Why throw in the misleading title about raising more RINOs?
Lieberman has always been shown to be on the right side of foreign policy issues. If conservatives in the Senate see that and want to work with him on that subject in which they share a common interest, what is wrong with that?
You know what you get with Kirk and Ayotte. They may swing RINO, but not on this issue.
Also, Marco Rubio is not a RINO no matter how many times people here try to label him that or twist his comments on the AZ bill to mean something it didn’t.
Because there are plenty of new RINOs in the Senate and LIEberman is mentoring them to be "bipartisan" and support his agenda.
>> Lieberman has always been shown to be on the right side of foreign policy issues. If conservatives in the Senate see that and want to work with him on that subject in which they share a common interest, what is wrong with that? <<
LIEberman always been shown to be on the wrong side of the other 95% of issues. The idea that he's "with us when it counts" or is a Democrat with a "coincince" has been proven wrong time and time again, like when this scumbag provided the pivotal support needed to ram Obamacare down our throats. The freepers who supported Al Gore's running mate and spent precious money and time to help re-elect that commie instead of decent conservatives (there were three incumbent conservative Republicans up for re-election the same year who lost by less than 1%) are responsible for Harry Reid and the RATs running the Senate today. If they had simply focused all their energy on re-electing decent conservatives instead of LIEberman, Republicans would have held the majority.
>> You know what you get with Kirk and Ayotte. They may swing RINO, but not on this issue. <<
The jury is out on Ayotte. I've heard her described as everything from staunch tea party conservative to worthless RINO so I'm taking a wait and see approach and watching her voting record to draw a conclusion. If she's being mentored by LIEberman, it's not a good sign.
As for Kirk, he swings RINO on EVERY issue, including his much vaulted "pro-military" record. This scumbag actually voted AGAINST the successful troop surge in Iraq and to have gays serve opening in the military. There isn't a single issue where Kirk isn't willing to sell us out. This guy would drive over his own grandmother if would boost his clout with the beltway crowd. It's amusing how freepers will claim Lindsey Graham is worse than a RAT but then us we "had to" elect Kirk. They now have someone 10X worse than the Senators they couldn't stand.
>> Also, Marco Rubio is not a RINO no matter how many times people here try to label him that or twist his comments on the AZ bill to mean something it didn’t. <<
Marco Rubio was far preferable to Charlie Crist and seems to be a good conservative thus far, but the jury is out on him as well. There were some lunatic freepers calling him "RINO Rubio", but nobody on this thread has called him that. In any case, it doesn't help that the most hardcore pro-Rubio freepers who vouched for him as Mr. Conservative were the same ones who told us Mel Martinez was the "true conservative" in the GOP primary six years earlier. I think Rubio will probably turn out to be pretty good, but again, the jury is out and it's not a good sign if he's being "mentored" by LIEberman.
The efforts to put "sanctions" on Iran and claim that will force them to behave themselves is another failed liberal policy, and one that has NEVER proven successful. Remember all the lefties who claimed that "sanctions" against Iraq would get them out of Kuwait and "resolve the situation peacefully"? How'd that work out?