[C. Edmund Wright]

I don’t totally buy our definition, but you are 100% right that it is very misused and over used and quite often abused as a personal rant.

My def would include folks like McCain and Graham and Snowe and others who use their attacks on other Republicans as a way to ingratiate themselves to the liberal media. In other words, these would be Republicans who are DEFINED by their “non” Republicanness or non conservatism. These would also be folks who have never done anything to promote the conservative or base Republican cause.

I think it’s more of a mindset than any particular issue or two.

[muawiyah]

My definition covers Ron Paul (who is a Libertarian), a Senator in Alabama who won office as a Democrat, a Governor in Texas who won office as a Democrat, etc. Used to be a lot more of them like that but we eventually established a permanent Republican party in the Southern states.

We have OTHER very useful names to deal with their ideology and they should be used.

The dispute with Graham is that he's not quite a traditional Republican nor is he a traditional Liberal ~ guy has his own agenda.

Bloomberg causes us a similar problem.

McCain, though, as his pudgy daughter can attest (if she were ever honest for 10 seconds), votes according to what keeps the most cases of beer on the highways in Arizona ~ man has no other ideological touch stone. Makes him an political blood brother with Bloomberg.