Posted on 11/30/2006 4:11:28 PM PST by dangus
The 2006 election was tragic for conservatives who did lose several key races. But the losses were downright devestating for RINOs (Republicans In Name Only.)
The following is a list of the RINOs, who scored under 60% as graded by the American Conservative Union, and how they fared in the last election:
SENATE: Linc Chafee, RI: defeated. Olympia Snowe, ME: no contest. Sue Collins, ME: re-elected. Mike DeWine, OH: defeated.
HOUSE Christopher Shays, CT: re-elected. Mike Castle, DE: re-elected. Sherwood Boehlert, NY: defeated. Jim Leach, IA: retired. Mark Kirk, IL: re-elected. Nancy Johnson, CT: defeated. Wayne Gilchrest, MD: re-elected. Scott McInnis, CO: previously retired. Jim Ramstad, MN: re-elected. Robert Simmons, CT: defeated. Tim Johnson, IL: re-elected. Jim Gerlach, PA: re-elected. Tom Davis, VA: re-elected. Schwarz, MI: defeated in primary. Charlie Bass, NH: defeated.
It's worse than that, even. Also ousted were Jeb Bradley (ACU score: 60), Mark Foley (63), Mike Sweeney (72), and Clay Shaw (71).
This is not to say that there weren't some painful conservative losses, such as Northup, Hostettler, Sodrel, Chocola, and Taylor. But the losses to the Republican Party struck largely at the "centrist" wing. Where's the media decrying the loss of so-called centrists, like they did in 1994?
I have absolutely NO sympathy for the RINOs that lost their positions. Good riddance! I am more than willing to take this teeny-tiny step backwards to get back on track for '08. (And yes, I voted a straight Republican Ticket. Always have, always will, even if it means holding my nose once in a while. A Democrat will NEVER get my vote. Ever.)
And as for the good, solid conservatives who were collateral damage? There's absolutely no doubt in my military mind that they will land on their feet and find good, productive work in the Private Sector like the rest of us. They'll be just fine. :)
I've yet to see a true conservative whine, cry and lick their wounds for more than a long weekend before they pick themselves up, dust themselves off and get on with their lives.
And if they don't? Then we got rid of another useless RINO. :)
They should also include Ken Mehlman as a defeat.
Terminology to results are different things. A "moderate" Republican who tries to attract the right seems to lose more often that not. A "conservative" Republican who is willing to bend and listen to the moderates has a better chance of winning.
First, Talent only had 4 years to nail down support. But fundamentally Missouri is always closely contested. In a Democrat year, it went Democrat. End of story.
Huber is right, conservatives can win and have won and will in the future win in Democrat-leaning districts.
If your "majority" is provided by liberals (oops, "centrists"), what do you expect to accomplish?? Not much, and eventually the voters will get tired of your nothingness and toss you out on the street with little to show for your years in the "majority".
That goes for both RINOs and 'conservative' reps who become fat, complacent, and tone-deaf.
Thanks for posting the list of RMSP members. One minor correction: Rob Simmons of Connecticut actually lost in a close race.
Rick Santorum belongs on the tragic defeat list. A great conservative senator who made one mistake.
Driving is that way too. Sometimes even a little mistake will get you killed. Even though he was one of the better Senators and way better than we'll see in Pa for a while, he did compromise his principles.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Thanks!
I will make note of that and make sure that is reflected in the list next time I repost it..
I had done some of the legwork on election results a couple weeks back but had not posted this list publicly 'til today.
Whoever wrote this is delusional in the implication that republicans cannot survive without conservatives (small 'c' intentional), when in fact, the opposite is certainly more true.
The reality I've seen is Republicans who proudly exhibit conservative ideas and standards do win. The RINO's, or moderate Republicans who try to win too often lose because they tend to turn off the conservative base and voters would rather have a Democrat than a pretend Democrat.
Keep thinking this way. Those who do are beginning to sound like all the apologists for Communism when they tried to explain it's failures. How many of you remember this argument: "Well, of course Communism is a viable system, it's just that we haven't found the right Communists to run it all yet..."
I really don' t understand this. Political philospohy seems to be lost on this comment. The left today exhibits traits for communism, not Republicans. I DO remember this argument. It was used in colleges in the 60's and 70's but my understanding is the duplicity was dropped after that. Communism is NOT a viable system and I know of no conservative who would accept this.
Substitute "Consrvative" for "Communist" and that pretty much sums up the tone on FR, amongst the "REAL" conservatives (i.e. those who can't define conservatism, and can't tell you how a republic is supposed to operate, except that they know they don't like the way this one works, and who believe that what's good for Pastor Bob is good enough for them!), and the "Conservative" think tanks/organizations ever since Nov 7, 2006.
I will admit there are some on FR who go overboard occasionally, and others who are more radical than I am. But, that is not representative of the whole nor the Republican party, nor the conservatives across the country.
"We never had a veto-proof majority"
Sixty votes could have been found. I don't say it would have been easy, but I do know they could have been found. But many of the problems of the last Congress don't seem to have had the usual "gridlock-R-vs-D" quality to them, and instead seem to have other motivations: like positioning oneself for presidential bid (Frist with refusing the Nuclear Option , McCain with the Gang of 14 nonsense, both sacrificing porinciple for the sake of presenting themselves at a future date as "a moderate"). Or writing border fences into legislation, but refusing to fund them (i.e. Don;t worry businessman who bought and sold me, you can hire all the illegal aliens you want, I only voted for it to give me cover with the peasants). When they weren't being dishonest, they were pandering; throwing bones to "the Base" (i.e. Right-to-Lifers and religious bigots) -- such as the Terri Schiavo farce, the Faith-Based Initiattive, dangling "Strict Constitutionalists" before the Anti-abortion crowd -- without having to actually accomplish anything: Terri's still dead (and I'll bet Mr. Hastert and Frist can adequately explain how stomping all over Marital Rights in the process was somehow a conservative principle, right? And then to make the claim of "Defending Marriage" out of the other side of your face? Why, that's just too rich...), Bush stopped funding Faith-Based a long time ago, and how's that Court thing working out so far?.
re: post 23
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1746658/posts?page=23#23
As a side note, Mitt Romney had been listed as a member of the RMSP up until earlier this year when his name was removed from the Governors at the bottom of the elected members list.
You might give some thought to the notion that typically the "RINO'S" represent marginal seats that "conservatives" would not have a prayer of winning in, absent unusual circumstances. The only one who had some success at that that I can think of was Northrup. She went down this time too.
RINO's win by appealing to enough voters. For the most part, RINO's win in liberal districts or states. Liberal RINO's do not win in conservative states, or in races where an articulate conservative can win. If RINO's are the answer, why did Ronald Reagan win so handily?
I have no problem with holding my nose for a RINO in a liberal state or a liberal-leaning state (being from California and voting for the Governator as an example). My problem comes with having a RINO in a conservative state or district, or even worse, a Democrat.
Good for you1 I almost thought I was reading the Democrat Uderground or Move On. I sincerely wonder what some people are thinking?
"...If your "majority" is provided by liberals (oops, "centrists").."
Historically, and in strictest political terms, Republicans ARE Liberals. Look it up, you might learn something about Classical Liberalism, and if you do, please tell your friends.
What we refer to as "liberals" are nothing of the sort. Unless, of course, you consider government-supplied-and-controlled-everything-intruding-into-every-nook-and-cranny-of-your-life to somehow be a liberal ideal. If anything, they are certainly not liberal (if we use the word correctly), and what I think you mean to say (if you'll allow me) is "libertine", with regards to their social views.
It's hard enough to hold together a 55-member caucus, but keeping all of ours and trying to get 5 of theirs is a substantially tall order, especially in an election year. Frist, my Senator, did well as long as he was a backbencher, but was the worst GOP leader in the past half-century. I'm grateful he is sparing us the spectacle of running for President after his mediocre leadership.
As for some of your other debatable points, I'm not sure many should be rehashed here (Schiavo). At least their hearts were in the right place on the issue. After all, the Conservative stance on marital rights doesn't extend to murdering your spouse so you can marry your whore, even if the spouse is a vegetable.
Take down the big RINO, McInsane, and the rest will follow. Getting rid of that MSM toady is job #1.
Sorry, I misread portions of your comments. Good reason I should not post in the evenings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.