Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Endangered species alert: 45% of RINOs vanish in a single year
Data from American Conservative Union ^ | 11/30/06 | Dangus

Posted on 11/30/2006 4:11:28 PM PST by dangus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-105 next last
To: fieldmarshaldj

"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?.


51 posted on 11/30/2006 5:34:11 PM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: All

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.


52 posted on 11/30/2006 5:34:44 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ...... Kyl / Cornyn in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Morgan in Denver

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.


53 posted on 11/30/2006 5:35:38 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: paudio

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?


54 posted on 11/30/2006 5:35:56 PM PST by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: paudio
Agreed. I may be in the minority here, but thinking that we can have a Republican majority without any 'RINO' is delusional.

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.

55 posted on 11/30/2006 5:36:55 PM PST by Anti-MSM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

Good for you1 I almost thought I was reading the Democrat Uderground or Move On. I sincerely wonder what some people are thinking?


56 posted on 11/30/2006 5:38:09 PM PST by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

"...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.


57 posted on 11/30/2006 5:41:02 PM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

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.


58 posted on 11/30/2006 5:47:32 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Cheney X -- Destroying the Liberal Democrat Traitors By Any Means Necessary -- Ya Dig ? Sho 'Nuff.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Take down the big RINO, McInsane, and the rest will follow. Getting rid of that MSM toady is job #1.


59 posted on 11/30/2006 5:49:40 PM PST by VRWC For Truth (Repeal the 17th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

Sorry, I misread portions of your comments. Good reason I should not post in the evenings.


60 posted on 11/30/2006 5:54:12 PM PST by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Torie

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.


61 posted on 11/30/2006 5:56:56 PM PST by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

"...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.


62 posted on 11/30/2006 5:57:41 PM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Morgan in Denver

No worries. It happens to us all.


63 posted on 11/30/2006 5:59:06 PM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Bunch of mayflies...


64 posted on 11/30/2006 6:00:35 PM PST by Tall_Texan (NO McCain, Rudy, Romney, Hillary, Kerry, Obama or Gore in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
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.

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.

65 posted on 11/30/2006 6:03:55 PM PST by JohnnyZ ("I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose" -- Mitt Romney, April 2002)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

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.


66 posted on 11/30/2006 6:10:59 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Cheney X -- Destroying the Liberal Democrat Traitors By Any Means Necessary -- Ya Dig ? Sho 'Nuff.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

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.


67 posted on 11/30/2006 6:11:04 PM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Anti-MSM
I agree with you. If the districts are conservative, we need to have conservatives to represent them. However, social conservatism should't be the only label for the Republican. In order to win areas like New England, or even the Libertarian Western states, they need to be a party of fiscal conservative as well.
68 posted on 11/30/2006 6:35:52 PM PST by paudio (WoT is more important than War on Gay Marriage!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Rick Santorum ... A great conservative senator who made one mistake.

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.

Truly tragic.

69 posted on 11/30/2006 6:36:59 PM PST by rhinohunter (1 RINO down...4 to go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dangus

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...


70 posted on 11/30/2006 6:43:38 PM PST by paudio (WoT is more important than War on Gay Marriage!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: paudio

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.


71 posted on 11/30/2006 6:44:46 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Cheney X -- Destroying the Liberal Democrat Traitors By Any Means Necessary -- Ya Dig ? Sho 'Nuff.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: dangus

I'm personally ticked about Curt Weldon. Defeated by Clinton's little toadies because he wouldn't shut up.


72 posted on 11/30/2006 6:49:39 PM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Many libertarian-tilted people are fiscal conservatives, but they don't care about abortion, gay marriage, etc. They do, however, care about their security, hence they support WoT. I don't actually think the GOP has to chose one over another. They should fight for all issues, so their image of 'Fundamentalists Party' (which is bogus, created by the MSM, but we gave ammo for them) will not be the only image they have.
73 posted on 11/30/2006 6:51:46 PM PST by paudio (WoT is more important than War on Gay Marriage!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: paudio

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.


74 posted on 11/30/2006 7:04:42 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Cheney X -- Destroying the Liberal Democrat Traitors By Any Means Necessary -- Ya Dig ? Sho 'Nuff.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Republicans lost because those who consider themselves "Conservatives", with all that implies, acted exactly like democrats; free-spending, scandalous, arrogant, larcenous, out-of-touch, and believing the peasants will shut up and take it all from them simply because "the alternative is worse".

There, I hope this helps straighten you out.

Like I said, NO Rinos, NO Defeat! Believe me, we're on the same page.

75 posted on 11/30/2006 7:05:37 PM PST by sirchtruth (No one has the RIGHT not to be offended...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Yeah, I'm aware of the dilemma. We will not be able to please every side. So, now, it's just our ability to weigh: which candidate would gather a winning combination of the votes?
76 posted on 11/30/2006 7:10:43 PM PST by paudio (WoT is more important than War on Gay Marriage!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

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.


77 posted on 11/30/2006 7:15:30 PM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
I think you need to get out more. I have swing voters in my own family, people who voted for Reagan, Dukakis, Clinton, and Bush. They are not ideological, and vote on feelings, certain hot-button issues, and how much they "like" a candidate.

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.

78 posted on 11/30/2006 7:22:48 PM PST by Miss Marple (Lord, thank you for Mozart Lover's son's safe return, and look after Jemian's son, please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: paudio

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.


79 posted on 11/30/2006 7:29:19 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Cheney X -- Destroying the Liberal Democrat Traitors By Any Means Necessary -- Ya Dig ? Sho 'Nuff.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
You need to study election returns more. I used to do it for a living. At no time did I suggest that voters were informed or in touch with detailed policy. I do KNOW however from hard facts year in and year out that very few people vote more than 3 out of five times.

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.

80 posted on 11/30/2006 7:47:18 PM PST by ElkGroveDan ( What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his own soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: dangus

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.


81 posted on 11/30/2006 7:47:21 PM PST by GregH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
I consider Rick Santorum our single greatest loss, and he is NO RINO!

Nancee

82 posted on 11/30/2006 7:49:34 PM PST by Nancee ((Nancee Lynn Cheney))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

So did the average score of Republicans in the House and Senate go up or down?


83 posted on 11/30/2006 7:54:10 PM PST by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
I understand what you are saying, but how do we know ANYONE votes. I can only assume that if people are interested enough to express an opinion, a certain percentage must also vote. As far as my family, I KNOW they vote. There is enough discussion of polling places, types of ballots used, and comments about election officials to make me certain they vote.

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.

84 posted on 11/30/2006 7:55:48 PM PST by Miss Marple (Lord, thank you for Mozart Lover's son's safe return, and look after Jemian's son, please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
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.

85 posted on 11/30/2006 8:01:27 PM PST by ElkGroveDan ( What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his own soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
I understand. However, I think we are talking about two different things. You are looking at who voted according to numbers. I am looking at WHY those people vote.

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.

86 posted on 11/30/2006 8:06:47 PM PST by Miss Marple (Lord, thank you for Mozart Lover's son's safe return, and look after Jemian's son, please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple

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.


87 posted on 11/30/2006 8:14:04 PM PST by ElkGroveDan ( What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his own soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
I agree. An weird example of this occurred in Indiana. Our governor recently got the legislature to pass Daylight Savings Time. Before this spring we did not change our clocks like the rest of the country did. Quite a few people were upset by this, and it was an issue that the democrat congressional candidates used, even though it had nothing to do with Congress.

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.

88 posted on 11/30/2006 8:17:51 PM PST by Miss Marple (Lord, thank you for Mozart Lover's son's safe return, and look after Jemian's son, please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

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.


89 posted on 11/30/2006 8:19:15 PM PST by Miss Marple (Lord, thank you for Mozart Lover's son's safe return, and look after Jemian's son, please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
No centrists, no majority ever again.

Oxymoron, you can never have a majority with the devil as a partner.

90 posted on 12/01/2006 7:37:24 AM PST by itsahoot (If the GOP does not do something about immigration, immigration will do something about the GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

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.


91 posted on 12/01/2006 1:34:09 PM PST by ElkGroveDan ( What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his own soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

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.


92 posted on 12/01/2006 1:38:46 PM PST by chemicalman (I didn't jump on the bandwagon. It snagged and dragged me for a few miles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #93 Removed by Moderator

To: A Federal Republican

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.


94 posted on 12/01/2006 5:25:57 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Cheney X -- Destroying the Liberal Democrat Traitors By Any Means Necessary -- Ya Dig ? Sho 'Nuff.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

Comment #95 Removed by Moderator

To: A Federal Republican

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.


96 posted on 12/01/2006 5:40:21 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Cheney X -- Destroying the Liberal Democrat Traitors By Any Means Necessary -- Ya Dig ? Sho 'Nuff.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

Comment #97 Removed by Moderator

Comment #98 Removed by Moderator

To: Maine Mariner

If she is up in 2012, that would mean she was elected this year.


99 posted on 12/02/2006 11:37:22 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #100 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-105 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson