« O'Donnell Still Trying To Sell "Rove Leaked Plame | Main | Terrorists Try To Kidnap Two More Middle Eastern Diplomats »

Letter to the RINOs

Dear RINOs,

Greetings and salutations from one who formerly called himself "conservative," but took to liberalism's greener shores when he found himself and the Republican Party drifting apart. Don't worry about us; it was a divorce, but we're both better off for it.

Still, I have to wonder about you guys. Michael Graham, a D.C. area conservative yakker, has made it his personal mission to take down local RINOs, particularly those Republicans who had the temerity to not to line up with the "tax cuts at all costs" agenda here in Virginia.

I gotta ask ... when are you guys going to leave the GOP? Or, at least, what will it take for you to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate, Senate hopeful, or House candidate? I ask because, from my vantage point, the Republican Party is drifting away from you guys ... and you all know it.

John Cole, for example, has been in a froth since the Schiavo affair. Consider his most reaction to news that GOP Congressman Tom Davis and other Republicans might create trouble if George Soros managed to purchase the Nationals:

After enough years of watching these so-called free-market, small government Republicans insert themselves into every issue imaginable, I apologize for not treating this story seriously. After observing them cheerleading Rove's remarks, rushing to pass the Schiavo legislation, and passing the flag burning amendment as well as numerous other insults to the senses and common decency, nothing surprises me.

This is, unfortunately, the sort of small-minded nonsense and petty attempts at revenge I have grown accustomed to from the oafish loudmouths, holier-than-thou moralists, and national busybodies the Republican Congress has become. Sadly, this was just more of the same, and wholly unremarkable from the rest of the brutish behavior of late by the beltway bully boys. I am, at this point, in a state of numb disbelief.

Consider other issues that are near and dear to the horned RINO's heart. Flag desecration. Creationism vs. evolution. The federal budget. Property rights. The free market. Abortion. Are these issues as important as certain figures in the Republican Party believe they are? Is this the same Republican Party that you originally joined? Are you comfortable with a party in which envangelical conservatives consider themselves kingmakers?

Answer these questions. Look to your party's leaders, both official and unofficial. Ask yourself if they speak for you. Ask yourself if you can continue to support these people, even if you disagree with them vehemently. Ask yourself how they have repaid your support.

If you find these conservative leaders wanting, if you find you and your chosen political party drifting apart, then ponder, for a moment, the party that lies on the other side of the political divide.

Sincerely,


Pennywit.

When he's not fomenting rebellion in the Republican rank and file, Pennywit writes scintillating commentary on Pennywit.com.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Letter to the RINOs:

» The Shape of Days linked with On political parties

» Inside Larry's head linked with From the Commisar

» UNCoRRELATED linked with It's my party and I'll cry if I want to

» baldilocks linked with Court Jester

» ThatColoredFellasweblog.bloghorn.com linked with The Wizbang Absolutists

Comments (47)

Yes, when will the RINOs le... (Below threshold)
Fersboo:

Yes, when will the RINOs leave the party and join 'Jumpin' Jim Jeffords in the embrace of the Democrats?

My Congressman is awesome. ... (Below threshold)

My Congressman is awesome. As are my Senators. I have a big problem with some Republicans from certain parts of the country.

Indeed -- let us ponder the... (Below threshold)

Indeed -- let us ponder the alternative....The party who's standard-bearer is a guy who slandered the American GI in Senate testimony (making them ALL out to be "baby killers.") A guy who negotiated with the North Vietnamese in an attempt to get them to release one POW to his organization, so it would enhance their standing. A guy who was good enough to vote against assasinating sitting members of congress when this same organization actually debated and voted on the idea.

When the Democrats have people other than traitors (Kerry) and America-haters (Moore) and just-plain-lunatic haters-of-all-Republicans (Dean) in charge, they might be able to convince me they really do support America over her enemies. As of now, that assertion is just a bad joke. I feel very sorry for the Democrats who love America but have lost control of their party to the lovers of her enemies.

As soon as the Dems develop... (Below threshold)
Patrick H:

As soon as the Dems develop responsible positions about national defense, moral relativism, personal responsibility, guns, taxes, social security, crime/criminals, judical activism and education reform I could vote democrat. But not if it is a stealth-candidate dem paying lip service to these issues in hopes of becoming president while the majority of the House and Senate dems stick to their traditional positions on these issues. By the way, I'd rather vote for a party where the evangelicals thinking of themselves as "Kingmakers" than for the one "bought and paid for" by Moveon.org.

Pennywit writes:"A... (Below threshold)
Peter:

Pennywit writes:

"Ask yourself if they speak for you. Ask yourself if you can continue to support these people, even if you disagree with them vehemently. Ask yourself how they have repaid your support." And: "...if you find you and your chosen political party drifting apart, then ponder, for a moment, the party that lies on the other side of the political divide."

Answers: They do. Yes. Yes. And I did, and that's why I became a Republican.

Is this post satire? The au... (Below threshold)
c'mon:

Is this post satire? The author correctly faults the GOP for not being conservative or libertarian enough (free market, property rights).

Then he suggests that those who support conservative/libertaran positions should support those how HATE property rights and the free market. And they should support the party of Durbin, Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter? Sorry, I'll take a Bible-thumping dummy who sticks his foot in his mouth over anti-american socialists who support terrorists over the president. A few stupid laws (which would never pass) on flag burning and gays vs. Nuked NYC and sharia law. Yeah, you make a great argument.

Sorry dimwit. This libertarain/conservative is not voting socialist because the GOP is drifting into socialism.

If by RINO, you mean somebo... (Below threshold)
kbiel:

If by RINO, you mean somebody who claims that they are a Republican, but side with the Democrats on almost every issue, then you are more than welcome to have them. On the other hand, if you are wanting to peel-off some people who disagree with the GOP on one or two issues, then good luck on trying to convince them. It is impossible to find a party with which you agree more often then 80-90% of the time.

There are two items that make the Reps attractive to the libertarian, the (classical) liberal, the neo-conservative, and the evangelical: 1) The Dems lack a coherent policy or agenda; or even a definable set of principles. 2) The Reps are much more open to difference of opinion, hence the Reps could have both pro-life and pro-choice speakers at their convention while the Dems shut out just about every pro-life member in their party. (Yep them damn evangelicals are really, truly in charge of the party.)

So, again I wish you luck. In the mean time, work on that whole principle thing, if you don't mind.

The post is, of course, sil... (Below threshold)

The post is, of course, silly. No former Republican, like myself, would EVER think about voting for the Dems unless some serious house cleaning happens and fast. Ted Kennedy? Nancy Pelosi? Howard Dean? Please - these people are just cartoons. Granted, Libertarians and Constitutionalists can only get so far, but there are legions of folks like myself who are pissed about the Republicans not having any fiscal responsibility or not taking care of the border (as if the Dems are doing anything either). But we will all crawl across broken glass to vote against Hillary.

" Look to your party's lead... (Below threshold)
xxx:

" Look to your party's leaders, both official and unofficial."

Soros vs. Rudy
Arnie vs. Durbin
Michael Moore vs. Mel Gibson
Republican Liberty Cacuus vs. Democratic Socialists of America
Support our troops vs. Our troops are Nazis
Fix social security vs. do nothing
Defeat islmafascism vs. Bush = Hitler

Most Americans are conserva... (Below threshold)
xxx:

Most Americans are conservative. Most Democrats are anti-conseravative. Keep living in your fantasy world.

The only way I'll start vot... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

The only way I'll start voting democrat is if the democrats actually become democrats again. I do agree with you on one thing, we are better off without you. Good riddance.

Pennywit - Wizbang's trackb... (Below threshold)

Pennywit - Wizbang's trackbacks seem to be broken, but I've addressed your post here.

- D

Really your showing the wor... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Really your showing the worth of your WIT and your Math as well.
Beacause W and other Republicans get a poor grade. ( I give them 5 on a 10 Scale) D
You endorse a switch to a group that ranges from -5 to 0 on a scale of 1-10. F-, Zero, Nada,
Zilch

Why would I consider the ot... (Below threshold)
JimK:

Why would I consider the other side? They don't believe in or embrace anything I want. That's just a ridiculous statement.

The answe lies not in jumping ship and becoming Democrats, but in either 1. Forcing Republicans to PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION, or 2. Forming a party that will.

With apologies to Rob, Mary... (Below threshold)
fatman:

With apologies to Rob, Mary Katherine and Will:

I am SO counting the days until Kevin gets back.

I'm not Republican, Democra... (Below threshold)
jessied:

I'm not Republican, Democrat, Libertarian and certainly not liberal as now reflected in the modern Democrat party. It is almost impossible to find anyone of either party worth supporting at present. If you side with personal responsibility but aren't a god freak or brain dead, you can't vote Republican. If you believe in justice and support the common man but don't believe in massive give aways to whiners, you can't vote Democrat. The Libertarians don't consider cooperative action a viable solution and the Independents can't agree on the time of day. So where does a thinking person go?

I guess you weren’t really ... (Below threshold)
jmaster:

I guess you weren’t really talking to me, since I left the Republican party back around 1988. I thought the social/religious wing was getting too much power back then. I dabbled a little with the “L” party, but I figured out pretty quickly that they were a joke.

But I still have voted R about 90% of the time in federal elections since then. The number is closer to 60/40 R/D in state and local races. I agree, there are a lot of negatives with the R’s. But the negatives of the D’s are orders of magnitude worse (and those will be well documented by others here, I assume). And in the last few years, the D’s have been giving the L’s a run for the money on the goofyness scale.

My vote was up for grabs last year. In fact, I actually considered myself to be an “Anybody but Bush” guy as late as April. But IMO, the Dems dropped the ball big time. By all outside appearances, the wacky left wing took charge. I was desperately waiting for some evidence to the contrary in their National Convention. But I was disappointed. As far as I could tell, there was no platform whatsoever. Nothing! Just , “we’ll be different, trust us”, and “Reporting for Duty”. With Michael Moore front and center.

I had to compare the negatives for both parties, and guess what? W won again.

And in all honesty, for all the huffing and puffing about the “power” of the evangelicals, I fear them less now then I did a few years ago. What exactly have they accomplished with all this so called power? I think that the R leaders are masters at paying them lip service. The D’s have a better chance of getting those people’s votes than the more moderate/libertarian R voters you are addressing. Most of those voters were reliably D anyway, until the Reagan folks welcomed them into the R fold.

All that being said, what can the D’s do to get my vote? For a start, pick a platform. Any platform. Put it in writing. Then we at least have a point of reference from which we can begin to negotiate.

"vote for a Democratic pres... (Below threshold)
clark smith:

"vote for a Democratic presidential candidate, Senate hopeful, or House candidate?"

NEVAH!

I have very little use for RINOs, but even a RINO with an iota of sense left in his head would never vote for a Dem, given the current state and future trend of the Democratic Party.

With all due respect, I wou... (Below threshold)
Krusty Krab:

With all due respect, I would have voted Democrat last time, had there been an alternative better than Bush. That's what makes me an indie, I guess, though if there were a Rino party, I'd probably belong.

Kerry was a miserable excuse of a presidential candidate. Did you actually read his position papers? They looked like they'd been written by a D-level student. Er, never mind. Anyway, if I were Republican, I'd be praying that he were the DNC candidate again in 2008.

I still can't believe you guys choose that fart-muncher for your candidate, or that other fart-muncher for your DNC chairman.

My congresscritter is a Dem... (Below threshold)
fatman:

My congresscritter is a Democrat. My senior senator is a Rino who was just re-elected. My President is a Conservative Republican. Guess which one I voted for last November. And then guess why I'm ROFLMAO at your suggestion that I switch parties.

Leaving the GOP won't neces... (Below threshold)

Leaving the GOP won't necessarily translate to joining the Democrats. If the LP ever comes to its senses about borders and foreign intervention, I'll go there. Since that won't happen I'll either vote GOP anyway or stay home.

Marxism is no substitute for conservatism.

Shouldn't this post be file... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Shouldn't this post be filed under satire?

So, I should drop the party... (Below threshold)

So, I should drop the party I agree with on 75% of the issues for one I agree with on 25%? Especially when the issues I feel most stronly about are all in the 75%? I'll pass, thanks.

Whoa is me. I felt that th... (Below threshold)
John:

Whoa is me. I felt that the GOP leadership was going where the RINOs want to go. I also felt that the flag burning and Creationism where meaningless smokescreens to cover a congress and administration that were anything but traditional Republicans where it counted (minor tax cuts excluded).

After going over to www.bal... (Below threshold)
fatman:

After going over to www.balloon-juice.com and reading the "Hot Air and Ill-Informed Banter" (their words, folks, not mine) I left this comment:

"As for George Soros buying the Washington Nationals, the only reasons that I can think of for him to do that is to raise his political profile in Washington and be an even bigger pain in the...neck than he already is. Why should the Republicans accommodate him? Or have you all forgotten about Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Chivas) and his attempt to make it illegal for Ruport Murdoch to own both a television station and a newspaper in the same news market? (which was overturned by the Supreme Court)

And in a follow-up comment:

The news market was New York City. (Sorry I forgot to include that)

Fatman -- A reside... (Below threshold)

Fatman --

A resident of the 8th District of Virginia, perhaps?

--|PW|--

Well, at least we know that... (Below threshold)
jmaster:

Well, at least we know that pennywit DOES read the comments.

Why he only responds to softballs lobbed his way, we can only speculate.

Now don’t get me wrong. It’s his right, as owner of this blog (hypothetically speaking).

Evidently someone just fell... (Below threshold)
scrapiron:

Evidently someone just fell off the turnip truck. Tax cuts in Va? Every fee, for every activity, in the state has been raised by the current dimwit governor, now he wants to do it to the entire country. He likes to pretend that raising fee's in not a tax increase, like the sales tax "increase" he pushed through, even though it goies in the same group of pockets.

Current governor's race: I know NY had to go to Ark. to find someone qualified (experienced criminal) to put in the Senate, but didn't know the Va. dimwits had fallen so low they had to import a governor, and at that one that makes fun of the accent of half the people in the state. It's great to watch their own canidiate trash the party members , bend over and they still kiss his a--. Stupid is as stupid does.

Interesting responses, and ... (Below threshold)

Interesting responses, and I wish I could give every comment the response it deserves. But lacking the time available for that, allow me to rephrase my question: What would it take for an average RINO, if he is not likely to swing Democratic, to

a) Vote for Democrats in general in one election cycle or two; or,

b) Vote for a single Democrat for a single office?

--|PW|--

PW - I will answer... (Below threshold)

PW -

I will answer your second question first. I voted for John Kerry in his 2002 Senate re-election bid for two reasons: 1) there was no Republican opposition, and 2) he had voted to authorize force in Iraq. Since my usual practice in an unopposed Democrat situation is to write in the name of some other person, I guess this counts. Unopposed or not, the Democrat in question probably has to be an incumbent and has to have performed in a manner during his term arguably consistent with what my preferred representative would do. (Since I had only lived in Massachusetts for about two months prior to that election, the Iraq vote was sufficient.)

As for the first question, I don't know that it could happen without the leadership of the Democratic party changing its general view as to the role of the judiciary, and becoming more tolerant of those jurists whose judicial philosophies might produce results unpalatable to Democrats. To grossly oversimplify the matter, I much prefer the rationales of Scalia and Thomas to those of Brennan and Douglas even on the rare occasions when the results cause me to agree on policy grounds with the latter pair rather than the former.

I HAVE voted for D’s... (Below threshold)
jmaster:


I HAVE voted for D’s. Locally, at least. But on a national level, I don’t think it could happen anytime soon. The national party has gone very far off the deep end.

They’re attacking the R’s because the R’s are spending too much money and running up the deficit? OK, no argument with that. But PUH-LEASE. No dem can seriously make the argument that they’ll spend less.

And the R’s are enabling a porous border? OK. Yes, but the Dems are going to fix this? (eyes roll).

And when it comes to the environment, and dependency on oil, most every thinking person understands that increased mass transit is a logical solution to both problems. And the Teamsters and UAW are fighting tooth and nail against progress on that front. When the D party gets a backbone and challenges those groups, I’ll take their pro-environment verbosity seriously.

I’ll give you credit, PW, for at least asking the questions here. I wonder what would happen if you went to the Daily Koz and asked the same questions. Do you think you would even be given the chance to make such a post there?

pennywit:No, 14th ... (Below threshold)
fatman:

pennywit:

No, 14th Pennsylvania Congressional District (Mike Doyle-D). Why do you ask?

(And that's fatman, with a lower case "f".)

I guess you must be talking... (Below threshold)

I guess you must be talking, in part, to me. I am not affiliated with any Party. I have been a Republican (left in the early 1990s due to worries about Religious Right agenda - wrong on both counts - just before the Republicans booted them all into the corner) and a Libertarian (was going to leave because they were, at the time, the looniest Party that could attract more than twelve adherents - that title now goes to the Democrats - actually left over their opposition to fighting the GWOT globally). So I guess I could theoretically be given reasons to vote for a Democrat, if:

1) that Democrat were serious - Zell Miller serious - about the GWOT;
2) that Democrat were to support strict constructionism in judicial nominees (if in the Senate) more than comity with other Senators in his Party;
3) that Democrat were in favor of smaller and less intrusive government;
4) that Democrat were supportive of Federalism;
5) that Democrat were in favor of lower taxes; and
6) that Democrat were strong enough to stand up to the immense pressures to toe the Party line.

In other words, I could only vote for a Democrat who is no more a Democrat that John McCain is a Republican - that is, a few positions in common, but basically independent of Party affiliation.

fatman -- I ask be... (Below threshold)

fatman --

I ask because I live in Virginia's 8th, home to Sen. Warner (considered a RINO by some for his work with the "Gang of 14") and Rep. Jim Moran, who leaves quite a bit to be desired as a congressman ... but I ended up voting for him in the last election b/c the Republican opposing him was unpalatable. (Views clashed with my own, and she didn't understand the district very well; IIRC, she spent a lot of tim ebashing Moran despite the deep affection a number of the district's residents have for him ... and I'm not sure, but I think she endorsed cutting the federal bureaucracy in a district that has a heavy population of federal employees).

--|PW|--

--|PW|--

As for your second question... (Below threshold)
fatman:

As for your second question (or third, really), I've never voted a straight party ticket in my life. Of course, that doesn't necessarily I've voted for Democrats (I have, but that's beside the point). It just means that I try to find that candidate who most closely mirrors my political beliefs and agenda, be he/she/it Republican, Constitutional, Libertarian or--gasp, choke--Democrat.

I know how you feel. My la... (Below threshold)
fatman:

I know how you feel. My last three congresscritters (William Moorehead, William Coyne and now Doyle) have been do-nothing back-benchers who are supported by the local party apparatus, which has a roughly five-to-one registration edge in the city (Pittsburgh) where most of the 14th's votes come. And whoever wins the Democratic primary wins the general election.

Still, it could be worse; we could be sending ACTIVIST Democratic congresscritters to Washington. (shudder)

pennywhit misses the entire... (Below threshold)
-S-:

pennywhit misses the entire issue that identified (and still does) the Senate RINOs (means, "Republicans in Name Only").

The POINT is that Republicans are rejecting the Democrats and Liberals/Libertarians who try and continue to try to wander the Republican Party over into liberal-land, to the objection of those who voted for them as Republicans.

Republicans want and respect the moral issues as an aspect to our voting options and about which to influence our country. People in the GOP, elected to office, who then pander to liberalism and cave to Senate Democrats' tantrums and lunacy (and it is lunacy...Ted Kennedy, Biden, Pelosi, Hillary and Kerry come easily to mind here, among others, because Charles Schumer is now proving his lunacy beyond the pale), these are the RINOs that Republicans want to identify and either convince back to sanity or else get out of the Senate.

pennywhit, your suggestion that Republicans should reconsider party affiliation because of RINOs is ridiculous. Academically, suspicious. I mean, I know that Democrats resort to many psychological manipulations to otherwise influence truth, justice and the American Way, but suggesting that, because some individuals abandon their constituents after being elected to the Senate, that those of us voting for them should become Democrats, would fail an SAT essay requirement due to lack of logic.

But, it's more of that illogic from the left: go the liberal way because some Republicans in the Senate abandon the party core ideals.

I tried voting as a Democrat, I really tried (a while ago) and I can assuredly tell you here and now that what and who today's DNC is is about as appealing to me as pond scum soup.

Principles and moral issues are what inspire our country toward greatness. We should always try, even when we fall short, to realize our principles and moral values. Otherwise, abandon all hope and be a Democrat.

jmaster:Softballs,... (Below threshold)
fatman:

jmaster:

Softballs, huh? Well, excuuuuuusssssse me!

That is your fantasy world,... (Below threshold)
McCain:

That is your fantasy world, S. The strength of the Republican party has always been, is now, and will continue to be the libertarian wing of the party. The modern party was manufactured by Goldwater, and later carried by Reagan and Gingirch. Libertarian Republicans one and all. Bush of course is a wildly-spending liberal, not much in relation to Republicans who came before, although he does share some economic ideas with Nixon. The so-called social "conservatives" (really big-government liberals in disguise) have always been a small part of the party, their voices strangely amplified like that tiny Who yelling for Horton. They are given a bone every once in a while, and that's about it. Social "conservatives" (hehe) don't speak for real conservatives or for the Republican party.

Some very good positions po... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Some very good positions posited here, PW. As you know elections are not about selecting/endorsing who you like, necessarily. Politics, particularly at the national level, have progressed to the point of selecting those who you dislike least. Sometimes a single issue is what tilts the scale and I guess that's the ballast which you seek [you sneaky, conniving talking-point gatherer and liberal secret agent, you].

Actually, I think a blend of jmaster and Jeff Medcalf offer the most accurate position paper that this RINO (indie Constitutionalist Libertarian actually, but why be persnikitty) would submit. Much of what they support sound like things the Democratic party of many years ago used to be before states' rights became the proverbial 4-letter word.

Ultimately, both current major parties thrive on the intoxicating power of Federal rule and will stop at almost nothing to achieve/retain it. The question then becomes: "Of the remaining choices of candidates in viable parties, which is most likely to inflict the least damage or deviate less from the vision that each individual believes the Founding Fathers had in mind when this country was still a twinkle in their eyes." Granted, PEW or Gallup could phrase that one better but I'm afraid they might introduce too much bias. Would they accept an essay on their Scantron?

You modified your question a bit with the follow-up and suggest motivations for a brief repose from current voting patterns if only for a moment. That, bon ami, is one of the Democratic platform problems. Maybe it's just the nature of politics and my brush is too broad, but that seems to apply more to the Democrats in my estimation. Let's see if I can explain... and I'll use national defense as exhibit A since it is one of the essential duties of any government's agents.

A party cannot earn my trust over the span of a single or even two elections. I need to see concrete evidence of performance and extended support of a given platform before I begin to believe that a political organization is paying more than lip service to what they profess to endorse. A quick vote here and there or a poster with empty, election rhetoric will not cut it. Look at the main issue of our day... WoT. The Democratic Party initially voted for defense measures to defend our country and then in the aftermath seemed to undermine them in various ways. Were the original "pro-war" votes a fraud to avoid being tagged unpatriotic during our nation's defensive fervor, or is the assault on defense issues today their real position? I don't know, but they do not instill confidence that the party believes in what it says (overall) despite some individuals who might be acceptable to me. Continuing on a specific case, do I believe the rhetoric from the new "centrist" from New York who is positioning herself to be CIC? Not a chance... her record contradicts the drift.

So, the party (or its representatives) will not get my support until it demonstrates that it can take a position for more than an election cycle and that that position correlates more closely to my personal beliefs, i.e. stricter adherence to the Constitution and more deference to State's Rights. These positions seem wholly antithetical to the Democratic Party at this time. Kennedy, Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, et al should not count on my endorsement anytime soon despite any emanations flowing through their gritted teeth.

I'm ready to leave the Repu... (Below threshold)
Baggi:

I'm ready to leave the Republican Party just as soon as it turns its head to start appeasing the "moderates".

For example, I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 primary, instead, I voted for Allen Keyes. Then, the only reason I voted for Bush in the 2000 regular election is because he was better than Gore.

Put up someone more conservative than Bush (wouldn't be too hard to do) and i'll happily leave the Republican party and join whoever puts up the conservative.

McCain, you just can't stan... (Below threshold)
-S-:

McCain, you just can't stand not writing personal barbs, now, can you?

It's no more fantasy than your earlier pontifications that 'gay marriage' was a sure thing for us Catholics, and for the United States.

It isn't, no more than Libertarianism is a sure thing for Republicans.

Libertarians are liberals in values and "conservative," (so they allege) "fiscally."

But, they are not Republicans, just liberalism under another name.

Republicans appreciate and vote for and about values and ideals and then continue to work to realize them. It's not fantasy any more than you as a Republican is real.

I think you are more motivated than you let on here by your obvious liberal social mores, McCain -- you don't fool anyone what it is that you are most interested in and about and it isn't conservatism. Libertarianism provides some people a certain cover that they need to keep some distance from the leftside of the DNC but it's still liberalism, and it's still the oppositional, suggestive side of liberalism. Certainly not what any Republican I know and interact with appreciates, or is motivated by as to voting and for whom.

You have no idea what my fantasies are, nor never will so knock off the slap fest.

The point about the RINOs i... (Below threshold)
-S-:

The point about the RINOs isn't that THEY motivate others to depart the Republican Party, but that Republicans are motivated to motivate the RINOs out of the GOP. I know that McCain has lost all hope of ever being nominated/elected to the Presidency, after this last year.

And, similarly with the Republicans from Maine, who'll have a hard time with any reelection plans, for the same reasons as McCain (members of the Seven RINOs), among all the rest of them. Conservative voters aren't easily going to forget what's taken place this year in the Senate and the Republicans who have compromised the ideals that they campaigned and won election upon are in for a surprise next time they seek office. Don't believe me, go read other conservative forums.

Unlike liberals, conservatives don't abandon their values and go to other political parties when they don't like the candidates or the electeds' behaviors...we tend to work together in belief of the ideals and get someone else elected who'll be more dedicated to their voter base.

Last year's Presidential election was a great example of how conservatives vote for belief and ideals. And will again. Democrats keep pursuing issues of vanity and greed -- it attracts others with similar interests but completely repulses others. I know it does me.

Actually, PW, many of us -d... (Below threshold)

Actually, PW, many of us -do- vote for Democrats to begin with. I myself broke from a strict party ticket last November to vote for my (Democratic) representative, mostly because I told him that I would if he voted for that $87B bill. 'Course, he was going to win, anyway - blipping 95% incumbency rate - but it's the thought that counts. But if you want a more national answer, here you go: when the Democratic Party - from top to bottom - decides to trumpet the foreign policy stances of, say, a Senator Lieberman (instead of hushing them)... then we'll talk.

Until then, don't waste my time.

Oh S, you are confusing Lib... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Oh S, you are confusing Libertarian and libertarian, and compounding the mistake by confusing the two with liberalism. I am a Goldwater, Reagan, Gingrich libertarian, as are most folks voting Republican, even today. In other words, the conservative originalists still drive the bus. You don't speak for the party no matter how wordy your comments become.

By the way, this is the same error Pennywit made in his post. He has conceded much too much power to the social "conservatives" (liberals) in the Republican party. They squawk louder than the rest of us, but they only have one vote.

Post the following to a... (Below threshold)

Post the following to as many blogs asking them to feature it as a regular post.. also when contacting jeb via fax and e-mail include this, and also spread as far and wide as possible:

Michael Schiavo's 30-70 Minute Gap Exploded Away Regarding 911 Call Seeking Assistance for Terri Schiavo

Charts prove a much larger gap in which Michael Schiavo did not seek help and also prove his various testimonies are merely concocted stories made up while under oath,.

Michael Schiavo asserts on Terri Schiavo's tombstone that she departed this earth on February 25, 1990 but failed to tell that to the medical malpractice jury when seeking and winning millions of dollars for her care. Charts explode away 30-70 minute gap mentioned by authorities regarding Terri's "collapse" and time Michael Schiavo waited in seeking help and add an additional 2 hour gap. In fact Michael's accounts proven to be no more than stories hiding his complicity in her collapse. See the charts:

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2005/06/terri_schiavo_c.html

Pennywit is an apt name for... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Pennywit is an apt name for this guy.

He's attempting to create division among Republicans based upon minor issues and then presents the Democrats as a viable alternative. That's like telling someone who is served lukewarm soup at a nice restaurant that they should abandon their otherwise excellent meal and begin eating spoiled food and cat litter from the nearest dumpster.

His entire argument is based upon a false dichotomy, the notion that one must either choose to be a Republican, or choose to be a Democrat. The truth of course is far more complex. Assuming that a Republican does lose faith in the party and drift away, he or she is far more likely to register as an independent, a libertarian, or not at all, than to actually switch over to the Democratic party. 50 years ago such a switch might have been likely, but the situation then was much different than it is today. The Democratic party today is little more than a shell for self loathing anti-American moonbats still lamenting the fall of the Soviet Union and the validation of so many of Ronald Reagan's policies. They have nothing to offer but bile and vitriol. They have no ideas to offer that have not been proven through experience and history to be perennial losers. The Republican party is not perfect, but it will have to fall a very long ways indeed before the Democratic party would become favorable by comparison.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy