Skip to comments.Endangered species alert: 45% of RINOs vanish in a single year
Posted on 11/30/2006 4:11:28 PM PST by dangus
click here to read article
"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
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.
Agreed. I was speaking to the general rule, not the exception. Yes, there are times a politician has to be more flexible, such as Arnold in CA. However, too often the right gives up and fails to offer the conservative alternative. This is exactly what has happened in CO for numerous races.
"...I'm not sure many should be rehashed here (Schiavo)..."
The purpose of this piece was to pin failure in the last election on Senators and Congressmen the ACU finds objectionable or questionable (probably because they've never been photographed leaving a church, or firebombing an abortion clinic, but that's another discussion), or as some here put it, the RINOS.
It is my position that conservatives are just as worthy of blame as republicans (there is a difference, you know), and in some cases, have eben more spectacular failures to their (dis-)credit. If we're going to have an intelligent debate then truthfulness and intellectual honesty have to be applied to both sides of the argument, no?
Therefore, anything is fair game when it took place within the entirety of the last six years.
No worries. It happens to us all.
Bunch of mayflies...
Oh please, spare me the patronizing civics lesson. I'm way ahead of ya. Let me know when you catch up and want to have a conversation.
I'll agree that there is a lot of blame to go around. Even amongst some Conservatives (your Classic Liberals), statism and apathy seeps in (along with lack of leadership), and those are great dangers. It is always a good thing to have a vigorous challenge of leadership and not to lose focus on issues important to us (i.e. Jefferson's notion of revolution). We didn't keep our eye on the ball. We've got 2 years to get our act together.
Hard to have a conversation with someone who apparently doesn't know what he's talking about. You used the word "liberal" incorrectly. i.e. you intended for it to be inferred as something it isn't. It's also hard to have a conversation with someone who could be this dishonest (although I'll cut you a break and chalk it up to a simple brain fart rather than malice).
The Republican party is a liberal party. Always has been, always will be. What you, as a conservative, seek to conserve are principles of personal liberty created by liberal means. Why this should somehow fail to register with you (and you're not alone, many toss about the terms so casually and without any historical sense of what they mean)is beyond me.
You're right about that. His poll numbers collapsed right after the Toomey fiasco and NEVER recovered. Had he not made that dreadful mistake, he may have had a chance to hold his seat. My guess is he still would have lost given the negative environment and Casey name, but it would have only been by a couple points instead of the 20-point shellacing he did take.
However, he would still be a hero among us Conservatives and would be a VERY formidable force for the '08 presidential nomination, given the RINO parade we are currently faced with.
I still couldn't believe conservatives were so revengeful that they let Santorum lost simply because he helped Specter. Specter was his senior in the senate, and they're from a same state. You expected Santorum to backstabbed him? If conservatives are so emotional that they're willing to lose almost everything by losing the Congress, I think we're going to lose everything... Say goodbye to all kind of conservatism...
The problem is, however, that rarely are there true fiscal Conservatives who are also social liberals. If you're the latter, it's almost impossible to be the former, because increased spending and government intervention is required to be a social lib.
I'm personally ticked about Curt Weldon. Defeated by Clinton's little toadies because he wouldn't shut up.
The problem is, you might be able to get away with it in localized contests, but where a Presidential candidate is concerned, they will have to choose. It's hard to motivate the Conservative base for a Giuliani type. A social policy Democrat is poison and would cause a 3rd party candidate to rise.
There, I hope this helps straighten you out.
Like I said, NO Rinos, NO Defeat! Believe me, we're on the same page.
My Bad. I'm probably getting caught up in the incorrect use of "liberal" that seems to be rampant here and assuming that we're not.
That and I hate the term RINO. It's such a crock and it's typically tossed about as a mean-spirited perjorative, mostly by people who can't adequately define either "republic" or "republican".
Sorry for the confusion.
There are a LOT of those voters. I had a hairdresser who wouldn't vote for Bush/Cheney because she thought Cheney was ugly. (I switched salons, needless to say.)
You really have to understand that a great deal of voting is not based on firm command of the issues. It is done often on feelings, impulse, peer pressure, and vague impressions derived from a few news stories and commercials. That is why the debates are important...often that is the only time voters actually listen to the candidates.
It is a shame that the electorate is so fickle and so ill-informed, but they are. And, their votes count just as much as yours does.
With the current 3 stooges the media is trying to foist on us, they're all degrees of distasteful, from Giuliani the social liberal, McCain the media-whoring megalomaniacal senile nut, and flip-floppin' cut 'n run from Taxachusetts Romney. We have got to do better than this.
Your anecdotes about family and friends are nice, but how do you know your airhead hairdresser actually voted? I'd be willing to put money down that she votes about one time out of five, if that. Most people won't admit that they don't vote, don't care, or are intimidated by the whole process. Talk is cheap and getting off your rear and going to the polls is a pain if you don't usually do it.
The electorate is not the same people each time. That is the most important dynamic in politics today, yet so few of the so-called pros grasp the impact of that fact.
Out of the 6 republicans who lost their senate seats.
4 conservatives - Talent, Burns, Allen, Santorum .
1 centrist - Dewine.
1 RINO - Chaffee.
Conservatives had a major set back as far as the senate is concerned.
So did the average score of Republicans in the House and Senate go up or down?
Turnout is, of course, a very important part of the equation. Hoever, WHO turns out is more important. And if your educated voters don't turn out while the dim bulbs do, well then, there you have it.
Which was my original point exactly. By the way in most states it is public record whether or not you voted. Election strategists can purchase that data for targeting and planning.
What motivates someone like the hairdresser to go to the polls? What makes an educated businessman skip voting? THAT is the mystery.
Even if my hairdresser only voted 20% of the time, if she is going to vote, what are her criteria for candidates and what motivates her to the polls?
I think it a mistake that voters respond more to positive messages. Hate is a very underestimated motivator, and I think the democrats have understood that and capitalized upon it.
No you and I are on the same page. Those are the $64,000 questions.
My issue is with the pundits who have this tidy 1/3-1/3-1/3 model with the same people dutifully pulling the lever each time and everything swings on these high and mighty middle voters who change their minds now and then. The non voting 50%, to them, is the same individuals each year who are totally irrelevant. It just isn't that simple.
A LOT of people went to the polls and voted against Republicans because of this issue, and this was a motivator that got people to the polls.
Yes, they were being petty and stupid, but as I said before, their votes counted just as much as those educated voters.
I would enjoy discussing this more, but I have to get up early tomorrow. Please ping me if you see anything relevant to this topic, and I will do the same for you.
Oxymoron, you can never have a majority with the devil as a partner.
ping to #87...this is a perfect example of the "motivation" dynamic I talk about that causes huge swings in turnout. I can see people who have never voted or seldom vote getting mad about this odd issue and turning out in large numbers.
They're called moderate dems for now. They'll be jumping sides to the repubs when the repubs get the house and senate back next time.
Libertarian, not liberal. Even most of the nuttier kool-aid drinkers on the left aren't insane enough to propose abolishing the laws on either. I personally won't support any GOP candidate that is anti-WOD.
I'm not going to rehash a pointless debate on drugs in this thread, we've got thousands of them, and you can look up my comments on the subject. The only people who argue in favor of legalization from a personal liberties standpoint are selfish, irresponsible, and stupid, with no concern either for themselves, their families or friends, or their communities.
If she is up in 2012, that would mean she was elected this year.