mike Huckabee and John McCain have been attacked as “RINO’s” –Governor Schwarzenegger of California regularly draws that denunciation. Those who make war on RINO’s, however, ought to confront an obvious question: would you really prefer that such people drop the Republican designation? How does it help if politicians or office-holders with whom you disagree leave your party and join the opposition? When alleged “RINO” Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the GOP and joined the Democrats, it gave them control of the US Senate. When another RINO, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, lost his Senate seat in 2006, it also gave the Democrats control; if Chafee had won, we’d still have a Republican majority and GOP committee chairs. The truth is that no successful political party has ever been built on ideological purity. You can construct a majority coalition by bringing people into your party, not by driving them away. It’s childish and self-destructive to wage war based on some notion of “real conservatism” with those who want to align themselves with your side. Ronald Reagan himself used to say that “if somebody agrees with me 70% of the time, rather than 100%, that doesn’t make him my enemy.” Democrats understand this principle--- they never attack “DINO’s,” Democrats In Name Only. In fact, they understand the usefulness of such figures: they put forward several conservative Democrats in key Congressional districts in 2006, and those “DINO’s” helped them win a majority in the House. If Republicans continue to express contempt and hostility for those they consider “RINO’s,” they’ve got to get ready for “DIMO’s” – Democrats In the Majority Only.” It’s time, in other words, for sane GOP partisans to call off the silly and suicidal RINO hunt.
|
|
Another amnesty will result in Democrat majorities for decades, GOP voters know that, why doesn't the RNC? How stupid do you have to be to import voters for the opposition at the same time you alienate your own voters? Nominating any of the amnesty trio (McCain, Huckabee, Rudy) is a losing proposition, we will not support them. If the GOP intends to surrender our sovereignty and abandon the rule of law, they will find in November 2008, that they still have their big money/cheap labor donors, but they do not have voters. GOP-RIP
|
|
“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.”
(Ronald Reagan - 1975) |
|
|
Judicial Watch, a non-partisan group dedicated to fighting government corruption, listed Huck among their 10 Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians of ‘07. He was 1 of only 3 Republican politicians to make the list |
|
Dutchman writes: “OK. Let me see if I can understand this.”
I don’t believe you’re interested in understanding anything. You demonstrate just as much intolerance toward those you disagree with as those you accuse of being intolerant.
~~~
Dutchman writes: “You "Orthodox" Republicans think that if anyone differs in opinion on anything you hold to be true, then they are RINO's and should be booted out of the Republican party?”
No, nobody said that, so if that’s the premise of your entire essay, consider it denied.
|
|
Well I never... Spare us.
There are differences between the parties. They depend on ideology. One is for big government and one is for self reliance. One is for enforcing laws fairly and equally and the other for interpreting the law as to help chosen groups (social engineering). If one acts and talk as if he is in one group but labels himself the other group. It does not make him the group that he labels himself. So we call this person "blank" In Name Only. Does not make it less true that he truly does what a group other than what he labels himself. If a duck calls himself a peacock, we can still humor him and call him a peacock, but we all know he is a duck. |
|
OK. Let me see if I can understand this.
You "Orthodox" Republicans think that if anyone differs in opinion on anything you hold to be true, then they are RINO's and should be booted out of the Republican party? So, people who believe in a large majority of conservative positions, but don't necessarily subscribe to ALL of them are some how not worthy enough to be considered Republicans? That seems pretty intolerant of you. It also seems fairly un-democratic. I am afraid to say that if you were successful in hunting down RINOs you would not have enough votes to get candidates to win any election.
Those who say they don't want to compromise on anything with anyone must not have to deal very much with other people in their daily lives. Life is all about compromise. In America, we need progress for ALL Americans. That means that we must WORK with others across the political specturm in order to get things done. It's called pragmatism. Read up on it. It might be enlightening.
I am not a RINO. For over 20 years I have contributed money to to RNC, as well as to various campaign war-chests belonging Republican candidates. I have worked on grassroots campaign for Republican candidates. I have - to date - never voted for a Democrat. I am a fiscal conservative, a social conservative, and a hawk on foreign policy.
I am not a RINO, because, after 20 years of staunch support, I have re-registered as an independant. I do not agree with the intolerant skew that has been growing among the precious "base" over the last 10-15, and that has really come to light in the last 24 months. I will still vote as a conservative. But I will do so because I am informed, and not from a inflexible, intolerant position.
Keep going in that knee-jerk, intolerant direction and soon you might find yourselves alone.
|
|
The word RINO has become meaningless by overuse. There are too many conservatives who can only check off their pet issues - that´s just lazy.
It especially rankles me when someone like Rudy Giuliani is called a RINO. I do not believe the people who say that really know his record and what he was up against during his career. They complain about his stance on guns (when he had a drug war in his city and 2000 murders per year) or abortion - which went down a lot during his time in office because he did more about it than just sanctimonious talk: he increased adoptions and made fathers pay child support. You know, concrete stuff.
What counts is not this or that position at a different time and place. That does not tell me who he is. This does:
Giuliani always solved the problems at hand and he did so against the vicious opposition of the media, the establishment and the bureaucracies.
This working-class outsider was far to the right of his constituency, fought for his conservative policies and won - in the most liberal city. You cannot say that of any other candidate. That took a lot of courage. It does not take a lot to take certain conservative positions in Arkansas or Texas. But Rudy took them in New York and he will take them into Washington if he gets a chance. And then there are bed-wetters who shout RINO!
If that kind of achievement can be turned into a liability, I have no hope for America. |
|
Huckabee released > criminals than the combined total of every AR border state(TX,OK,MO,TN,MS,& LA)
When the AR Supreme Court ruled that AR’s public school funding was “inequitable,” Huck took the ruling as a mandate to raise taxes in order to increase school funding.
During his 10 yrs as gov, state $ more than doubled($6.6 bill-$16.1 bill),higher education & public schools got big >, as did social services. The state added about 8,000 full-time workers to its payroll, a 19%> (Bureau of Legislative Research).
He was a disaster on immigration . Every time there was any enforcement in his state, he took the side of the illegal aliens.” Roy Beck, pres of NumbersUSA, a grp that played a major role in rallying the phone calls that helped defeat this yrs Senate immigration bill.
During his tenure,Huck accepted 314 gifts valued at > $150,000, according to documents filed with the ARs’ Secretary of State Office.
The Huckabees set up wedding registries at local department stores as he was leaving office(eventhogh married for 30 years). State ethics laws prohibited Huck from receiving gifts of > $10,but there was an exception for wedding gifts.
Judicial Watch, a non-partisan group dedicated to fighting government corruption, listed Huck among their 10 Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians of ‘07. He was 1 of only 3 Republican politicians to make the list
“I would hope he could be trusted to secure the borders, but given his track record in AR, I don’t see the conservative he has portrayed himself to be in Iowa.”Jake Files, former AR state rep & current chairman of the Sebastian County Republican Party
“He destroyed the conservative movement in AR, & left the Republican Party in shambles.” Phyllis Schlafly, pres of the national Eagle Forum
|
|
I agree that Huckabee is an unconventional candidate who has formed his views over time from a variety of sources. (I think he is a actually a cross between Dubya and Pat Buchanan).
And, to say he is the "biggest RINO" is to stretch the term beyond all useful meaning.
What really bothers the conservative intelligensia more than anything is (1) the tax increases the Governor agreed to in order to balance the budget and to get some things done in the state of Arkansas (roads and school reform). And, (2) he does sometimes let compassion (over cold logic) influence SOME of his policy ideas.
But, as to the subject of this thread, and the suggestion by some that he is the "biggest RINO" is a bit over the top on the hyperbole, and rather than rebutt Medved's point, actually proves it valid.
Its obvious on some issues where the Governor seems to be out of step with the conservative mainstream, but is often overlooked where he is right in line with it.
To name just the obvious:
1) Passionately Pro Life
2) Opposes same-sex marriage, civil unions, and gay adoptions
3) Staunch defender of Second Amendment rights, including conceal and carry
4) Affirms the correctness of the death penalty (and has carried it out)
5) Usually defends federalism/states-rights
6) Believes in strong National Defense in the Reagan tradition
But also, "OnTheIssues.org" rated Mike Huckabee MORE "conservative" than: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney. Only Fred Thompson was rated **slightly** more conservative.
http://senate.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm |
|
Thank you Nomi, that's very kind of you :-) |
|
Sorry for the typo above.
Scott, I enjoyed your posts and found them informative. Would not have cut any of it in an edit.
I would like to credit Bush 1 for the amnesty. It was Reagans 2nd term, he was busy with communism, and it was after a survival of assassination attempt by Hinkley Jr whose family was friends with the Bushs(just a coincidence). It was a bill I am sure Bush as vp snuck into law. Just a thought and/or possibility.
However, anyone who denies that amnesty 2 (McCain Kennedy)is a more blanket amnesty with worse consequences that the first is being disingenuous. |
|
|
Medved, anywone who is offended of the word Rino in the Republican party is a Rino himself. The McCain-Kennedy bill was amnesty. A z visa for unilimited "immigrants" as Rinos like to call illegals is amnesty . And the McCain Kennedy would have worse consequences than the original amnesty it is to an unlimited amount. The supposed fine that the illegals could pay in installments while being able to recieve all the benefits alloted to legal residents, is not a fine but a discount of 70% with less danger of paying a coyote. Please, quit pushing these Rinos on us, first Huckabee and then McCain. We want a true conservative. One that the open border media including you Medved is not shoving down our throats. We want Duncan Hunter! |
|
None of the Republican candidates are RINO's.
There are a lot of RATS however among us supporters, Republicans Against ThemSelves who would rather lose than support a populist conservative.
And there are you RASCALS, like Rush Limbaguh, who are Republicans Against Social Conservatives and Logical Strategies. We are dead meat with McCain who is like Bob Dole and we are goners with Mitt of the rich set who hasn't a clue about the average guy.
It will take Huck with populist ideas for the middle American to win this one. We must reach new voters. |
|
Most Dems have only ONE principle. Further their socialistic power grabbing agenda at ALL costs. All else is maskirovka (Russkie for deception). Joe Lieberman has a lot of positions I can disagree with but I never saw him as a "finger in the wind Lefits political whore".
Ray |
|
Very well stated!
M. Medved is mistaken, this is the exact time to weed out the RINO's. |
|
|
Democrats NEVER attack their own for not being liberal enough, except for Leiberman, who they've driven into McCain's arms. |
|
|
I can think of no one better to call a RINO than those that you mentioned in your post. Huckabee and Mr. Terminator especially. The term is a tool that people who are not happy use to identify those who are veering of course from why they were elected. Your blatant support for Mike Huckabee reveals your true agenda in the RINO post. Heads up Huckabee is the biggest RINO there is!! |
|
|
I'm no fan of Mitt Romney, but I LIKE the Mitt Romney of the last two debates - knowledgeable; optimistic; emphasizing his own experience, not his opponents departures from orthodoxy. What a shame that it took so long for that Mitt to show up. I say that because when he himself ran away from "Moderate Mitt" the past 5 months, he got himself labeled a flip-flopper, and I think, rightfully so. Instead of establishing these ideological purity tests (does anyone think Mitt really, really profoundly is now pro-life? I know I don't buy it) that our candidates have to pass, we need to accept the full range of conservatism in our party, if we are going to grow. |
|
party is to go even farther to the right. The GOP is in obvious need of freakier Jesus freaks, nuttier gun nuts, and some more old, rich white A holes. The GOP could also use a few more rebel flag hicks and evolution deniers. That ought to really attract the indies. Why was the Iowa Dem caucus turnout more than twice that of the Repubs? And why will most NH primary indies side with Obama instead of McCain (again, by more than 2:1 margin)? Because the GOP isn't conservative enough. That's some really incredible analysis.
It's no wonder we're about to have a landslide for Obama in 08. With opponents like you guys this is just too easy. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. It's been fun watching you implode and cannibalize your party, but it's going to get really interesting listening to your justifications for the landslide next November - "if only we had attacked Iran, and shipped all the Mexis south, then maybe we could have won..."
|
|
This is the age old debate... how can we govern if we don't win? But at the same time, what good does it do to have a majority if a significant part of your majority doesn't vote with you? There are a couple of points to be made here.
First, I doubt that many people demand "idealogical purity" from our party's elected officials... however, as said in a post above, we would at least appreciate it if they voted with us THE MAJORITY of the time...
Second, the time to get rid of the RINOs is in the primaries... too often, conservatives do nothing to get good solid candidates on the Republican ticket, and end up in the general election with a choice between a left-of-center Republican and a virtual Marxist Democrat. So we "hold our nose" and vote for the RINO, or WORSE, we stay home, or WORST OF ALL we vote for the Democrat, thinking "we'll show those RINOs"... but all we do is end up with our worst nightmare. To reiterate, it's the Primaries where we do our work...
Finally, the most insidious and worst problem caused by RINOs is that they "go along" or "compromise" with the Democrats, we get a bad policy, and then because Republicans are "in the majority" or because the bad policy was "bipartisan", the whole GOP gets tarred and feathered and blamed for the results of a policy that most of them never supported. The electorate gets the "there's no difference between the parties" mantra going, and we end up worse off...
So what we end up with is an inexorable drift toward socialism... and calls to "not attack" our "friends" who are betraying us... |
|
Hunt all the RINOs down until they qualify as an Endangered Spoecies.
By running as a Republican, even though he has totally failed to govern like one, Schwarzenegger pushed a true conservativer, Tom McClintock, off the ballot and into oblivion. Which is exactly what CA is now teetering on the edge of, thanks to the RINOnator.
RINOs like Sen. McCrazy stepped across the line to form the Gang of Fourteen, and totally hamstring the president and their own majority party, which directly contributed to actually losing the GOP majority in both houses.
Michael, go back to reviewing movies, something you know a lot more about that political punditry. |
|
The logical conclusion of Medved's point is that we should merge the Republican and Democrat parties into one.
Why not? After all, aren't the ideological differences insignificant, when we consider that we are all Americans?
When we say that American politics is divided today, that is different from the same statement made before the Depression. The Left is too influenced/colored/informed by Marxism, which is inimical to the principles on which the Republic was founded.
Redistribution of wealth by the state is incompatible with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Whether to have Big Papa State looking over our shoulder and taking the fruits of our labor away, or not, that is probably the most basic question in American conservative thought. So, should we ignore those who agree with some conservative principles, but not on others? There is definitely a conservative philosophical carpet, and if someone strays off that carpet, what should we do? Jettison some principles, for the sake of party unity?
To call a spade a spade, or a RINO a RINO, is certainly valid.
Hillary delenda est. |
|
The whole point about politicians who are RINOs IS the party's choice of candidates. There are few true conservatives in the whole lot of them -- and the few true conservatives we have aren't showing very well nationally. Those who are showing well -- Huckabee currently, McCain, Giuliani -- have not demonstrated records that are superbly conservative. In most cases, their records indicate a hefty leaning to the left on some issues. Romney is a question mark in my mind, because I like much of what he says he stands for, but I am waffling seriously on health care (another issue where I don't believe the federal government should get involved and he clearly does).
Again, angrywhtmale is correct when he says it's a pro-government or no-government preference. True conservatives are not in favor of government intervening in their lives -- and with most of the candidates running for prez, that's questionable.
I admit that everyone has his favorite issues. Like you, I believe immigration is a top issue. Others believe that abortion/pro-life is the top issue. The problem I see is that we have probably 7 or 8 major issues in this country and it's hard to find one GOP hopeful who is truly conservative on all of them. And when we do find one (like Duncan Hunter), he fails.
Personally, I believe that Hunter and Thompson would get a decent vote-showing if we had one day or one week when every state held its primary. Angrywhtmale is correct above: We end up with Iowa and New Hampshire helping to dictate the outcome for the country, and nothing could be less representative of the US as a whole than those two states. We need electoral reform even more than tax reform, in my opinion, or we will keep acquiring the same weak slate of candidates we have now. |
|
MM -
RINO doesn't hurt the Republican party our choice of candidates is what is hurting the party. They aren't perfect, and it is ridiculous for true unyielding conservatives to expect someone to encompass a pure conservative that individual does not exist as life is not purely black and white, it will always have shades of gray. With that being said, as someone who leans well right of center (yes, some liberal ideas appeal to me (for shame)) I am disappointed with our choices. Anyway, at the end of the day, these guys all have warts, I can't go with McCain because of immigration and I will not give him a pass on that. Sadly, when November arrives, I will vote Republican, not because I'm thrilled about the candidate, but because the alternative would destroy this country and I honestly believe that. I think alot of conservatives like myself want to see a Republican or any conservative stand up and beat down the democrats verbally (and physically if necessary). We just are not getting that. |
|
|
on the national primary week, even a single day, because we surely wouldn't be talking about Huckster AT ALL. A system intended to give Middle America political relevance has backfired in giving WAAAY too much power to a population that doesn't come CLOSE to being representative of America. |
|
As several posting here have pointed out, those who either register as Republicans and/or use an "R" after their names -- yet on the majority of issues support a posture that is, at best, centric and, at worst, left of center -- well, for Pete's sake, those guys ARE Republicans in name only. Why is anyone even talking about "let's all get together and stop using the term RINO." What else should we call them? Democrats? Liberals? Neo-cons doesn't say it. Non-cons would say it.
Rarely do I agree with angrywhtmale, but he is right: You either want government-based solutions or you don't. True conservatives do not want the government running their lives or dictating their preferences.
Way too often, and I fear it will happen in this 2008 election as well, we are compelled to vote for the GOP candidate who is the lesser of two evils. Hillary vs Rudy? Obama vs Huckabee? Edwards vs McCain? None of those possibilities would make Giuliani, Huckabee or McCain true conservatives, although they would get my vote (except I'm still not sure about Huckabee).
Duncan Hunter is a true conservative, and I believe Fred is too. But chances are, both will have dropped by the time I get to vote in a primary. So as usual, my 2008 vote will be for the lesser of all liberals, but truly not for a conservative candidate. I remain convinced that this country needs a national primary week so everyone gets to vote with a full slate of candidates running. |
|
Mr. Medved:
If there were a viable 'Conservative Party', those like-minded folk would leave the GOP, leaving you two Democrat parties. What good does retaining chair positions if the office-holders don't approach your political thought process? Snow, Graham, McCain, Specter, Bush, etc. get Republican funds to vote along the Democrat party line.
If having an 'R' next to your name means nothing, I prefer nothing.
Your support of Huckabee is interesting: very similar to Bush, who gave us Medicare part D, another unfunded entitlement program. As a middle-class dude, I can't afford another 'compassionate conservative', spending my money on yet MORE entitlement programs. Coupled with exactly wrong illeagal immigration policy, you get another failed Presidency. |
|
|
So would a conservative democrat be called a DINO? |
|
are the stupid new factions of conservatism developed to suit the Huckster and other leftists passing themselves off as conservative to win an election; 1)Social 2)Fiscal 3)Security.
You are or you aren't, you can't call yourself conservative on some issues and "socially conscious" on others. You either want gov't solutions or you don't. huck's and mitt's supporters are twisting and turning to squeeze them into a new definition of conservatism, and it's very destructive in the long-term.
It's clear conservavangelists want to legislate their way of life on the rest of us, and force it militarily upon the rest of the world, but there's nothing conservative about that. There's nothing conservative about what mccain did to free speech, or his opinions on taxes or illegal immigration. There's nothing conservative about huckster's god-given mandate to legislate christianity, and there's absolutely nothing conservative about arnold's administration in cali, so what's the problem medved? Grow a pair wimp. Maybe you need to worry more about the constitution and a lot less about holding phony power in washington with phony representitives of conservatism. Maybe you need to consider dropping the R? I know I'd appreciate your honesty. |
|
Wow, TH has become completely infested with angry conspiratorial isolationist whack-jobs.
Sieg Heil, my Pure True Conservative friends.
Good luck with your crusade to rid America of the evil and duplicitous Zionist-Neocon RINO CFR scum who want to take away your liberty and your guns, enslave you to a world government, kill off 80% of your population, plant the Israeli flag in the US Capitol building, and reach (steady now) compromises with the subhuman enemy liberal traitors who absurdly call themselves the other half of the American people.
Hope the gold standard works out for you, my friends. Oh wait: you probably don't make friends with commie Zionist-Neocon RINO CFR pukes like me, right?
Well anyway, watch out for the black helicopters! Auf Wiedersehen!
Have a nice time with all your adolescent friends. If you need an adult for any reason, we'll be over on the sane-people sites. |
|
You make a valid point. The thing is, there are some states where the only republicans who will ever get elected are the so called RINOs. And frankly if my choices are a RINO or a hard left democrat, it is a simple decision.
I always vote for the most conservative person I can. But that said, if in the end my choices were Hillary or Rudy, I vote for Rudy. Admittedly the difference between those two is smaller than between her and a more staunch conservative. But there are differences. Who is the more conservative of the two? Easy, it is Rudy. As for voting third party, it really is throwing a vote away. |
|
the reason that the republicans lost the 2006 elections and their control of the congress is not because people attacked RINOs. it is because the RINOs behaved like democrats and disgusted the electorate.
think about it. if the guy you want "flips" to democrat points of view once he gets elected and votes against everything you stand for, why go vote? you have 2 democrats running, one from the democrat party and the RINO.
the republicans did not lose because they were called RINOs, they lost because they turned against their base!
hopefully, these RINOs will be replaced by candidates that share our views and are not afraid to stick to them.
|
|
Hi Michael,
I agree with you that the term "RINO" should be destroyed altogether.
I do believe, however, that Democrats do the same thing when a member of their party disagrees on major issues, like they did with Joe Lieberman. How else could Al Gore's potential VP fall so quickly from their grace, just because he was in support of the war in Iraq? |
|
In the movie Braveheart, William Wallace confronted the so called Nobles (Clan leaders) and said "You nobles believe the people exist to serve you. I believe you nobles exist to serve the people, to bring them freedom".(paraphrased)
Much of our party leadership seems to believe that we are members of the party to serve them. Many of them are Rinos. Worse than that, they think they are nobles and they need not answer to anyone, at least not truthfully.
Don't talk about RINO hunts.
Many conservatives still remember the GHW Bush purge of the executive branch of nearly all conservatives during Reagan's term. He then loaded it with CFRs.
When he was later elected President GHW Bush was asked about the complaints of the conservatives in the party, to which he cynically replied, "Where are they going to go?".
He found out during his reelection bid. When GWBush ran his father told him not to make the mistake he did. Court the conservatives and evangelicals.
Rinos serve none but themselves. They blurr the message,disapate the resources, shift the focus, and drain the enthusiasm of the party. They bring discouragement and division. Much more so when they run for President.
The Party faithful serve the party as a means of advancing their cause. They dont hit the bricks and man the phone lines to keep the Arlan Spectres in the committee chairs.
Don't give us a slate where the only ones we have to choose from are RINOs.
The Big Tent was supposed to be a symbiotic relationship from which all would mutually benefit.
If the social conservatives (mainly evangelicals) leave the party, you will never see a Republican President or majority in the congress till your great grandkids vote.
So maybe the party should start a reasonable dialog with them, and offer candidates palatable to ALL if they want to keep the Big Tent up.
Just a suggestion...do it before they pull up stakes! |
|
I like Mr. Medved. He's a thinker, not just a kneejerk ideologue.
On the one hand, he is wrong. There are RINOs, and RINOs --as the term implies-- are not recognizable as elephants. (I think Chafee, Jeffords, Arnold were/are RINOs).
But, on the other hand, he is right. The problem comes when trying to hit the target of definition. It seems to be an ever moving target, and the level of tolerable purity gets narrower and narrower, and narrower.
Its quite plausible that Ronald Reagan could be classified as a RINO, depending upon how much deviation from conservative dogma is allowed. Notice:
http://brothersjuddblog.com/archives/2006/05/knew_him_hes_s t.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.h tml |
|
Why don't you close-minded people(including Medved) watch the only real conservative who spoke Sunday night at a real Town Hall meeting in N.H. ( He can be seen on You Tube for 1 hour. His discription of the Federal Reserve is worth your time. You won't hear stuff like that anywhere else, because the other candidates are tools of the big bankers and big business )
No he wasn't invited to the debate by the Neo-con,CFR and AIPAC approved Fox News. Ron Paul might surprise you if you really give him a chance to hear all of what he has to say. I think most of you will agree with most of what he says. Even if you are for perpetual war and permanent quartering of troops in countries all over the world at least listen to him about his other beliefs and ask your favorite candidates about the other issues.
Oh well I know I am wasting my time but maybe even a couple of you will take another look and listen to what he says. Barry Goldwater's son is on the video and he is for Dr. Paul. |
|
Once upon a time Medved was openly liberal.
He decided that the best way to hurt conservatives was to pretend to be one, while continuing to advocate liberal positions.
Medved likes Huckabee because the Huckster opposes enforcement of laws against employing illegal aliens, supports amnesty and wants to reward illegal aliens with taxpayer paid scholarships.
The Huckster has a long record of increasing taxes more than Clinton. Tax and spend policies (the Huckersters position) are the policies of liberals like Medved (and Huckabee).
Now, who wants to cozy up to the mad mullahs of Iran. Why, liberals like Huckabee.
Medved wants to silence those who tell the truth about Huckabee, because the truth is devestating! |
|
In the aftermath of the Iowa Caucas, there are lessons to be learned; and Republican voters must heed them, and soon coalesce around their most formidable candidate. What are these lessons, and who is this candidate? See the complete answer at:
http://sheetanchor.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/a-house-divided -will-not-stand/ |
|
|
This is the primary. This is *EXACTLY* when we are supposed to be voting to shape the party. If we don't want another big government conservative at the helm now is the time to speak up. Michael constantly complains about 3rd parties claiming that the better alternative is to change the party in the primary. Well, by calling a RINO a RINO that is what I am hoping to do - influence the party's leadership and get the Republicans back on track. It is either that, or start looking at 3rd parties because I am at a point where I would rather lose with Thompson than win with Huckabee. Another big government conservative would tarnish the Republican brand for years. |
|
Mike has been defending Huckabee as a real conservative for a while now. After the last 2 debates it is becoming more and more obvious just how weak of a candidate Huckabee is.
Ugly facts about Huckabee's tenure at governor that Michael likes to gloss over:
- Dispite what Michael claims, during Hucks tenure, in terms of tax burden, Huck drug Arkansas from 32nd nationwide to 13th. (taxfoundation.org)
- The average tax burden in Arkansas went from $1,969 to $2,902. An increase of 47% and of nearly $1,000/yr per tax payer.
- Hucks opinion on the Bush tax cuts? He stated that they unfairly targeted "the people at the top end of the economic scale." Sounds just like Hillary.
- His "I cut taxes 94 times" is true, but *badly* misleading. Examples include a cut in sales tax for residential lawn care that amounted to less than $210,000. Overall he increased the tax burden in Arkansas by $500 million. His claim that the courts made him do it is also misleading.
- His past statements on immigration are a disaster (and Michaels defense of the Arkansas plan is disgracefully dishonest!) Granted, he has changed his tune to run for president, but look up his past statements. He makes McCain look good on this issue.
- Huck claims to support "public school choice" - a Huckism that doesn't mean what you expect. He actually *opposes* vouchers.
- Judicial watch named Huck one of the 10 most corrupt politicians of 2007.
Now Micheal is whining "Don't call my boy, Huck, a RINO!" If the shoe fits... What's ironic is how much Michael has changed his tune. It went from "Huck is a conservative" to "Don't throw out the RINO". Classic!
|
|
Why is it that the one truelly conservative candidate, Duncan Hunter, has done so poorly? As a conservative I'll vote for him (if he's still in it when my "turn" comes). If not I'll vote for who knows. Becuase the dims are so socialist I will vote for the repub come election day. It's a sad day when a conservative candidate doesn't even get looked at, in the republican party primary no less.
Hell, we've got so many RINOs in the repub party down here in Texas (was one of the most conservative places on the planet awhile back) now that I'm really fearful about what this nation will soon become.
God bless America! |
|
OK the RINO label might hurt in the short term as we get rid of bad apples and lose ground to the pure socialists. But lets look at what is really going on.
When these RINO's take up GOP seats, we cant get a real person in them. The system is set to favor those in power but even more so if the person is supposedly in your own party. RE: The reason we were not able to run somebody against Bush in 2004.
The other major issue which hurts us long term is the slow shift to the middle of our party which is a shift left. The American people are right leaning but more and more Politicians keep shifting left within our own party. As these people get more and more entrenched in our party, we all suffer which is EXACTLY what the problem is right now in the GOP.
RINO term is valid and we face a very serious problem with them. The more we can toss out the better, even if that means we have DNC control for a short time. They did not get the message in 2006 and I am afraid in 2008 another message to the GOP is going to be sent to fall on the deaf ears of the RINO's. |
|
and I don't entirely agree with him now, but, unless we can look past the RINO thing we will get beat handily in a general election. The only individual polling on a competitive level on a national level is McCain. I think he could hold that lead well in a national campaign. Now, he is far from my ideal candidate, but I will do everything I can to get any one of our candidates in before theirs.
Thompson does the worst in national polls against both candidates. Please people, think of who will be appointed judges over the next 8 years. Giuliani could go up, Romney could go up, Huckabee gets killed, Thompson goes up but cannot energize the party. Sorry if you don;t like the analysis, but that's how it will be come November. |
|
The Democrats dont have DINOs they have liberals who lie about being conservative to get elected. RINOS do the same thing. So the majority of the people want conservative government and dont get it because of a bunch of left-wing, big government liars.
What happened with the Guvernator should be some kind of a lesson to the purists, however. Arnold put four ballot measures up for a vote that would have changed California from a Blue State to a Red one. President Bush, the California Republican Party, and the Christian Right took a hike and let Arnold suffer a humiliating defeat. So he moved to the left to be able to function. The brain-dead dummies in the Republican Party are responsible, just like they'll pick some social conservative to run against Barbara Boxer instead of a more moderate Republican who could beat her. |
|
Hi Lexy,
lexonex writes: “$10 say he has never voted in his life”
Wrong again. I’ve voted in every presidential election since 1988. How do propose to send me your talking $10 bill?
~~~
lexonex writes: “How many words/paragraphs does it take for you to say? 1. You have no candidate
2. You are unwilling to support the Republican nominee”
I wasn’t aware that it was a contest to see who could answer with the fewest number of words. Do you make these rules up as you go along, or are they posted somewhere?
1. No candidate yet.
2. Depends on who it is.
~~~
lexonex writes: “Let me guess, you have a Ph.D. degree and drive a cab during the day and cyber chat at night?”
No, no and no.
Now it’s my turn to guess:
1. You are a college girl, probably on the cheer-leading squad or in a sorority?
2. This will be the first presidential election in which you’re old enough to vote, right? I suspect you were “projecting” earlier when you guessed that I had never voted before, but you’re the one who has never actually voted before, yes?
|
|
|
|
How many words/paragraphs does it take for you to say?
1. You have no candidate
2. You are unwilling to support the Republican nominee
Let me guess, you have a Ph.D. degree and drive a cab during the day and cyber chat at night? I’m done with you until you make a decision. You are no help to anyone. Just another cynic.....
|
|
_SeekerOfTruth_ writes: “Conservative Christians - are the RINO's.”
Not this one. You might want to rethink labeling all conservative Christians with the same broad brush.
~~~
_SeekerOfTruth_ writes: “Protesting Christians that want to impose there will on the populous is exactly what is wrong with this country.”
What “will”, specifically, are you saying Christians were trying to impose on you? As just one example, it is the homosexuals who are attempting to impose their will (by judicial fiat usually) on the population, not Christians. Conservatives (Christian and otherwise) are resisting those efforts, at all levels of government, wherever the fight is.
|
|
Hi Lexy,
lexonex writes: “1. Who is your candidate? (mine is Romney)”
I kinda guessed you were for Romney… ;-)
I had not really considered him seriously before, but a couple of weeks ago a poster here on TH included a link to Alan Keyes’ website, and suggested that conservatives check it out. I did. Based on what appears to be his truly conservative positions on 36 or more issues, Alan Keyes seems to represent my positions most closely.
From among those who appear to have a possibility of winning the nomination (McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and Huckabee), Fred Thompson appears to be the most conservative, but I don’t “have” a candidate yet.
~~~
lexonex writes: “2. Will you support the eventual Republican nominee (myself; yes)”
I don’t know, it depends on who it is. As a Christian I cannot vote for a candidate who supports abortion or gay marriage. I just can’t.
I certainly won’t be voting for any democrat, I can’t imagine any circumstances where I would ever vote for a democrat. Maybe I’ll cast a write-in vote for Alan Keyes.
I’m through playing the Republicrats game. Every election cycle they want me to “hold my nose and choose the lesser of two evils”. I’m done with that. If we refused to play that game and demanded better candidates, we might get them.
We’re sure not getting better candidates the way we’ve been doing it.
|
|
are the RINO's. Where have you been the last 8 years. Protesting Christians that want to impose there will on the populous is exactly what is wrong with this country.
Abortion should be a state issue.
Marriage should be a state issue.
Sex should be a state issue.
Morality should be decided at a local level
All social issues should be left for the states to compete in.
Leave the federal government alone.
Conservative Christians should lead by example.
|
|
If Michael and the RINO/neo-cons/Rockefellers were REALLY worried about losing elections, they would honor the people who have kept republicans in the majority for the past two decades (protestant evangelicals) instead of insulting them with their crazy offerings at the ballot box.
Liberal republicans have grown tired of trying to please the people who have so graciously kept them in power (that is why they tried to flood the republican party with poorly educated, mostly catholic, invaders from south of the border).
And now the liberal republicans are scolding the conservative evangelicals about the truthful "labels" liberal republicans have to wear around their necks.
Boo hoo.
Republicans are still stuck with the protestant evangelicals (for now) that they tried so desperately to get rid of.
Without the conservative evangelical protestants, the republican party is a LIBERAL party.
The RINOs don't want you to know this. |
|
about the neo-con, RINO, Rockefeller republican turds didn't make it through the censors!
LOL |
|
of conservatism don't want us to label them!
LOL!!!!!
Get real you neo-con, RINO, Rockefeller republican turds!
We are not going to take your LIBERAL CRAP without a fight. |
|
Phil Byler writes: "To do that, the term "RINO" needs to be banned from Republican discussion."
The first rule of RINO Club is, you DO NOT talk about RINO’s… LOL!
So much for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech...
~~~
Phil Byler writes: "No doubt that there are some on this site who woud scream "RINO" ticket at McCain-Guiliani, but it would be the strongest ticket for the Republicans to win in 2008."
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Mark 8:36, KJV)
|
|
We should not label people. We should not saddle them with their past.
We are a forgiving, enthusiastic, and optomistic group of people. We listen to Rush. We do not recall past shame against a person, for example, Mitt Romney instituting universal healthcare (Commonwealth Care).
Another example is instituting homosexual marriage. That was not nice for Mitt Romney to do those things, but it is even worse for us to call that to mind against him. We are loath to bring it up.
So let us get along, in our nice lovely big tent.
|
|
Sure:
1. Who is your candidate? (mine is Romney)
2. Will you support the eventual Republican nominee (myself; yes)
(I did a quick glance through all your postings and did not find answers to these two questions)
|
|
Michael, you're right. "RINO" is thrown at John McCain and Rudy Guiliani and at times even Mitt Romney; and it is wrong, an erroneous description and a substitute for thought. Putting aside Ron Paul's foreign policy, all the Republicans are very different from the anti-military socialist Democrat candidates.
The Democrats need to be beaten in 2008. To do that, the term "RINO" needs to be banned from Republican discussion. No doubt that there are some on this site who woud scream "RINO" ticket at McCain-Guiliani, but it would be the strongest ticket for the Republicans to win in 2008. |
|
Hi Lexy,
I'm back now.
Whenever you're ready! |
|
Your a shill for the neocon movement that has moved the GOP to the LEFT with no concept of real conservatism Medved!.........The GOP is no longer a conservative party, and when this election is over, they may be about as relevant as the Whigs!
Thank you for destroying the GOP(Gutted Our Principles)with the hijacking of the party by Neo/Jacobin trotskyites that can have it now that real conservatives will be leaving it to find a party that is still conservative! When you and the "Podman" are standing with "Krystolmeth" wondering where everyone went?.........Don't follow us! |
|
Be hes has this notion that you don't gain by losing.
He is wrong.
Examples.
Your wifes have kidney disease. You donate your kidney to save your wifes life. You lost a kidney to save your wife. You gained by losing.
Breast Cancer. Loss of breast gain of life.
Now you have to consider religion. I wonder if he is committed to this view. Christians were Jews. It i was the Jews that isolated Christians. I wonder if he considers it a mistake that Jews lost Christians.
RINO's are destroying our party and quite frankly they would serve better had the run as democrats. instead of moving our party to the left they would have moved their party to the right. |
|
"Reagan (who is the standard bearer of modern conservatism) pushed through amnesty (IMO a mistake) yet that didn't stop me from supportn him. Would conservatives not support Reagan (if he were alive and still in politics) today because of this one (albeit very important) issue?"
Reagan did support the amnesty, although subsequently said it was the biggest mistake he ever made.
Furthermore, there was a feeling at the time of "let's do one amnesty, and promise henceforth to enforce the law"
The politicians refused to honor their committment to enforce the law that was what they promised to do in exchange for amnesty.
So a new amnesty would be a very different story. The amnesty has already been done, and the American people are waiting for the politicians to fulfill their committment to the REST of the 1986 "Comprehensive" immigration act.
Instead, the politicians want to say once again: We want amnesty, and then we will enforce the law after that.
And the enforcement provisions in this new legislation are largely window dressing, the sort of enforcement measures that can even get Ted Kennedy's approval.
So basically these politicians are either utter fools or utter liars or both.
What is disturbing is that any Republican voters would still support someone like John McCain.
If McCain gets the Republican nomination, I think I will have to conclude that the Republican Party no longer stands for the principles it once did, and probably no longer can serve as a force for good, but only evil.
|
|
So Medved has a point but it is not the whole story.
Here is my view: If you have a rino in an elected position in which a true conservative would have a snowball's chance in hell of ever being elected, then lay off the guy because you've got the best you are going to get.
If however you have a position where a conservative could compete, then it is totally approrpiate to challenge rinos.
----
Medved's big mistake is this: He cites Republicans losing control of congress as an example of the foolishness of going after rinos.
And I agree- if you have a rino running in a deep blue state, all else being equal it's better to have them in office than a Democrat if there is no chance whatsoever that a conservative could get elected.
But that DOES NOT APPLY to the presidential race. There ARE conservatives running. At the very least, there are candidates who are more conservative than Huckabee and McCain.
So what is wrong with attacking Huckabee and McCain as rinos?
|
|
There are two issues here:
1). Having people in office that share your point of view increases the prospect that policies will be adopted that are to your liking.
2). Having people in office that are members of your party increases the prospect that your party will have a majority in institutions where certain levers of power are held by the party with the majority.
------
Medved is saying you should embrace rinos because of argument 2. But that does not address argument 1.
An excellent example is Arnold Schwarzenegger. The fact that the governor is a "Republican" has no practical impact on most of the issues because he governs like a Democrat. He is allied with the Democrats and against the Republicans on most issues.
However, there are still some potential benefits of having a rino governor. When the 10-year redistricting comes around, the governor of a state typically has considerable influence on the redistricting process (e.g. being able to veto the legislature's redistricting plan- I am not sure this applies in all states but in some states I believe it does).
-------
continued |
|
|
Huckbee gets called a RINO lots on townhall and Romney a true conservative. I can call Romney a RINO but I don't. No one is going to agree with me 100 percent of the time, no one. I don't think any of the candidates are really RINO's. It's just a slur like Medved says it is. |
|
You could NOT be more wrong. RINO is the appropriate term for those that act more like Democrats, so please don't start your high and mighty now just because there's an election. You never went after the term before now, so is this just a convenience?
Regardless of wht you think, the fact is.... Mitt, Mike, John, and Rudy are RINO's! Period, end of story! |
|
|
What happens if 45% of the Repub party becomes 30% liberal? Oh, that's right - we LOSE. |
|
The Repubs used to have a very small party and minority in Congress. At that time, they were all fiscally conservative yet socially liberal. The Dems used to be Americans so we did not necessarily need a strong "conservative" party ala the Reagan party.
The Left hijacked the Dem party and those normal Americans came over to the Repub party in the 80s.
We got what we wanted and then Bush, W, Trent, Lindsay, McCain, Frist et al through it away.
So I don't see what we have to lose if we get rid of the RINOs now. They can go form their own party as suggested above.
Remember, the Dem/libs aren't getting what they want either. They have the majority and what good has it done for them by electing their conservative Dems in '06? |
|
First of all, he wants to "call off the hunt" because he's one of the worst offenders, a true neo-con, conservative on fiscal and foreign policies, and liberal on social policy.
Second, like all RINOs, he resorts to Reagan's "70% friend" quote. Well, my 30% friend is no friend at all. He's my 70% enemy. I can agree with almost any liberal on 30% of something. That doesn't mean I'm at all interested in voting for them.
Further, true conservatism, which means a strongly principled support of Originalist design firmly rooted in Constitutional principles, by nature encompasses other facets of conservatism such as the fiscal and foreign policies; they don't have to be qualified. True conservatism, therefore, is more important in weighting than selective -- i.e. "fiscal" or "foreign policy" -- conservatism.
Deadhead fails in this arena. As do Giuliani and McCain.
|
|
Lexonex writes: "Scott - tell you what...Keep writing those long love letters/postings to Medved while I'm gone...."
You're a girl, aren't you?
I'm sorry, I've been approaching your posts the wrong way entirely; I thought you were a guy, but with all your "love" talk I should have figured it out sooner.
I'll be gone for a couple of hours too, so take your time, and later this evening, after you're done talking to Mitt, I'd be happy to discuss whatever part of my comments to Michael that have gotten your panties in such a bunch ;-)
Scott
|
|
tell you what...Keep writing those long love letters/postings to Medved while I'm gone.... |
|
Lexonex writes: "Sorry, I have to start calling for Mitt in 28 minutes........I understand clearly...Save your page after page after page yada yada yada..."
That's what I thought, Lex.
Talk tough, and then run away.
Run away! Run away! Run away! ;-)
|
|
Sorry, I have to start calling for Mitt in 28 minutes........I understand clearly...Save your page after page after page yada yada yada... |
|
...I like you and normally agree with you but I think you are seriously wrong on this issue. RINO's run for office on conservative ideas and visions that they flout and are counter to when they're in office.
And it's that these issues are so vehemently important (i.e. immigration). This tenor and notion of bipartisanship that we hear all the time almost always leads to yielding of conservative positions. That's what I see when McCain touts his latest 'across the aisle' brokering. It's not oversensitivity on our part, it's disloyalty and feignness on theirs.
The two examples you used (Chafee and Jeffords) would only have given the Republicans a majority in name anyway. It's not cogent with me. |
|
You let me know which part you had a problem understanding, and I'll try to spell it out for you. |
|
|
|
Michael, thanks for speaking up on this. The saying goes, "The Left looks for heretics. The Right looks for converts." It is epic bad news that the Right is now going on a heretic hunt in their own ranks.
God Bless the memory of Lee Atwatter who preached the Gospel of the Big Tent. The Donkey Party shoved Reagan Democrats our way. By all means let's shove them back out again so we can return to the Purity of the Minority.
The end point of RINO hunting in our beloved Republican Party is the sure creation of a third party and the eventual end of the GOP.
Hillary delenda est!!!111
|
|
If it takes that many pages/words to make your point it means:
1. You have no point
2. You don't know your own point
3. You are in love with Michael Medved
All of the above?
|
|
Name the single policy issue that ALL of the Republican candidates support? Fiscal conservatism. The next issue that achieves near unanimity (Rep. Paul fractures that alliance) is national defense--he would only invoke the military if we're attacked, not pre-emptively, which, in an asymmetrical world is a recipe for suicide.
And, in the broadest sense, smaller government and lower taxes are goals shared by all Republicans.
Why can't we agree that those are the issues that are most universally shared AND which are obvious contrasts to our brethren across the aisle?
As a staunch fiscal AND social conservative, I would love to clone Ronald Reagan, but the reality is that we have to decide based upon the candidates we have.
Do you think a Rudy Giuliani, who is an arch fiscal conservative and small-government advocate, an unqualified champion of a robust military presence, strong trade agreements, and strict constructionist judicial appointments, would be BAD for the party?
The vast majority of social issues, from abortion to sex education to parental rights for teenage abortions, to same-sex marriage, are the rightful charge of state and local governments, NOT the federal government.
So, let's focus on the candidate who can capture the core conservative values that we all agree on, and which will also entice many moderate Democrats and independents.
The option is to ponder a President Obama or Clinton for the next eight years.
For my post today on Obama, go to:
http://clearcommentary.townhall.com
Best,
Phil Mella
ClearCommentary.com |
|
Michael Medved: “Ronald Reagan himself used to say that ‘if somebody agrees with me 70% of the time, rather than 100%, that doesn’t make him my enemy.’ ”
That’s touching… What did Ronald Reagan say about people who obstructed him 70% of the time, rather than 100%?
~~~
Michael Medved: “Democrats understand this principle--- they never attack “DINO’s,” Democrats In Name Only. In fact, they understand the usefulness of such figures: they put forward several conservative Democrats in key Congressional districts in 2006, and those “DINO’s” helped them win a majority in the House.”
Then maybe you should become a democrat, Michael… it sounds like you already are!
As for what the DNC ‘understands’, it’s hard to imagine a more God-less and corrupt body; you’ll have to pardon me if I don’t endorse their “principle(s)”.
~~~
Michael Medved: “If Republicans continue to express contempt and hostility for those they consider ‘RINO’s,’ they’ve got to get ready for ‘DIMO’s’ – Democrats In the Majority Only.’ It’s time, in other words, for sane GOP partisans to call off the silly and suicidal RINO hunt. ”
“In other words”, we can have the “bad medicine”, or we can have the REALLY “bad medicine”, so if we know what’s good for us, we better shut up and take whatever we get and be happy, huh?
"Well I’ll be real good from now on, Master Cates…"
Goodbye, Michael. Be well.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it’s ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
Oh the times, they are a-changin'.
|
|
Medved: “The truth is that no successful political party has ever been built on ideological purity.”
That’s a red-herring, and a straw man, and probably a few other logical fallacies too. Nobody is expecting “ideological purity”; just stop trying to feed us crap while telling us it’s 5-star cuisine.
No one expects or demands “ideological purity”, but we DO have a right to expect that everyone is in the same boat, and if they won’t row WITH us on this issue or that, the least they can do is not row AGAINST us. But some of these guys actually LEAD THE CHARGE against us, and YOU have a conniption because someone uses a “moderate” term to describe those who indulge in such traitorous behavior as a RINO???
How about we drop the “RINO” and just start calling them traitors? Truth is a powerful thing, Michael; it will set you free! :-)
~~~
Medved: “You can construct a majority coalition by bringing people into your party, not by driving them away.”
A majority coalition that stands for nothing, maybe. A majority of chaos, whose internal interests are at war with each other, paralyzing itself. What kind of “majority” would that be?
Why, that would be a “majority in name only”. A MINO! Good work!
It’s awfully hard to motivate people to vote for a party that stands for nothing, though. You have to lie to them, and misrepresent your positions and intentions until after you’re sworn in… kind of like RINO’s.
~~~
Medved: “It’s childish and self-destructive to wage war based on some notion of “real conservatism” with those who want to align themselves with your side.”
This of course ignores the obvious, in that if they REALLY wanted to “align themselves with your side” then THEY WOULDN’T BEGIN OBSTRUCTING EVERY GOP EFFORT THE DAY AFTER TAKING OFFICE.
They’re not “aligning themselves” with “our side” if they actively fight against “our side”, Michael. What part of that are you having trouble understanding?
|
|
What is wrong with fighting out which candidates represent conservative principals - and yes figuring out who really is not a true Republican.
Lower Taxes:
McCain: No
Huckabee: No
Enforcement of Illegal Immigration Laws:
McCain: No
Huckabee: No
War on Terror:
McCain: Yes
Huckabee: No
Social Conservatism:
McCain: No
Huckabee: Yes
By my count, it seems that McCain and Huckabee take Democratic positions 75% of the time. So I would classify them both as RINOs and believe that Republicans will ultimately make the right choice and reject them in this Presidential race.
The constituency needs to define the party based upon principals and not shape ourselves to attract wishy-washy moderates or liberals. If the overall population wants to elect a liberal, then let them elect a Democrat. Better that the Democrats take the blame when Socialism fails as it always does.
If Medved and his ilk are a majority, then the Republican party will drift left. Those of us to the right should fight hard to keep this from happening and stand on principals.
Too many RINO's in power over the past 8 years have resulted in the Republicans not governing like conservatives and getting kicked out of office for policy failures that are largely liberal policies.
|
|
Medved: “When alleged “RINO” Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the GOP and joined the Democrats, it gave them control of the US Senate.”
It was a good day when that cancer was finally cut out of the GOP body. He may be a good man personally, I have no way of knowing, but he worked against conservative causes more than some of the democrats did.
Worse, he used his position to try to blackmail the GOP by threatening to ‘flip’. Remember how much attention he was getting, all the begging and pleading? What good did it do? He gave the GOP the finger.
I’m glad he “flipped” and got out, but they should have kicked him out. That would have shown some guts, something the GOP hasn’t had in 20 years.
Instead of the GOP getting “dumped” by Jeffords, Jeffords should have been “dumped” by the GOP. That would have been putting their money where their mouth is. That would have sent a powerful message.
Instead, they just whimpered, and business went on as usual.
~~~
Medved: “When another RINO, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, lost his Senate seat in 2006, it also gave the Democrats control;”
Hey now, that was the bed the GOP made for themselves; they had a conservative challenger to Chafee, but the White House and the GOP backed Chafee, the Jeffords impersonator. That’s their own fault. Good old boys watching out for good old boys, instead of we the people, you know, the PEOPLE WHO PUT THEM IN OFFICE TO REPRESENT OUR INTERESTS.
~~~
Medved: “if Chafee had won, we’d still have a Republican majority and GOP committee chairs.”
You sound like a kid getting excited about the box-scores at a baseball game that “might have been”.
Is the thought of “GOP committee chairs” supposed to get me all ‘warm and tingly’ inside? What possible impact could that have on my life, Michael? We HAD a Republican MAJORITY, in the HOUSE, in the SENATE *and* in the WHITE HOUSE.
They all sat around and fiddled, whilst Rome burned.
|
|
“Technically, with the exception of Ron Paul, just about anyone could beat Obama and/or Hillary” (Wayfinder)
Huckabee: Not a chance. He will get killed against Obama and/or Hillary
Thompson: He has no energy. No vitality. I like the guy..There is no fire there.
McCain: This guy is Not a Republican. Where is his base? Where is his money? Will he support the eventual Republican Nominee? Is he going to take federal matching funds? War hero certainly; he will lose to Obama and/or Hillary
Giuliani; He might pull it off. BUT, WHEN?
Hunter: off of the radar
|
|
Michael Medved: “Those who make war on RINO’s, however, ought to confront an obvious question: would you really prefer that such people drop the Republican designation?”
I’m not “making war” on anyone.
And yes, I WOULD prefer that “such people drop the Republican designation”, preferably *BEFORE* they misrepresent themselves and fool conservatives into voting them into office… you know, BEFORE the “change” comes over them…
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Attempting to fool me every single election cycle, and I quit.
I know you think you have us over a barrel. “Who else will a conservative vote for? There’s nowhere else for them to go!”.
You’re right, I won’t vote for a democrat. But I’ll stay home on election day before I help another liar get into office. That’s not what I signed up for, that’s not what I voted for, and I won’t accept it anymore.
~~~
Michael Medved: “How does it help if politicians or office-holders with whom you disagree leave your party and join the opposition?”
They shouldn’t be “office-holders” in the first place, except that the “good old boys” in the GOP supported them (like Chaffee and Jeffords) against genuine conservative challengers in the primaries. Then they win, and proceed to shoot conservative causes in the foot by voting with the democrats time after time after time after time after time after time after time…
|
|
Michael Medved: “There’s an obnoxious and destructive term that’s begun to do real damage to the Republican Party. That term is ‘RINO,’ ”
No, Michael. It’s not the *term* that has done “real damage to the Republican Party”, it’s the people who embody that term who have done the real damage.
~~~
Michael Medved: “Angry conservatives use the term to attack purported moderates in their own party.”
I question your use of the word “moderate” in this context; if being a “moderate” amounts to voting for liberal causes, against the interests of the people who elected them to office, what should they be called? Traitors? Turncoats? Sell-outs?
“RINO” is pretty “moderate”, actually…
~~~
Michael Medved: “Recently, Mike Huckabee and John McCain have been attacked as “RINO’s” –Governor Schwarzenegger of California regularly draws that denunciation.”
Rather than attack the messenger, perhaps we might examine the actual policies and actions of these individuals, to see why some might be objecting to them? To see whether they adhere to conservative principles, and whether they follow through on promises of conservative positions and appointments… or whether they have… been “Republicans” in name only, but not in deeds or actions?
|
|
“Yes, the first governor to install universal healthcare” (Mark)
It’s called Universal Coverage. Everyone is required to have healthcare insurance just like auto insurance. The EMPLOYER is the backbone (80%) of this “universal” system. It is NOT one payer/universal such as what Obama/Hillary/Edwards spew. It safeguards YOUR CURRENT EMPLOYER SPONSORED HEALTHCARE COVERAGE and gives an incentive to YOUR employer to keep offering/supplying YOUR healthcare coverage.
You get one of these socialist candidates (Obama/Hillary/Huck) who can actually get close to getting you “universal/one payer” coverage like the “congress has” you can kiss your employer sponsored healthcare coverage GOOD-BYE…YOUR employer will terminate YOUR employer healthcare coverage. There is NO federal law requiring ANY employer to supply you will healthcare coverage…
“universal/one payer”; your taxes will sky rocket, your health care will go down and good luck trying to get a doctor’s appointment. What would it be like at ANY Dr’s office? Try your local DMV office and take a number.
Canada? Don’t make me laugh. They run down here for their healthcare needs. Canada has a population of what? 30 Million? What is the USA? 300 Million? Canada can NOT get it done and WE would go broke trying.
USA government provides healthcare when you reach social security age. Then there is Medicare/Medicaid. WE CAN’T EVEN AFFORD THAT NOW! HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY GIVE IT TO EVERYONE?.....Pie In The Sky.
Get real….Support an ex-Governor, successful businessman, and family man with integrity who CAN BEAT OBAMA AND/OR HILLARY. That man is Willard Mitt Romney………
|
|
Technically, with the exception of Ron Paul, just about anyone could beat Obama and/or Hillary. The only reason those two neanderthals are viable at all is that the mainstream media overlooks their flaws and faults in order to see a Democrat in the White House.
If the candidates can stay on the issues of the War on Terror, immigration, tax cuts and tax reform, reductions in federal spending, and other issues, they can beat anything the Democrats can offer because they have nothing. The key is not to be suckered in by Democrat premises like a moderate would.
They have to control the debate, and not let it get sidetracked by Democrat charades.
At this point, Duncan Hunter seems to be the most conservative of the candidates, but he's not a front runner. The others are moderates to one degree or another, so I go on the basis of leadership. John McCain betrayed the GOP and the conservative cause so many times I consider him a Democrat, and therefore not a leader, at least not one any rational American wants. Romney is okay. Only Rudy Guiliani has the most leadership skill that I've seen. Though I don't think he's conservative, I do think he's head and shoulders superior to anyone else out there for the time being.
Whoever's elected, we conservatives cannot sit on our duffs. We have to be vocal, we have to be mobilized, and we have to work hard to make our voices heard and our influence felt in Washington and beyond. We must fight hard to take our country back, from the grassroots all the way to the capital. |
|
Medved's been called a RINO, a NeoCon and some other censored names. While I don't agree w/ him on every issue, there are many more that I do.
Reagan (who is the standard bearer of modern conservatism) pushed through amnesty (IMO a mistake) yet that didn't stop me from supportn him. Would conservatives not support Reagan (if he were alive and still in politics) today because of this one (albeit very important) issue?
|
|
So, who do you support that CAN be supported by MOST Republicans and CAN win against Obama and/or Hillary? |
|
Mitt Romney is a man who "fought conservatives" during the 80s and 90s and even up until 2006 when he included abortion as a taxpayer funded benefit in his Massachusetts health care plan.
Endorsed by Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romney's state-controlled "Commonwealth Care" health plan for Massachusetts was signed into law by governor Romney himself on 4/12/2006 making Massachusetts the first state ever to install a government-run universal healthcare system with unlimited abortions at taxpayer expense.
Yes, the first governor to install universal healthcare with taxpayer funded abortions is also the first governor to install gay marriage. Nice job, Mitt.
http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/health_ins/
"I was an Independent during the time of Reagan/Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan Bush!"
-Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney made this revealing statement in 1994 a full six years after Reagan left office in 1988. Mitt Romney was Anti-Reagan/Bush all during the 80's and 90's while himself holding liberal positions across the board on social issues... and now that he's running for President as a "Republican," Mitt Romney wants us to believe he's a fan of Reagan? What a big phony Mitt Romney is. What a fraud. The fact is, he was a Reagan-Hater. This is a guy who as an adult supported liberal Democratic presidential candidates Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and Paul Tsongas, all during the Reagan/Bush years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx3UWmyAY4
Today Mitt Romney pays lip service to conservative positions while quietly pushing a liberal agenda through his hand-picked judicial appointees 75% of whom are known liberals, Democratic party activists, and left-leaning Independents.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/25/romney _jurist_picks_not_tilted_to_gop/ |
|
|
Why don't you RINOs declare victory and simply go ahead and change the name of the party to "Democratic Party II"? |
|
|
if this article doesn't prove that Medved isn't and never was a conservative I don't know what will. |
|
Attention cyber Republicans who want the most qualified candidate for America that CAN WIN and put a stop to Obama/Hillary and Huck who ALL are spewing socialism disguised as populism. All the answers for any individual condition reside within one’s Self and NOT THE GOVERNMENT…Willard Mitt Romney back to basics; free markets, free enterprise, lower taxes, self-reliance, and individual responsibility. (And don’t forget those Supreme Court Justice nominations)
…Let’s get it done!….Turn OFF the TV..There is always another football game….Get off the internet boards for a little time and DO SOMETHING!...Enough cyber-chat. Call and talk with some real folks about Romney who vote!
It’s easy to register. I just did. The interface requires flash so if you are running Vista 64bit such as me; make sure you use your 32bit browser.
CallAtHome@MittRomney.com and then visit http://www.MittRomney.com/CallatHome
|
|
|
Wayfinder: Thank you and Amen. You have said it best. A conservative is a conservative! Liberalism and all that politically correct nonsense is what has taken this country down. They like to call it "socially responsible" indicating that unless you are a liberal Dem, you are mean and uncaring. Actually liberals, whether Dems or Repubs, are just socialists in disguise and socialists are communists in disguise. If I had a Quija board (remember those?) and I asked it what is a Communist, it would point to Hillary. |
|
While real conservatives may quibble over issues on an ideological level, at least we're still operating on the same premise. A RINO, on the other hand, is a Democrat, and does not share the basic, fundamental premise of conservatism, which is freedom.
A Conservative is a Conservative. He's both Socially AND Fiscally Conservative. A "cafeteria" Conservative is no conservative because he's not judging issues based on the fundamental premise of human freedom as espoused in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. That kind of person is pandering to what he believes to be more popular at the moment in order to get into office. This makes him cowardly in the face of the opposition that seeks to destroy this country and remake it in their own graven image. In other words...that makes him a moderate.
We want a candidate that isn't willing to work with the opposition on anything. To do so would validate their perverse premises and compromise our own. We want a crackdown on liberalism, to expose it for its treason, its destruction of our nation's moral character, and its breakdown of the human spirit. We don't care about gridlock in government; conservatives LOVE gridlock! The less government does, the more of our money we get to keep!
|
|
|
Rinos are gray. neither blue or red, right? Dinos too. Been like this as long as I can remember and I'm 72. They just had no color or name tags. Where are the Goldwaters and Reaganites? At least we knew where they stood. I even liked JFK and FDR. You knew who they were and where they stood. Not everybody agreed with EVERYTHING they did or what they were for or against either. Gimme a statesman,who will support our constitution and laws, not a politician, please. Yes, I know, dream on. |
|
I've heard the term "RINO" applied to:
-- Social conservatives who don't subscribe to fiscal conservatism (Huckabee and his supporters)
-- Fiscal conservatives who don't subscribe to social conservatism (Giuliani and his supporters)
-- "Compassionate" conservatives who want to allow illegal immigrants to become citizens someday (McCain and his supporters)
If you throw out ALL those folks from the GOP on the grounds of insufficient ideological purity, then who will be left?
It sounds like Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter are the only two "pure conservative" candidates who are never considered RINOs. But how many votes have they gotten, and how well are they doing in the polls?
After you have thrown out everybody who doesn't support Fred and Duncan Hunter, how big a party will you have left?
Maybe a better answer is for you Fred supporters to leave the GOP and form your own third party. Rather than purging everybody else out of an existing party.
|
|
Please join your fellow Team Mitt members from across the nation for a special Call at Home, tonight, Sunday, January 6, from 5pm – 8:30pm EST and Monday, January 7, from 2pm - 8:30pm EST. Just email "count me in" to CallAtHome@MittRomney.com to participate in this nationwide rally of support and volunteerism for Governor Romney. We will be reminding Romney supporters to turn out for the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, January 8.
Who: You and your fellow Team Mitt members. Goal: 5,000 callers.
What: New Hampshire Get-out-the-Vote calls.
When: Sunday, January 6, from 5pm – 8:30pm EST
Monday, January 7, from 2pm – 8:30pm EST
Where: From the comfort of your home.
Why: Send Governor Romney to Victory in New Hampshire and on his way to the White House!
How: By emailing "count me in" to CallAtHome@MittRomney.com. You will then receive a USER NAME and PASSWORD and simple instructions.
The people of Wyoming took the first step towards bringing true conservative change to Washington. Tuesday the people of New Hampshire will take the next and we need you right there with us.
Ask your friends, ask your family and tell them how important it is that they too make calls from their home. For those of you who participated in this high tech program in the past, you know how easy it is – spread the word!
Tonight is the next step to bring conservative change to Washington. Let's win New Hampshire, let’s win the White House and let’s rewrite the history books.
--The Romney for President Team
|
|
epublicans looking for a presidential candidate to inspire them are now faced with a tax-and-spend religious rightist who would have the federal government regulate everything from restaurant menus to local schools. As Dorothy Parker would say, "What fresh hell is this?" (Cato Scholar David Boaz, executive vice president)
Time to write a check to the Romney Campaign...Enough is enough...I'm getting worried.....McCain is NOT an option...
Hang Tough Mitt....I've got your back!
|
|
Medved would like the RINO hunt to stop, because he knows his turn will come, being the crosshairs of those in the Republican base who despise RINOs and will realize he is One.
His support for Bush (water-carrying), Giuliani, McCain, etc., and his arrogant support of the illegal alien amnesty pushed hard by McCain, et.al., is enough to put those crosshairs right on his forehead. To cleanse the Republican party of the neocon RINOs and their ilk would be the catharsis needed to move the party forward.
To do anything else will lead to a third party, and maybe that's a good thing. |
|
|
you're one of them! If the Republican party is going to demonstrate it's no alternative to the Democratic party, what do you expect from those who value their freedoms over the whims of the state? Unfortunately, I think you'll find that all Republicans are RINOs. None of them will ever challenge the status quo. They are the status quo. |
|
mr medved,
why are we crying about the term RINO?
aren't you the one that said that all candidates should run as either the dem or repub?
good.
don't people have the right (freedom of speech) to distinguish between the candidates?
if hillary and all her policies and views on the issues ran as a republican, wouldn't she be a RINO?
why would we want someone who will not attract te base?
for example:
mccain wants to balance the spending. he is against tax cuts. look at his record. the dems in congress pass a bunch of tax hikes and increased spending. well, there are more taxes to offset the spending and mccain will probably sin it.
so what if he is for less spending. he likes tax hikes!!
so he is weak on one of the pillars of the republican party!
|
|
Remember Joe Lieberman? He is a Democrat who supports the War on Terror and as an Orthodox Jew is opposed fundamentally to abortion on demand. The Jackass Party tried to run him out. He ran as an independent but still votes with the Donkeys 90% of the time except on Israel and the war.
It would've served them right if he'd jumped ship and joined the GOP. The Donkeys would still have a majority and he'd still be a RINO but we'd be one seat closer to getting control of the committees again.
-Ray |
|
BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS
Democrats do the same thing. Maybe you are suffereing from the same amnesia of MCcain. |
|
The Republcan base only gets more estranged from
the Party Establishment with every passing day.
It's bad enough that our current President pokes
us in the eye on domestic issues, but now the
pundits think they can order us to put up with
even worse people dowm the line. I don't believe
in man-made global warming, so I REFUSE to
support McCain or Huckabee. I want to live as a
free adult citizen, so Giuliani is out. Romney
wasnt't that great as Governor here, having
saddled us with a version of Hillarycare, so that leaves us with Thompson or Ron Paul, both
of whom need a fine tuning.
|
|
|
BTW are very liberal states. If we don't start giving our moderates a break then we will have some very conservative people in gov and tons of liberals. Do you guys realize how liberal mass and Calif are? Mitt and Arnold should be given a pat on the back for bringing those states slightly to the right and by being able to compromise appropriately. But instead we crucify them. |
|
I think you make a good point, but Medved does too. The hunt for Rinos has become an unreasonable witch hunt for some people and seems like the plot for some strange tragic novel an english teacher would make you read in high school.
"Notice how everyone is a Rino now" the teacher drones, "ironically those who first began the accusations are now being accused. It won't be long until everyone is burned at the stake."
|
|
|
budget, putting it in an 18 billion deficit, and inceasing it 50%. Tax increases are on the way, unless the non-RINOs in the state assembly and senate can stop them. He should switch to his real party, and I'd be ecstatic. |
|
the GOP would still not be ideologically "pure". I like Medved but he is a party guy and not so ideologically motivated. But consider this Michael, it is not that conservatives want to see RINOs removed from the party, we just don't want them obtaining high office and taking away our liberty.
The conservative coalition is fractious enough without liberals also wanting a piece of the GOP action. Most of whom we call RINOs these days are really ideologically Democrats. The reason that they call the GOP "home" is because the Dem party is a socialist party that doesn't want them. Guys like Chaffee, Bush, Huckabee, McCain, and Jeffords are more like traditional Democrats. In fact, one could argue that JFK and Hubert Humphrey were to the RIGHT of most of these guys. But they need votes and those votes won't come from the MoveOn types so they play in our sandbox.
The battle for the soul of the GOP is more important than keeping a seat in the Senate. As long as RINOs are elected conservatives will be marginalized. As conservatives are further marginalized, the GOP loses its power and ultimately, it splits into two parties and the Dems will then hold control of the reins of power for the long term. And we don't want that, do we? |
|
|
Whether Medved believes in it or not there ARE RINO's out there. They dont adhere to the Party's core values and you cant tell the difference in their voting records when compared to Democrats! If you declare yourself a Republican then you should act and vote like one!! |
|
Having a broad appeal is a good thing. Understanding what a majority of Americans want is better. Medveds appeal for McCain's Immigration plan does not alter the wide dissatisfaction for something other that what many do describe a “amnesty”. Regardless of political preferences a majority of citizens want a safe America and want an America that is economically strong. Neither McCain nor Huckabee fit both these bills. It’s time to select and elect a candidate that reflects and can accomplish what Americans want. These RINO’s don’t fit the bill.
WatchFire
|
|
The previous debates worked well for the Huckster but when he had to sit down and give real positions on issues he was a fish out of water. Folksy one liners wern't in vogue in this setting.His clever cliches are old news now.He's very weak on across the board conservative issues. He's still the social conservatives guy in some circles but if you look at how Romney cleaned up with the non-evangelical vote it exposes just how weak the Huckster is outside his religious base. It'll be very interesting to see the SC polls after the NH primary is over.I think the SC evangelicals are more of the religious right and Iowa was more the religious left.
Right now the MSM is focusing their attention on getting MCain through NH with a win but it'll be interesting beyond that to see who they try to boost in the next few states before super Tuesday.
On the Dem side it'll be very interesting to see where the black votes go in SC. I think the coventional wisdom among blacks is Obama can't win the general even with all his white support in the early states. They also have to wonder what Obama would mean as them being able to play the victim card into the future. My guess is the black vote will break to Clinton and she'll be the nominee at the end of the day.
|
|
|
LIBERAL...LIKE MEDVED...QUIT WHINING!! Huckabee and McCain are liberals...McCain/Kennedy Neocons!! Thats even better!! LOL :O)) |
|
The Base is shrinking because it is filled with NeCon RINOs. The people who want to cut taxes to only increase government revenue. So they can increase government size and increase government control and decrease personal liberty.
We want people that will get behind and represent the constitution. People that will protect American against enemies both foreign and domestic but not go out of the way to create more enemies foreign and completely ignore those domestic
Would you suggest to Islamists not to purge their party of radicals simply because radicals give them more numbers? We can take a biological argument. Would you not remove one of your gonads if it was cancerous because you would be less of man?
Purge the body of cancer and purge the party of the corporate fascist big government RINO
|
|
And the silence here is deafening.
We really need to rein in, and bridle these high priests of conservatism, who want to own that word, and interpret it for the rest of
us.
They value money over morality-not realizing we have nothing 9onthe democrats without our moral abso lutes being our number1- above all else.
|
|
The Base is shrinking because it is filled with neocon rinos. The people who want to cut taxes to increase government revenue. Increase government revenue and increase government size. Increase government size you increase government control and decrease personal liberty.
We want people that will get behind and represent the constitution. People that will protect American against enemies both foreign and domestic but create enemies foreign and ignore those domestic
Would you suggest to Islamists not to purge their party of radicals because radicals give them more numbers?
Purge the body of cancer. |
|
|
|