I am no longer a RiNO

By Neil Stevens Posted in | | | | Comments (152) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

For the record, I no longer consider myself a RiNO. I will vote for the nominees of the Republican party* all the way down the ticket automatically. That's my new policy.

This is a major change for me. I've always considered voting for another party to be a reasonable message-sending approach. but I was misguided: my thought processes hinged on the assumption that the Republican party is truly and rightfully Reaganite. But that is not the case, so I have to adapt.

When Ronald Reagan first took prominence in the Republican party, conservatism was a small and unpopular faction in the party. It can be argued that the only reason Senator Goldwater could take the party nomination in 1964, the year of Reagan's groundbreaking speech to the convention, was that all the more popular Republicans saw no point in running against the ticket of President Johnson and President Kennedy's Ghost.

Sure enough, the hostility never went away. After Goldwater's defeat, Reagan had to continue to sell the country and the party on conservatism. Even when he successfully ran for Governor, some California Republicans were so harsh in their attacks on him as a conservative that he coined his 11th Commandment that we know today.

Why did some Rockefeller Republicans hate Reagan so much? I believe it's because they felt entitled to the party, and to its nominations. Reagan was an outsider, someone who threatened and challenged their views, and so he had to be shouted down. Persuasion went out the window, and so eventually their views went out the window by 1980.

I believe conservatives must not make the same mistake the Rockefeller Republicans made. No matter how many victories we had, no matter how well President Reagan and Speaker Gingrich governed and showed how conservatism works both in politics and in practice, we must not grow entitled. We must not ever let ourselves believe that the party belongs to conservatives, and that our ideas are obviously correct to anyone who's a real Republican.

We must work, we must persuade, we must argue tirelessly as much with our fellow Republicans as with the Democrats on the merits of our views and our policies. We must put in the thankless work within the party, taking positions within it to keep it functioning, and later lead it. We must show solidarity with other Republicans, and not just the conservatives. All these things are vital in order to show our good faith, so that we can count on other Republicans to join us when we get our next turn at the top.

Even if conservatism is the Republican Party's Michael Jordan, we must remember that Jordan never won a league championship until he started running an offensive system that let his teammates have their turns with the ball. It's time for conservatives to stop being ballhogs, too, so that we can win both as a team, and for our own faction.

No more withholding our votes. No more calling people RiNOs or sellouts. No more sitting back and complaining about the establishment without getting involved ourselves. It's time for Reaganite activism, in his example.

* I take this phrase to exclude people who are not nominated in the usual fashion, so that people who wouldn't have counted include Arnold Schwarzenegger in the recall election, or David Duke in a Louisiana runoff.

It's nice to read something original and sincere. I especially appreciate this paragraph:

I believe conservatives must not make the same mistake the Rockefeller Republicans made. No matter how many victories we had, no matter how well President Reagan and Speaker Gingrich governed and showed how conservatism works both in politics and in practice, we must not grow entitled. We must not ever let ourselves believe that the party belongs to conservatives, and that our ideas are obviously correct to anyone who's a real Republican.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

and persuading and arguing never stops EXCEPT after we pick our nominee, and then we unite.

The only way to get things done via the government is thru the Party.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

or we could wake up with a dem majority and the end of America as we know it...

A great history lesson for us all.

...Forcing ultra conservatives like GWB on the party (twice) and in our leadership positions like Speaker Hastert and others it is time we take a back seat or give up the ball to other factions under the big tent.

I'm convinced :)

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report

a) Bang the table and complain. Result: Get nothing and like it.

b) Work to rise back up in the party like conservatives did before. Result: Get something in the future and do great things for the country.

Your call.

HTML Help for Red Staters

...I picked B a long time ago -- problem is how do we get there? Persuasive conservatives have been working on this for years most since the first Bush and more since the second and the results are lacking!!!

Rallying the troops as much as possible to win this cycle may be a moral victory for the party but to what end? This would seem to signal to the rank and file that conservatism is no longer the way to win since others have been so successful.

This:

Work to rise back up in the party like conservatives did before. Result: Get something in the future and do great things for the country

May be better achieved by working through a loss which looks more and more likely.

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report

We do it from the bottom up, just like Haley Barbour is suggesting, and he's a former RNC chairman.

I know *all* of us won't have the opportunity to do things like run for local office or for local party leadership roles, but some of us can. And the rest of us can help those who do run. That's one part of what we can do.

Another part is to persuade. We need to *sell* conservatism as though the Reagan Presidency never happened.

HTML Help for Red Staters

...but it will have little barring on this cycle!

And I still think a win here relegates conservatives to the corner in a "shut up and do as your told" position within the party. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to the beholder I suppose.

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report

And yes, conservatives are paying for that now. But that's no reason to give up.

It could be worse. We could be starting from scratch, as in 1964!

HTML Help for Red Staters

...conservatives to give up or leave the party! I may be personally re-evaluating this party's direction and whether it's worth it to me to remain a loyal member of a party that's increasingly disloyal to me and my views. But I'm not advocating anyone give up or leave the party!

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report

The more conservatives who quit, the harder it will be on the rest of us, heh.

If the GOP today is enough to make you reconsider your membership, the GOP in 1964 would have had you qutting already! But we can follow Reagan's example and do great things.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I can't imagine more than a small handful of people on this site would actually fail to vote R in a presidential election.

What I hate is all of the "electability analyses" where someone says X is the only person who can win, and if you disagree, you are basically voting for Hillary.

For example, I have a strong dislike for McCain. I am never going to donate money to his campaign, or volunteer my time. But I am 100% certain to vote for him.

Instances where conservatices don't vote are pretty limited to: (a) examples of strong third party runs (Perot); or (b) where a Republican candidate is mired in a personal scandel (last minute BusH DUI story in 2000).

Otherwise, I would bet real money than all of these "I will sit out" folks will vote R.

If I were to quite the party I would still be supporting conservatives no matter what or what party affiliation.

Haystack left the party last year he still supports conservatives.

16 years of conservatives working hard to change the party and get conservatives elected and we have little to show for it. Although we've made good progress it's certainly not anything to write home about. I agree we could do great things in theory but I don't see a move that way and continued success by non-conservatives in the party doesn't exactly support a need for the rank and file to want or need to change.

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report

The fewer of us are in the party, the harder it will be for us to build a conservative bench in the party, and nominate conservatives to high office.

The process of politics counts. Ideas alone won't win. Just ask Fred Thompson.

HTML Help for Red Staters

The party is not doing that and right now the party enjoys its highest membership of conservatives ever.

I realize that the thinking is I should work tirelessly to promote conservatism within the party, while at the same time voting for whatever squishy mope they dress up and trot out. But I don't like it and it's not sitting well with me anymore

This live to fight another day business is tiring and not yielding very good results.

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report

By sitting out or protest voting, a normally R voter may contribute to the loss of the R candidate. Given our very human psychology (cmp. results from Game Theory), sabotaging the result is going to generate hostile and in-kind payback from the sabotaged toward the saboteurs. This will disqualify the saboteurs from the grant of respect which is necessary to influence the otherwise cooperating members of the Party. The zero-sum approach is going to get a zero-sum response; as is so evident in the interaction between parties. And unless there is a realignment wherein a third party becomes viable – I’ve recently seen some convincing scenarios for this -- that approach is not viable for resolving disputes between various types of conservatives or their moderate and libertarian caucus. As long as whatever shape of conservatism has its best shot in the Republican Party we shall have to be satisfied with a strategy of mutual accommodation. Our own particular agenda is going to move forward only fitfully and only in conjunction with that of our varied coalition members in the form of our imperfect candidates.

Putting the point in the most personal way by analyzing my own personal psychology, I find that on this very web site, my heart is turned hard against those who have left the party. I don’t care about accommodating them and I’m predisposed to discount what they write if I read it at all, no matter how much I formally appreciated them. Those that threaten to leave the Party, or talk of celebrating Republican defeat in the POTUS race for the sake of their particular factional interests, or laying out in the general election for “principle,” are bound to me by a very tenuous thread which will break if the threat is realized in action.

The problem is that in politics you are dealing not just with ideas but with people and what they want. Given that, IMO Neil has laid out the better strategy for getting what you want. Our party politics is a team sport. If one faction can justifiably prefer a team loss to something less than featured dominance so can every other. So every faction may justify this strategy and we will all lose forever and ever. Teams work because members cooperate for a result that benefits all somewhat but no one completely. Zero-sum strategies within the team are cancerous.

...to offer your opinion! I respectfully disagree!!!

Btw - your approval or the lack of respect given to someone who's left the party or disagrees with the party and protests in the form of not voting the party line, is of little consequence.

There are contributers here that don't belong to the Republican Party and you've Recommended their posts!

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report

You are right, I am of the smallest of consequence. Of course that's the reason for political Parties. The psychology pointed out above -- and my personal experience was intended only to provide an example of it -- is offered as much more than my opinion though. It is presented as Sandbox 101. If you piss on those in the Party, they are going to piss on you. That leaves interdependence as the best hope, no matter how frustrating it gets; and we of little consequence all keenly feel that pain.

I had this dialogue with haystack. At least he said he was probably going to pull R in the booth, but we mostly dismissed each other. Yea, I think voting Kinky is kinky, even knowing it could not affect the outcome. The fact of his promotion does suggest that my own psychology is out of step. If you all proceed and succeed then I'll see that I got it wrong in Sandbox 101. In some ways I would much prefer a political environment in which I don't have to accommodate and cooperate in order to have influence. What would a political scientist say about a system like that?

At root isn't this dialogue about how to go about getting what we want? And isn't the analysis of the psychology involved crucial to that? At any rate, that's why I focused in on the psychology.

What crack pipe are you smoking? Bush is a big spending, big government, big brother, anti second amendment, war mongering neo-con.

He is no conservative nor is he reflective of conservatives across this country.

He was pulling our legs. Hence the smiley face at the end.

I've reflexively voted all R at election time, but recognized over time that many of the Rs were not necessarily very conservative.

I think it is safe to say that most Conservatives are Republicans but that most Republicans are not necessarily Conservatives.

Most Rs ARE more conservative than Ds (else they would migrate to the other party), but should not automatically be called 'Conservatives'.

Conservatives are a subset within the larger party and need to do exactly as you say: "work, persuade and argue tirelessly" to move things rightward because we are working against human nature.

To paraphrase an old quote: It takes no effort to grow weeds, but a garden one must constantly maintain. So, yes, we must work.

I think a great part of the irritation Conservatives have felt over the last few years with GWB and the GOP majority is that we did take it for granted that R was synonymous with 'Conservative' and sat back thinking we had finally reached the finish line only to be surprised to find we had made a mistake. It unfortunately took us too long to realize this.

In that sense, the defeats the GOP suffered will have a longer term positive effect to get us moving and working again.

The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning

the stakes are just too high. Hillary must not become President. Bill must not be allowed to roam free in the White House. Judges such as Ruth Bader Ginsberg must never again be confirmed. We must not surrender our hard-won efforts in Iraq. We must not allow tax increases to turn a recession into a depression. We must not allow amnesty for illegal immigrants to encourage the influx of another 12 million illegals. Health care must never become the responsibility of the Federal government.

Every candidate on our side is not right on each of these issues, but any candidate on our side is better than any candidate on theirs.

[Ron Paul is excluded as a candidate on our side from the above discussion]

How do you figure we guarantee conservative judges with a liberal controlled congress? For that matter how do guarantee conservative nominees with any of the candidates? How'd that work out for Reagan and GHWB?

Of the sitting justices only two were appointed by a democrat!

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report

We finally stood up to the Democrats with the Roberts and Alito nominations. We found the way to nominate judges with conservative, rather than unknown, views. Granted it would be hard to guarantee conservative judges with the liberals controlling Congress, but I don't think it would be impossible. They already accomplish so little, I'm not sure they could take the strain of refusing to confirm a well qualified conservative nominee for very long.

Any way you cut it, we have a much better chance of getting conservative judges with one of our candidates than with one of theirs.

...of getting conservative judges with one of our candidates is better just not much better!

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report

While I'm glad you'll vote Republican, my point would hold just the same if Zell Miller were the Democratic nominee.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I can't believe that you would have written this blog.

In a brokered Republican convention, Zell Miller would be worth a mention. I would take him over any of the current candidates.

I actually don't fear HRC as the end of the world the way many here do.

HTML Help for Red Staters

On foreign policy, she is the best dem. She is sufficiently poll driven that her legacy would be corruption (like Bill's) and a general absence of substance (like Bill's).

What I am saying is that you reached this I am not a Rino conclusion in the context of the current primary mess.

If Miller was running, that context would not have occurred.

But I really, really want her and Bill discredited so America can move on from the sordid politics of this couple.

There's something fundamentally wrong with America, the voters and cosmic justice that allows them to keep on keepin' on the way they have.

A loss in the general will provoke the kind of 'loser' condemnation that both Gore and Kerry picked up and the Democratic party is unlikely to ever give her another chance if she drops the ball.

The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning

Bill went into after same. Why? Not because of what others implied or said to put blame on him.

But rather, what he knows he could and should have done.

He wants to fix that legacy.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

except that John started his political career as a Republican and Zell Miller started his as a Democrat. I think their political beliefs are currently pretty well aligned.

Taxes
Immigration
Global Warming

I would enthusiastically support Miller for President.
I will plug my nose, have a light lunch, and vote for McCain in the general and try to focus on something else.

I have only faced the scenario where the republican candidate was less conservative than the democrat candidate - In that race, I did not vote for either candidate.

Facing reality, I doubt that, in terms of conservative philosophy, that we experience the above scenario very many times. Also, few times will the republican candidate be untenable, like a David Duke.

Very true, conservatives don't "own" the republican party. We can see on the other side where the fringe left (koskidz, moveoners, etc...) believe they own the democrat party & are going to "cleanse" it of anyone who is not of their orthodoxy. We can see, if we look, the rifts & cracks that are forming & getting bigger because of this.

There will be very few times when the republican candidate for {insert office} will not be significantly more conservative than the democrat candidate - not to mention that the democrat candidate will vote for democrat leadershhip & the agenda that brings...

This isn't about the Democrat. This is about being a good Republican, just like Reagan. Reagan would never have endorsed a Democrat, because he was trying to make the Republican Party conservatism's home, and to endorse Democrats would undermine his efforts.

HTML Help for Red Staters

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Almost a shame I don't need it anymore, heh.

HTML Help for Red Staters

The way for conservatism to prevail is work within the party and get the best possible GOP candidates elected. If those candidates aren't conservative enough, then we keep working on them until they see the light.

1. McCain
2. Thompson
3. Giuliani

Conservatives don't "own" the GOP but we can be very influential when we stick together and work hard.

The only nit I can pick is not to minimize Barry in '64. With Nixon in rehab, Rockie and Scranton were the cream of the Liberal Republican crop. Barry's victory signaled a substantial shift of power w/in the GOP. In hindsight, the GOP could not have beaten LBJ no matter what, but the awful behavior of the Lib GOP wing at and after the convention did absolutely nothing to increase their power within the party. (n.b. to SF and other conservative pouters!) In fact, their extreme reaction made Nixon (whom we would nowadays call a "moderate") look acceptably conservative, and set the stage for what followed.

Nixon's price controls and sucking up to Red China might make him a full-fledged, modern-day RINO.

It will be by sticking together and sticking it to the dhimmiecrats together that we will win and move America forward.

I'm a RiYES! :)

Pulling the coalition back together is my first and most important concern, and I say that as someone who came to the Republican Party as an outsider.

We must work, we must persuade, we must argue tirelessly as much with our fellow Republicans as with the Democrats on the merits of our views and our policies. We must put in the thankless work within the party, taking positions within it to keep it functioning, and later lead it. We must show solidarity with other Republicans, and not just the conservatives. All these things are vital in order to show our good faith, so that we can count on other Republicans to join us when we get our next turn at the top.

Amen, brother. It's good faith and a refusal to engage idiotically in the Lakoff narrative that will bring us back together.

Well, that and the fact that America is still the greatest country in the world and its single best hope for the future. :)

A snake is a snake, a tiger is a tiger and a RINO is a RINO and not a conservative.

Larry,
Hutchins Texas

The state the party today has little to do with a failure of conservatism's ideas.

The state of the party today has very much to do with failure of its chosen leaders to lead, and the public character flaws of other elected Republicans (Packwood, Livingston, Foley, Stevens, Vitter, Craig).

We need to support impassioned, committed and talented leaders. We could learn one thing from the Dems -- solidarity. They have learned on the shop floor and in the union hall what "hanging together" is all about.

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa

I disagree with your post for reasons that I'm certain you understand since you held them until very recently. Even so, I'm very happy to hear that you plan to support Ron Paul when he wins renomination for his Congressional seat.

www.republicansenate.org

But this is, bar none, the single most compelling case I've ever read for doing just that.

Bravo, good sir. Bravo.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Neil

What is a "conservative", small c or capital c mean to you ?

I keep getting confused by the uber social conservatives in the party that assert that unless you support an outright ban on abortion, something to restrict what the gay folks are up to (not quite sure what, outside of topics like gay marriage), then you're a RINO. The second amendment purists, think any restriction on gun ownership is bad as it's an invitation for the elephant to put it's nose in the tent, or so a co worker who's a big NRA guy tells me.

So you can see how I'm getting confused. Now I realize that there's been a few blogs on this very topic over the past week or so, but help me out, what's your yard stick for being considered a conservative? I'm easily confused you see and I'm looking for you to tell me what that term "conservative" means.

I'd appreciate hearing what you think what passes for being a conservative, in all 50 states, not just Southern part of the US.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

It's not about specific policies. Conservatives can disagree on those. I'm talking about the underlying philosophy and thought processes.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I’d like to take a swing at that definition.

Support for market driven economy Only by maintaining a market driven by personal and corporate incentives will we grow and prosper.
Confident foreign policies. Foreign policies which face down evil rather than lie face down pretending we are not their premier target: Middle East, Venezuela, North Korea.
Clearly defined borders, protected and respected.Fences if need be, repeal of the Amendment which allows for anchor babies.
Encouragement of personal accountabilityEven in regards ex Presidents named Clinton.
Acceptance of and encouragement for religion. Acknowledgement that the nation began with and shall remain committed to words such as these: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

Realizing that men do not have full and perfect knowledge of the Almighty, no man shall punish or attempt to punish another man for converting to another religion. If the Almighty is displeased with a religious conversion, He will deal with it in the next world.

Economics: Class warfare over growth Taxation as redistribution, even retribution, rather than as a basis for growth.
Insular foreign policies One life given in support of this Nation, in protection of its people and policies, is too many.
Borders? What borders?This is not a nation; From Sea to Shining Sea is not ours; We are strangers in a strange land, not our own.
Entitlement trumps accountability When is it my turn?
Religion ? As there is no good or bad, only ends which justify means, how could there be a Supreme Being who holds us to account?

Concise and well-thought out. Should be required reading for everyone on this site.

And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they may be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round. ~ Winston Churchill

I like you, I think you are eloquent, and I do not agree with you.

I will absolutely not vote strait ticket, and I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever again vote for someone whom I am uncomfortable with for ANY reason, because every time In the past in which I have done so, I regretted it.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I just can't let myself make that mistake again.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Jimmy Carter fooled a lot of people. He actually seemed more conservative than Ford. In that case you were voting for the most conservative candidate as you perceived it.

We all make mistakes.

I will not buy into the OH NOE!SSS we got to stop the big bad democrats at all cost argument.

By defeating Ford, Carter paved the way for Reagan and his message to become dominant in the party.

By voting for Dole and two Bushes, we have allowed the Rino wing of the party to gain ascendancy.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

as I said before, Carter fooled us, and why was he able to fool us into thinking he was more conservative than he was?

Because there was not a whole lot of difference between him and the guy he was running against.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

You can't win them all. You are going to lose some. I'd rather lose with a guy like Ford in 76 than lose with a guy like Reagan after a few years of Ford stinking up the place and hurting the Republican brand. It took enough damage from Nixon.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

16 years of ground work by Reagan, including two previous Presidential runs of his own, paved the way for Reagan. 25 years of National Review paved the way for Reagan.

Reagan didn't come just because a bad Democrat got elected. After all, Clinton got re-elected.

HTML Help for Red Staters

But he would have never made it into the White House if Ford won. That's the point. Ford wins 1976. He governs as a more benevolent version of Nixon. He loses in 1980 to Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Teddy Kennedy, or somebody equally bad. George "Read My Lips: Voodoo Economics" H.W. Bush gets the nomination in 1984 because Ronald Reagan is too old. The Democrat either beats him in 1984 or not. Ronald Reagan never becomes President of the United States.

Result: No 8 years of Reagan. We have no template for a decent Republican president, so we keep picking Nixon/Ford/Bush 41 types as our candidates, because those crazy conservatives just can't win. I think we did alright with Ford losing. The alternative would have been so much worse.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

We treat the USSR with kid gloves and help keep them afloat when they need our help and they continue to exist and oppress much of the world to this day. Without Reagan as President that is a distinct possibility.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

appoint any justices

(on the other hand, it would have been nice not to have revolutionary iran to deal with...)

but good points

"Do the day's work."

It could bring a worse carter. Yes, a good reminder of what failed liberal policies canbring would make the "environment" better. We can do that from the ground up and from the top, esp if we have Mitt or Rudy.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

"Do the day's work."

Is that the Democrats aren't going to win them all and neither are the Republicans. It is necessary for the people to remind themselves why Democrats make horrible presidents at least once a decade. I'd rather they be reminded of that when we have a lousy candidate. You might not get someone better next time, but if the choice is between a lousy Republican (and I only consider one of the final four to be that bad) and a lousy Democrat, I'll take the lousy Democrat. Odds are we will have somebody better next time around, since Republicans, on average, are better than that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Insisting on absolute conservative purity in every election cycle is a recipe for political impotence. Those that threaten to take their marbles and go home or start a third party are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I thought we were the party of realism and pragmatism. With any luck, the Code Pink and MoveOn crowd will yank the Dems to an island on which many folks would not be comfortable. Why follow the Code Pink model? The GOP brand is not in good shape at the moment, so we need a bigger tent if we want to accomplish ANYTHING.

This is not a surrender and not a defeat. It is taking a step back so we can take two forward. We own talk radio, but we barely have a toehold in the rest of the media and academia. The only reason we are able to compete is that the logic of conservatism is so compelling. Lets swallow some pride so we can feast on half a loaf.

Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies...

Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies...

why I delivered this extra, empty, post. I guess I should not use the preview function. No, I did not page back.

Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies...

While I sincerely appreciate your construction, I'm afraid there is no way I can be swayed to cave in on principle to escape possibly having the RiNO label affixed to my posterior. Perhaps for some in the remaining GOP field, your arguments might be persuasive to me come November.

But certainly not all.

If the GOP is so uncritically unfit as to nominate a philosophical Democrat to lead it, I'm not obliged to, and I refuse to, suck up to that sort of foolish propositional new status quo. And this is precisely what the party would be expecting of me were it to nominate John McCain, or anyone with his historical propensities.

At some point, conniving the base into capitulation on principles will mean the only thing definitively RiNO will be the Republican Party itself.



Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

But at this point any of the remaining candidates we were to elect to represent us would be a RINO, would they not?

"McCain thinks he’s called the sheriff. Wonder what Teddy calls him? I call him co-conspirator." - beyondrightwing



Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

I'm beginning to believe like you, Neil... in order to not get stuck with a Democrat I have to accept the crumbs from the table so to speak... oh well, maybe at some point we'll have a strong conservative leader step up and carry the mantle that has proven successful...

View my blog at http://preacherskid.blogdrive.com/

I have voted Republican consistently for 30+ years. I will continue to do so.

But I don't share the views of a lot of the ultra-conservatives that hold forth here and who lay claim to the Republican party.

Does that make me a RINO? The term RINO implies ownership of the Republican Party by individuals with a set agenda. Well, I'm sorry, I won't allow that.

I'm a Republican who thinks stem cell research on existing embryos is just fine.

I'm a Republican who thinks abortion is no darned business of the Federal government, nor is any other medical procedure.

I'm a Republican who thinks less government is better, and one that taxes less is best. The Conservatives that moan about McCain voting against the tax cuts fail to mention he wanted corresponding spending cuts. So delude yourselves into thinking tax cuts with deficit spending (like drunken Democrats) is more "conservative" if you like, but it's not in my book.

So, call me whatever you like.. but, I am a Republican. If the party doesn't fit the ultra-conservatives, maybe it's them that needs a cute acronym.

Jerry

We agree that abortion is "no darned business of the Federal Government." But it isn't the business of the Supreme Court either. Nor Congress.

It's rightfully the business of the several states.

Where you have drunk deeply of campaign Kool Aid shows in your belief that at the time in which the tax cuts were being debated, McCain expressed any interest whatsoever in corresponding spending cuts. He did not. Rather, he cloaked his entire objection in the language of class warfare more commonly used by Democrats like John Edwards and Ted Kennedy:

"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."

There was a time in which politicians might get away with such insipid reframing of past legislative stupidity, but Google is now a great leveler; hopefully, instant access to un-framed record will eventually put an end to such conniving tactics as McCain uses.



Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

Wow... I can't say that if you (Jerry) were running that I would be able to vote for you with a clean conscience as a Republican (much less a a conservative).

But you do come close otherwise as a "stay out of my pocket and out off of my back" mold of Republican, if your politics and talking points are indeed genuinely sincere.

For my measure of value, destroying live human babies (embryos) for the sake of "science" is hardly valuing life any better than the standard-issue Democrat.

Touching on abortion, I think Fred Thompson (and in the same vein, RP also) have it right in saying that that should be decided at the state level, not the federal... and small government works best when the tax cuts and spending cuts are packaged together.

FredHeads: Fred is done, give Mitt another look - yes, he changed his standards, but arguably for the better.

I respect your position and I think it is a very reasonable one. At some point though ideas and policy do matter and there is a history of parties shifting and leaving certain ideas behind. From GWB to McCain that would be a gradual swing in the moderate direction that many have a problem with that is reasonable as well.

You can fight hard and still get knocked out of the party. At some point your loyalty to your principles may extend beyond the loyalty to a party. A political party does not deserve loyalty. The party has to be loyal to the members.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

The majority is no longer conservative and at some point you have to wonder if you want to really work hard and vote consistently for candidates that you always disagree with. If I wanted to vote for, volunteer with, and donate to liberals I could join the Democrat Party.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

Not that it matters since everyone here has already read it, but I'll recommend this, even though I disagree with you, just because this will soon be an endorsement of Ron Paul (for Congress).

www.republicansenate.org

Sorry, you won't catch me actively expressing support in particular for that apologist for tyranny.

HTML Help for Red Staters

It is the ultimate endorsement in reality.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

The party is a coalition. I can back the party, as a whole, by voting for all its nominees without necessarily endorsing every single one of them.

I plan to do this because I want the Pauls, Huckabees, and Chafees of the party to do the same for conservatives when we're the nominees.

HTML Help for Red Staters

And there is no indication that the Pauls, Chafees, and Huckabees will vote for conservatives when they are the nominee. None whatsoever.

In fact both Paul and Chafee openly said they didn't vote for GWB and he is a moderate to liberal Republican himself.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

And if you're as unreliable as they are, then you're a RiNO just like them. Same category.

HTML Help for Red Staters

But you won't catch me voting for populists. I can understand the argument of a political coalition, but there has to be limits to what we are willing to support. Even you must have some limit.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

There are priorities that override party Neil. If Sam Nunn were the Dem nominee I would certainly vote for him over Huckabee or Clinton.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

If you want to be an independent and get on a high horse, then go for it. I'm not criticizing that.

What I'm criticizing are the people who simultaneously claim to be the True Republicans, while at the same time not even bothering to back Republicans consistently.

HTML Help for Red Staters

And they may think supporting a populist tax raising big government candidate could redefine them out of their own party.

I think in some ways your rationale makes you the architect for your own push out of the party.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

Nor do I have to throw the baby out with the bathwater and oppose all Republican candidates because of a couple bad apples.

However, I do attack your notion that anyone should support the bad apples as they see it in the party for the good of the coalition. The coalition actually needs to be self corrective and punish the "bad" ideas before they take root in the party.

I will always hold that we aren't loyal to a party but to principle and no matter what your principle if you think a political party or just a particular candidate doesn't hold to your principle it is not in your interest to support that candidate.

I respect your position, but I just don't think it is smart to vote against your interest. Mostly because your idea holds on the flimsy position that those you support in the coalition will be as loyal to you as you are to them. I doubt that will hold.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

If voting for the R is against your interest, then why stay in the party?

HTML Help for Red Staters

It isn't all or nothing. The entire party isn't lost to the wind. However, I will not enable the forces in the party that I oppose. I will not give them the talking point that they are electable. I will not give Huckabee for example the talking point that populism works in an appeal to the pragmatist voters.

I would hold that each primary is a fight for the ideas of and the life of the party. So I don't think you have to vote for the Republican no matter what to be in the party. I can vote for downticket Republicans and not the Republican president.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

And who gets to say ?

I have never voted for a democratic presidential candidate. (To be fair its be a no brainer most of the time. I usually have to ask how D's vote for their nominees)

I have held back my vote on some congressional ballots.

I have voted for a few democrats for local positions. Sorry you just can't put a republican in that has no experience with a job and expect your garbage to be picked up.

If thats what makes you an independent I suspect you can count the number of true Republicans on one hand.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

should have been a reply to why stay in the party above.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Can be against the interests of the party and the country.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

End of story.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

...while at the same time refusing my challenge to drop your own label.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Sorry if you took it that way. What I'm trying to do is present a different look at this idea that we have to vote for "any" Republican regardless of positions or we can't be Republicans.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.


Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

I wasn't holding my breath for a Paul for Congress entry, or even a kind word for him on an open thread. Your post, though, will express tacit support for his reelection once he wins renomination.

www.republicansenate.org

My diary here calls for one thing, and one thing only, should that nutjob get the nomination again: voting for him. That is all.

HTML Help for Red Staters

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Make no mistake. From Dole to GWB, to now Huck or McCain. That is a liberal shift.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

Should a conservative vote for Huckabee for President just because he is a Republican? Populism in the party of Reagan? That seems to be a hard pill to swallow, I know it is for you as well. I'm just asking...is it reasonable to vote against your own interest on the hope that you can take the party back at some point?

That is a dangerous game if you ask me.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

Rino,conservative-left ,moderate,far right-however you divide the Gop it still is the best party to govern our country and keep our constitution and the Bill of Rights as the sole basis of Government completely unite the party under one single stance or definition is a dangerous prospect.A Rino to me is one who is a part liberal and part conservative,that would vote Democrat if they disliked enough of their candidates views .There I've said what I have thought about this Rino tag and we as republicans should not have to air our dirty laundry in the middle of the most important election we vote in.I say long live the Gop and all it stands for.There's plenty of room in our party to discuss our differences unlike the Democratic party.I can say I respected JFK but a Democrat is publicly ridiculed for saying Reagan's name.I say we should work hard to put our choice of candidate in the White House and take congress back if we are to keep forward progress and not have to start over after cleaning up from a Democratic President.

But I would disagree with you what a RINO is.. It's a derogatory name that some holier than thou types use to denigrate anyone disagreeing with them. It should stop now. We need to unite against the socialist wave confronting us.

It is analogous to the 2 ways to no longer be a battered spouse. You have written an excellent diary of option A.

option A: The spouse assumes the fetal position to cushion herself from the beating she is getting from her spouse.

option B: The spouse leaves the abusive relationship, and seeks shelter elsewhere to try and start anew with courtship instead of abuse.

If the Republican Party selects McCain/Huckabee for the ticket then I will seriously look at option B. I will also no longer be a RiNO.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Haystack de-registered Republican, but he doesn't beat the drum to vote non-R.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I'm not telling anybody else what to do. I'm just thinking out loud about de-registering myself as a Republican if the Republican ticket in '08 is McCain/Huckabee.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Pope Benedict says it's better to have a small committed core than to keep the hangers-on. It's probably true for the Republican Party, too.

HTML Help for Red Staters

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The democrats have a very committed core. Its committed to winning not much else.

If we wind up being committed to winning who will we be ? If we put candidates up that we know are worthless just because they are R's whats the point ?

I would gladly have a small committed core as long as it was committed to something of positive value. Pope Benedict wants a committed core of people that believe in god, his grace and love. I would be glad to have a committed core of republicans that believe in America, liberty and conservatism.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

And if conservatives are all talk, then well, too bad for the country, but it can't be helped.

I think enough conservatives will follow the Reagan example, though, that we'll be fine.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I haven't been here too long but in my time I've seen a revolt against voting against Rudy (you were in on that I think), a revolt against voting for Huck, and a revolt against voting against McCain. I may have missed the Romney revolt.

Anyway...the thing is this site has been host to bashing of several candidates filled with many promises not to vote for a particular candidate.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

Needs to die. That is unacceptable rhetoric in my book. As long as you use the battered spouse routine in such a nasty way, you have nothing valuable to say.

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

Man if you will just allow me to opine that your analogy is way over the top I would like to agree that B is the effective "Party" alternative to Neil's analysis. (The non-Party alternative being "Independent").

But to be real about treating it as a Party alternative it would probably need to be more viable than say the Greens or the Libertarians. It would need to have a legitimate shot at competing with what is left of the Republican and Democratic Parties.

And this gets at why it may be that even among us partisans who are thoroughly committed to working within the Republican Party, there is still nothing absolutely sacred about our loyalty to this Party.

I guess we simply disagree about whether my analogy is apt or not. The TV talking heads have just given so much "face time" for Republicans who will come on and slam the conservative base of the party over issue after issue. It's not back-stabbing because it is a full frontal assault. Perhaps I need to do like Gordon Taylor, and turn the TV off.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Well at least I have a sympathetic chuckle for that answer to the analogy.

Regarding: option B is Independent; I will quibble. You can certainly switch to Independent but that is so very different from the Party politics that Neil is talking about. If it provides you political effectiveness at all it is of a very disorganized sort. If you think the treatment you get now is a beating, I wonder what metaphor you will need for the disregard you would feel as an Independent. Not to get too personal, but I would have less regard for example.

Anyway, to reiterate my own view, if there were a viable third Party that represented my own agenda better than R's I'd switch. Otherwise, I figure that the best way to get what I want is to work within the Republican Party. Oh well...

Would vile work for you? Crass? Crude? Unhelpful? Counter-productive? Take your pick, they all work for me.

Have you ever met any battered spouses? Do you think they take it so lightly? If one's analogy has a deleterious effect on the positive impact one is hoping to achieve, one is acting irrationally to continue using that analogy.

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

You draw whatever conclusion you want to draw from what I post. I tell you that nothing I have posted on this thread is about anyone taking anything lightly.
Yes I do know people who were in abusive relations, and there is absolutely nothing light hearted about it.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

chose option a for too long. I am a man. Ladies, welcome to equality, get over being offended by analogies and be a man!

smile all

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

I'd prefer option "C" : spouse pulls a .38 or some other handgun that fits her well, and ventilates the abusive spouse for his trouble.

FredHeads: Fred is done, give Mitt another look - yes, he changed his standards, but arguably for the better.

vote just for the sake of it being a Republican. I probably would never vote for a Democrat but I would sit it out. I believe this country is going in the wrong direction, and a shoet term band aid is not the answer. I want someone to fight for issues not give in. I am not a staunch social conservative, but I respect their cause and believe it brings the country in a better direction. I am not a war hawk but believe our military should be very strong and support those with that opinion. I believe in fiscal conservativism and absolutely a MUCH smaller government. I respect the views of people supporting each candidate and their reasons for not. John McCain is someone I will NEVER vote for because of immigration, shoot me if you must. The populism of Huckabee is against everything I believe in so no to him. I might be able to swallow Rudy. If I can make myself believe Mitt will do what he says, then he is the only one I can really vote for because he is least trying to adhere to a conservative base. I will not vote to WIN, I will vote to keep the party in the right direction and if that means losing to make a correction then I believe in that. How do Republicans change if you keep voting them in? I believe that values might need to be comprimed in certain states (I'm from NJ) to win, but nationally I do not adhere to that policy and would sit out rather than promote going in the wrong direction.

The answer is that you change the party just like Ronald Reagan did.

HTML Help for Red Staters

than John McCain or Huckabee. They will all surprise us in the way they govern. Even Reagan did some of the time. They are all learning and growing. Romney just does not seem as geniune in his principles. I do believe in geniunely wants to be president. I trust him that far.

was wrong in granting amnesty?

All of this BS worship of Reagan always tends to forget his amnesty. Was that "conservative" just because it was Reagan? gimme a break.

I'm definitely not in favor of amnesty. McCain was wrong in even considering Bush's plan. A closed border and strong enforcement of employer practices of hiring illegals would, through attrition, send many of them packing back home once the jobs dried up.

But, with the six years the Republican party enjoyed a majority in both the House and Senate and with a Republican President, what did we get done on immigration? zip.. zero.. zilch.. nada. Which means what? The Republican Party doesn't really care about illegal immigration.

amnesty, it was admitted amnesty, and the bill required border enforcement that Reagan didn't get to carry out. He would have.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

You tell 'em Chi Town Jerry. Yep Reagan agree and singed the law. No one ever put the teeth and money into the law to enforce it. A POX on the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches and all our houses

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service