The "RINO" Thread

[nodoginnafight]

If you want to claim Romney was the same man he was when he was governor in Mass... then kindly 'splain why he turned his back on his own healthcare plan? Why he turned coat on abortion, (or for that matter why his positions on EVERYTHING took a hard right turn)

I'll help you out with a hint: The far right in the GOP DEMANDED it before considering him for the nomination.

You want to take a moderate and turn him far right? Fine ... go ahead. But don't expect to have your cake and eat it too. No one is going to see him as a moderate anymore.

Yet another reason he lost.

The right didn't "turn him" anywhere. He turned himself.

We didn't believe him.

But you still voted for him. 35% of voters described themselves as conservative. Romney won that group 82% to 17%
Romney didn't lose because the far right didn't trust his conservatism.
Those who described themselves as moderates (41% of voters) went for Obama 56% to 41%.

THAT'S where Romney lost the election.

 

[Missourian]

Two huge wedge issues there - abortion and gun control. Both exist and aren't going anywhere.

How about a candidate who just doesn't give a shit about legislating morality and cares about fiscal responsibility, limited government, and national security?

Would you have politically opposed slavery?

Surely you don't deny that it was a moral issue.

Lincoln, the father of the Republican party, is not remembered for his fiscal policy, but for his moral stand.

I remember him (from studies, of course) as the POTUS who has come closer than anyone to destroying this nation.

Some things are worth the price.

I'm a southerner, and I'm proud of it.

I have a rebel flag on my truck.

And I will be the first to tell you that we were as wrong as we could possibly be when it comes to slavery.

You can't have a free nation where one man can own another man.

The two are mutually exclusive, they cannot co-exist.

 

[Rocko]

Obama barley even talked about the issues during the election. All he talked about was Bain Capital, taxes, and general class warfare.

 

[GoneBezerk]

So get lost....you don't support anyone and are responsible for any shit caused by Obamination.

The GOP lost because a lot of people who would have voted Republican decided to stay home.

I am one of them.

Obama did not win because Obama is a great President. He's an incompetent, blundering, idiot. This fact is staring the GOP right in the face.

And so the question is, how did the GOP lose to such a loser?

They tell themselves it is because Obama acted like Santa Claus. This is how they continue to delude themselves. They ignore their own Santa-like behaviors.

However, the truth is that they have become worse than a guy like Obama. But they spent so much time inventing things about Obama, like his Kenyan birth and that last-minute desperate "Obama watched while they died", they have no idea who the real Obama is that beat them. They are shooting at a ghost of their imagination. And that is why they got beaten.

This is an honest to God conundrum the GOP built around itself. It is trapped in its own self-built delusion.

The fact is the GOP has completely compromised its principles. They don't even see their own hypocrisy any more. This is what really frightens me about the GOP. The astronomical amounts of energy required to maintain their deliberate, willful blindness to their own lies and hypocrisy.

And then there is the sheer hate and pessimism. The GOP was the party that lifted us out of the malaise of the 70s with talk about a "shining city on a hill". Today, it's all piss and vinegar. The party is a pile of maggots now. Hateful, evil, lying, maggots.

I am a man without a party and very nearly without a country. I look at the liberals and I look at the self-avowed modern "conservatives", and I see a distinction without a difference. They are both trying to carry us on a course to totalitarianism. The flags are different colors, that's all.

**** 'em both.

.

 

[Toro]

Romney WAS a moderate.

This fact tumbles the RINO house of cards...and should steer the conversation in an entirely different direction.

Romney ran on

- cutting taxes
- cutting spending
- increasing defense spending
- closer ties with Israel and a more hard line on Iran
- repeal Obamacare

He also picked as his running mate the guy whose signature item is a radical restructuring of Medicare designed to limit spending on healthcare.

What was moderate about that? That may look moderate to the far right but it looks conservative to everyone else.

Firts of all all of those things he ran on were good things. You wanted him to run on shunning Israel, keeping Obamacare, cutting defense, raising taxes, increasing spending?

Romney is a moderate because he has a track record of being a moderate and doing business with the other side.

Obama did not win because of the issues, well actually, he won on one issue, which was free stuff.

I didn't say any of that stuff was bad. I agree with much of it. That's why I voted for him. But his platform wasn't moderate, at least to most people.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Romney won the GOP nominee because....

The Newt is a hypocrite and the #1 target of the DNC, so he was doomed from the start
Santorum was too much out front with his religion that scares liberals and independents
Ron Paul is fringe with his anti-military crap, 9-11 crap, etc.
Herman Cain had skeletons and was a snakeoil salesman for amatuer voters

So some idiots that claim to be in the GOP stayed home because they didn't like Romney's political past running LIBERAL MA, his fringe religion or they were Paulbots.

Obamination had a collective front of groupies that want their free healthcare, phones, condoms, money, etc so he didn't lose as many Democrap voters as Romney lost GOP voters.

 

[mudwhistle]

Most moderates describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially moderate to liberal.

Tea Party members are fiscally conservative however socially they run the gambit.

The left has marginalized them and would make everyone believe that the Tea Party is made up of Archie Bunker types or Klan members. They couldn't be further from the truth.

Most Tea Party members, and I use the word "member" loosely, are simply average Americans that want piece and a thriving economy and thusly are alarmed by the acts of the current group of radicals currently running roughshod in the White House these last 4 years. Spending cuts have become something akin to terrorism and have even been renamed in evil terms by it's critics. Instead all of our problems, it has been suggested, can be answered by raising taxes on the rich. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been placed outside of the mainstream and are now considered to be radicals. Now the radicals are mainstream and the moderates are the radicals.

No fiscal conservative wants to be called a radical because it implies aggressive action. It is a warping of public perceptions that makes this possible. They see the folly of massive spending and want to do something about it, and when they make their opinions known by way of peaceful assembly they are called radicals and racists. However, when they see their elected representatives making backroom deals with the radicals in the White House they can't help but voice their alarm. This is not what they were elected for, to throw in with the lot that caused the crisis we're currently in today.........if it is even a crisis at all......after watching the lazy manner in which they conduct themselves up to the last minute on a regular basis. Always waiting till the 11th hour till they decide to take action to prevent what they claim is a total disaster.

This is why so many are no longer calling themselves Republicans.

 

[Toro]

I man isn't what he says...he is what he does...whether it's 1622 or 2040.

You're tap dancing around the issue.

Romney was a moderate.

He was much closer to your political philosophy than he was mine.

I supported him anyway, as I believed...and still believe he was a better choice that Obama.

Would you have done the same if a candidate won the primary that was closer to my political philosophy than yours?

Romney's platform was a conservative platform. That the far right sees him as a moderate does not mean that the rest of the country did. Of course, there were many reasons why he lost, but the fact that he was hammered by Obama amongst the moderates suggests that he and the Republican Party were too far right.

I wouldn't have supported Gingrich or Santorum. I might have supported Cain and probably would have voted for Daniels had he run.

edit - and I might have voted for Ron Paul

How did George W ever win?

W was the one exception in 00 of the past six when the GOP lost moderates and won the election. That was certainly a tactical election where the focus by Rove was getting out the base.

But Rove didn't believe in running out the moderates. He supported moderates like Lincoln Chafee when Chafee was defeated in a primary by a conservative challenger who was then crushed in the election.

 

[Missourian]

If you want to claim Romney was the same man he was when he was governor in Mass... then kindly 'splain why he turned his back on his own healthcare plan? Why he turned coat on abortion, (or for that matter why his positions on EVERYTHING took a hard right turn)

I'll help you out with a hint: The far right in the GOP DEMANDED it before considering him for the nomination.

You want to take a moderate and turn him far right? Fine ... go ahead. But don't expect to have your cake and eat it too. No one is going to see him as a moderate anymore.

Yet another reason he lost.

The right didn't "turn him" anywhere. He turned himself.

We didn't believe him.

But you still voted for him. 35% of voters described themselves as conservative. Romney won that group 82% to 17%
Romney didn't lose because the far right didn't trust his conservatism.
Those who described themselves as moderates (41% of voters) went for Obama 56% to 41%.

THAT'S where Romney lost the election.

The ones that didn't trust him didn't show up to be counted in the exit poll.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yet another reason he lost.

The right didn't "turn him" anywhere. He turned himself.

We didn't believe him.

But you still voted for him. 35% of voters described themselves as conservative. Romney won that group 82% to 17%
Romney didn't lose because the far right didn't trust his conservatism.
Those who described themselves as moderates (41% of voters) went for Obama 56% to 41%.

THAT'S where Romney lost the election.

The ones that didn't trust him didn't show up to be counted in the exit poll.

Sure they did - a lot of them show up in the Obama column.
A lot of them show up in the Romney column too. Because Romney's campaign was NEVER about how good Romney is ... it was ALWAYS about how bad Obama is.
The far right fanatics showed up in droves to vote against Obama. They would have voted for anyone as long as it wasn't Barack Obama.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Romney WAS a moderate.

This fact tumbles the RINO house of cards...and should steer the conversation in an entirely different direction.

Romney defies that label; he was - depending on who he thought was listening - a conservative, a liberal or pragmatic (moderate). He was always a Plutocrat.

I very much agree with that description....but, when he governed...his track record was very socially liberal.

AND he was overwhelming the choice of Republican moderates.

They, more than anyone else, are responsible for his nomination.

To come back and say "well, moderates didn't vote for this guy over Obama...and that's you social conservatives fault." is hypocrisy of the highest order.

And that's where this whole argument falls apart.

The Moderates got exactly what and who they wanted.

How exactly is that being "excluded from the party"?

Was he the overwhelming choice, or was he a default postion? None of the others hoping to be the Republican standard bearer had the right stuff.

 

[mudwhistle]

Romney's platform was a conservative platform. That the far right sees him as a moderate does not mean that the rest of the country did. Of course, there were many reasons why he lost, but the fact that he was hammered by Obama amongst the moderates suggests that he and the Republican Party were too far right.

I wouldn't have supported Gingrich or Santorum. I might have supported Cain and probably would have voted for Daniels had he run.

edit - and I might have voted for Ron Paul

How did George W ever win?

W was the one exception in 00 of the past six when the GOP lost moderates and won the election. That was certainly a tactical election where the focus by Rove was getting out the base.

But Rove didn't believe in running out the moderates. He supported moderates like Lincoln Chafee when Chafee was defeated in a primary by a conservative challenger who was then crushed in the election.

This is all made possible by helping along contenders long enough to become a viable candidate splitting the vote leaving the GOP with less than savory representatives which can be then destroyed in the media when needed.

 

[Avorysuds]

I left the party because Republicans focus too much on religion as the prime source for being different than Democrats. Republicans have become too extreme in growing Government. Republicans have in fact shifted greatly to the left in their spending and support of Government programs.

The oddity is debate is separating elected Republicans and the voter base of republicans. My issue is with the elected Republicans, the voter base is in limbo as many keep leaving the party and many still look for a politician they can get behind.

Mitt was a nail in the coffin for the Republican party, not the last nail, but one of only a few left needed to force the party out of existence.

Also, the democrat party is shrinking as fast as the Republican party. This is overlooked for some reason and I’m not sure why. Republicans didn’t lose by 15% this election, they lost by like 5%... About the same amount McCain lost by. Logically if the Republican party is shrinking by the millions and the % they lose by is still the same, that would indicate that Democrats are too shrinking by about the same margin.

Here are the numbers from 2008:

Barrack Obama/Joseph Biden (Democrat) 69,456,897 votes (52.9%)
John McCain/Sarah Palin (Republican) 59,934,814 votes (45.7%)

Now, let’s look at 2012 numbers:

Obama/Biden Popular vote (Democrat) 65,621,369 (51.0%)
Mitt/Ryan Popular vote (Republican) 60,875,399 (47.3%)

Now, Republicans made up around 2% from 2008 in the total vote, meaning they did better in 2012 than 2008. In all about 3-4 million less votes were cast, all were lost by Democrats… Meaning currently Democrats are the fastest shrinking party by votes in America. This is a big deal because with population growth both parties should be growing by million, not stagnating or losing voters by the millions.


For context:

1996 total vote = about 95 million
2000 total vote = about 102 million
2004 total vote = about 121 million
2008 total vote = about 129 million
2012 total vote = about 126 million

Again, 2012 is the first time in this tabel that the vote count shrunk, and it was all Democrats loss, 100%.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Romney won the GOP nominee because....

The Newt is a hypocrite and the #1 target of the DNC, so he was doomed from the start
Santorum was too much out front with his religion that scares liberals and independents
Ron Paul is fringe with his anti-military crap, 9-11 crap, etc.
Herman Cain had skeletons and was a snakeoil salesman for amatuer voters

So some idiots that claim to be in the GOP stayed home because they didn't like Romney's political past running LIBERAL MA, his fringe religion or they were Paulbots.

Obamination had a collective front of groupies that want their free healthcare, phones, condoms, money, etc so he didn't lose as many Democrap voters as Romney lost GOP voters.

You actually made sesnse for once until the last sentence: Free healthcare, obviously you weren't paying attention; free phones (?), free condoms (?), free money (?) none of that is fully true - some wackadoodles maybe but they would be fringe Democrats.

Most Americans want to pay less taxes and receive more services (or at least see the taxes they pay provide a service to our country and not be wasted or given to the already well-to-do).

It's the Republicans who want the free 'lunch': The want to be tax free yet protected by police and other first responders, drive on smooth safe and ice free roads; receive vouchers to send their kids to private schools and thinking the cost of most goods would save them money, deny working Americans the right to collectively bargin and hire unions to represent them.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Okay, so...

1. Who is "conservative enough" for the GOP?

2. How, precisely, is this person going to attract independents and moderates and keep the social conservatives happy?

.

 

[GoneBezerk]

You're insane.

Coming here claiming the GOP is for FREE stuff when Democraps talked about the GOP taking away everyone's FREE stuff during the election....insanity.

Sanda Fuckup....stood for FREE condoms....but you'll claim she is really from the GOP because you are insane.

Romney won the GOP nominee because....

The Newt is a hypocrite and the #1 target of the DNC, so he was doomed from the start
Santorum was too much out front with his religion that scares liberals and independents
Ron Paul is fringe with his anti-military crap, 9-11 crap, etc.
Herman Cain had skeletons and was a snakeoil salesman for amatuer voters

So some idiots that claim to be in the GOP stayed home because they didn't like Romney's political past running LIBERAL MA, his fringe religion or they were Paulbots.

Obamination had a collective front of groupies that want their free healthcare, phones, condoms, money, etc so he didn't lose as many Democrap voters as Romney lost GOP voters.

You actually made sesnse for once until the last sentence: Free healthcare, obviously you weren't paying attention; free phones (?), free condoms (?), free money (?) none of that is fully true - some wackadoodles maybe but they would be fringe Democrats.

Most Americans want to pay less taxes and receive more services (or at least see the taxes they pay provide a service to our country and not be wasted or given to the already well-to-do).

It's the Republicans who want the free 'lunch': The want to be tax free yet protected by police and other first responders, drive on smooth safe and ice free roads; receive vouchers to send their kids to private schools and thinking the cost of most goods would save them money, deny working Americans the right to collectively bargin and hire unions to represent them.

 

[g5000]

So get lost....you don't support anyone and are responsible for any shit caused by Obamination.

The only people responsible for Obama's shit are those who voted for him, and those who caused the rest of us to stay home and not vote at all.

The lying pile of maggots that is the GOP earned Obama by NOT earning my vote. They deserve Obama.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

LL's brother is not unusual among the new wave of libertarians and conservatives who are very concerned about resource allocation.

We are less than four decades from a major debate on such allocation for the mentall and emotionally and physically challenged, very ill patients, and the elderly.

This developing type of modern human (it is an potential issue in all countries) will be the Big Brother the Far Right has been worrying about, but they will bring it on themselves.

My brother is a "conservative". We have decided to avoid discussing politics at family gatherings in order to keep things pleasant. He struggles with this, however.

Yesterday, my daughter.....who is his favoriite niece, was talking about a freind of hers who recently passed away after a half-year fight with cancer. She told him that she heard that we would probably find a cure for cancer before long.....expressing hope for the future.

Well, he exclaimed, " I hope not".

My daughter was rocked. She asked him why he felt that way. Her voice trembled.

He said that we don't have enough money to support our population as it is and we can't afford to have cancer cured.

Not sure things will ever be the same between them.

So now you attribute that view of your brother to every Conservative?

 

[Missourian]

But you still voted for him. 35% of voters described themselves as conservative. Romney won that group 82% to 17%
Romney didn't lose because the far right didn't trust his conservatism.
Those who described themselves as moderates (41% of voters) went for Obama 56% to 41%.

THAT'S where Romney lost the election.

The ones that didn't trust him didn't show up to be counted in the exit poll.

Sure they did - a lot of them show up in the Obama column.
A lot of them show up in the Romney column too. Because Romney's campaign was NEVER about how good Romney is ... it was ALWAYS about how bad Obama is.
The far right fanatics showed up in droves to vote against Obama. They would have voted for anyone as long as it wasn't Barack Obama.

October 2012 Rasmussen party ID poll...Rep 39%, Dem 33%, Ind 27%

2012 - Mitt Romney...exit polling Rep 32%, Dem 38%, Ind. 29%



For comparison:

October 2004 Rasmussen party ID poll...Rep 37%, Dem 39%, Ind 24%

2004 - George Bush...exit polling Rep 37%, Dem 37%, Ind. 26%


October 2008 Rasmussen party ID poll...Rep 33%, Dem 40%, Ind 26%

2008 - John McCain...exit polling Rep 32%, Dem 39%, Ind 29%



So you tell me...who didn't show up?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I left the party because Republicans focus too much on religion as the prime source for being different than Democrats. Republicans have become too extreme in growing Government. Republicans have in fact shifted greatly to the left in their spending and support of Government programs.

The oddity is debate is separating elected Republicans and the voter base of republicans. My issue is with the elected Republicans, the voter base is in limbo as many keep leaving the party and many still look for a politician they can get behind.

Mitt was a nail in the coffin for the Republican party, not the last nail, but one of only a few left needed to force the party out of existence.

Also, the democrat party is shrinking as fast as the Republican party. This is overlooked for some reason and I’m not sure why. Republicans didn’t lose by 15% this election, they lost by like 5%... About the same amount McCain lost by. Logically if the Republican party is shrinking by the millions and the % they lose by is still the same, that would indicate that Democrats are too shrinking by about the same margin.

Here are the numbers from 2008:

Barrack Obama/Joseph Biden (Democrat) 69,456,897 votes (52.9%)
John McCain/Sarah Palin (Republican) 59,934,814 votes (45.7%)

Now, let’s look at 2012 numbers:

Obama/Biden Popular vote (Democrat) 65,621,369 (51.0%)
Mitt/Ryan Popular vote (Republican) 60,875,399 (47.3%)

Now, Republicans made up around 2% from 2008 in the total vote, meaning they did better in 2012 than 2008. In all about 3-4 million less votes were cast, all were lost by Democrats… Meaning currently Democrats are the fastest shrinking party by votes in America. This is a big deal because with population growth both parties should be growing by million, not stagnating or losing voters by the millions.


For context:

1996 total vote = about 95 million
2000 total vote = about 102 million
2004 total vote = about 121 million
2008 total vote = about 129 million
2012 total vote = about 126 million

Again, 2012 is the first time in this tabel that the vote count shrunk, and it was all Democrats loss, 100%.

Your post would make since if Democrats ALWAYS voted for democrats and Republicans ALWAYS voted for republicans.

The truth is that in February of 2005 37% identified themselves as republicans (52% identified themselves as republican leaning). 31% identified themselves as democrats and 41% as democrat leaning.

In November 2012: 29% said they were Republicans (-8) and 44% as republican leaning (-8). 37% identified themselves as democrats (+6) and 52% as democrat leaning (+11).