The "RINO" Thread

[asterism]

Pandering to social values and libertarian wings will continue to lose us elections. The dems will continue to win because the majority of Americans despise far right hatred.

Juan McCain, staunch Libertarian

You need to work on your "I'm a Republican!!" Act

Good Point. John McCain and Mitt Romney - two guys who stood a real chance of getting elected until the far right of the GOP sentenced both of them to 6 years of genuflecting and far right ass kissing. Two perfectly electable guys until the far right made them into people no one could trust.

Both were forced into trying to out right flank their primary opponents with idiotic and unrealistic panderings like "self-deport" and Sarah Palin.

Yeah - not conservative enough ....

Neither of them were fiscally conservative.

 

[Baron]

.

I've been trying for the last several days on various threads to get a right-winger to explain precisely how the party is going to be successful in elections if they are able to rid themselves of "RINOs" and moderates. Seems like a pretty reasonable question.
.

GOP is going to became a left party, many whites, christians and conservatives are highly disappointed with it, if it want to became a successful party again it should go to its traditional voters back.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Another question just popped into my little brain:

If I'm reading these posts correctly, the hardliners want to jettison those weak moderates and RINO's from the party, right?

Then, they want to push the hardline social issues right along with the hardline economic issues, right?

I can only assume that the hardliners realize they'll need to change a few minds, right?

Well, wouldn't they want to take the path of least resistance by going first after those who are closer to them ideologically than those commie pinko Democrats, which would be -- wait for it -- those weak moderates and RINO's?

So why dump them in the first place?

This is all very confusing.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Each of them were perfectly electable until the far right social values and libertarian crowds pulled the hate card.

You would think after America rejected them, and Obama should have been beat by a Howdie Doodie candidate, the far right of the GOP would catch on that their national power is eroding.

You guys don't count much anymore, Frank and Asterism, and if the country goes over the cliff fiscally, you will have nothing left to offer except come shovel snow from the public streets.

Juan McCain, staunch Libertarian

You need to work on your "I'm a Republican!!" Act

Good Point. John McCain and Mitt Romney - two guys who stood a real chance of getting elected until the far right of the GOP sentenced both of them to 6 years of genuflecting and far right ass kissing. Two perfectly electable guys until the far right made them into people no one could trust.

Both were forced into trying to out right flank their primary opponents with idiotic and unrealistic panderings like "self-deport" and Sarah Palin.

Yeah - not conservative enough ....

Neither of them were fiscally conservative.

 

[Missourian]

.

Another question just popped into my little brain:

If I'm reading these posts correctly, the hardliners want to jettison those weak moderates and RINO's from the party, right?

Then, they want to push the hardline social issues right along with the hardline economic issues, right?

I can only assume that the hardliners realize they'll need to change a few minds, right?

Well, wouldn't they want to take the path of least resistance by going first after those who are closer to them ideologically than those commie pinko Democrats, which would be -- wait for it -- those weak moderates and RINO's?

So why dump them in the first place?

This is all very confusing.

.

I don't want to jettison anyone.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Either we all hang together and pull as one,or the dems will hang our candidates individually.

 

[JoeB131]

I am not a Romney fan nor did I vote for him; typical RINO

But the Democrats were very successful in painting a false picture of him and his policies.

Miraculously, the "War on Women" (TM) just stopped within the last month and a half.

Yes, that usually happens in a war when one side gets it's ass beaten...

 

[JoeB131]

Gay marriage? Who cares as it affects no one?
Abortion? Laws never stopped it and women were never prosecuted when it was illegal.
Those 2 issues alone bring in another 5% gain.

You work on the assumption that that would help the GOP.

I know there are a lot of convervatives that vote on those two issues primarily.

You take those two out, and frankly, they might as well vote for the Democrat that won't try to kill off their good union job.

 

[JoeB131]

Do we want the moral police or fiscal conservatives leading the party.
Boils down to that and nothing else.

The Plutocrats or the Theocrats?

Frankly, given that choice, which would general suck, I'd probably go with the Theocrats. At least their transactions aren't cynical and they care about something other than themselves.

 

[AmyNation]

While I agree with the OP, it seems like threads such as this one go nowhere and mostly turn into a mud slinging match.

The 1st time I registered to vote, I was registered as a republican, then I switched to independent. The last election I had to vote absentee and you have to choose a party.. I remember staring at the page and wondering if I should just do innie mennie. Like many here, I consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal, of course that makes me a crazy leftie on this board

I really see the future as a viable 3rd option. I honestly hope the tea party drives the GOP to split the party.

 

[jillian]

@ Toro-

I might make the observation here that a lot of your recent threads are that the GOP's extermism had cost it the election, and not the fact that you and others picked the worst possible candidate you could find. Such as this statement...

First, scoreboard. The Republicans have lost 4 of the last 6 Presidential elections, the Presidential popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections, and moderates in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections, and will probably extend that losing streak if Hillary runs in 2016.

This seems to be trying to deflect the blame away from the Plutocratic wing of the party for pushing Romney by pointing out other Republicans lost elections, too.

Okay. Let's look at that.

First, 1992 and 1996 have to be considered in the context of Ross Perot splitting the GOP majority that had won 5 of the six elections previous to that. The alliance between Social, Security and Economic conservatives won the day in those elections by 40+ state sweeps, mostly. Perot was able to peel off a lot of conservative votes, and when they started drifting back, the GOP got back in the upper 40% range, but Democrats also picked up a slice of them.

Partially because Clinton was a fiscal moderate. Partially because slowly but surely, the social messages aren't selling as well.

For 2000, by any electoral math, Gore should have won. (In fact, he probably did.) But his campaign was so weak, he performance so devoid of passion, Bush made it close enough for Shennanigans. Again, the problem wasn't that Bush "lost" moderates, it was that most people looked around and say, "Why rock the boat?"

Probably the 2000 election was the election least about issues, ever. It was purely an election of personalities.

2004 was skewed by the War on Terror. We've never voted out an incumbant president in the middle of a war and never will. But it was really too close.

2008 wasn't about moderates vs. Conservatives, either. It was about Bush totally fucked up, well, everything... and McCain didn't have a plan to fix it. One could argue, neither did Obama, but he wasn't defending the status quo. McCain was.

Which brings us to 2012. I told you all that Romney was a horrible idea, and I predicted when he lost, there would be a lot of finger pointing. Let's just make sure the fingers are pointed in teh right directions.

(This would be a good point for you to whine about "bigotry"... feel free.)

Now, I have no great love for the religious whacks, personally. But frankly, they did their part. They got their people to the polls. Romney held all the states McCain won and picked up two of the more socially conservative ones Obama barely won last time.

The people who didn't show up were the "moderates" who you and Jake Starkey and others insisted up and down that we shouldn't nominate a true social conservative like Santorum because they would be alienated.
Well, you guys nominated Romney. And they didn't show up anyway.

I don't think the social conservatives are the problem. I wouldn't want to live in a country where they got their way, personally. But the real problem is that "economic conservatism"- which is, "You are going to work harder for less money and less benefits and you are going to like it!" just doesn't have much of an appeal to a "moderate" with an underwater mortgage and wages that haven't grown to keep up with inflation.

i don't recall the 'social' message ever being part of the republican message while i was growing up. in fact, i remember republicans being a bit patrician, a bit paternalistic and operating a bit out of noblesse oblige. they were the 'bankers' and generally conservative in the true sense... no rapid change... no helter skelter modifications to our way of life. they were there to disagree with the more change oriented dems... but they worked together. i certainly don't recall the obstructionist, extremist lunacy that we're seeing today.

to the best of my recollection, although i know that every GOP candidate since Nixon pursued the 'southern strategy', i don't think the radical religious right had a seat at the table that was viable until lee atwater brought them in...

 

[jillian]

I am not a Romney fan nor did I vote for him; typical RINO

But the Democrats were very successful in painting a false picture of him and his policies.

Miraculously, the "War on Women" (TM) just stopped within the last month and a half.

akins and mourdock lost... the GOP got it's butt kicked...

don't worry... i fully expect the next congress to start with more assaults on women's rights. maybe they'll try to absolve hospitals of liability for letting women die rather than giving life saving abortions again....

 

[Shelzin]

.

Another question just popped into my little brain:

If I'm reading these posts correctly, the hardliners want to jettison those weak moderates and RINO's from the party, right?

Then, they want to push the hardline social issues right along with the hardline economic issues, right?

I can only assume that the hardliners realize they'll need to change a few minds, right?

Well, wouldn't they want to take the path of least resistance by going first after those who are closer to them ideologically than those commie pinko Democrats, which would be -- wait for it -- those weak moderates and RINO's?

So why dump them in the first place?

This is all very confusing.

.

lol

 

[Si modo]

I am not a Romney fan nor did I vote for him; typical RINO

But the Democrats were very successful in painting a false picture of him and his policies.

Miraculously, the "War on Women" (TM) just stopped within the last month and a half.

akins and mourdock lost... the GOP got it's butt kicked...

don't worry... i fully expect the next congress to start with more assaults on women's rights. maybe they'll try to absolve hospitals of liability for letting women die rather than giving life saving abortions again....

Such hysterics from you!



Wedge issues...so emotional.

 

[Meister]

I am not a Romney fan nor did I vote for him; typical RINO

But the Democrats were very successful in painting a false picture of him and his policies.

Miraculously, the "War on Women" (TM) just stopped within the last month and a half.

akins and mourdock lost... the GOP got it's butt kicked...

don't worry... i fully expect the next congress to start with more assaults on women's rights. maybe they'll try to absolve hospitals of liability for letting women die rather than giving life saving abortions again....

oh brother.....

 

[JoeB131]

Believe me, in Georgia we had to run off the Pat Robertson lunatic cry baby "my way or the highway" KOOKS back when Bush I won the primary here and they insisted we cheat and make Robertson the winner here in delegates.
Thank Bob Barr for sending those Bible thumping cheats home crying.
But we had to send 2 different delegations to NO for the convention and were the laughing stocks of the GOP.
Bush received the most votes in Georgia for that primary but the "God wants Robertson" 20% or 40% or whatever % would not bow, election results or not.
The majority of the voters be damned they claimed, God wanted Robertson.
I am sick of these know it all higher than thou crazies.
This is the mentality of the Christian Coalition as the leader of that mob and Robertson campaign chairman back then was a convicted felon that could not even vote in Georgia to begin with.
Time we run them all off and quit courting their baby asses each election.
Barry Goldwater predicted this a long time ago as he despised them.

Barry Goldwater only won 6 states. His own and five southern states that were ticked off LBJ signed the Civil RIghts Act.

While I currently despise the modern GOP and all the Corporate stupidity it currently stands for, and would not normally stop them from destroying themselves, the fact is you couldn't sell the Plutocracy without the candy coating of the "Jesus" Issues.

"Hey, Cleetus, we want you to work harder for less money and no rights at work at all!"

"Geeez, that's sounds pretty dumb. Whys don't I join one of those union thingees"

"Because they are all for gays and abortions, and they'll make Baby Jesus cry."

As asspounding retarded as it sounds, that's pretty much the history of the GOP after 1968.

 

[Si modo]

Believe me, in Georgia we had to run off the Pat Robertson lunatic cry baby "my way or the highway" KOOKS back when Bush I won the primary here and they insisted we cheat and make Robertson the winner here in delegates.
Thank Bob Barr for sending those Bible thumping cheats home crying.
But we had to send 2 different delegations to NO for the convention and were the laughing stocks of the GOP.
Bush received the most votes in Georgia for that primary but the "God wants Robertson" 20% or 40% or whatever % would not bow, election results or not.
The majority of the voters be damned they claimed, God wanted Robertson.
I am sick of these know it all higher than thou crazies.
This is the mentality of the Christian Coalition as the leader of that mob and Robertson campaign chairman back then was a convicted felon that could not even vote in Georgia to begin with.
Time we run them all off and quit courting their baby asses each election.
Barry Goldwater predicted this a long time ago as he despised them.

Barry Goldwater only won 6 states. His own and five southern states that were ticked off LBJ signed the Civil RIghts Act.

While I currently despise the modern GOP and all the Corporate stupidity it currently stands for, and would not normally stop them from destroying themselves, the fact is you couldn't sell the Plutocracy without the candy coating of the "Jesus" Issues.

"Hey, Cleetus, we want you to work harder for less money and no rights at work at all!"

"Geeez, that's sounds pretty dumb. Whys don't I join one of those union thingees"

"Because they are all for gays and abortions, and they'll make Baby Jesus cry."

As asspounding retarded as it sounds, that's pretty much the history of the GOP after 1968.

You're just a fascist...an embarrassment to both [D] and [R].

 

[JoeB131]

i don't recall the 'social' message ever being part of the republican message while i was growing up. in fact, i remember republicans being a bit patrician, a bit paternalistic and operating a bit out of noblesse oblige. they were the 'bankers' and generally conservative in the true sense... no rapid change... no helter skelter modifications to our way of life. they were there to disagree with the more change oriented dems... but they worked together. i certainly don't recall the obstructionist, extremist lunacy that we're seeing today.

to the best of my recollection, although i know that every GOP candidate since Nixon pursued the 'southern strategy', i don't think the radical religious right had a seat at the table that was viable until lee atwater brought them in...

I would argue that the Social Message of Conservativism started with Nixon. Not the religious stuff, mind you. It wasn't like you could say "Atheist" out loud in 1968 and Madeline Murry O'Hare was the most hated woman in America at the time.

But Nixon did successfully run against the Hippies, mostly because the Democrats ran towards them.

Senator Eagleton called the 1972 Platform "Amnesty, Acid and Abortion" anynomously to Novak, shaking his head in disgust at what his party was embracing. (And Ironically, he was McGovern's first pick for veep.)

 

[JoeB131]

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

Which was enough to get the job done.

Again, the mistake was the GOP's. When half the population is absolutely terrified of being downsized on the altar of greater profits, you don't nominate a guy who made his fortune downsizing people.

If you were hell-bent on nominating a businessman (even though they make sucky presidents- see also Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush) then you pick a guy who actually made his fortune inventing something cool.

Downsizing and corporate raiding are not cool.

 

[Sunni Man]

don't worry... i fully expect the next congress to start with more assaults on women's rights. maybe they'll try to absolve hospitals of liability for letting women die rather than giving life saving abortions again....

As a professional ambulance chaser; I figured you would be all for that............